Kristin Becker's DTC Classes at WSU

This two-page spread from Maira Kalman’s The Principles of Uncertainty is an excellent example of how scale can be interpreted objectively and subjectively. Scale isn’t just size, but the interpretation of that size literally or based off of experiences or impressions of the size an object should be.

When an individual considers scale in terms of literal dimensions, then scale is being considered objectively. When the individual uses first impressions or relates to our past experiences, then scale is being considered subjectively.

                The example from The Principles of Uncertainty exemplifies both of these interpretations through its subject matter. In this spread, Kalman draws a scene from a sidewalk store. The image bleeds off of the page, continuing off the page due to a lack of a border. This cropping alone indicates a larger scale, we know the scene continues on past where we can see.

A drawing of a sidewalk store from the author’s past. (Maira Kalman, Principles of Uncertainty, Penguin Press, 2007, pgs 32-33)

The sidewalk store features a table with drinking glasses on its surface. There is a bag of flour and sandals while steps lead up into a doorway and a bucket is on the left. This could be viewed objectively, a reader could make a literal correlation between the represented objects and the real items it depicts.

But the objects drawn are not exact renditions of real world items. The bucket is a bit misshapen on one side for example and these drawings are definitely not re-creations with exact measurements re-scaled for the pages.

These pages will probably be interpreted subjectively. This page plays off of the idea that we, the audience, as seen a pair of sandals before, or staircases, or buckets, etc. If the sandals were larger than the table top while everything else remained the same, we’d think, “Those are big sandals” or “Everything is small compared to those normal sized sandals.”

The scale also provides depth though there isn’t really movement. For example, the front legs of the table are larger than the back legs, giving the table a 3D element. We know the back legs are further away.

Scale is relative and often times depends size, placement, and color of the elements around it. If all of these objects drawn were the same size we’d have an unrealistic depiction of the store. The table in relation to the flour bag in relation to the sandals gives us an idea of what the real world version would look like.

Page 52 from “David Boring” by Daniel Clowes, portraying a man dumping a woman’s body in presumably the ocean. Clowes, Daniel. David Boring. New York: Pantheon Books, 2000. Print.

I found this in David Boring by Daniel Clowes. I did not spend a lot of time looking through this one, but I thought this page was interesting. After reading about scale, I decided this page would work well while writing about this topic.

When concerning scale, it can be an objective scale or a subjective scale. Objectively, the scale will stand as a specific and literal translation (or representation) of a subject/object. For example, the dimensions of the human body to convey correct proportions. Subjective scale, on the other hand, relies more upon the interpretation of the viewer, as their experience and perspective can alter the scale of an object/subject, thus altering its meaning as well. Such as, the waves drawn in any panel might seem small, but with knowledge of an ocean, our perception of how big the waves could actually be (and the ocean itself) changes.

On this page, scale is used greatly, especially to represent distance and movement. For example, the stars in the sky are much smaller than the people and objects, showing that they are far from whatever the main focus is (in this case, the man on the boat). In addition, one panel has the man rowing away from the woman he abandoned in the water, but he and the boat are smaller than the face of the woman, showing that there is a larger distance between them. This also helps create more complexity and depth to the panels, so that each one looks flat, especially when the man is swimming away from the woman and boat, toward shore.

The waves drawn in work to help show movement within the water, considering the waves drawn up front are larger and continuously get smaller. Also, when the man is throwing his oar, the oar is drawn a little smaller than it would have been if the character was still holding it. This shows the oar is moving away from the man. The artist did well conveying the movement happening, specifically with the water.

Scale is always important in design it determines the size of the work itself and gives
context to the content. According to “graphic design: the new basics” there are 2 ways of referring to scale, objective and subjective. Objective scale is the literal physical scale of an object, for example a ¼ scale model of a car is exactly ¼ of the size of the actual car. Subjective scale refers to your perception of the scale, for example if I showed you an image of a rock with no background it would be difficult to tell the size of the object because you have nothing to relate its scale to. Objective scale is important when considering medium and print, and subjective scale is important in the illustrations to make them seem realistic. The illustration I have chosen is by Paul Chadwick from his “concrete sketches” series of illustrations which can be found here. I chose this comic because it is a good example of how scale can be used effectively. The objective scale of this image is unclear since it was originally created as a drawing but was viewed digitally. Placing the concrete man next to a tree is an example of subjective scale because it shows how large he is since almost everyone has seen a tree and can relate this image to a physical experience. He also appears to be on the peak of a mountain, this is an example of cropping to imply scale because we only see a small portion of rocks but the shape and context make the reader think he is on top of a giant mountain. Overall this image effectively uses scale to create a visually dynamic piece.

When looking at an image, the scale of the picture gives away many implications that the reader should have about the photo. How large the images are, how far away they are supposed to be perceived, and the reality of the image are a few of the things scale tells you. For example, when looking at Daniel Clowes’ novel David Boring, the scale tells in an objective way that the two women are different sizes. The relativeness of one girl to the other makes their dimensions  clear to the reader. One is larger, with more body mass. They other is smaller, more thinly perceived.

David Boring by Daniel Clowes, page 43.

In the second frame, this is more obvious because they are standing next to each other. In the frame below this one, it is subjectively implied that the two women on the other side of the table are further away than the two “closer” to the other side. The subjective gives the 2-demensial image a depth that it does not actually have. The subjective depth makes the objection clear that they are all supposed to be sitting around the table together in the same room. The relativeness that the family is having a conversations added to it because of the way the bubble around the room work. It adds a familiarity, something the readers already know about, to the framing. Then by changing the scale of framing, the reader can see the movement between the bodies as the scene continues frame by frame.