I took this photo the other day. I'm not sure what the ugly three-story building is; it may be the above-ground part of a ventilation shaft for the subway tunnels below it. The building in the foreground is what looks to be a disused warehouse. These buildings are on the docklands below Brooklyn Heights; Manhattan is in the background.

From the photo, I drew this:

Except that I didn't really draw it; I traced it from the photo. (I don't draw, really. I wish I did.)
So, why do I have very little interest at all in knowing anything about what goes on in the photo, while I sort of feel like I want to jump down into my cartoon and see what's going on down there? Why does it look so much more interesting than the photo? Why do I feel as if there's more going on in it than there is in the photo?
It's possible that it's not more interesting; just that it's more visually appealing. This worries me a little: am I more drawn to the cartoon version of this dockland reality than to the (relatively more "real" photographic) reality because it's more sanitized? No dirt; no ugly, light-brick wall on the ventilation building because I didn't depict or imply a specific type of wall; slightly brighter colors (I stuck to the "real" colors for the most part, but will cop to replacing a grayish sky with a blue one, and made the water downright Caribbean-colored)? Do I prefer Disney World-type "reality" to the real thing? Am I one of those people who secretly prefers the cleaned-up-by-Giuliani Times Square to the old "grittier" one? (The truth about that is, like most people who live in New York, I used to avoid Times Square because it was a dump and because it wasn't particularly safe; now, like most people who live in New York, I avoid it because new office buildings aside, there's no real reason to go there. And I really do wonder how many people who miss the old, scummy Times Square actually spent much time there in, say, the 1980s or early '90s. I'm sure some of them did. I'm sure, too, that many of them didn't.)
I don't know. What I do know is that I've developed, over the past few weeks, what could become an unhealthy interest in cartoonifying things. Remember the television ads for the Label Maker, the ones where they guy who's just purchased one goes a little nuts and starts making labels for everything? Labeling his pets and wife and stuff like that? I feel something like that coming on. Especially unhealthy, perhaps, because while there's a certain amount of craft, maybe, involved in creating a cartoonish image like the one above (I used an animation program which can also be used for drawing, a program which I've used for many years but which isn't difficult to learn how to use), there's very little creativity involved. To the extent that any is required, it's in deciding what to leave out rather than what to put in -- creating a cartoon from a photograph absolutely necessitates taking stuff out (not only the aforementioned dirt and other "objectionable" grittiness, but also most or all textures, unnecessary lines which could place a confusing emphasis on unimportant elements, etc.) and simplifying things like rows of windows on office buildings. (I suppose that deciding what to leave out is as important as deciding what to put in where most forms of creativity are concerned; it's just that in the case of making a traced drawing from a photo, it's almost all about what to leave out -- after, of course, you've decided what photograph you're going to bother taking and then tracing in the first place.)
So it concerns me that I've become mildly obsessed with making these drawings (which aren't even really drawings, since I... you know, can't draw) because I feel that I should be spending my time on creative pursuits. What I can say, though, is that I feel as if I've discovered a power which I didn't realize I had, i.e. the ability to change a cityscape which I don't find appealing -- because it isn't visually appealing but also because I don't find it interesting, which of course aren't the same thing -- into something which does appeal to me.
I'm not sure why a sanitized, cartooned, abstracted version of reality should be more interesting or appealing to me than reality. The opposite should be true, right? A world in which there's more detail ought to be more interesting, because there's more to be interested in, more detail to work out, more going on, more implied history (for example, if a street is dirty, then someone put the dirt there, or else someone made a conscious or unconscious decision not to clean it up, to let it accumulate), shouldn't it?
Maybe, but I think there's also this: that to simplify reality in the way that I have above, by removing detail, results in something that is more real than reality, in the sense that my drawing, lacking detail, allows the viewer to supply his or her own. If your bullshit-detector is going off on reading this "more real than reality" stuff, perhaps it should be, but please bear with me. Look at the photo above. It leaves something to the imagination, but the cartoon version leaves more. And to the extent that a visual representation of something leaves more to the imagination rather than less, doesn't it also represent -- or, anyway, allow for -- more versions of reality? Sort of like: consider the millions and millions of people who've read The Catcher in the Rye. It seems to me that a new reality is born into the world every time someone reads that book (or any book). Everyone has their own take on what, say, Holden Caulfield looks like, sounds like, etc. Everyone has their own idea of what, say, his dorm room at school looks like, and it'd be dumb luck if my Holden's-dorm-room and your Holden's-dorm-room looked the same: in other words, different realities. (Of course, we project our own ideas onto all art forms, but more onto some than others, it seems to me: movies, for example, in most ways leave less to the imagination than paintings or books do.)
I don't know. I watched Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis on DVD recently, after reading the comic book (or graphic novel, or whatever we're supposed to call certain types of comic books). Persepolis depicts the life of a young Iranian girl named Marjane (the book and film are highly autobiographical) whose life changes dramatically as a result of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Satrapi created the book and was deeply involved in the making of the film (a mostly faithful, animated version of the book); she does the audio commentary on the DVD. In the commentary, she talks about why she made Persepolis a comic book and why it was important to her for the film to be an animated version of it, rather than a live-action feature. She says she feels that the level of abstraction which the comic-book and animated forms provide was important to her because she didn't want for people to experience Persepolis as the story of an Iranian girl, but of a girl, to whom her almost entirely non-Iranian audience could relate, whose trials would seem more universal than if actors of a specific skin color played her.
(This, I think, is in some way related to the "more real than reality" thing that may still be pegging your BS meter, which is okay; I'm not sure where I'm going here. What I'm saying is that generally speaking, comic-book-like drawings such as the one above allow their viewers to project more onto them than photographs do. I don't know, perhaps they're less real than reality, in the sense that the viewer must supply the missing reality bits. Your BS meter is broken now. Sorry. Send me email and I'll replace it for you if you send me the original receipt. I should mention, too, not by way of excuse but by way of explanation, that I have the feeling there's a whole vocabulary which would make it easier for me to discuss all of this stuff. Unfortunately, I don't have this vocabulary.)
Maybe this is a good place to mention my ongoing affinity for the Tintin comic books. Tintin was/is a comic-book character created by Hergé. Hergé, who was Belgian, drew his first Tintin strips in 1929 and his last in the late 1970s. Here's a frame from a Tintin strip (this is from The Crab With the Golden Claws). Tintin is the one wearing the pith helmet:

I'm not sure where to start with Hergé and Tintin. Maybe the first thing to note is that there's very little to Tintin's personality: he doesn't have much of one. We know that he doesn't like bad guys; we know that on occasion, he can be annoyingly high-minded and didactic. That's about it. His age and occupation are both puzzles: he is "Tintin the boy reporter," but we only see him file one story over the course of five decades -- in his first adventure, Hergé sends him to the Soviet Union to report on the evils of Bolshevism -- and for that matter, while he dresses like a boy, he doesn't talk or act like one, nor do people react to him as if he were one; also, he knows how to drive motorcycles, cars, and tanks and to fly airplanes and helicopters; he can operate a handgun; he lives on his own; he doesn't seem to have parents; etc. Finally, he doesn't seem to belong to any particular socioeconomic class. Is he a working-class kid? A child of privilege? Son of a dentist? (Son of anyone?)
He is, by the way, surrounded by "characters": the sometimes alcohol-abusive, hot-tempered, creative-insult-hurling Captain Haddock; the absent-minded, hard-of-hearing Professor Calculus; the idiot detectives Thomson and Thompson; his sharp-tongued dog Snowy. But as protagonists go, he's a relatively blank slate. In this way, he's like the cityscapes (and other settings) in which Hergé has him go about his sleuthing, and like the cartoonified version of my photo above as well: viewers/readers are allowed or encouraged or forced to fill in the details of his personality, just as they're forced to fill in the details of the physical world in which he exists. Perhaps this is why the Tintin books have remained in print for so many decades, and translated into something like thirty languages: because Tintin himself is a universal everychild, his lack of a personality, rather than boring young readers, instead encourages or even requires them to project themselves onto him. (I'm not the first person to make this observation.)
(And perhaps Tintin's lack of depth has something to do with the more-real-than-reality/less-real-than-reality stuff I discussed before: he is less-real-than-reality, yes, in the sense that there's so little to him, but more-real-than-reality in the sense that a Welsh dumptruck-driver's son an upper-class Japanese kid (he's big in Japan, btw) and millions of other readers of all backgrounds can project their own "Tintin reality" onto this cipher of a person.)
Anyway, I like the physical worlds created by Hergé. I'm curious about them in the same way I'm curious about the cartoon version of my photo, and not curious about the photo itself. That's maybe what led me to pluck Tintin out of this panel, from King Ottokar's Sceptre...

...and drop him into another traced-photo thing I made recently, of a street in my neighborhood:
It seems to me that Tintin's presence in New York, a place Hergé never sent him, is a sign that I need to move away from this tracing-stuff business until I figure out a way to incorporate this newfound cartoonifying power into some sort of creative endeavor.
And/but, I must say, this version of Pierrepont Place in Brooklyn Heights is much more interesting than the real thing.
Kink Ottokar's Sceptre by Hergé, artwork copyright 1947 by Casterman. The Crab with the Golden Claws by Hergé, artwork copyright 1953 by Casterman.