Dear Olivier, This hypothesis looks indeed more promising than the neoteny hypothesis by Gould. What seems to me incongruous is the following: if we find simple expressive faces with facial expressions that are easy to read so attractive, why then are such representations quite rare in early art or in children's art? The average 4 to 5 year old draws humans with static, almost hieratic features. Similarly, if we think of Palaeolithic human imagery, facial features are even almost entirely absent. And in later art (Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamia, Islamic miniatures), faces are usually emotionless. Indeed, expressing emotion in faces only appears in very specific periods of art history (e.g., late Hellenic sculpture). So, my question is then, why are cartoon faces so time and culture bound? (After all, the manga did not originate in Japan, but was inspired by American comics).

Why are emotional faces so rare in general art history, and in children's art? Well, I'd say, quite simply, because they are so difficult to draw. The fact that some cultural invention is attractive and easy to like does not make it easy to produce. In order to draw an emotion you have to render the coordinated activity of so many muscles... The first emotion psychologists, like Darwin or Duchenne de Boulogne, often criticized the art of their time for being unprecise. Now, try to make your drawing not only accurate, but fast, easy, standardized, easy to recognize and reproduce... That's next to impossible when you have no model. That's why Charles M. Schulz is a genius - and, come to think of it, smileys might be one of the most precious conquests of civilization! ;o)

Speaking of Scott McCloud art look at this UNDERSTANDING COMICS page for sale on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360123103901

I have not seen one for sale in many years but the weird part is that it is the exact page from the book you are discussing to make your point.

There is a tension between the "simplicity" and the "neoteny" features of cartoons. I would dismiss the former. Cartoons are not visual simplifications. They are hyperstimuli. Neoteny, whenever present, is one of their hyperstimulating aspects. Cartoons themselves are extreme visual representations, displaying contour lines that are not visually available.
McCloud is wonderful, but not very instructive, as he has no viable theory.

Thank you Roberto for your interest in this post. Actually I suspect that your rejection of the simplicity hypothesis in favour of the neoteny hypothesis springs from a misunderstanding.

You argue that cartoon faces are not simplified representations of real faces, but extremely stimulating visual objects. I fully agree with you that cartoon drawers are not simplifying their perception of real faces when drawing: they are not simplifying anything.

But cartoon faces may be more or less simple without that simplicity having anything to do with a simplification of real features. The Nike logo is simple, yet it is not a simplified version of a natural object (or if it does, it doesn\'t owe its success to this).

Simple, but not simplified, cartoon faces would have more success than less simple faces; in my view it\'s because they are easy to process and consequently likeable. In Franzen and McCloud\'s view it\'s because they are easy to identify with. Both these theories may be wrong, but they are real theories.

On the other hand, the weakness of the neoteny hypothesis is, in my view, blatant when you consider that 1) many popular cartoon faces are the opposite of neotenic (consider Fido Dido) and 2) many cartoon characters that are not supposed to attract sympathy and never become popular typically have all the features of a cartoon face (consider the extremely neotenic Rastapopoulos).