First, apologies for the lack of a link. I've no idea how to make one.
Scratch That, here goes: http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/leishman__redridinghood.html
I "went" and viewed the Red Riding Hood animation we watched in class, because the little badass, visitor-alien lookin' girl intrigued me, and the music was cool. I also wanted to see if I missed anything.
The guys who made this piece were trying for a modern, urban chic retelling of the fable. RRH lived in a city, in a tall apartment building. and is accompanied by hip, funky tunes. Her mother was dressed well in a manner that showed off a bangin' bod. She even wore Palin glasses and red lipstick. And RRH gives her this disgusted, contempible look, like she already knows what the end of this journey will be, and believes her mother does as well.
RRH sets out, literally, of the city, and into the forest. (I'm a bit surprised they used a "real" one, and didn't make it a slum or mean ol' alley.) As she leaves the forest, she's stalked by the wolf, whom the artists leave as a wolf for a while before rendering him a bad-boy. This bad boy sidles up behind her on a modern, tricked-out scooter, to demonstrate he has some cash/ stole one. He keeps his wolf arms and gaze. But he's after more than a meal.
He introduces RRH to some dank weed/ flowers and sets her off the right path. Deep, man. Her judgment from this point is suspect. In any event, the Wolf overpowers the grandma, who could represent tradition or older morals, and lies in wait for RRH. She comes. (I'm gonna just, umm..., leave that.)
The Wolfboy knocks her up. She sleeps until he wakes her up with a gun to her dome, about to regulate. RRH smiles at the release from the thrall and circumstance she has been living under since falling for the Wolf.
This is still a cautionary tale. RRH here knew better- she is street-smart and a tough cookie, but she still falls for the tough guy and gets blown up (belly and head). The moral here is still don't trust strangers, in this case a boy, a lower class one at that, don't do drugs, and keep your knickers buttoned up. Or the stork and wolf will getcha'!
I thought that the approach was traditional- the story progressed in a linear manner, and the characters were easily recognized for what they were. Making the wolf a bad boy isn't a stretch, it's less of a leap than having an actual wolf in a bed. A city is an even more 'civilized' habitization than a cottage.
The piece works on its own, but knowing the original is helpful. If you can operate the computer, you're sharp enough to get the point.
I like the way RRH's face is rendered- she's given the personality of a little bad girl who [thinks she] knows what's what, and is gonna do whatever she thinks she can get away with. She's tough and not totally naive, but not really experienced. And she is funny lookin' enough to be humorous. I'd like to be able to create a character that has their personality out there, easily observed by all, without moving or speaking.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Proposal
Here it is: I see a large "EVIL" slowly moving across a land, with little "words" being squished, bashed aside, or fleeing its advance. Even large and elaborate "WORDS" won't be able to stop the onslaught. It will take a "SWORD" to defeat the assault.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Differently?
Hmm, what do I do in a different manner now? In the past five years, what has digital information exchange done for me, or to me?
It has made me... poorer. Sometimes I get a wild hair up my, well, and I go on an internet binge, and buy everything I see on the screen. I've spent many a coin on these binges, but usually I was in another country, and these purchases were a way to give myself something to look forward too, to enjoy when I was home. I used the net as an escape, and this escape was different from the one books allowed me. But it was just an escape, a way to make daydreams material.
It has made me... poorer. Sometimes I get a wild hair up my, well, and I go on an internet binge, and buy everything I see on the screen. I've spent many a coin on these binges, but usually I was in another country, and these purchases were a way to give myself something to look forward too, to enjoy when I was home. I used the net as an escape, and this escape was different from the one books allowed me. But it was just an escape, a way to make daydreams material.
Computers and Originality
How Do Computers Effect the Product?
“Florian Cramer and Friedrich W. Block supported the notion that, especially in reference to literature, there is much in computer and net art that could be traced back to historical ideas, so that from an aesthetic point of view nothing really innovative results.”
I like this idea. For as long as there has been “writing” there have always been “original” texts; “original” in the sense that at one time the arrangement of words within the body of the work itself was unique. At one time Robinson Crusoe didn’t exist, then Defoe wrote it. But were the ideas found therein revolutionary, or were they ‘merely’ stories that had existed in many different cultures and were then set to paper for posterity? Were there no stories of French daring-do before Dumas’ Musketeers? Are the “Bourne” stories original, or are they just rewordings of the familiar formula? I ask these questions because they address the originality of content- very little is “new”. Adventures and romances have been around for a long time, and art for art’s sake has been around for even longer.
What do computers add to all this? The article says that, “The essential quality of the computer proved to be its processuality.” What does that mean, and how does it make the content or form of art and literature presented in electronic media different from printed or painted forms? Processuality refers to the ability of the computer and user to generate ‘new’ texts based upon the rules laid out by the programmer/writer and the reader. Giselle Beiguelman holds, “Links and programming can be used to transform text into an ‘intelligent’ object.” This is true. Computers can integrate interactivity, but how new is this when it comes to literature? I read “choose your own adventure books” as a kid. Whenever there was a choice to be made for the protagonist, such as whether or not to sneak past a guard, or to find another way into the fortress, I’d just turn to a specific page based upon my choice, and the text that described the result would be there, along with art, and if I’d chosen right, more choices (if I’d chosen wrong, that would be the end-I’d be “dead.”) Using two books I’ve even played a game against another person that was supposed to represent dog-fighting WWI era biplanes. We each had our own book in hand, and based upon my opponent’s choice and my choice, I’d select a page, and more choices would follow. It was complicated and required many pages, but thousands of different battles could be easily waged based upon ‘static’ text and the processing powers of our minds. The only thing that a computer game could have added to the experience is sound.
There have even been “color by numbers” and books that teach one how to draw, and come with templates and transparencies to be traced. In other words, computers facilitate activities that have been previously been the territory of books or classes. I submit that missing from this discussion is the simple question: How do computers do this in a manner that differs from the hand-written or painted methods? (Aside from the speed of transmission of information, I see little that they allow one to create that is original.)
“Florian Cramer and Friedrich W. Block supported the notion that, especially in reference to literature, there is much in computer and net art that could be traced back to historical ideas, so that from an aesthetic point of view nothing really innovative results.”
I like this idea. For as long as there has been “writing” there have always been “original” texts; “original” in the sense that at one time the arrangement of words within the body of the work itself was unique. At one time Robinson Crusoe didn’t exist, then Defoe wrote it. But were the ideas found therein revolutionary, or were they ‘merely’ stories that had existed in many different cultures and were then set to paper for posterity? Were there no stories of French daring-do before Dumas’ Musketeers? Are the “Bourne” stories original, or are they just rewordings of the familiar formula? I ask these questions because they address the originality of content- very little is “new”. Adventures and romances have been around for a long time, and art for art’s sake has been around for even longer.
What do computers add to all this? The article says that, “The essential quality of the computer proved to be its processuality.” What does that mean, and how does it make the content or form of art and literature presented in electronic media different from printed or painted forms? Processuality refers to the ability of the computer and user to generate ‘new’ texts based upon the rules laid out by the programmer/writer and the reader. Giselle Beiguelman holds, “Links and programming can be used to transform text into an ‘intelligent’ object.” This is true. Computers can integrate interactivity, but how new is this when it comes to literature? I read “choose your own adventure books” as a kid. Whenever there was a choice to be made for the protagonist, such as whether or not to sneak past a guard, or to find another way into the fortress, I’d just turn to a specific page based upon my choice, and the text that described the result would be there, along with art, and if I’d chosen right, more choices (if I’d chosen wrong, that would be the end-I’d be “dead.”) Using two books I’ve even played a game against another person that was supposed to represent dog-fighting WWI era biplanes. We each had our own book in hand, and based upon my opponent’s choice and my choice, I’d select a page, and more choices would follow. It was complicated and required many pages, but thousands of different battles could be easily waged based upon ‘static’ text and the processing powers of our minds. The only thing that a computer game could have added to the experience is sound.
There have even been “color by numbers” and books that teach one how to draw, and come with templates and transparencies to be traced. In other words, computers facilitate activities that have been previously been the territory of books or classes. I submit that missing from this discussion is the simple question: How do computers do this in a manner that differs from the hand-written or painted methods? (Aside from the speed of transmission of information, I see little that they allow one to create that is original.)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Why alter form instead of content?
Which would you think would be more helpful when you are trying to relate to people in a new manner or to communicate new ideas- altering form or content?
Smokers' Rights vs. The Public
My partner and I will attempt to engage in a lively discussion of the merits of
outlawing smoking in public, particularly in restaurants and bars. We will use
information involving the impacts of such legislation upon the bottom lines of
the businesses effected, and upon the health implications. We will refer to
personal freedoms and attempt to define, for ourselves and according to law,
when the freedoms of one person (in this case, to smoke in public) are
outweighed by economics or the freedoms of other non-smokers.
We will employ different fonts, colors, and sizes of text to evoke different
responses, as well as using differing speeds and techniques to expose text. Our goal
will be to inform the reader on the economic and health pros and cons surrounding
the issue, and do so in a manner that has information and rhetoric that supports
both claims. This is a very general description, of course, but who's to say we don't find a scheme that works well halfway into the project, or decide to change things up halfway just to DO it? Though, who knows- after some good research and discussion, we
may come to a clear conclusion ourselves and tailor the discourse to have the
reader tend to OUR opinion. We reserve that right.
outlawing smoking in public, particularly in restaurants and bars. We will use
information involving the impacts of such legislation upon the bottom lines of
the businesses effected, and upon the health implications. We will refer to
personal freedoms and attempt to define, for ourselves and according to law,
when the freedoms of one person (in this case, to smoke in public) are
outweighed by economics or the freedoms of other non-smokers.
We will employ different fonts, colors, and sizes of text to evoke different
responses, as well as using differing speeds and techniques to expose text. Our goal
will be to inform the reader on the economic and health pros and cons surrounding
the issue, and do so in a manner that has information and rhetoric that supports
both claims. This is a very general description, of course, but who's to say we don't find a scheme that works well halfway into the project, or decide to change things up halfway just to DO it? Though, who knows- after some good research and discussion, we
may come to a clear conclusion ourselves and tailor the discourse to have the
reader tend to OUR opinion. We reserve that right.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The animation of the UDoHR
The animation was pretty cool. I even liked the text, aside from the rights to work and earn a decent salary and the right to an education (I don't like "rights" that must be supplied by others).
The strange thing to me was that the smallest text was used to spell out "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Weird. Wuzzup wit dat?
The strange thing to me was that the smallest text was used to spell out "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Weird. Wuzzup wit dat?
Art should Be (?)
The professor's talk on the reason why artists/writers were creating this new form made the attempts of the artists more 'sensible' to me. It makes sense to me to try to find a new way to relate to poeople when you felt as if the world had ceased to work right. And it makes sense that a universal reactionw ould be sought for instead of signification, because the more subjective a work is, the the more possible meanings it has and the more devisive it is, instead of uniting.
Ok, this was tough, but the central underlying theme that was being drilled into me was that artists experimenting with type and line were interested not in imitating whatever their subject was, but in making the viewer/reader experience something, for the art to BE.
Admittedly, that's pretty general. What is meant when someone says, "The art must not mimic experience or theme or idea, not signify something, but BE?" Sheesh, that's going to be tough to put into plain words, to be definite and concrete. I think that in order to accomplish defining, "Art must BE," I will have to rely on the opposite approach that the artists mentioned seemed to use. I will have to rely on content (the word) as opposed to form.
Experiencing art should be an act that requires some effort of the viewer. This effort uses the emotions, preconceptions, and rhetoric of both the artist and viewer, as well as the material used to create the work, to evoke something from the viewer. The intention is not for the viewer to go, "Oh, I get it! Workers of the world unite!" Instead, the viewer should feel the pain of the proletariat, or know what it is to be alienated from your fellow man, or to feel free from the bounds of gravity. The art should not signify and idea, but make the viewer FEEL for someone or for themselves. Art should be a process by which one learns to experience the feelings of others, not to identify some idea or cause.
I like that idea, but I find it hard to accomplish with form alone. I would really have to change my approach to art and literature (two separate media, to me) in order to create a piece that relied upon form instead of the word. to me, content is always the word, not the horizontal arrangement of letters into words, then sentences, then paragraphs. While long paragraphs can be boring (around page 18 I began to zone BAAAD), it is the word that could hold my attention, not the look of it all on the page.
I think it would have been more illuminating and illustrating if Drucker would have attempted to use the ideas of the artists to convey their intent or purpose or style. For being a work on experimentation with writing, the writing was itself quite typical and "boring" when evaluated against the standards of its own subject. What would Mallarme have thought of this staid evaluation? (Lemme guess-YAWN.)
Ok, this was tough, but the central underlying theme that was being drilled into me was that artists experimenting with type and line were interested not in imitating whatever their subject was, but in making the viewer/reader experience something, for the art to BE.
Admittedly, that's pretty general. What is meant when someone says, "The art must not mimic experience or theme or idea, not signify something, but BE?" Sheesh, that's going to be tough to put into plain words, to be definite and concrete. I think that in order to accomplish defining, "Art must BE," I will have to rely on the opposite approach that the artists mentioned seemed to use. I will have to rely on content (the word) as opposed to form.
Experiencing art should be an act that requires some effort of the viewer. This effort uses the emotions, preconceptions, and rhetoric of both the artist and viewer, as well as the material used to create the work, to evoke something from the viewer. The intention is not for the viewer to go, "Oh, I get it! Workers of the world unite!" Instead, the viewer should feel the pain of the proletariat, or know what it is to be alienated from your fellow man, or to feel free from the bounds of gravity. The art should not signify and idea, but make the viewer FEEL for someone or for themselves. Art should be a process by which one learns to experience the feelings of others, not to identify some idea or cause.
I like that idea, but I find it hard to accomplish with form alone. I would really have to change my approach to art and literature (two separate media, to me) in order to create a piece that relied upon form instead of the word. to me, content is always the word, not the horizontal arrangement of letters into words, then sentences, then paragraphs. While long paragraphs can be boring (around page 18 I began to zone BAAAD), it is the word that could hold my attention, not the look of it all on the page.
I think it would have been more illuminating and illustrating if Drucker would have attempted to use the ideas of the artists to convey their intent or purpose or style. For being a work on experimentation with writing, the writing was itself quite typical and "boring" when evaluated against the standards of its own subject. What would Mallarme have thought of this staid evaluation? (Lemme guess-YAWN.)
Thursday, October 9, 2008
"Fight Club" vs. "Pulp Fiction"
In "Pulp Fiction in Typography" the words come at their own speed- they don't wait for the reader/viewer to catch up, and don't stop or slow down for easier comprehension. They overpower the processing ability of the brain. If you haven't seen the film or don't remember the scene, then the animation is not going to allow you to catch all the dialogue- you won't know all of what is being said, so you will always be a step or two behind the characters delivering it. But you should get the gist easily.
Jule's (Samuel L. Jackson's character in the film) dialogue is bigger than Brett's. It remains on screen until new words move the piece along, literally. Brett's feeble whining and protestation fades in and fades out- he's not powerful, nor is he going to last, literally. It's not until he screams in pain that his dialogue takes upon any quality of permanence or force- the paint-splatter font suggests pain, messy and confusing.
The animation discussed above differs greatly from the little piece "8 Rules of Fight Club in Kinetic Typography" in one major detail- you don't miss any of what is being said, not until the crowd speaks. The text on screen details all of the dialogue easily. Unlike the earlier animation, the "Fight Club" piece would allow you to view it without sound or prior knowledge of the film, and you would still understand most of what is being said. The "Pulp Fiction" piece depends heavily upon the audio track and familiarity with the film and the specific scene in order for the animation to not run right past the viewer.
Another important distinction is that the title of the "Fight Club" piece gives the viewer enough of a context to understand what is being detailed therein- rules conduct in the club. The "Pulp Fiction" piece has no context for someone who hasn't seen the movie or is foggy on the scene.
Both pieces do lose some of their impact without the audio track. Without the audio track, you wouldn't know that Tyler Durdin is giving the speech to a crowd of about to be combatants, and you wouldn't know that Brett got shot. You'd see that he was screaming, but you wouldn't know why, exactly.
Both pieces use their own little tricks to grab the viewer and/or convey the meaning of the text. Brett's weak and impermanent dialogue is one example, as is Jule's big bad font. "fight Club" puts the word "Over" on top of the word fight when the rules state that a fight should end and uses text already on the screen to continue the flow- the words "Fight Club", left on the screen from a prior sentence, glow red again as a way of catching the viewer's eye with something new and to speed things along.
Both pieces use larger fonts to emphasize what is being said and to deliver the same impact that the actor's voice is used for in the film. "Club" keeps all the dialogue on screen at once, though, so it is easily read, whereas "Fiction" uses typefaces so big that sometimes only two letters at a time are visible on the screen. Both use the same tricks, but to different degrees, leading to different levels of dependence on reader knowledge of the scene.
I'd like to use the "Club" tricks to keep the viewer interested, and keep the text small enough so that sentences stay on the screen long enough to be read. This is necessary becasue no audio will be used for the next assignment.
Jule's (Samuel L. Jackson's character in the film) dialogue is bigger than Brett's. It remains on screen until new words move the piece along, literally. Brett's feeble whining and protestation fades in and fades out- he's not powerful, nor is he going to last, literally. It's not until he screams in pain that his dialogue takes upon any quality of permanence or force- the paint-splatter font suggests pain, messy and confusing.
The animation discussed above differs greatly from the little piece "8 Rules of Fight Club in Kinetic Typography" in one major detail- you don't miss any of what is being said, not until the crowd speaks. The text on screen details all of the dialogue easily. Unlike the earlier animation, the "Fight Club" piece would allow you to view it without sound or prior knowledge of the film, and you would still understand most of what is being said. The "Pulp Fiction" piece depends heavily upon the audio track and familiarity with the film and the specific scene in order for the animation to not run right past the viewer.
Another important distinction is that the title of the "Fight Club" piece gives the viewer enough of a context to understand what is being detailed therein- rules conduct in the club. The "Pulp Fiction" piece has no context for someone who hasn't seen the movie or is foggy on the scene.
Both pieces do lose some of their impact without the audio track. Without the audio track, you wouldn't know that Tyler Durdin is giving the speech to a crowd of about to be combatants, and you wouldn't know that Brett got shot. You'd see that he was screaming, but you wouldn't know why, exactly.
Both pieces use their own little tricks to grab the viewer and/or convey the meaning of the text. Brett's weak and impermanent dialogue is one example, as is Jule's big bad font. "fight Club" puts the word "Over" on top of the word fight when the rules state that a fight should end and uses text already on the screen to continue the flow- the words "Fight Club", left on the screen from a prior sentence, glow red again as a way of catching the viewer's eye with something new and to speed things along.
Both pieces use larger fonts to emphasize what is being said and to deliver the same impact that the actor's voice is used for in the film. "Club" keeps all the dialogue on screen at once, though, so it is easily read, whereas "Fiction" uses typefaces so big that sometimes only two letters at a time are visible on the screen. Both use the same tricks, but to different degrees, leading to different levels of dependence on reader knowledge of the scene.
I'd like to use the "Club" tricks to keep the viewer interested, and keep the text small enough so that sentences stay on the screen long enough to be read. This is necessary becasue no audio will be used for the next assignment.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The effect of writing.
Does writing something down prevent or hinder your memoriztion of it? What effect does recording something physically have upon your analysis of it?
Nothing is ever entirely new.
According to Bernstein and his sources, the 24 character Greek Alphabet increased literacy and set the stage for prose, that is, text that was meant to be read to oneself, not performed for a crowd. The performed texts were not only used for entertainment value but also for their ability to communicate the culture of the dominant powers to the viewer- their version of history, custom, and the duty of the citizenry. To me, this suggests that the plays/spoken texts would have been constructed in a manner that tended to have fewer differing interpretations than the prose intended for a more solitary and introspective audience (of one). This means that the construction of the spoken texts would have to tend to the objective more than the subjective- how else could it accomplish it's goal of cultural transference (well)?
To me, this is clearly illustrated with the current state of the mass media, particularly of the coverage and dynamic of the presidential campaign. The spoken words of the reporters and the advertisements are carefully chosen to provide a clear version of the history, values, and 'duty' of the citizenry (to vote for their particular choice of candidate). The purpose of the texts that are performed by either reporters or the candidates (or their representatives) is to ally them with YOU, to get you to see yourself in their version of reality and ally yourself with their ideas. Just watch some ads or coverage, and try to be conscience of the effects, you'll see it.
The blogosphere, on the other hand, is cutting and biting, alienating and edgy. Why the difference? One big difference, according to Bernstein, is that blogs are meant to read to oneself alone, and the proper response is to reply in kind. While this is not a solitary act, the parties viewing the text are not usually in any type of physical contact, and thus removed from the act of communication and interpretation, just as early readers of prose found themselves. This is not to say that bloggers are more honest or objective, just that the process of their publication would seem to be an environment where a new idea could arise, one that is actually revolutionary, and not created with mass appeal and the accompanying subjective interpretation of reality.
I don't know what I'm driving at, exactly, but I know I'm trying to saying something about the effects of a mass media that is easily understood on an almost sub-conscious level- it is very powerful, and capable of appealing to base instincts, meaning it can lie more easily and blatantly. It is no wonder to me that with the dawn of prose and individual interpretation that the ideas of natural rights and liberty began to flourish.
To me, this is clearly illustrated with the current state of the mass media, particularly of the coverage and dynamic of the presidential campaign. The spoken words of the reporters and the advertisements are carefully chosen to provide a clear version of the history, values, and 'duty' of the citizenry (to vote for their particular choice of candidate). The purpose of the texts that are performed by either reporters or the candidates (or their representatives) is to ally them with YOU, to get you to see yourself in their version of reality and ally yourself with their ideas. Just watch some ads or coverage, and try to be conscience of the effects, you'll see it.
The blogosphere, on the other hand, is cutting and biting, alienating and edgy. Why the difference? One big difference, according to Bernstein, is that blogs are meant to read to oneself alone, and the proper response is to reply in kind. While this is not a solitary act, the parties viewing the text are not usually in any type of physical contact, and thus removed from the act of communication and interpretation, just as early readers of prose found themselves. This is not to say that bloggers are more honest or objective, just that the process of their publication would seem to be an environment where a new idea could arise, one that is actually revolutionary, and not created with mass appeal and the accompanying subjective interpretation of reality.
I don't know what I'm driving at, exactly, but I know I'm trying to saying something about the effects of a mass media that is easily understood on an almost sub-conscious level- it is very powerful, and capable of appealing to base instincts, meaning it can lie more easily and blatantly. It is no wonder to me that with the dawn of prose and individual interpretation that the ideas of natural rights and liberty began to flourish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)