(See Luke’s post).
(See Luke’s post).
For our photoshop project, we took a basic stock photo of the beach and water and turned it into a mermaid, aquatic galore, fresh with giant octupi sinking ships, mermaids, and other bizarre creatures.
I specifically added in the birds, extended the cliffs/rocks in the scenery to be more than they originally were. As I was working, I had problems working with layers and it took me a while to realize when I needed to switch layer to layer to accomplish something.
For our comic, a stick figure observing a painting in a gallery. He steps into the painting, wherein by mysterious means, a hand approaches and kicks him off the cliff and back into reality. We drew the stick figure in Adobe Illustrator, but everything else were stock photos from Google, compiled together to create a comic.
The basic premise for this animation is a girl studying in her room on a particularly windy night at 3 am in the morning. She hears a scratching from her closet and goes to check what it is. The main elements of the story will be driven primarily by the audio sounds. I’ve assembled a basic collection of all the pictures of the elements in the story, now I just need to edit them in photoshop to create a comprehensive visual component that would then make my animating process easier.
Here is the link to the final cut. In our edits, we color-corrected the frames to reflect the same warm, glow, edited the audio for noise reduction, and worked on the transitions from clip to clip. We also eventually cut out the majority of footage in favor of story coherence.
Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/a/nyu.edu/file/d/0B5uy6selZe-tSHZTTTg4TV9SRFk/view?usp=sharing
NOTE: Must be signed into NYU email address in order for link to work.
When doing our rough cuts, we were giving a lot of freedom in regards to our shots, which was good and bad at the same time. Our shots required more work in regards to getting our dancers together, coordinating in general.
Here is the link:https://drive.google.com/a/nyu.edu/file/d/0B5uy6selZe-tRmJtalFIOUV4bHc/view?usp=sharing
I had watched this movie last semester with a friend who was watching it for GPC and had enjoyed it for its unique take on animation and varied usage of style. I also appreciate how colorful the movie is and I especially loved the scenes in which the gods would be discussing Sita and Ram. It was a nice running commentary to the storyline.
I do however have a problem with how factual the storyline actually is–while I know the modern day aspect is indeed at least semi-autobiographical, I am unsure of how accurate or how true the legend is portrayed out. Of course, there is always room for artistic license, but within it there are limits.
I particularly enjoyed the scene with the cat. I remembered it from the first time I watched the movie and I still enjoyed the scene watching the movie once more. I really like how the cat woke his/her owners up. However the fact that Nina had to leave her cat behind in order to join Dave in India perhaps is the first signifier of the doom of their relationship. An adorable cat like that means happiness and separating cat and owner is like separating the deepest of loves.
Also, I really dislike when Sita begins to sing. I’m not really into musicals.
There is much merit in the arguments made against the fight against plagiarism in the two media pieces we had to study this week: “The Ecstasy of Influence” as well as “Everything is a Remix.”
These two works criticized the isolated idea of “this work is my property” and the copyright/patent laws in the US as stifling creativity. “Everything is a Remix” in particular argues strongly that the art of creativity is exactly copying and pasting–but pasting in a different way. For example, taking the same idea and transforming it to apply to another idea (also copied) to form a ‘new’ idea; this is called ‘remixing”. No creative work of art is ever entirely original; what makes a work of art unique is the method of ‘remixing.’ Moreover, we are inspired by others to create. If all of us worked to create something original, civilization would become stagnant as creating something wholly original is different and the ‘multiplicity’ of ideas would most definitely interfere.
“The Ecstasy of Influence” focuses more on plagiarism in literary works. Furthermore, it also brings science into the mix. Neuroscience shows that our memories and everything makes us, like a quilt, is stitched haphazardly. “If we cut-and-paste our selves, might we not forgive it of our artworks?” Moreover, how intentional is this ‘cutting and pasting’? We are influenced by the things we see in our lives and they forever shape us whether or not we actually recognize the influence they have on our lives.
While I do agree that copyright laws nowadays are too intense for the fostering of a healthy creative culture, I do believe that in the law’s original intent, it was well-intended and should be thus used as it was intended.
I really enjoyed reading the Comic book as it was a theory/history book on comics written in comic format. Therefore, I appreciated his theory more because of this. I felt that him employing the comic book format while discussing the art of comics allowed the reader/viewer to not only see what his theory was but also see it in action and understand what he was saying. This, I think, was particularly apparent when he discussed the things our mind takes for granted or ‘accepts’ in a comic, such as the circle with two dots and a line is accepted, without question, as a person’s face. Moreover, I liked how he pointed out the power of the reader’s imagination and how one trick is to leave out details that the reader can fill in to their own personal wants.
“The Rights of the Molotov Man” brings up some very important questions to consider, and especially those that are more and more being an issue. Copyright laws have become blurry in the age of the internet and the question of originality of thought is always at play. At which point is something exclusively yours and at which point is it public domain, free for all to use?
I do believe that copyright laws are over- exaggerated. For some reason, American laws regarding plagiarism spin a confusing web of do’s and dont’s that leave a person always afraid of whether they are violating copyright. Students live in fear that they accidently misquote someone out of ignorance (see: complexity of what IS plagiarism) and end up with a zero. For example, there is a neuroscientist and writer named Jonah Lehrer, who, a few years ago, came under fire for copying much of his latest book, Imagine (whcih is about the brain and creative thought). Where was he copying much of the passages of this book? From his OWN articles written for Wired magazine. The issue was that the magazine held the rights to his article not him, but then again can we really judge a person for repeating his OWN thoughts? [Lehrer also fabricated some Bob Dylan quotes, but first he was under fire for copying his own writings]. Half the time when we talk of one topic repeatedly, we ourselves repeat much of same argument over and over again–eventually it becomes like a speech: we use the same words, same sentences. There is a technique. In this sense, I think that copyright laws are somewhat ridiculous in their scope. If you wrote something, you should not get into trouble for copying your own words. The magazine might have rights over your written word but your brain still retains them.
On the other hand, I do believe originality should be given due credit. For example, many people have altered the Mona Lisa in various art forms to make various statements but everyone knows the original creator was Da Vinci and the work belongs to him.
“The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster conveys a powerful message to the avid users of technology: beware. In the short story, people begin to live in their own little bubbles, literally unmoving, relying on technology for every need to the point of worship. Technology becomes omnipresent in people’s lives in this futuristic society–like how God was ominpresent in the lives of people before.
One of the intriguing points this piece makes is how our reliance on technology makes us extremely lazy. Since the beginning of time, it has been civilization’s goal to innovate and create new ways to make life simpler. All technology is created for the purpose of ease. However, Forster warns us that there is such a thing as too much ease. For example, in the story, people begin to deny the validity of “first-hand ideas” and begin to encourage “second-hand” or “tenth-hand” ideas. Ideas that have been ideas for centuries are better than new ideas that challenge the old ideas–the same way how challenging the Machine is considered blasphemy.
While I do appreciate E.M. Forster’s point and the overall entertainment factor in her writing, I don’t think that this laziness or this complete faith in the Machine will happen in actuality. What drives technology further and further is precisely the human quest for knowledge, to be inquisitive and to challenge. The human capacity to think: “well, this is fairly decent now. But how can I make it better?” If what is continually bring new technology to the forefront is the human desire to challenge and to improve, how can we possibly regress into such a state of helplessness and blind faith? There will always be people like Kuno who will challenge and make improvements on the system. We won’t be totally lazy – we will make improvements. While our reliance on technology is ever-increasing, we won’t be become lazy because of it. True, our bodies might become blobs of flesh, but our minds will always be at work.