Larissa’s animation and reflection

This semester has come to the end with my final project. I think this animation really worth to be put as an end to finish because it combines everything that we learnt. Overall my ideas were realized and and it was just a pity that my skill was limited to achieve the perfect effect.

First I need to say that it is so different to work on a project on my own. Previously all the projects were done as groups but this time I had to decide all the steps by myself. It costed more time to come up with feasible ideas and stick to the schedule. After I shot some scenes for the first time, I ran into the first problem that when they play continuously the picture shaked seriously. So I realized that I should have used tripods, but it was too late because a lot of shooting were done. Then I was thinking how to make the characters’ body parts move along with the shaking scenes. I asked Marianne for help, and she kindly gave me the advice to make my drawings and after effect works piece by piece so that the movements of my drawing will seems more real. At that time I already had a general picture in my mind about how I was going to finish this animation. So the following steps were shooting by parts, drawing, and putting them together. Looking back all the frames, I think the steamer turning around seems the greatest. Maybe it was because the movement was the most fluent and obvious. And I think that other parts were too short to tell the story. They need more time to be clear and do not gives people a sense of rush. Anyway the animations were put together and they looked good. The final work was to add background music. I searched in online  free sound source and made them into a whole piece by using audacity. It was so efficient to first finish the animation, mark the key frames with changing in movements and put sound effects according to the order. There weren’t much trouble in making sound.

There were still many technique problems which I need to ask for help, and I think I would have saved a lot of time if I knew the skills. Also better effects will be achieved. However, I still think that I have kind of reached the goal of this animation. I realized the story in my mind by using PS, making video, using audacity and after effects. It was truly challenging but practical.

Larissa’s Animation-quicktime


Response to “Sita Sings the Blue”

Response to “Sita Sings the Blue”


The beginning part that Sita(maybe?) is dancing really attracted me. The fine screen and lively music and humorous characters told me that it might be a video telling people about culture but it was not serious and prim. The elements on the screen even zoom in and out along with music rhythm. And then all the story-telling mode was so good at facilitate audiences’ interaction with it. First, people who were talking at the background were made into two paper-cut silhouettes. So it is like we could see two people talking in front of us. To coordinate this, the India animation figures vividly move according to story contents. For example I remember a man with a crown paused his motion when two storytellers were arguing about his story. He changes into what the storyteller says he is back and forth, which was really humorous. The animation didn’t tell the story by simply make Indian characters to act, but also add two storytellers into it. It made it so much easier for the audiences to understand from a listener’s perspective.

And another thing that impressed me was the drawing style. In some parts the scene was so complicated especially in the scenes with Indian characters. The amazing image effect was achieved by the rich scene factors. Sometimes it is the mix of a lot of things that makes the animation attractive.


Larissa’s response on TED talk

I watched the TED talk about “everything is a remix” and there were several doubts. The speaker gave some examples of previous famous artists stealing others’ work. But even if artists like Bob Dylan stole others’ rhythms and lyrics, then where do the stole creativities come from? There must be people who really created and we can’t draw the conclusion that everything is stole from others. And the speaker said we couldn’t be too dependent on ourselves and don’t expect too much, does it mean we jut give up and loose our control on stealing? What’s more, is the patent law system still necessary to exist if stealing can not be prevented by it? I think the answer yes. By asking all those questions what I want to express is that there is always a boundary between creation and stealing, and we can’t ignore them because sometimes it is not obvious and say everything is essentially stealing. I think that the boundary subtly lies in our own mind because it is hard to totally claiming some ideas as theirs. Each industry has their developing process and ideas are tightly connected. Also, patent law system has limited effect because people can totally claim a stole patent as theirs then nobody can justify their ownership again. Essentially, we need to do the self-control of stealing, for example not steal too much and do some new creation based on others’ ideas. And try to lower the hurt to others’ benefits. Steve Jobs said that “Great artists steal”, but in fact people still respect people with brilliant creativities. So we need to “steal” in a way that within the moral tolerance in our heart and within industry morals, and always try to create as much as we can.

Larissa’s response on 1-3 chapter of comic book

I found a really interesting point in the introduction of comics that simplifying things can actually means amplifying. I noticed a series of different head photo that are more and more simplified. I can get the emotion of the figure as soon as I see the last and most simplified face. However, I also feel it less shocking and attractive compared to the first and most detailed one. Then it occurred to me that if simplifying is actually amplifying, why people don’t make film characters as simple as they can? Conversely, each huge and delicate scene that shows up on the screen is a big shock to the audience. I think it depend on the function of different art forms. Films need to focus on visual effect besides story telling, but comics maybe need to focus on story telling as a “sequential art”. The visual effect is enough as long as it tells readers its environmental setting. So simplifying means amplifying but it also has its scope that can be applied.

Larissa’s response on “On the rights of Molotov Man”

From reading this magazine essay I got one of the main points that how great is the extent of picture’s original artists’ right to decide its later usage. I think that the artists have absolute right on their work because they created them with their initial ideas. Naturally, when people use it in any forms, they need to show basic respect by asking for their permission. However what the author was arguing was also about documentary art pieces, which is less personal and has more historical function. Normally documentary art works are more objective and are more easily transmitted. Some are even abstract enough to be borrowed as certain signs of history just like the “Molotov Man”. After people use the documentary art work for so many times, they might become widely used and really symbolic. Objectively speaking, it will be much harder to let original artist decide who and how to use it, for example the national flag as a widely used art work. So in this situation the artists need to have the conscious to permit people to borrow and use them. People just need to have the awareness of respecting original artists, and this may be achieved by memory their names officially. What I’m arguing is that original artists enjoy the copyright but it will be practically limited. It’s for better record and more potentially great interpretation of history.

Larissa Song’s reflection: technology is a possible way to destroy ourselves

After reading this fiction story, I want to make a summary of my thoughts that only we human will destroy ourselves. In the virtual future world of machine, human’s true emotion is twisted and changed. Family love turns out to be not important because of the long distance, and people refuse to appreciate great natural view. These are horrible because the sentiments are out of human nature, and holding back our most natural thing will definitely result in bad outcome. Essentially human are restricting human’s life. Looking back to the modern life where we are living in, people always say that technology is making life better and better, which is also widely accepted and approved. However, regarding to the future people in this tragic fiction, don’t they think in the same way? It is possible that we are all destroying our life without realizing it. I admit that I also feel technology has brought people so much fun and convenience, but perhaps there’s problems behind that. We always need to reflect on ourselves and avoid potential problems so that we will not end up destroying our own life one day. And the point to reflect might be technology should not disobey human life habits too much.