The idea of this animation comes from Márquez’s short story Light is Like Water. It is a story about two boys who asked their parents to buy a boat and diving outfits in return for their good grades. After their parents went out of home, they broke the light bulb. The golden light pour out of the broken bulb like water. They navigated around the house/dove under the furniture after letting the light run to a certain depth. So they played with light/water, and light spilled over the balconies, fell from their apartment and rushed along the street.
I plan to use stop motion to present this story. For the last scene, I want to keep the background still and use fluorescent colour to gradually light every building as the water flow by, turning it from black&white to a colorful one.
Sita Sings the Blue is a tragic song that is filled with tear. Two major stories are showed in this animation, one is from modern western society, the other comes from ancient Indian epic. But they have the same theme: wives are abandoned by their husbands. Considering his reputation, Rama abandoned Sita, though he actually believes that Sita didn’t betray him during those days. In modern American society, the husband chose to never come back to his family because comparing to his wife and child, he prefers freedom. The modern story it self would be a normal and conventional drama if not being compared with the revised Indian epic. That is the fresh element that attracts me in the animation.
I like that the director chose to use the blues music as the background music. It gives the animation some exotic feeling, and really slows down the speed of the animation. I feel relaxed when watching that, and I think it’s due to the blues. What’s more, I get really surprised when I heard that the shadow puppets are 100% unscripted. I have to admire that shadow puppets add more eastern elements to the animation, but besides the puppets, the director use lots more various styled elements as collage, Indian-style dummy at the beginning… I feel like too many different styled elements make the animation inconsistent and separated, also a little bit chaotic. I am not quite into that style.
my partners: Isabella, Billy and Angela
We found the original piece like this:
I was the first person editing this image. The flying monkey is pretty cool, so I took it out. Thinking of that monkey loves banana, so I added several bananas and a mini in front of the monkey. So the monkey will seem to jump from the ground and try to get those bananas. I leave the background blank and hope the next people can add something else to that. During the second turn, I added a skateboard and also shadows to make it fit to the monkey.
This was my first time using Photoshop. Though I only used limited simple tools, I started to find how powerful and complex it is. Hope I can have more time to deeply learn this tool.
Cooperated with Nicholas and July.
The experiencing of producing this comic was actually an experience for me to get to learn using photoshop. I will never try to learn it until I need it. We got our pickle, strawberries and car online. We added eyes, eyebrows and mouths to each ones to give them character. Though we did it separately, we tried to make the style looked same and I think we greatly made it. 🙂
One feature of this comic is that we scanned Nicholas’ hand writing and placed them in the comic. This makes the whole comic much more vivid.
One thing I found Jonathan Lethem’s “The Ecstacy of Influence: A Plagiarism” interesting is that the entire text is made up of quotes from other people. A text that talks about plagiarism is actually a remix of many other works. It will become so ironic if we consider remix as one kind of plagiarism. So does remixing equal copying and pasting? Kirby Ferguson uses 4 videos to encourage us to embrace the remix. The reason given by him is simple: everything is a remix. Copy, transform and combine are the social evolution rules. At the end of part two of his video series, Ferguson lists varies pairs of people who create a similar or exactly the same piece of work at the same time. Why will these things happen? Art is not only derived from life, it is also derived from other existing materials. Since these works are the remix of all other works existed before it, it is natural that two different people may create similar work at the same time.
However, what is the line between plagiarism and remixing? I think the crucial point lies on the transform step. People need to add their original thoughts into their work. What’s more, they have to be shameless and admire that they truly copied some part of other works. It acts just like quotation in writing essays.
One problem that makes me feel uncomfortable when reading is the sequence of the comics. I always got lost and had no idea from which side I should start reading, left or right. Most of cases, I can kind figure the sequence out after finishing reading the whole row. The similar problem is mentioned in this comic, but McCloud seems to fail to do it well, from my perspective at least.
Set that problem aside, the book is amazing and humorous. It is easy to read. However, it avoids being superficial. One moment that I like most is when McCloud tries to change his cartoon face to a more realistic one, and says “You won’t listen to me if I stand here with this face”. I found it pretty reasonable and plausible after giggling for a while because of his sudden humor.
I find that human’s participation when reading comic plays a crucial role when deciding whether the comic is a qualified one—does the comic leave adequate space for readers to “put” themselves into cartoon character? Does it use possibly least pieces of panels to let readers use closure to complete the un-drew scenes? These all depends on OUR senses. Reader’s participation is crucial since it gives different people different feeling when reading comic—they can have various cognitions of one cartoon character. Similarly, the panels that they imagine between two actual panels may vary.
Susan Meiselas, the owner of the original photograph of molotov man, says that no one can “control” art, but what she cares is decontextualisation of re-creation. “Indeed, it seems to me that if history is working against context, then we must, as artists, work all the harder to reclaim that context.” But if all re-creations follow the same context of the original piece of artwork, are they still re-creations? Or, can we call them revision on the original work?
The re-creation on Marilyn Monroe must be one of the most wide-spreaded artworks of Andy Warhol. The context of this re-production does not necessarily fit with the original photograph. Actually, I even wonder if there is any context in this re-creation. But this piece of artwork does make Andy Warhol and pop art popular. The value of Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe is no longer its context. People, instead, value the unusual printing method and rich contrast of colors.
Thus, does the context really matter in an artwork? I think that a good context will give artworks much more meaning sometimes, but it is not a must. This topic reminds me of Walter Benjamin’s “kultwert” in his book The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. As for me, context just plays a role that makes a piece of artwork kultwert. An artist has the freedom to choose to recreate the artwork tending to become more kultwert or more ausstellungswert.
Did lots of search on making the background colors gradient!
Arua of Art | Response to "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"
<style type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
background: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(#0066CC), color-stop(30%, #ff77ff), color-stop(50%, #ffd2d2), color-stop(75%, #ffff37), to(#ff8000));
<h1 style="font-family:Synchro LET" align="middle">Arua of Art</h1>
After going into the age of mechanical reproduction, CD largely takes place of live shows as an efficient way to spread pieces of music to every corner of the world with an uncompetably fast speed. Unless I am so obsessed with this singer, I seldom go to a live show due to the price and my laziness. Instead, I will choose to watch videos or listen to music. The effect can almost compare with that of a live show if provided with an outstanding acoustics.
<div align=center><img src="/Users/Jhyuiccen/Desktop/467.png" width="500" height="500"></div>
Walter Benjamin says that the <em>aura</em> of art is decaying, and changes in the medium of contemporary perception exactly reveal that trend. It reminds of a show I saw in an art museum in the New Year's eve this year. It was a live show presented by a local electronic music band, combined with the application of electronic imaging and media art. The central auditorium is surrounded by 3 layers of semi-opaque yarn-like curtains. The band is right behind the curtain. We could only see the blurry black figures of them. Abstract imaging were projected on the curtains and contentiously changed with the beat. These imaging, just as movies, can be reproduced and are not unique. A live show is just the opposite of these digital media. Being different from the music played by speakers, a live show introduces "live" singers/bands to the theater and gives audience a unique sense of presence. But what makes it interesting is the unique sense of presence is weakened because of the semi-opaque curtain set between audience and the band. It not only cuts the communication between them, and it even further increases the natural distances between them. The subtle feeling brought out by the near-and-far distance may be something sparkling of this show.
So will the live show die in the age of mechanical reproduction? Will the aura of art disappear? I do not think so. Instead, it will become more vital. It will be innovative while keeping its core spirit and being presented with another new look.
In 1909, E.M. Forster published a short science fiction novel The Machine Stops. The story happens in the age when machines are highly-developed. People are forced to live beneath the ground because the heavy pollution on the ground. Their life are completely taken cared of by the “Big machine”. The joyful life makes them deeply believe that they have already reached the peak of human civilisation until one day when the “Big machine” stops running…
We can somehow guess the final result of the story: people can find no way to continue their living and the society goes into chaos. The novel makes me reconsider the relationship between machines and human beings. Instead of the “Big machine”, which controls man’s body and mind, Man is the one that should be blamed. Living in the age when science can fully replace human beings to do every work, people can choose to live their life in two different ways: One is presented by Vanshanti—fully depending on the “Big machine” and letting herself degenerate, while another is presented by her son Kuno—by using his ability to touch the authentic world, he keeps his body and mind active and avoids degeneration. People like Kuno survive when one day the “Big machine” stops running. Live or die, is controlled by ourselves.
The result brought out by over-depending on machine may be exaggerated in the novel. It won’t destroy human beings, but it does cause inconvenience. During the final week last semester, I accidentally drop my coffee into mac. Unluckily, it died (as expected). I ran into crazy and endless regret since I only kept my draft of GPC final essay in my laptop. My machine stopped and it would take at least one week to recover, that is probably when the winter break starts. Now I need to restart with a brand-new white page. Sigh. :(((((((