http://mediaartsisamedium.blogspot.com/2011/01/look-at-music-videos.html?showComment=1306715110518#c629738372354202260
http://robertolagman.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-entry-4-from-spray-can-to-light.html?showComment=1306715192059#c3669605031955894457
http://media-amandaanna.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-entry-5-digital-actors.html#comments
http://melaaaniee.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-entry-6-logo-parodies-that-speak.html#comments
http://egamrots.blogspot.com/2010/11/look-at-music-videos.html?showComment=1306716367861#c5487584712517004285
http://andreanicolemedia.blogspot.com/2011/02/art-imitating-media-imitating-life.html#comments
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Blog Entry #6: Logo Parodies that speak the truth
1. In this logo they used the principle of emphasis to make the hand and logo stand out. This logo also includes the principle of contrast through the colours they chose - black, white, green, and yellow - as well as the position of the hand and logo. Another principle of design used in this logo is movement. The dripping of the oil on the hand and wavy ocean in the background show movement. An element of design used in this logo is size. The hand takes up most of the logo while the rest of it only covers a smaller portion of whole logo to emphasize their message.
2. They used the black hand with the company logo in the middle along with an oil rig station on the thumb of the hand. This provokes the image of death and pollution. The graphic artist used such imagery to stress the importance of this event and the effects on the enviroment. The dripping, black hand is used to represent the message to say stop the pollution and/or death is in the hands of BP. In addition, the company logo is in the centre of the hand which indicates that the company is in the centre of this catastrophe.
3. This logo says that BP's corporate identity is tarnished and that the company has been negligent in their responsibilities to the environment. It also says that death is in their hands.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Blog Entry #4: From Spray Can to light: Graffiti Revisited.
This image uses emphasis, warm colours, distortion, movement and exaggeration.
This image uses contrast, warm colours and cool colours, distortion, shapes, texture, movement, rhythm, exaggeration, and tone.
Comparisons
Both of these pictures have disfigured lines that are wavy, loopy, and messy. Also, they do not follow a single pattern, they both go in different directions. In addition, they both have a lot of movement and action going on. Both pictures also create emphasis where the grafiti art makes the circular shapes stand out like a tunnel, and the use of space within the picture makes it look like a 3-D shape and the light grafiti picture emphasizes the light and its direction so that the focus and movement is on the light not the background.
Differences
The light graffiti picture uses bright, warm colours while the other picture using spray paint graffiti uses a contrast of bold, warm and cool colours. In general, the main difference between light and traditional grafiti is that light grafiti uses technology that may not be easily accessible by artists/youth whereas traditional grafiti just requires spray paint and a wall surface. The latter may be easier to do and may allow an artist to express themselves more freely. However, it is illegal.
Blog Entry #5: Digital Actors
1. Is this acting or is this animation?
I think this is a bit of both acting and animation. Most people think it is all animaion, but without the actors there would not be any of the exact movement or action the characters had in the movie. In addition, animation does play a big role in this movie but it only changes the outer appearance of the actors as Spielberg states “I like to think of it as digital makeup, not augmented animation.”
2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?
I think that the animated character should not be eligible for acting awards, however the actual actor who played the role of that character should. Yes, the character in the movie does not look the same as the actor but I think of it as a recreation of that actor. There would be no voice or action without the actor. Even Serkis claims “You can’t enhance a bad performance with animation. You can’t dial it up, lift the lip or the eyebrow. It has to be right at the core moment." In addition, the director says that the animators job is to "use the actor’s performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end.” Therefore, what the actors performed was not changed, only animated but they are still performing the same acting job and this is why I believe that the actors of the film should be eligible for acting awards.
3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?
I do not think that human actors will ever become obsolete because although our world is constantly creating innovation and technology that replace many of the jobs in our world I think acting is something that cannot be replaced. Acting is a talent or learned skill. Actors made up and created through the use of technology would not be the same as the real-life acting done now. Why would someone want to watch something that is not real show emotion? The audience would not be touched by the performance in the same way knowing it was just animated. For example, when people watch a cartoon or animated movie compared to one using real actors more emotion and feeling is expressed and felt in non-animated movies because it seems more believable and realistic. Creating actors with technology would be like creating new humans that could look real but wouldn't actually be real; they couldn't be touched or held or have physical contact with. It's like messing with and getting rid of natural creation and I don't think it would be right or even accepted by all of society. Another reason why I think this is because directors wouldn't play the same role they do now with human actors. They would only be instructing the animators, which brings me to another point. Animation is a very long and sometimes difficult process with proof given from Henry Selick as he states "Animators have to work very, very hard with the motion-capture data. After the performance is captured, it’s not just plugged into the computer which spits out big blue people. It’s a hybrid.” If it is already hard enough to animate a given human performance it would be even harder to create animation on it's own without influence of real life acting. Lastly, even if actors were to be replaced on screen, I do not believe they would be able to be replaced for live performances in plays or musicals. That is something I do not think technology can take away from them.
I think this is a bit of both acting and animation. Most people think it is all animaion, but without the actors there would not be any of the exact movement or action the characters had in the movie. In addition, animation does play a big role in this movie but it only changes the outer appearance of the actors as Spielberg states “I like to think of it as digital makeup, not augmented animation.”
2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?
I think that the animated character should not be eligible for acting awards, however the actual actor who played the role of that character should. Yes, the character in the movie does not look the same as the actor but I think of it as a recreation of that actor. There would be no voice or action without the actor. Even Serkis claims “You can’t enhance a bad performance with animation. You can’t dial it up, lift the lip or the eyebrow. It has to be right at the core moment." In addition, the director says that the animators job is to "use the actor’s performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end.” Therefore, what the actors performed was not changed, only animated but they are still performing the same acting job and this is why I believe that the actors of the film should be eligible for acting awards.
3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?
I do not think that human actors will ever become obsolete because although our world is constantly creating innovation and technology that replace many of the jobs in our world I think acting is something that cannot be replaced. Acting is a talent or learned skill. Actors made up and created through the use of technology would not be the same as the real-life acting done now. Why would someone want to watch something that is not real show emotion? The audience would not be touched by the performance in the same way knowing it was just animated. For example, when people watch a cartoon or animated movie compared to one using real actors more emotion and feeling is expressed and felt in non-animated movies because it seems more believable and realistic. Creating actors with technology would be like creating new humans that could look real but wouldn't actually be real; they couldn't be touched or held or have physical contact with. It's like messing with and getting rid of natural creation and I don't think it would be right or even accepted by all of society. Another reason why I think this is because directors wouldn't play the same role they do now with human actors. They would only be instructing the animators, which brings me to another point. Animation is a very long and sometimes difficult process with proof given from Henry Selick as he states "Animators have to work very, very hard with the motion-capture data. After the performance is captured, it’s not just plugged into the computer which spits out big blue people. It’s a hybrid.” If it is already hard enough to animate a given human performance it would be even harder to create animation on it's own without influence of real life acting. Lastly, even if actors were to be replaced on screen, I do not believe they would be able to be replaced for live performances in plays or musicals. That is something I do not think technology can take away from them.
Blog Entry #3: Mashups and Copyright Law
1. What is this mashup trying to communicate? Is it technical experiment, social or political commentary, a comedic parody, or an abstract work of media art?
This mashup is trying to communicate the mixes of two songs from two different time periods. The description of the video claims it is advertising the Grey Album, but in the video it states that this is a technical experiment.
2. Did its creator follow or break copyright laws in its production?
I do not think the creator broke the copyright laws in its production as it says it was only an experiment and it would not be used for commercial use. In addition, they included credits to the songs being used, therefore following copyright laws.
3. Do you think that mashup like this requires copyright permission? Why
I do not think this mashup requires copyright permission since it wasn't going to be used for commercial use and it was not copying the exact video created by someone else, it was a combination of two different videos and songs into a new creation. However, with technology and web media today such as Youtube personal videos can become public. In today's society and with increasing access to information on-line, permission from original owners of works of art should be requested and credits to these artists should be clearly identified.
Blog Entry #2: A Look at Music Videos
Firework By Katy Perry
Initial Reaction:
My initial reaction was suprised and more importantly, amazed. This is not the typical music video the artist Katy Perry is known to be in. Katy Perry's music videos tend to be more upbeat, fun, colourful, revealing, unrealistic and rather strange. However, what is in common with this video and her other ones is that she kept it unique and original. Those two words seem to tie in with the message of this song and video which is it is okay to be different, it is okay to be who you are and don't be afraid to show that off to the world. This video and song amazes me so much because of the message, meaning, and hope it gives - hope in that maybe one day we'll all learn to accept one another for who we are, including ourselves and one day being different we'll be seen as what it should be; which is that being different seperates us into individuals who are all unique, bright, talented, special, wonderful, beautiful people who can never be replaced. I absolutely love this video and song as it also gives off a good vibe and positive energy.
Analysis and interpretation:
There are many principles of media art used here but the one that stood out to me the most was the contrast. This was shown through the dark scenes and fireworks sparking out of the people. However, I also think this was shown through the characters and scenerios of this video. The characters who are left out or feel like they need to let out what's inside them v.s the people around them enjoying their own lives show contrast as well. Another principal of media used in this video is emphasis. There was much emphasis on the characters through the fireworks exploding out of them when they were finally breaking through and not being afraid to show who they really are. I think Katy Perry created this video to help people visualize the theme and highlight the lyrics in her song. The theme is that people have many differences and that it is okay to be ourselves. We are all important and have something to offer. No one should ever feel left out or unimportant. I feel the theme is aligned with Gospel Values such as Community(acceptance), Hope, Courage (perseverance) and Love (caring, respect).
Consideration of Cultural Context:
I think Katy Perry is someone who wants to stand out and be different just like her husband. This song and video may have been influenced by her belief and she wants everyone to know that it's okay to be different and to celebrate this. There is a part in the video with a boy showing his feelings to another boy. The issue with bullying of homosexual teens in school has been prominent in the news in the last year and this may have influenced the director to include this idea in the video.
Expression of aesthetic judgement:
The storyline, lyrics and acting in the video all work together to tell a story around the theme of the song. The special effects with the use of fireworks coming out of people's bodies exaggerate the point that we all have something special to offer, that we all have a spark in us. The performance, choreography and music all work well together to create an upbeat, inspiring video.
Ongoing Reflection:
I think this music video has influenced my reception of the song by enhanciong the song more and delvering a clear and full message as to what this song is about.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Blog entry#1: Art Imitating Media Imitating Life
Social networking sites allow people to interact and communicate through the internet. However, sites such as facebook, are not always completely safe against unwanted users, unless you develop and set you're profile and information that way.
Protecting privacy against predators
I have numerous ways in which I protect my privacy. I give limited personal information about myself whether it shows publicly to everyone or not, like not including my address, phone number, etc. Another way is that I do not write where I am currently located on my status or make it known to anyone through facebook where I am, especially if I am home alone. I also set my privacy settings to be viewed only by friends and I do not accept people I do not know or people who I have never actually met or seen in person, even if I have heard of them. Another way is that I never give my password out and if ever I feel someone's been on my account I change my password without hesitation.
Why is this so important?
It is important to me and for me to protect my privacy against uninvited eyes and advertisers because it could be potentially dangerous to be so exposed on the internet. Not everyone using the internet is good and not everyone on the internet simply wants to be friends. They could be people who may want to cause harm to you or steal your information to be used to their advantage like using it to create a credit card under your name. However, even if people you don't know do not intend on doing any harm I don't know why any person would want their information accessed by strangers, good or bad. The people that know you should only be the people YOU know and invite to view your pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)