Video One
Video Two
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Freak Factor
The article Freak Factor discusses the ideas behind weakness, and the fallacies and facts in the nine points he makes discussing this topic. I think that weakness has different meanings for different people, or is subjective. For instance males often feel that if they don't act like an alpha male, or appear to be physically strong, they are literally weak, where as some people think if you're not especially smart you're really weak, and that both of those things are huge weaknesses. The idea of weakness, in my opinion, is very subjective, even though Rendall brings up very good points about it.
There were a couple of his points that I didn't one hundred percent agree with, but a lot of them that I think are entirely true. The one that I especially disagreed with was number four, "Don't try to fix your weaknesses." He states that some people just have their limitations, and they cannot do anything to change that. I disagree with this, and I think the majority of people would too. We are taught in movies and television shows everyday that this statement is false, because it's detrimental to ones chances of bettering themselves. How many times are we constantly told "Nothing is impossible?" I truly believe a weakness can be turned into a strength with enough attention given to making it better. You're not overcoming weakness by saying you have weaknesses, and then not trying to make them better.
The one point that I really agreed with was number five, expanding on your strengths. If one never built on what they were already good at, they have limited themselves to what they can achieve, especially in a creative world. Rendall states "You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength.These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success." This statement solidifies why some of the greats are so great. Steven Spielberg didn't make his first great movie, and then quit. He kept expanding on his strength of being a great director, working on more projects, helping others produce their projects, and kept getting better and better. If one just gave up, and didn't pursue making their strengths better, they would limit themselves creatively.
The last one "Focus. Don't try to do both" I also disagreed with. I think it's limiting especially in our area or industry to not be as literate in every aspect of the creative world as we can. If we have a strength, we should keep up with it, but we should also try to expand on our weaknesses so we can be as well rounded as possible. I think this is very possible, with enough time spent trying to do both. Get rid of wasteful time, and focus on building your strengths, and expanding on your weaknesses.
I have found that in my experiences so far trying to be creative that my strengths have become camera work, and writing. I think very visually, so when I come up with a shot idea, it inherently helps me come up with a story. When I have a shot, I think, well how did this happen, why is this character doing this, why is it framed like this, etc? It helps me come up with defining those reasons, and inherently coming up with a story idea. I really enjoy this technique, and although it might not work for some people, I have found it works for me. My biggest weakness at the moment, is editing. I do not know anything about editing, but I wish to expand on this weakness and get good at it one day. I think with enough time spent, and enough reading and practice, I can turn this weakness into a strength.
There were a couple of his points that I didn't one hundred percent agree with, but a lot of them that I think are entirely true. The one that I especially disagreed with was number four, "Don't try to fix your weaknesses." He states that some people just have their limitations, and they cannot do anything to change that. I disagree with this, and I think the majority of people would too. We are taught in movies and television shows everyday that this statement is false, because it's detrimental to ones chances of bettering themselves. How many times are we constantly told "Nothing is impossible?" I truly believe a weakness can be turned into a strength with enough attention given to making it better. You're not overcoming weakness by saying you have weaknesses, and then not trying to make them better.
The one point that I really agreed with was number five, expanding on your strengths. If one never built on what they were already good at, they have limited themselves to what they can achieve, especially in a creative world. Rendall states "You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength.These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success." This statement solidifies why some of the greats are so great. Steven Spielberg didn't make his first great movie, and then quit. He kept expanding on his strength of being a great director, working on more projects, helping others produce their projects, and kept getting better and better. If one just gave up, and didn't pursue making their strengths better, they would limit themselves creatively.
The last one "Focus. Don't try to do both" I also disagreed with. I think it's limiting especially in our area or industry to not be as literate in every aspect of the creative world as we can. If we have a strength, we should keep up with it, but we should also try to expand on our weaknesses so we can be as well rounded as possible. I think this is very possible, with enough time spent trying to do both. Get rid of wasteful time, and focus on building your strengths, and expanding on your weaknesses.
I have found that in my experiences so far trying to be creative that my strengths have become camera work, and writing. I think very visually, so when I come up with a shot idea, it inherently helps me come up with a story. When I have a shot, I think, well how did this happen, why is this character doing this, why is it framed like this, etc? It helps me come up with defining those reasons, and inherently coming up with a story idea. I really enjoy this technique, and although it might not work for some people, I have found it works for me. My biggest weakness at the moment, is editing. I do not know anything about editing, but I wish to expand on this weakness and get good at it one day. I think with enough time spent, and enough reading and practice, I can turn this weakness into a strength.
Brainwashed
The article Brainwashed discusses the hardships of being a creative person in our world today. He discusses "7 layers" we can use to make ourselves become more creative innovative people. The layer "Acknowledging the Lizard" which he describes the part of our brain that wants to play things safe, meaning do what is comfortable for us, rather than risking a lifestyle trying to make art for a living, when it's not guaranteed we will make it. Godin says by being aware of this, we can acknowledge this part of our brain, and learn how to drive it away and ignore it. By ignoring it, we can literally bypass notions of what societal norms have established for us, and do what we truly want without "playing it safe." Two of the layers he also discussed that spoke to me were Make Art and Shipping.
Make Art spoke to me because human being can do this, and it betters all of us. As Godin says "art is the very human act of creating the uncreated, of connecting with another person at a human level. What we’ve seen is that more and more markets will reward art handsomely, and hand out the compliant work to the lowest bidder." I think this statement is so important because this is how we get closer to connection, furthering knowledge, and bettering our lives. The second Shipping spoke to me because if we dont 'get our ideas or our creative endeavors out there, then what's the point? We have to be able to bypass our insecurities, and what we're "afraid" of, and ship what we have. If nothing is shared, it's useless.
I think in relation to the blog assignments, this article furthers my belief that the blog assignments do not really help me in my creative life. This is more of an assignment that requires little to no creative thought. I'm not producing anything of originality or really learning more about anything that I didn't already know while writing these. It's more a regurgitation of things I have already learned, to prove that I know what I am talking about. I think it would be better to have the blogs involve more creativity. For instance, forcing us to create something like we did with our extra credit projects, then uploading them to the internet, and having our peers have to write a critique about what they think we could improve on, what was good, and so on. I think this would help us become more fluent in technical language, more aware of what we might have done wrong, and more conscious of shared ideas between classmates.
Make Art spoke to me because human being can do this, and it betters all of us. As Godin says "art is the very human act of creating the uncreated, of connecting with another person at a human level. What we’ve seen is that more and more markets will reward art handsomely, and hand out the compliant work to the lowest bidder." I think this statement is so important because this is how we get closer to connection, furthering knowledge, and bettering our lives. The second Shipping spoke to me because if we dont 'get our ideas or our creative endeavors out there, then what's the point? We have to be able to bypass our insecurities, and what we're "afraid" of, and ship what we have. If nothing is shared, it's useless.
I think in relation to the blog assignments, this article furthers my belief that the blog assignments do not really help me in my creative life. This is more of an assignment that requires little to no creative thought. I'm not producing anything of originality or really learning more about anything that I didn't already know while writing these. It's more a regurgitation of things I have already learned, to prove that I know what I am talking about. I think it would be better to have the blogs involve more creativity. For instance, forcing us to create something like we did with our extra credit projects, then uploading them to the internet, and having our peers have to write a critique about what they think we could improve on, what was good, and so on. I think this would help us become more fluent in technical language, more aware of what we might have done wrong, and more conscious of shared ideas between classmates.
Scene Deconstruction - The Shawshank Redemption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_lp4_Jfz7U&feature=related
In my opinion the theme of this film, which is exemplified in this scene, is a message of holding onto hope in a hopeless situation. It can also be seen as an allegory on maintaining one's innocence. This scene is active because the information given in the scene is up to interpretation.
The opening of the scene expresses this message when Andy finds out donations are being made to his library, and that they have finally answer his several letters he has been sending. This whole scene furthers the message through an emotional rhythm by taking us through a cause and effect instances of hopeful messages. The rhythm takes us from him finding out his library is coming together, which causes him to celebrate by using the vinyl record player and sharing the music with everyone on the yard. Through editing, and emotional rhythm, that message is repeated. They also use the space to exemplify this. In the shots when nothing is hopeful the space is confined, but when the record player starts playing they use wide shots, and jib shots to show the size of the prison yard and the office, manipulating the space as a physical metaphor for freedom and hope.
The scene also uses tension and release. This scene uses text and sub-text as well. The text of the scene is what literally is happening, Tim Robbins is playing a record player to all the prisoners, and openly defying them. The sub-text is that he finally feels free again, and for a brief moment, everyone in the prison does too.
In my opinion the theme of this film, which is exemplified in this scene, is a message of holding onto hope in a hopeless situation. It can also be seen as an allegory on maintaining one's innocence. This scene is active because the information given in the scene is up to interpretation.
The opening of the scene expresses this message when Andy finds out donations are being made to his library, and that they have finally answer his several letters he has been sending. This whole scene furthers the message through an emotional rhythm by taking us through a cause and effect instances of hopeful messages. The rhythm takes us from him finding out his library is coming together, which causes him to celebrate by using the vinyl record player and sharing the music with everyone on the yard. Through editing, and emotional rhythm, that message is repeated. They also use the space to exemplify this. In the shots when nothing is hopeful the space is confined, but when the record player starts playing they use wide shots, and jib shots to show the size of the prison yard and the office, manipulating the space as a physical metaphor for freedom and hope.
The scene also uses tension and release. This scene uses text and sub-text as well. The text of the scene is what literally is happening, Tim Robbins is playing a record player to all the prisoners, and openly defying them. The sub-text is that he finally feels free again, and for a brief moment, everyone in the prison does too.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Storyboard Imitation
In this scene only one rule was broken and that was the 180 degree rule. If you notice the camera shifts directly across the line through the exchange of dialogue. It is broken when the camera switches from one side of the table to the other. This is because they are engaging in a conversation, and the point of view changes from Mark Zuckerberg, to the prosecutor who is asking him the questions. This camera change is also known as a reverse angle or shot. The sole motivation for the switch is perspective and it works because they stick to the established positions that the people are in.
The rule of thirds is applied to this scene for the most part. If you notice in the first scene Mark Zuckerberg is position in the left grid of the frame, and the attorney is framed in the right part of the frame. As the director breaks 180 this continuity stays mostly accurate because then the prosecutor is framed in the right side of the frame during the switch, but Mark Zuckerberg is more in the left center in the next shot. I think this is motivated by wanting your focus to be on Zuckerberg first at all times, due to the fact that we visualize things from left to right. Therefore you are always seeing Zuckerberg first.
The 30 degree rule applies to these shots. There are no jump cuts, or any jarring switches that take away from the attention of the scene, unless it is on purpose(such as the attention to the window when Zuckerberg says "It just started raining)."
I think the director's motivation for this whole entire scene was putting Zuckerberg in the center of it all. He is the person we care about, not the people talking to him. This scene is totally about him. The cameras are framed in such a way that you're always focused on him, rather than the other people in the room. This is due to his framing.
Animation Deconstruction
These two characters are from different times and from completely different animation genres. Bugs Bunny is from the 1940's and is from the classic Looney Tunes genre. Eric Cartman is from the comedy central show South Park.
Bugs Bunny was on a show that was characterized for slapstick humor that was usually appropriate for children, whereas Eric Cartman is from a show that utilizes verbal humor, and satire of popular culture. This show is usually not appropriate for anyone but adults, or as the show labels it in the opening credits " This show is not appropriate for any viewers and should not be watched by anybody."
For the purposes of this assignment I am going to analyze color, and lighting. Bugs Bunny's character utilizes an analogous color scheme by using white and gray right next to each other. Analogous colors usually elicit a positive response aesthetically, and can be associated with a cooler feel. I think the purpose of his color scheme was to emulate real life rabbits, who are plentiful gray and white.The blue hat in the frame is also just an emulation of real life, by trying to characterize him in this particular picture like a colonial from the 1700's. The contrast of his bright character, with the brown background creates a great depth of field. The lighting also accentuates this by showing the shadow of the brown structure coming down far in the background. I think that is the purpose of that picture. By the way he's standing it also makes him look powerful, and almost has him as tall as the brown structure, making it seem like this is a moment when he is feeling dominant.
Eric Cartman's picture is utilizing complimentary blue and red with a hint of yellow. This gives a bright, warm feeling to the picture, and makes him look innocent. I think it's purposely done to be ironic of what his character really is, a mean, selfish, bully. The lighting pays great attention to his clothes, because his face is almost as white as the background he is standing in front of. This puts an emphasis on the clothes. The lighting symbolizes an almost alone feeling, since there is nothing else around in the photo, and he is in a spotlight of soft lighting. I think this could be interpreted as a way to analyze his character, who truly is alone throughout the entire show.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Blog 4 Song Deconstruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDj44n5bjWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0yaQ20dpWI&feature=related
Here are my two songs. The song is entitled For Emma by Bon Iver. They are songs by the same artist, and they are the same song. The difference is the arrangement in which they are played, and one is a recorded studio version, while the other is a live a capella arrangement.
The First Song: A capella version:
Rhythm:
Source: The source of the rhythm is coming from the voices and the snapping of their fingers. Due to this song being totally a capella the rhythm derives from the voices and the finger snapping and clapping. Specifically from the two shorter man's voices and even more specifically from the " Da Da Da Da Da Da Da " they are making with their voices, and from the taller mans snapping.
Time/Tempo: Due to knowing a lot about this band I know that they mess around with time signatures. They try not to have a concrete time signature in their songs due to the fact that they want people to concentrate on the lyrics, rather than the beats of their songs. This song does not have a concrete time signature, because it variates due to harmonies and lyrical focus. The main time signature if I had to guess stays around 1/4.
Groove: The personality of the rhythm is melodic or melon collie. This is due to the lyrics, the sound of the song, and personal feel of the song. The main focus of the song is not instrumentation but vocal harmony, which also makes it more melodic.
Arrangement:
Instrumentation: The instruments that drive the song are the voices. Vocal melodies and harmonies are the driving factor of the song.
Structure/Organization: The structure of the song is based on the class song writing style of rock music. Verse Chorus Verse Chorus Bridge Verse.
Emotional Architecture:The song builds and drops based off of the verses and the choruses. The song stays relatively calm and quiet during the verses by having only one person singing. During the chorus the rest of the voices come in to sing the lyrics and build up the song louder and with more layers.
Sound Quality:
Height: The songs frequencies also derive from the changing from verse to chorus. During the verses the song has a low frequency, and as the harmonies work together in the chorus the frequencies jumps up due to the higher pitch voices coming in to accentuate the lower pitch.
Width: The width never changes due to it being a live performance. The sound is always audible equally from left and right.
Depth: There are only three layers of instruments in this piece and they are all voices. They are always all layered on top of each other but during the verse two of the voices are less intense to keep rhythm and then they get louder during the chorus for accentuating harmony.
The Second Song: Studio Version:
Rhythm:
Source: The rhythm in the second song is coming from the guitar, which is accentuated by the snare drum in the background. The guitar has a chord pattern that emulates a drum beat, which keeps the rhythm.
Time/Tempo The time signature for this song is 1/4. If you count along with the change in guitar chords, it changes four times, before going back to the first one.
Groove: The personality of the rhythm in this song is also melodic, but it also encompasses a folk, upbeat sound that differentiates it from the last one. There is more going on in this song that gives it more personality, such as the guitar having a folk sound to it, while the lyrics and the melody is still melodic.
Arrangement: I would argue all the instruments drive this song, but in different ways. For instance the rhythm guitar and drums carry the rhythm of the song, but the background slide guitar and trumpets carry the melody of the song.
Structure/Organization: This arrangement also follows the classic rock style song writing technique of utilizing verse chorus verse chorus bridge verse. The song stays relatively quiet in the verses, picks up in the choruses, and slows down even lower than the verses in the bridge.
Emotional Architecture: The verses draw the song into the eventual build into the chorus. The verses are relatively quiet compared to the choruses and this derives from the rise in voice layers and instrumentation layers. The last chorus drops into the bridge, which builds into what we would call the "outro" which leads us into a drop again, or a fade out of the song.
Sound Quality:
Balance:
Height: The height of the frequencies differentiates from the first song in this one due to increase in instrumentation. The frequencies still stay relatively low in the chorus, but there is no longer the presence of a strong baritone in the frequency. It is about in the middle. The frequencies tend to stay higher in this piece with high pitches in the vocals accentuating high pitches in the instruments.
Width: From listening over and over again with only one ear, there is no stereo panning. They did equal layers of each track and puts them in both ears to create an equal width.
Depth: As far as layers go in this song, there are multiple layers of vocal tracks for his main voice singing the focal lyrics(my guess would be about 2 or 3). There is another layer or two for his background vocals, and his band mates background vocals. There is a layer for the rhythm guitar, backup guitar, slide guitar, horns, and drums. There is no bass present in this song. It is a heavily layered song compared to the last one.
Although these songs may seem alike due to being the same song but different takes on it. The lyrics are identical in this song, but there is a variation on them in the first song. I mean this in so far as that they change certain parts, and put in words that weren't in the studio version. The melody of the two songs are also the same, but they are carried differently between the two songs. For instance in the first song(the a capella song) the melody and rhythm is carried by the voices. The melody is carried by the tall lead singer, while the rhythm is carried by the two background guys singing "da da da da da da" in the the same rhythm that the guitar is in the second song. This differentiates itself from the second song due to the fact that the rhythm in that song is carried by the acoustic guitar, melody by the slide guitar and the horns, and background rhythm to accentuate the guitar with the drums. The rhythm in the first song is also accentuated by the clicking of fingers or clapping of hands to to add layers to the "da da da da da da." The timbre of the two songs are also highly different. The first song does is much more tonal, and less complex. There isn't much going on besides voices, and the utilization of body parts as instrument replacements. In the second song the timbre is higher. The song is much more complex due to instrument layers(depth), changes in height, and has a greater emotional architecture, or more building and dropping. The structure of the songs are relatively the same, except the first song is cut shorter than the second. The speed is also very different in the songs. The first song is slowed due to lack of instruments and only voices. The second song is more upbeat and carries better due to the presence of the guitar and drums. In conclusion I personally like the first song better(the a capella song) for its uniqueness. I mean this in so far as that this version is unconventional. They took a song with tons of layers and complexity, and broke it down into it's simplistic pieces. Their voices are so powerful, and harmonized so well, that it almost makes the song more personal. The second song is still very good, but not as unique as the a capella take on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0yaQ20dpWI&feature=related
Here are my two songs. The song is entitled For Emma by Bon Iver. They are songs by the same artist, and they are the same song. The difference is the arrangement in which they are played, and one is a recorded studio version, while the other is a live a capella arrangement.
The First Song: A capella version:
Rhythm:
Source: The source of the rhythm is coming from the voices and the snapping of their fingers. Due to this song being totally a capella the rhythm derives from the voices and the finger snapping and clapping. Specifically from the two shorter man's voices and even more specifically from the " Da Da Da Da Da Da Da " they are making with their voices, and from the taller mans snapping.
Time/Tempo: Due to knowing a lot about this band I know that they mess around with time signatures. They try not to have a concrete time signature in their songs due to the fact that they want people to concentrate on the lyrics, rather than the beats of their songs. This song does not have a concrete time signature, because it variates due to harmonies and lyrical focus. The main time signature if I had to guess stays around 1/4.
Groove: The personality of the rhythm is melodic or melon collie. This is due to the lyrics, the sound of the song, and personal feel of the song. The main focus of the song is not instrumentation but vocal harmony, which also makes it more melodic.
Arrangement:
Instrumentation: The instruments that drive the song are the voices. Vocal melodies and harmonies are the driving factor of the song.
Structure/Organization: The structure of the song is based on the class song writing style of rock music. Verse Chorus Verse Chorus Bridge Verse.
Emotional Architecture:The song builds and drops based off of the verses and the choruses. The song stays relatively calm and quiet during the verses by having only one person singing. During the chorus the rest of the voices come in to sing the lyrics and build up the song louder and with more layers.
Sound Quality:
Height: The songs frequencies also derive from the changing from verse to chorus. During the verses the song has a low frequency, and as the harmonies work together in the chorus the frequencies jumps up due to the higher pitch voices coming in to accentuate the lower pitch.
Width: The width never changes due to it being a live performance. The sound is always audible equally from left and right.
Depth: There are only three layers of instruments in this piece and they are all voices. They are always all layered on top of each other but during the verse two of the voices are less intense to keep rhythm and then they get louder during the chorus for accentuating harmony.
The Second Song: Studio Version:
Rhythm:
Source: The rhythm in the second song is coming from the guitar, which is accentuated by the snare drum in the background. The guitar has a chord pattern that emulates a drum beat, which keeps the rhythm.
Time/Tempo The time signature for this song is 1/4. If you count along with the change in guitar chords, it changes four times, before going back to the first one.
Groove: The personality of the rhythm in this song is also melodic, but it also encompasses a folk, upbeat sound that differentiates it from the last one. There is more going on in this song that gives it more personality, such as the guitar having a folk sound to it, while the lyrics and the melody is still melodic.
Arrangement: I would argue all the instruments drive this song, but in different ways. For instance the rhythm guitar and drums carry the rhythm of the song, but the background slide guitar and trumpets carry the melody of the song.
Structure/Organization: This arrangement also follows the classic rock style song writing technique of utilizing verse chorus verse chorus bridge verse. The song stays relatively quiet in the verses, picks up in the choruses, and slows down even lower than the verses in the bridge.
Emotional Architecture: The verses draw the song into the eventual build into the chorus. The verses are relatively quiet compared to the choruses and this derives from the rise in voice layers and instrumentation layers. The last chorus drops into the bridge, which builds into what we would call the "outro" which leads us into a drop again, or a fade out of the song.
Sound Quality:
Balance:
Height: The height of the frequencies differentiates from the first song in this one due to increase in instrumentation. The frequencies still stay relatively low in the chorus, but there is no longer the presence of a strong baritone in the frequency. It is about in the middle. The frequencies tend to stay higher in this piece with high pitches in the vocals accentuating high pitches in the instruments.
Width: From listening over and over again with only one ear, there is no stereo panning. They did equal layers of each track and puts them in both ears to create an equal width.
Depth: As far as layers go in this song, there are multiple layers of vocal tracks for his main voice singing the focal lyrics(my guess would be about 2 or 3). There is another layer or two for his background vocals, and his band mates background vocals. There is a layer for the rhythm guitar, backup guitar, slide guitar, horns, and drums. There is no bass present in this song. It is a heavily layered song compared to the last one.
Although these songs may seem alike due to being the same song but different takes on it. The lyrics are identical in this song, but there is a variation on them in the first song. I mean this in so far as that they change certain parts, and put in words that weren't in the studio version. The melody of the two songs are also the same, but they are carried differently between the two songs. For instance in the first song(the a capella song) the melody and rhythm is carried by the voices. The melody is carried by the tall lead singer, while the rhythm is carried by the two background guys singing "da da da da da da" in the the same rhythm that the guitar is in the second song. This differentiates itself from the second song due to the fact that the rhythm in that song is carried by the acoustic guitar, melody by the slide guitar and the horns, and background rhythm to accentuate the guitar with the drums. The rhythm in the first song is also accentuated by the clicking of fingers or clapping of hands to to add layers to the "da da da da da da." The timbre of the two songs are also highly different. The first song does is much more tonal, and less complex. There isn't much going on besides voices, and the utilization of body parts as instrument replacements. In the second song the timbre is higher. The song is much more complex due to instrument layers(depth), changes in height, and has a greater emotional architecture, or more building and dropping. The structure of the songs are relatively the same, except the first song is cut shorter than the second. The speed is also very different in the songs. The first song is slowed due to lack of instruments and only voices. The second song is more upbeat and carries better due to the presence of the guitar and drums. In conclusion I personally like the first song better(the a capella song) for its uniqueness. I mean this in so far as that this version is unconventional. They took a song with tons of layers and complexity, and broke it down into it's simplistic pieces. Their voices are so powerful, and harmonized so well, that it almost makes the song more personal. The second song is still very good, but not as unique as the a capella take on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)