This was a great documentary on the way big companies market their products. Peersonally, I really don't see the harm in marketing an idea, I think it's very acceptable. This is how companies try to differentiate themselves from other companies. The film seesm to go about it in a very negative way. Granted, I was very upset when they described how companies take jobs from the U.S. and send them overseas.
I was very shocked at to learn that Nike does not make any of it's shoes. Instead they hire a contractor in another country (third world country) to make them. I was also shocked to learn that Nike does not own any factories in which the shoes are made. This helps the company profit more because they have a workforce that will produce the product for less than a dollar an hour. To me that is despicable. If I had it my way, companies would not be allowed to take their business overseas. They would stay here in the U.S., hire American workers, and pay them a decent salary with benefits.
Personally, I think it's genius the way companies market their products. By appealing to the sensitivities of the consumers, they establish a huge consumer base. Whoever is in charge of marketing some of these companies are doing one hell of a good job. I have been to many of these place before, and I have never really noticed it until I saw this documentary. It's funny how when I walk into Barnes and Noble and it looks more like a coffee shop (Starbucks) and when I walk into Starbucks it looks more like a bookstore (Barnes and Noble). After watching the documentary, I realize that Starbucks is selling the idea of community where people can gather and associate with other people. The idea that a person who walks into a Virgin music store and can have the sense that he or she is a rebel appeals to the young consumer. If you think about it, a cd is a cd, so what is the difference between buying one at Wal-mart and buying one at a Virgin music store.
However I may think about the marketing strageties of these companies, the government and consumers should create an enviroment in which U.S. companies can operate more in the U.S. instead of sending jobs overseas. People are the most important asset in the operation of a company. Perhaps the government can offer some tax breaks for companies if they open factories in the U.S..
The American consumer is vital to the U.S. economy. Corporations have figure this out. They figured out ways to lure consumers away from the competition by what I call "distractions" Two companies might sell the same product butoffer something other than the product itself. This ties into the concept of selling an idea; selling the idea of community, rebellion, and family values.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Response to the Ectasy of Influence
I want to respond to this article from two different viewpoints. I will first speak on behalf of the artist who feel its okay to borrow from another artist and claimed to be influenced. Second, I will speak on behalf of the artists who feel its important to distinguish themselves from one another.
While I was reading this article, I asked myself one question. Can an artist truly be original. The answer to that questions lies in the history of all the performing arts throughout the world. Every painting that's painted, every record that's played, every film that's made, and every novel that's written is built upon elements that came from another point in time. The contemporary artist cannot be truly original because he or she is taught to follow and learn from the original artists who laid the groundwork. Bands such as The Rolling Stones and the Beatles borrowed heavily from from blues and r&b artist such Muddy Waters and the Isley Brothers. Rhythm and Blues fueled the invention of that world wide phenomenon called Hip Hop. Granted, I understand that society places a great deal of respect on someone who can be original in whatever art they participate in. However, if an art history teacher were to look at a painting that was painted yesterday, they would probably compare it to a master that lived so many years ago.
Speaking of the ecstasy of influence, I want to turn my attention to hip hop music. Hip Hop music is tr he most dominant musical medium in the entertainment industry. Rap music, which is part of the Hip Hop culture, is a good example of the concept of the "ecstasy of influence." Rap borrows heavily from other musical genres, especially R&B music. May rap artist claim that they are helping to preserve the musical legacy that came before them, and many of them do acknowledge that rap music is based on sampling other musical artist. However, that is not always the case. There are many talented rap artist who have found a way to be very creative and be original in their work. Andre Young aka. Dr. Dre, is one of the most sought after producers in hip hop. Although he has sampled, he has become known to create sounds and rhythms that no other producer can match. He is known as the Godfather of Gangster Rap.
I now want to respond to the articles section of "The beauty of second use." Most artist become inspired to create when they view art created by someone else. I believe this is the purpose of creating a work of art. Picasso simply did not paint a picture if someone was not going have some type of emotional involvement. Second use can be very beautiful especially if the artist does something much better with it. For example. The Star Spangled Banner has been sung by thousands of people for over two hundred years. But it became a number one hit for Whitney Houston; selling over two million copies. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery for an artist. The original artist of a work, whether it is a play, a novel, or a painting, should not be compelled to sue someone because another person took their work of art and spun it into something special. This only reflects the appreciation of the art itself on behalf of the artist.
Thomas Jefferson had the idea of protecting the works of artist, which is enshrined in the United Sates Constitution. Jefferson's proposal was that Congress grant protection to copyrighted works for fourteen years plus another fourteen years if the person lived. After that, the works would fall into public use. Jefferson felt that ideas should flow freely like nature and not just limited to one person. This supports the view that art should be copied and spun into something that can be more beautiful than the original. However, that does not always happen. Sometimes an original work of art can be so great that it cannot be surpassed. William Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright to ever live. Countless movies have been made based on his work.
Now. I want to take the view of the artist. When I say artist, I mean the originator of the work. Many artist want to make a name for themselves. They do this by being original, and creative. The artist puts a lot of hard work and effort into his or her creation; only to be appreciated and not copied. Is it really fair to say that it is wrong for artist to sue over the second use of their work? Well, I do not know. But it must really hurt to have an idea taken and spun into something else. Years ago, a manager can take credit for writing a hit record even though they had nothing to do with the writing of the song. Many if these artist now are suing for back royalties. Also, what does it say for the artist use takes the original artwork and use it. Does that make him creative? Does it make him a genius? When an artist remakes a well known piece of art, someone with any knowledge of art will compare to another artist, thus giving credit to them. Anyone who is trying to make it in the world of art makes the effort of being original. Whether its a painting , a poem, a novel, or music, the originality is that artist top priority.
I'm taking both sides of the issue because I really don not have an opinion to whether it is okay to plagiarize or not. I do know that gift is an art and was meant to be cherished by everyone. Whether if its original or copied we cannot really put a price on it. It's too bad that Thomas Jefferson is not here, he can probably figure it out.
While I was reading this article, I asked myself one question. Can an artist truly be original. The answer to that questions lies in the history of all the performing arts throughout the world. Every painting that's painted, every record that's played, every film that's made, and every novel that's written is built upon elements that came from another point in time. The contemporary artist cannot be truly original because he or she is taught to follow and learn from the original artists who laid the groundwork. Bands such as The Rolling Stones and the Beatles borrowed heavily from from blues and r&b artist such Muddy Waters and the Isley Brothers. Rhythm and Blues fueled the invention of that world wide phenomenon called Hip Hop. Granted, I understand that society places a great deal of respect on someone who can be original in whatever art they participate in. However, if an art history teacher were to look at a painting that was painted yesterday, they would probably compare it to a master that lived so many years ago.
Speaking of the ecstasy of influence, I want to turn my attention to hip hop music. Hip Hop music is tr he most dominant musical medium in the entertainment industry. Rap music, which is part of the Hip Hop culture, is a good example of the concept of the "ecstasy of influence." Rap borrows heavily from other musical genres, especially R&B music. May rap artist claim that they are helping to preserve the musical legacy that came before them, and many of them do acknowledge that rap music is based on sampling other musical artist. However, that is not always the case. There are many talented rap artist who have found a way to be very creative and be original in their work. Andre Young aka. Dr. Dre, is one of the most sought after producers in hip hop. Although he has sampled, he has become known to create sounds and rhythms that no other producer can match. He is known as the Godfather of Gangster Rap.
I now want to respond to the articles section of "The beauty of second use." Most artist become inspired to create when they view art created by someone else. I believe this is the purpose of creating a work of art. Picasso simply did not paint a picture if someone was not going have some type of emotional involvement. Second use can be very beautiful especially if the artist does something much better with it. For example. The Star Spangled Banner has been sung by thousands of people for over two hundred years. But it became a number one hit for Whitney Houston; selling over two million copies. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery for an artist. The original artist of a work, whether it is a play, a novel, or a painting, should not be compelled to sue someone because another person took their work of art and spun it into something special. This only reflects the appreciation of the art itself on behalf of the artist.
Thomas Jefferson had the idea of protecting the works of artist, which is enshrined in the United Sates Constitution. Jefferson's proposal was that Congress grant protection to copyrighted works for fourteen years plus another fourteen years if the person lived. After that, the works would fall into public use. Jefferson felt that ideas should flow freely like nature and not just limited to one person. This supports the view that art should be copied and spun into something that can be more beautiful than the original. However, that does not always happen. Sometimes an original work of art can be so great that it cannot be surpassed. William Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright to ever live. Countless movies have been made based on his work.
Now. I want to take the view of the artist. When I say artist, I mean the originator of the work. Many artist want to make a name for themselves. They do this by being original, and creative. The artist puts a lot of hard work and effort into his or her creation; only to be appreciated and not copied. Is it really fair to say that it is wrong for artist to sue over the second use of their work? Well, I do not know. But it must really hurt to have an idea taken and spun into something else. Years ago, a manager can take credit for writing a hit record even though they had nothing to do with the writing of the song. Many if these artist now are suing for back royalties. Also, what does it say for the artist use takes the original artwork and use it. Does that make him creative? Does it make him a genius? When an artist remakes a well known piece of art, someone with any knowledge of art will compare to another artist, thus giving credit to them. Anyone who is trying to make it in the world of art makes the effort of being original. Whether its a painting , a poem, a novel, or music, the originality is that artist top priority.
I'm taking both sides of the issue because I really don not have an opinion to whether it is okay to plagiarize or not. I do know that gift is an art and was meant to be cherished by everyone. Whether if its original or copied we cannot really put a price on it. It's too bad that Thomas Jefferson is not here, he can probably figure it out.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Rough Theatre
This was a very interesting read. When I read the title of the reading I was immediately taken aback. I asked myself: What the hell is this? I was very impressed with the authors view of the modern theatre. Personally, I feel the author is really in a state of nostalgia. He has that deep longing for a certain period of history that he probably wishes that he could have lived in. I'm talking about the time of the Shakespearean theatre.
While I was reading the article, that was all I could think about. I don't know a lot about William Shakespeare, but I do know that during the performance of his plays, the audience tended to act in way that we today would be considered rude. They often threw objects at the performers and would yell obscenities. Sometimes they would jump onstage and assault the performers. Other than that, I understood what the author was trying to communicate. He was comparing the clean modern theatre to a dirty rough theatre. A theatre that has character and actually talks to the people in a way the modern theatre cannot. The author puts his focus on the architect.
When the architect prepares to design and build a theatre he must be aware of certain set principles; principles set by the author himself. First, the architect must get rid of that nasty element called style. Style is not needed in the rough theatre simply because style does not speak to the people. Another element the architect must adhere to is intuition. The architect cannot build a theatre on a drawn out plan. He must put away his knowledge of engineering, advanced mathematics, physics, and his compass and ruler. Instead, he must build a theatre that would bring people together; a theatre that speaks to the people and not at them.
I often find the author's version of the theatre quite fascinating. So, I would like to add to it. My theatre would be an old cinder block house with a roof that smells of rotting wood. My stage would be the floor that is soaked through by the water coming from the busted pipe below the sink. The air condition would come from the ceiling of the bedroom in which there is a a large hole that resulted from a bolt of lightning. This would also serve as the acoustics. The worn out bed, torn rugs, yellow wallpaper, the wooden bed with only two legs, and the stained bathtub can serve as props in this theatre.The facade of the theatre would feature two beautiful women dressed in togas with staffs in their hands. Christopher Alan Pratt's Rotten Theatre is what we would call it. I can think of some very interesting plays that can be performed here.
Although I think this is a good description of the theatre that the author is writing about, I think the way the author is describing it is very vivid. He uses images such as a card game at a round table, one night stands, swearing, torn sheets, and heavy drinking. The author really knows what makes a good theatre.
I want to try to sum this up a little more about the author's intentions. Basically what the author is trying to say is that the theatre should be able to communicate to real people. Because the audience is what makes the theatre what it is. Perhaps we should go back to those days when audiences let loose among the "players." These types of theatre are here today. The plays of Tyler Perry are often performed in theatres that are not so "stylish" and the audience truly engages in them. The plays are low budget, but they speak to the people. Their almost like what the author describes in the readings. They are full of jokes and gags, exploitations of character misgivings, the songs and dances, the noises and the exaggeration of cross dressing.
We need more theatres like that. Perhaps the architect should have this reading alongside with him when he's designing his theatre. When adding the wall, perhaps he should not to use plaster; cow dung would suffice.
While I was reading the article, that was all I could think about. I don't know a lot about William Shakespeare, but I do know that during the performance of his plays, the audience tended to act in way that we today would be considered rude. They often threw objects at the performers and would yell obscenities. Sometimes they would jump onstage and assault the performers. Other than that, I understood what the author was trying to communicate. He was comparing the clean modern theatre to a dirty rough theatre. A theatre that has character and actually talks to the people in a way the modern theatre cannot. The author puts his focus on the architect.
When the architect prepares to design and build a theatre he must be aware of certain set principles; principles set by the author himself. First, the architect must get rid of that nasty element called style. Style is not needed in the rough theatre simply because style does not speak to the people. Another element the architect must adhere to is intuition. The architect cannot build a theatre on a drawn out plan. He must put away his knowledge of engineering, advanced mathematics, physics, and his compass and ruler. Instead, he must build a theatre that would bring people together; a theatre that speaks to the people and not at them.
I often find the author's version of the theatre quite fascinating. So, I would like to add to it. My theatre would be an old cinder block house with a roof that smells of rotting wood. My stage would be the floor that is soaked through by the water coming from the busted pipe below the sink. The air condition would come from the ceiling of the bedroom in which there is a a large hole that resulted from a bolt of lightning. This would also serve as the acoustics. The worn out bed, torn rugs, yellow wallpaper, the wooden bed with only two legs, and the stained bathtub can serve as props in this theatre.The facade of the theatre would feature two beautiful women dressed in togas with staffs in their hands. Christopher Alan Pratt's Rotten Theatre is what we would call it. I can think of some very interesting plays that can be performed here.
Although I think this is a good description of the theatre that the author is writing about, I think the way the author is describing it is very vivid. He uses images such as a card game at a round table, one night stands, swearing, torn sheets, and heavy drinking. The author really knows what makes a good theatre.
I want to try to sum this up a little more about the author's intentions. Basically what the author is trying to say is that the theatre should be able to communicate to real people. Because the audience is what makes the theatre what it is. Perhaps we should go back to those days when audiences let loose among the "players." These types of theatre are here today. The plays of Tyler Perry are often performed in theatres that are not so "stylish" and the audience truly engages in them. The plays are low budget, but they speak to the people. Their almost like what the author describes in the readings. They are full of jokes and gags, exploitations of character misgivings, the songs and dances, the noises and the exaggeration of cross dressing.
We need more theatres like that. Perhaps the architect should have this reading alongside with him when he's designing his theatre. When adding the wall, perhaps he should not to use plaster; cow dung would suffice.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Theory of Animation
This was one of the most interesting articles that I have ever read. I was amzed at the analytical approach the author took to the subject of animation. Most of my life, I always had this passion for cartoons but after reading the article, I look at cartoons and other forms of animation from a new perspective.
The author basically broke down animation into two groups: orthodox animation and experimental animation. Orthodox animation is what most audiences are familiar with. Cartoons featuring Disney characters or those made by Warner Brothers are in line with the orthodox tradition. This tradition is rooted in the sense that cartoons carry a certain aesthetic that most of us are familiar with. Cel animated cartoons are the most traditional form of animation. These animated films are just like regular films shown in the movie theatre. They are scripted, storboarded, and their dialogues are performed by actors in a recording studio. The Disney studios are probably the first to come up with this sort of concept I'm not really sure. However, Disney revolutionized the process of this type of animation and it would become duplicated by other studios such as Warner Brothers.
The author describes several concepts that are associated with orthodox animation. One is the human being and the animal. I'm not quite sure what the author was trying to say when he mentioned this; but I interpreted it as animals with human qualities. The example that I would use is my favorite all time cartoon character: Woody Woodpecker. He is simply a bird who can speak and is able to thick logically; particulary in a sense that he can always outsmart another character who wishes to do him harm. It also makes for great slapsick comedy.
Personally I ask myself why the author decided to do such a thourough analysis oo animation. What was the point is he trying to make. Animation I feel was just another form of filmmaking that was less expensive. Why pay actors if you can draw them? Also, I think it was just another attempt at establishing a form of entertainment that was very profitable. However, the author seems to have the gift of being able to analyze the different modes of animation. I've been watching cartoons most of my life and I never really realized some of these things. But when the author touches on some of the elements I find myself going 'yes, of course.'
I want to touch on the reading just a little bit more. I want to talk about the author's analysis of the dialogue.
The author basically broke down animation into two groups: orthodox animation and experimental animation. Orthodox animation is what most audiences are familiar with. Cartoons featuring Disney characters or those made by Warner Brothers are in line with the orthodox tradition. This tradition is rooted in the sense that cartoons carry a certain aesthetic that most of us are familiar with. Cel animated cartoons are the most traditional form of animation. These animated films are just like regular films shown in the movie theatre. They are scripted, storboarded, and their dialogues are performed by actors in a recording studio. The Disney studios are probably the first to come up with this sort of concept I'm not really sure. However, Disney revolutionized the process of this type of animation and it would become duplicated by other studios such as Warner Brothers.
The author describes several concepts that are associated with orthodox animation. One is the human being and the animal. I'm not quite sure what the author was trying to say when he mentioned this; but I interpreted it as animals with human qualities. The example that I would use is my favorite all time cartoon character: Woody Woodpecker. He is simply a bird who can speak and is able to thick logically; particulary in a sense that he can always outsmart another character who wishes to do him harm. It also makes for great slapsick comedy.
Personally I ask myself why the author decided to do such a thourough analysis oo animation. What was the point is he trying to make. Animation I feel was just another form of filmmaking that was less expensive. Why pay actors if you can draw them? Also, I think it was just another attempt at establishing a form of entertainment that was very profitable. However, the author seems to have the gift of being able to analyze the different modes of animation. I've been watching cartoons most of my life and I never really realized some of these things. But when the author touches on some of the elements I find myself going 'yes, of course.'
I want to touch on the reading just a little bit more. I want to talk about the author's analysis of the dialogue.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Cameraless Filmmaking : My Experience, So Far.
I must say that this class is pretty interesting. The main reason I took this course was because I thought it would help my chances of getting into a senior seminar. However, I like the professor, he seems to be really knowledgeable about this type of medium. I also enjoy the way he allows to do hands- on work in the classroom. I began to learn a lot about the different types of film strips that are used in the medium. Also, I always thought that strips of film of that type could not be tampered with in such a way. Strips of film could be written on, painted on, scratched, and even punched; its amazing to see what can be done with filmstrip. I enjoy the readings in the class also, they really offer an insight into how films can be made without the use of a camera.
This class is very different from the other production classes that I am taking right now. This class allows you to actually use your imagination rather than adhering to a a strict set of rules. On the project that I'm working on right now, we have to create a strip of film that coincides withe the four elements of nature: Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. I'm a little bit nervous about this project; only because I want to get a really good grade. At first I thought this class would be easy, but its not. It requires a lot of hard work.
I want to talk about some of the things that I learned so far. Cameraless film making is one thing. I guess the name says it all. in the beginning we learned about different manipulation techniques such as ink applications and scratching. We also did some hole punching and sanding. These techniques can be used using common household items. We also learned to make guides for drawing on film animation. You are given a sheet of paper that has an animation template. You make several drawings of your animation and then you trace them onto a filmstrip; you must make sure that you do not go outside the sprocket hole because they can ruin the filmstrip and can cause problems when it is shown on a projector. Another type of film manipulation that I learned was magazine transfer. This was really interesting and I must say weird. You take strips of magazines and you place them on some packaging tape. You then cut them into strips and place them in hot water. While they are submerged in water, you peel the magazines off the tape. You then take the tape and put them on a strip of film. We also did applications of oil and ink. Last week we did something that was really interesting. We did some type of film manipulations that involved turning out the lights and using the light form our cell phone to manipulate the image on a film strip.
Most of the workshops are preparations for our first project that's due on September 25th. I think its really great that he showing us all of these neat things to do with film. Someday, I'll decide that I want to do some experimental short films and I can apply what I learned in the class for future projects.
The upcoming weeks should be very very interesting. Tomorrow, we are gonna watch a few screenings and gonna work on Super 8 film and other camera. After the 25th I have another assignment that's due on October 2nd. During week 6 we are gonna learn different methods of collecting sound; that should be very interesting; I'm really looking forward to that.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Response to Clip
The clip that we watched in class was okay. I didn't really become aquainted with avant-garde material until last semester during a showing in Luminer Theatre. Some of them I found to be very interesting some of them I did not. The one in class really did not peak my interest. However, I must admit that I did find the music in the piece to be very enticing. I was also mesmerized by the wide range of colors that were present in the piece. Overall, I really was not that much into it. However, that should not suggest that I am one that is very difficult to please. I'm sure that I will see clips that would be more interesting to me and maybe I can provide a longer response. Until then, I will say that the piece would suffice me until the next showing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)