Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Furniss, Manovich, Roush
1.) Do you believe that society today is a harsher critic on modern animators than the original animators 80 years ago because of the expectation for undetectable special effects and human credibility in abstract cartoons even our youngest generation? I.e. Steamboat Willy is seen as an art form while A Scanner Darkly received harsh reviews?
2.) Manovich states "cinema becomes a particular branch of painting, a painting in time" Is the ability to manipulate cinema images, such as in Forrest Gump wherein Kennedy's lips are readjusted to make him look as if he said something different that he actually did, rob the past of authenticity and uniqueness?
3.) Was the progression of technology inevitably leading to the formation of metaverses accessible by anyone with the intent to create or find one? And if so, is privacy being violated by those intending to create a replica of the real world, whether or not it is available to the masses?
2.) Manovich states "cinema becomes a particular branch of painting, a painting in time" Is the ability to manipulate cinema images, such as in Forrest Gump wherein Kennedy's lips are readjusted to make him look as if he said something different that he actually did, rob the past of authenticity and uniqueness?
3.) Was the progression of technology inevitably leading to the formation of metaverses accessible by anyone with the intent to create or find one? And if so, is privacy being violated by those intending to create a replica of the real world, whether or not it is available to the masses?
Week 1 Questions
Article 1 Question: What are some reasons that in the beginning days of animation, it was not regarded as “art” or given much respect? Why wasn’t it aimed toward adults more?
Article 2 Question: What technique/technology do you see becoming the next big thing in animation? Does the historical progression of technique/technology give us any clues to the future of animation?
Article 3 Question: If such a metaverse were created, how might this affect the animation world? Will machinima-esque animation become more prevalent? Will fully animated works be created with the metaverse engine?
Question Answer:
Will Google Earth or Second life ever go too far where people live their entire life online like in the Matrix or have too much information out there like blue prints of the White House available for download for terrorists?
I believe that some people already take similar services way too far. Take the mmorpg, World of Warcraft, for example. It has been widely publicized that there are many people who spend literally the majority of their days on this service, which is just a single game. I think this is definitely a concern that the authorities at be, who are going to be creating such metaverses, need to be considering. If huge companies like Google and Linden Labs are going to be controlling the service, it is likely that it will be detrimental to our everyday lives such as the standard internet is now. This brings up concerns that this will be so vital to our lives that overuse will be an issue. I personally see services such as these to be a sort of side kick to the ever evolving internet. As far as secure information is concerned, I think this will always be an issue with networks of information. There will always be a form of vulnerability, such as the internet is susceptible to hackers and viruses at present times. I’m sure that the powers that be will be running some pretty tough security systems, if such a regulated virtual world were to ever come to fruition. Although, anything that is engineered can usually be reversed engineered by a certain group of individuals willing to put the time into it. Only time will tell!
-Alex Sokovich
Article 2 Question: What technique/technology do you see becoming the next big thing in animation? Does the historical progression of technique/technology give us any clues to the future of animation?
Article 3 Question: If such a metaverse were created, how might this affect the animation world? Will machinima-esque animation become more prevalent? Will fully animated works be created with the metaverse engine?
Question Answer:
Will Google Earth or Second life ever go too far where people live their entire life online like in the Matrix or have too much information out there like blue prints of the White House available for download for terrorists?
I believe that some people already take similar services way too far. Take the mmorpg, World of Warcraft, for example. It has been widely publicized that there are many people who spend literally the majority of their days on this service, which is just a single game. I think this is definitely a concern that the authorities at be, who are going to be creating such metaverses, need to be considering. If huge companies like Google and Linden Labs are going to be controlling the service, it is likely that it will be detrimental to our everyday lives such as the standard internet is now. This brings up concerns that this will be so vital to our lives that overuse will be an issue. I personally see services such as these to be a sort of side kick to the ever evolving internet. As far as secure information is concerned, I think this will always be an issue with networks of information. There will always be a form of vulnerability, such as the internet is susceptible to hackers and viruses at present times. I’m sure that the powers that be will be running some pretty tough security systems, if such a regulated virtual world were to ever come to fruition. Although, anything that is engineered can usually be reversed engineered by a certain group of individuals willing to put the time into it. Only time will tell!
-Alex Sokovich
1st Blog
Article 1: At what point does animation cross over from commercial animation to a work of art? For example: "Hello Kitty" vs. the praised animation from the "Matrix."
Article 2: Do we compare actors of today to animated figures, and do you believe that one day actors will be replaced by animation due to the cost, and incredible stunts with no danger to mankind?
Article 3: Why do you think that people create these new universes such as in games like world of warcraft, and sims, do you consider these essentially metaverses in themselves?
Article 2: Do we compare actors of today to animated figures, and do you believe that one day actors will be replaced by animation due to the cost, and incredible stunts with no danger to mankind?
Article 3: Why do you think that people create these new universes such as in games like world of warcraft, and sims, do you consider these essentially metaverses in themselves?
Animation wk 1
1) Furniss referring to mimesis and abstraction states, “They are both
tendencies within motion picture production, rather than completely separate
practices.” Explain why?
2) Based on the Manovich reading, how does digital media affect film-
making?
3) Roush says, What’s coming is a larger digital environment.” What is
Roush referring too?
Answer to Antonina Question 1
My definition of animation is quite unique. I see animation as giving
birth, life, and motion to something that would ordinarily be motionless and
without life. It is like Geppetto bringing Pinocchio to life. Or like the animated film
Cars, where the car caricatures all have their own unique personalities, as well
as humanlike qualities. Animation appeals to the young and old. We all have at
one time or another enjoyed an animated film of some sort. Animation allows one
to run wild with their imagination and do all sorts of things. We can make furniture
walk, cars talk, etc. Everything is possible through animation, there are no
limitations to what an animator can do. Animation let’s us do things that we can
not ordinarily do. Special effects is a part of animation. The animated film is just
as important as any non-animated film. The art of making something that was
once a figment of one’s imagination is fascinating. It transforms the inanimate
like magic. There are many definitions for animation, we can go on forever.
Furniss says, “ arriving at a precise definition is extremely difficult, if not
impossible. It is probably safe to say that most people think of
animation in a more general way, by identifying a variety of techniques such as
cel animation, clay animation, puppets and so forth.” It doesn’t matter how our
definitions of animation may differ. Creating the magic of life in something
is a gratifying feeling, when one makes something that others can find enjoyable
to watch. The vision once stored in one’s mind as a fantasy is now moving with
life before us on film. From the past history to the present history animation
continues to fascinate audiences over the years. As technology improves the
animated films gets better. To sum it up, animation is the unordinary turned into
the ordinary through the ever progressing animation techniques.
tendencies within motion picture production, rather than completely separate
practices.” Explain why?
2) Based on the Manovich reading, how does digital media affect film-
making?
3) Roush says, What’s coming is a larger digital environment.” What is
Roush referring too?
Answer to Antonina Question 1
My definition of animation is quite unique. I see animation as giving
birth, life, and motion to something that would ordinarily be motionless and
without life. It is like Geppetto bringing Pinocchio to life. Or like the animated film
Cars, where the car caricatures all have their own unique personalities, as well
as humanlike qualities. Animation appeals to the young and old. We all have at
one time or another enjoyed an animated film of some sort. Animation allows one
to run wild with their imagination and do all sorts of things. We can make furniture
walk, cars talk, etc. Everything is possible through animation, there are no
limitations to what an animator can do. Animation let’s us do things that we can
not ordinarily do. Special effects is a part of animation. The animated film is just
as important as any non-animated film. The art of making something that was
once a figment of one’s imagination is fascinating. It transforms the inanimate
like magic. There are many definitions for animation, we can go on forever.
Furniss says, “ arriving at a precise definition is extremely difficult, if not
impossible. It is probably safe to say that most people think of
animation in a more general way, by identifying a variety of techniques such as
cel animation, clay animation, puppets and so forth.” It doesn’t matter how our
definitions of animation may differ. Creating the magic of life in something
is a gratifying feeling, when one makes something that others can find enjoyable
to watch. The vision once stored in one’s mind as a fantasy is now moving with
life before us on film. From the past history to the present history animation
continues to fascinate audiences over the years. As technology improves the
animated films gets better. To sum it up, animation is the unordinary turned into
the ordinary through the ever progressing animation techniques.
Week One Discussion Questions
Article # 1: As Furniss points out, the definition of what animation is is very hard to define and many attempts are ambiguous, but with recent films like 300 and Sin City that have live action but also a lot of animated set pieces and animated stylized enhancements it becomes hard to pin down what animation is. Would you consider films like these to be animated? or just aided by animation?
Article # 2: Computer generated imagery is definitely a new age of animation. But as technology advances and this form of art becomes so photo realistic that we cannot differentiate it from real life would it still be considered animation? To a viewer would it make any difference?
Article # 3: The ideas surrounding this metaverse are very intriguing because of its utopian feeling and of the promise that anything (literally) is possible (within this virtual world). Again, thinking into the future, if something like this took root and became a global phenomena would it eventually grow so complex that we would be able to interact with both the real world and the metaverse at the same time as if it was a physical layer over the real so that we would be able to see both realities overlapping?
In answer to Matt Cawley’s second article question:
I think that yes, in a way, video games will become recognized as a sibling to film. They would differ from film because they would be interactive, but essentially they would have the same visual, audio, and narrative impact as film. In the same sense that “choose your own adventure” books are still books, video games are basically just films where you choose what happens or films where you work your own way through a linear story (although sometime an unrealistically animated, unrealistically written, and unrealistically voiced story). All that needs to happen is that the quality bar needs to be raised to the level of good movies giving the person experiencing the game/story the same believable experience that he/she would get from a movie. In fact I think that this is already starting to become true. I say this because I have had experiences where a game has given me a more emotional story, a more interesting story, and a better quality experience then some movies (bad action movies mostly). I believe that the key thing here is that the qualities that make up a good film, things like interesting plot, characters that are believable, situations that draw the audience in, good emotions, good sound, etc., when carried over to video games do not translate into button clicks but into the narrative and experience that the game is presenting to us. Our input allows us to modify or react to our experience making it personal. I appreciate what Manovich says about computer media: “Computer media return to us the repressed of the cinema.” Computer media of this time, including games, are taking ideas (like interactivity) that cannot be expressed in traditional film and bringing them to the forefront of our culture. So yes, I do think that video game will become something like “interactive films”.
-Toby Staffanson
Article # 2: Computer generated imagery is definitely a new age of animation. But as technology advances and this form of art becomes so photo realistic that we cannot differentiate it from real life would it still be considered animation? To a viewer would it make any difference?
Article # 3: The ideas surrounding this metaverse are very intriguing because of its utopian feeling and of the promise that anything (literally) is possible (within this virtual world). Again, thinking into the future, if something like this took root and became a global phenomena would it eventually grow so complex that we would be able to interact with both the real world and the metaverse at the same time as if it was a physical layer over the real so that we would be able to see both realities overlapping?
In answer to Matt Cawley’s second article question:
I think that yes, in a way, video games will become recognized as a sibling to film. They would differ from film because they would be interactive, but essentially they would have the same visual, audio, and narrative impact as film. In the same sense that “choose your own adventure” books are still books, video games are basically just films where you choose what happens or films where you work your own way through a linear story (although sometime an unrealistically animated, unrealistically written, and unrealistically voiced story). All that needs to happen is that the quality bar needs to be raised to the level of good movies giving the person experiencing the game/story the same believable experience that he/she would get from a movie. In fact I think that this is already starting to become true. I say this because I have had experiences where a game has given me a more emotional story, a more interesting story, and a better quality experience then some movies (bad action movies mostly). I believe that the key thing here is that the qualities that make up a good film, things like interesting plot, characters that are believable, situations that draw the audience in, good emotions, good sound, etc., when carried over to video games do not translate into button clicks but into the narrative and experience that the game is presenting to us. Our input allows us to modify or react to our experience making it personal. I appreciate what Manovich says about computer media: “Computer media return to us the repressed of the cinema.” Computer media of this time, including games, are taking ideas (like interactivity) that cannot be expressed in traditional film and bringing them to the forefront of our culture. So yes, I do think that video game will become something like “interactive films”.
-Toby Staffanson
Answer to Antonina's Question 2.
Animation has really changed in the recent past. Computers do most of the animation that we see publicized. How do you think it has changed cinema and how do you think it will change it in the future?
Animation has changed cinema forever. There are endless possibilities for the development of better and better animation that can be used in action films to cartoon films. “Given enough time and money, almost everything can be simulated on a computer, filming physical reality is but one possibility.” (Manovich 294) Animation has made possible the creation of countless films by allowing computer generation to enhance and go beyond the previous way of purely filming physical reality. For example, “...It is now possible to generate photorealistic scenes entirely on a computer using 3-D computer animation; modify individual frames or whole scenes with the help of a digital paint program; cut, bend, stretch, and stitch digitized film images...” (Manovich 295) Animation has made film making easier and given cinema numerous new advantages such as these. Digital film combines live action material, painting, image processing, compositing, 2-D computer animation, and 3-D animation. (Manovich 301) Digital film combines so many aesthetically pleasing principles that it should continue to be a large part of the film industry from now on. Blockbuster movies began to take on computer-generated special effects in the 1990s and the trend has grown ever since. I believe it will continue to grow. Now, not only do the large Blockbuster films have digital effects, but the film industry as a whole are able to use them as digital film technology is affordably replacing traditional film technology. In the future, we may see less and less physically real scenes and more and more computer generated ones with all of the advantages and possibilities animation holds over live-action film.
Peter Stilp
Animation has changed cinema forever. There are endless possibilities for the development of better and better animation that can be used in action films to cartoon films. “Given enough time and money, almost everything can be simulated on a computer, filming physical reality is but one possibility.” (Manovich 294) Animation has made possible the creation of countless films by allowing computer generation to enhance and go beyond the previous way of purely filming physical reality. For example, “...It is now possible to generate photorealistic scenes entirely on a computer using 3-D computer animation; modify individual frames or whole scenes with the help of a digital paint program; cut, bend, stretch, and stitch digitized film images...” (Manovich 295) Animation has made film making easier and given cinema numerous new advantages such as these. Digital film combines live action material, painting, image processing, compositing, 2-D computer animation, and 3-D animation. (Manovich 301) Digital film combines so many aesthetically pleasing principles that it should continue to be a large part of the film industry from now on. Blockbuster movies began to take on computer-generated special effects in the 1990s and the trend has grown ever since. I believe it will continue to grow. Now, not only do the large Blockbuster films have digital effects, but the film industry as a whole are able to use them as digital film technology is affordably replacing traditional film technology. In the future, we may see less and less physically real scenes and more and more computer generated ones with all of the advantages and possibilities animation holds over live-action film.
Peter Stilp
Animation - Week 1
Article 1 Question: There are many different interpretations of the definition of animation. Is it only drawn or can there be alternative options, such as clay-mation, puppets, etc. What is your definition of animation?
Article 2 Question: Animation has really changed in the recent past. Computers do most of the animation that we see publicized. How do you think it has changed cinema and how do you think it will change it in the future?
Article 3 Question: Video games and computer games have really affected our society. It has changed the way people communicate with each other and is some cases have led to extreme violence. How do you think a “metaverse” will effect our future generations?
Answer to Morgan’s 3rd Question:
I think that the virtual 3D internet earth or the future “metaverse” will have huge effects on our perceptions of the world around us and our society. These effects will have both positive and negative contributions. There are more uses to this “metaverse” that will not be for public use. According to article Second Earth “technicians or soldiers may get 2-D slices of the most critical information through wireless handheld or heads-up displays… (they) will dive into 3D sensoriums to visualize their domains.” Not only does it help the government but it also makes life easier for regular civilians. For example when Google Earth first came out I could actually see the location that I’m searching for. When Google Earth and Second Life merge it will get even better and will have more options. There will also be negative effects. Our society already has a problem with the lack of real human\face to face communication. We live in a society that is constantly texting, IM-ing or on facebook. I think that this “metraverse” will cause more of the same problems. It will encourage living a life that is unrealistic and not real. We need to remain in the real world and encourage future generations to do so as well. Overall, I think that the positive effects are more beneficial because we can prevent the negative.
Article 2 Question: Animation has really changed in the recent past. Computers do most of the animation that we see publicized. How do you think it has changed cinema and how do you think it will change it in the future?
Article 3 Question: Video games and computer games have really affected our society. It has changed the way people communicate with each other and is some cases have led to extreme violence. How do you think a “metaverse” will effect our future generations?
Answer to Morgan’s 3rd Question:
I think that the virtual 3D internet earth or the future “metaverse” will have huge effects on our perceptions of the world around us and our society. These effects will have both positive and negative contributions. There are more uses to this “metaverse” that will not be for public use. According to article Second Earth “technicians or soldiers may get 2-D slices of the most critical information through wireless handheld or heads-up displays… (they) will dive into 3D sensoriums to visualize their domains.” Not only does it help the government but it also makes life easier for regular civilians. For example when Google Earth first came out I could actually see the location that I’m searching for. When Google Earth and Second Life merge it will get even better and will have more options. There will also be negative effects. Our society already has a problem with the lack of real human\face to face communication. We live in a society that is constantly texting, IM-ing or on facebook. I think that this “metraverse” will cause more of the same problems. It will encourage living a life that is unrealistic and not real. We need to remain in the real world and encourage future generations to do so as well. Overall, I think that the positive effects are more beneficial because we can prevent the negative.
Week 2 Discussion Questions
Question 1: From "Introduction to Animation Studies"
The International Association of Animated Film, The Society for Animation Studies, Animation Journal, and Women in Animation are all organizations and sources that contributed immensely to the progression and recognition of animation in the last fifty years. What are some ways that animation could have flourished without the emergence of these entities? If animation couldn't grow without these entities, what are specific reasons why not, and which is the most important in your opinion?
Question 2: From "Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image"
Movies like "Aladdin" and "Star Wars" are examples of animation that has progressed over time. Did anyone in the class ever get interested enough in animation to study more about it or decide to pursue it as a career interest after seeing any film, maybe "Star Wars" or "Aladdin" for example? What were the specific aspects of the animation that brought you to be interested in pursuing it?
Question 3: "Second Earth: How Second Life and Google Earth are Merging into One Metaverse"
Do you believe that virtual worlds can really take over the Internet and especially people's lives considering the number of people who are not interested in online gaming or are computer illiterate?
Peter Stilp
The International Association of Animated Film, The Society for Animation Studies, Animation Journal, and Women in Animation are all organizations and sources that contributed immensely to the progression and recognition of animation in the last fifty years. What are some ways that animation could have flourished without the emergence of these entities? If animation couldn't grow without these entities, what are specific reasons why not, and which is the most important in your opinion?
Question 2: From "Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image"
Movies like "Aladdin" and "Star Wars" are examples of animation that has progressed over time. Did anyone in the class ever get interested enough in animation to study more about it or decide to pursue it as a career interest after seeing any film, maybe "Star Wars" or "Aladdin" for example? What were the specific aspects of the animation that brought you to be interested in pursuing it?
Question 3: "Second Earth: How Second Life and Google Earth are Merging into One Metaverse"
Do you believe that virtual worlds can really take over the Internet and especially people's lives considering the number of people who are not interested in online gaming or are computer illiterate?
Peter Stilp
Q & A Week One
1. Maureen Furniss introduces her article with a discussion of the "denigrated status" of animation as an art form until relatively recently. As New Media artists and viewers, should we be mindful of the losses of the past and be archiving the history of new media by seeking out and preserving early works of animations that appeared first in BBS systems and home computers? Is what's already lost of any consequence?
2. If cinema, due to digital techniques, has become "a sub-genre of painting," as Manovich suggests, does this lessen or enhance its value as an index of the real?
3. If the Metaverse is the future of "remote collaboration, virtual tourism, shopping..." etc., does it then follow that a new class will be created of those who have the money, computing power and time to run the simulation?
In response to Phil and Matt, I think the article quite clearly lays out how users and researchers are taking it upon themselves to create a "metaverse" out of the tools already in existence. KML layers which create live data layers in Google Earth, model hotels, Second Life conferences- the metaverse is the ultimate try before you buy (or hack) experience merged with the Wiki-ethic of user/programmer collaboration.
I think in the long run, users of the internet run out of the escapist fuel rather quickly, finding that the melding of their real identity to their virtually identity to be far more productive and satisfying. What began as a lark or escape for the author has turned to a way to meet and get to know other people- "several of whom I know better than my real neighbors," says the author. Ironically this is only really likely because his avatar represents him truthfully instead of as a rock star, vampire or whatever. There is no escape from the real in the metaverse, as the point of the simulation itself is to bring the real into reach for the everyday person.
I think the real problems of the metaverse have already reared up with stories of sexual assault and violence scripts that people have come up with. There is also the never ending towers of scam towers built on square meter plots, and the horbes of beginners who have nothing better to do than harrass people in the virtual world. Luckily, in this case, it is a sim, so physical harm is not possible. However, the possiblities for the unscrupulous in the metaverse are large. This is the real problem with the virtual, in my opinion. Escapism, and virtual copies are fleeting activities and inconsequential to the mirrored reality of daily life. Getting socially engineered in a virtual environment by a clever chatter on the other hand is a real future problem.
2. If cinema, due to digital techniques, has become "a sub-genre of painting," as Manovich suggests, does this lessen or enhance its value as an index of the real?
3. If the Metaverse is the future of "remote collaboration, virtual tourism, shopping..." etc., does it then follow that a new class will be created of those who have the money, computing power and time to run the simulation?
In response to Phil and Matt, I think the article quite clearly lays out how users and researchers are taking it upon themselves to create a "metaverse" out of the tools already in existence. KML layers which create live data layers in Google Earth, model hotels, Second Life conferences- the metaverse is the ultimate try before you buy (or hack) experience merged with the Wiki-ethic of user/programmer collaboration.
I think in the long run, users of the internet run out of the escapist fuel rather quickly, finding that the melding of their real identity to their virtually identity to be far more productive and satisfying. What began as a lark or escape for the author has turned to a way to meet and get to know other people- "several of whom I know better than my real neighbors," says the author. Ironically this is only really likely because his avatar represents him truthfully instead of as a rock star, vampire or whatever. There is no escape from the real in the metaverse, as the point of the simulation itself is to bring the real into reach for the everyday person.
I think the real problems of the metaverse have already reared up with stories of sexual assault and violence scripts that people have come up with. There is also the never ending towers of scam towers built on square meter plots, and the horbes of beginners who have nothing better to do than harrass people in the virtual world. Luckily, in this case, it is a sim, so physical harm is not possible. However, the possiblities for the unscrupulous in the metaverse are large. This is the real problem with the virtual, in my opinion. Escapism, and virtual copies are fleeting activities and inconsequential to the mirrored reality of daily life. Getting socially engineered in a virtual environment by a clever chatter on the other hand is a real future problem.
Week One Discussion Questions
Article One:
What would be your definition of animation and in what way would it differ from other definitions that we have of animation?
Article Two:
With digital film making striving to make an interactive media of story telling will video games ever be recognized as film and why or why not?
Article Three:
Will Google Earth or Second life ever go to far where people live their entire life online like in the Matrix or have too much information out there like blue prints of the White House available for download for terrorists?
Answer To Phil's Third Question.
I believe that people would react very strongly to seeing a mirror version of themselves in a metaverse. I think that most people like the avatar version of themselves more that they like themselves. They dive into the Internet to escape the real world and become something that they are not in real life. Everyone dreams of being a superhero, rock star or a popular person. Unfortunately not everyone can be these things but in the virtual world everything is passable. As the internet keeps evolving into the metaverse social interaction will be done more in avatar form that the older chat based interaction. The evolution toward the metaverse is seemingly inevitable. You can already look at your house from a satellite image and then scan into actually see your house. The next step would be to link your face book page to your house so everyone can interact and socialize with your neighbors with out leaving the house. So in conclusion I believe the metaverse is coming and that most people will embrace it with open arms as an escape from the mundane of everyday life.
What would be your definition of animation and in what way would it differ from other definitions that we have of animation?
Article Two:
With digital film making striving to make an interactive media of story telling will video games ever be recognized as film and why or why not?
Article Three:
Will Google Earth or Second life ever go to far where people live their entire life online like in the Matrix or have too much information out there like blue prints of the White House available for download for terrorists?
Answer To Phil's Third Question.
I believe that people would react very strongly to seeing a mirror version of themselves in a metaverse. I think that most people like the avatar version of themselves more that they like themselves. They dive into the Internet to escape the real world and become something that they are not in real life. Everyone dreams of being a superhero, rock star or a popular person. Unfortunately not everyone can be these things but in the virtual world everything is passable. As the internet keeps evolving into the metaverse social interaction will be done more in avatar form that the older chat based interaction. The evolution toward the metaverse is seemingly inevitable. You can already look at your house from a satellite image and then scan into actually see your house. The next step would be to link your face book page to your house so everyone can interact and socialize with your neighbors with out leaving the house. So in conclusion I believe the metaverse is coming and that most people will embrace it with open arms as an escape from the mundane of everyday life.
Article Questions
Question1: Article “Introduction to Animation Studies”. Is animation more on the “mimesis” end of the spectrum of film or is it more “abstract”? Is animation a combination of the both?
Question 2: Article “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image”. How did digital filmmaking create a mixture of animation and live-action? How has it impacted animation?
Answer: Digital film takes on all of the basics of live action film they have real live actors in a real setting. Still it transforms that traditional style into an abstract concept like animation. In the article it says, “As, a result, while retaining the visual realism unique to the photographic process, film obtains a plasticity that was previously only possible in painting or animation.” Cinema today is a mixture of reality enhanced by animation it borrows the techniques of drawing and creating. Transformers the movie is the perfect example of how animation and reality in cinema have blended together seamlessly. Digital film creates a perfect bond of animation and reality; the film can be changed in the computer and have completely created elements placed into a reality. Cinema gave animation a chance to thrive and become a popularly used media. By using it in films that are not considered animated in any way breaks the barrier that was placed on it by early cinema. The mingling of animation and cinema becomes a pseudo reality that leaves the viewer trying not to believe the unbelievable.
Question 3: “Second Earth”. How would Google Earth and Second Life become the “metaverse” described in the article? Also how would people react to having an animated version of themselves in an animated “mirror world”?
Question 2: Article “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image”. How did digital filmmaking create a mixture of animation and live-action? How has it impacted animation?
Answer: Digital film takes on all of the basics of live action film they have real live actors in a real setting. Still it transforms that traditional style into an abstract concept like animation. In the article it says, “As, a result, while retaining the visual realism unique to the photographic process, film obtains a plasticity that was previously only possible in painting or animation.” Cinema today is a mixture of reality enhanced by animation it borrows the techniques of drawing and creating. Transformers the movie is the perfect example of how animation and reality in cinema have blended together seamlessly. Digital film creates a perfect bond of animation and reality; the film can be changed in the computer and have completely created elements placed into a reality. Cinema gave animation a chance to thrive and become a popularly used media. By using it in films that are not considered animated in any way breaks the barrier that was placed on it by early cinema. The mingling of animation and cinema becomes a pseudo reality that leaves the viewer trying not to believe the unbelievable.
Question 3: “Second Earth”. How would Google Earth and Second Life become the “metaverse” described in the article? Also how would people react to having an animated version of themselves in an animated “mirror world”?
Animation Aesthetics Week 1
Article One:
How does the different types of animation in film and how those animation land on the mimesis to abstract continuum effect the way it is viewed by the audience and animation history and thus studied by the animation researcher?
Article Two:
How does the use of animation versus film effect the ideas of truth and illusion of characters and stories in film?
Article Three:
How does this virtual 3D internet Earth effect our perceptions of the world around us as well as our society?
Responding to Marion's answer to her Question about the first article:
Norman McLaren's definition of animation is just as relevant in today’s age of three-dimensional animation as it was when he referred to the “drawings” of two-dimensional animation. This definition still applies because it can be translated to all forms of animations. Though the new animation of studios like Pixar calls for expansive and impressive digital worlds and characters that are visually breathtaking, the essence of these animations still lies in “the result of movement created by an artist’s rendering of successive images”. The magic of these as well as all animations comes from the illusion of lifelike (or in some cases not lifelike) movement created by the animator through the stringing together of frames and not what each frame contains. This definition does not call on the viewer to focus solely on the act of creating and thus pulling their attention away from all the aspects that go into an animation. I think it tries to define animation by the sum of its individual parts and not by the separate parts individually. If the planning and intuition of the animator of what’s occurring between the frames does not work fluidly to create the desired illusion, the beauty of the image will not save the animation. In essence, the movement and the way of construction define animation and thus the frames’ art and other aspects of the film can be seen as almost secondary though still very important. In that way, Pixar’s animation as well as two-dimensional animation, puppetry, etc, can all still fit into McLaren’s definition.
How does the different types of animation in film and how those animation land on the mimesis to abstract continuum effect the way it is viewed by the audience and animation history and thus studied by the animation researcher?
Article Two:
How does the use of animation versus film effect the ideas of truth and illusion of characters and stories in film?
Article Three:
How does this virtual 3D internet Earth effect our perceptions of the world around us as well as our society?
Responding to Marion's answer to her Question about the first article:
Norman McLaren's definition of animation is just as relevant in today’s age of three-dimensional animation as it was when he referred to the “drawings” of two-dimensional animation. This definition still applies because it can be translated to all forms of animations. Though the new animation of studios like Pixar calls for expansive and impressive digital worlds and characters that are visually breathtaking, the essence of these animations still lies in “the result of movement created by an artist’s rendering of successive images”. The magic of these as well as all animations comes from the illusion of lifelike (or in some cases not lifelike) movement created by the animator through the stringing together of frames and not what each frame contains. This definition does not call on the viewer to focus solely on the act of creating and thus pulling their attention away from all the aspects that go into an animation. I think it tries to define animation by the sum of its individual parts and not by the separate parts individually. If the planning and intuition of the animator of what’s occurring between the frames does not work fluidly to create the desired illusion, the beauty of the image will not save the animation. In essence, the movement and the way of construction define animation and thus the frames’ art and other aspects of the film can be seen as almost secondary though still very important. In that way, Pixar’s animation as well as two-dimensional animation, puppetry, etc, can all still fit into McLaren’s definition.
Animation Aesthetics Reading 1
Question 1 from "Introduction to Animation Studies":
How would you describe animation in comparison to live-action media? In your opinion are animation and live-action media influenced by each other? Why or Why not?
Answer to Question 1:
I would describe animation as a series of frames with a non-living object that create a film. Live-action media would be an ongoing shooting of a living object to create the film. I think that animation and live-action media are influenced by each other because the process of a "frame-by-frame" with an inanimate object is used in animation but is applied to the shooting of a live-action media. You can shoot many scenes of a living thing within the live-action media and bring them together to form a film. "The use of inanimate objects and certain frame-by-frame filming techniques suggest 'animation', whereas the appearance of live objects and continuous filming suggest 'live action'."
Question 2 from "Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image":
In what ways do you think the art of motion (moving pictures) has changed over the centuries? What do you think the future holds for the art of motion?
Question 3 from "Second Earth":
Do you think that the creation of a Metaverse, "referring to both the overarching collection of these worlds and the main port of entry to them...", will be beneficial or detrimental to today's society?
How would you describe animation in comparison to live-action media? In your opinion are animation and live-action media influenced by each other? Why or Why not?
Answer to Question 1:
I would describe animation as a series of frames with a non-living object that create a film. Live-action media would be an ongoing shooting of a living object to create the film. I think that animation and live-action media are influenced by each other because the process of a "frame-by-frame" with an inanimate object is used in animation but is applied to the shooting of a live-action media. You can shoot many scenes of a living thing within the live-action media and bring them together to form a film. "The use of inanimate objects and certain frame-by-frame filming techniques suggest 'animation', whereas the appearance of live objects and continuous filming suggest 'live action'."
Question 2 from "Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image":
In what ways do you think the art of motion (moving pictures) has changed over the centuries? What do you think the future holds for the art of motion?
Question 3 from "Second Earth":
Do you think that the creation of a Metaverse, "referring to both the overarching collection of these worlds and the main port of entry to them...", will be beneficial or detrimental to today's society?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Animation Aesthetics Assignment 1
Question one on the article by Furniss, “Introduction to Animation Studies”: How would you apply Norman McLaren’s definition to the animation of today? Which he defines as, “Animation is not the art of drawings that move but the art of movements that are drawn; what happens between each frame is much more important than what exists on each frame; Animation is therefore the art of manipulating the invisible interstices that lie between the frames.” Also what flaws can be found in this definition when considering animation as a whole and not just its production?
Answer: In applying this definition to animation today it constricts the genre as a whole. There are so many types of animation that fit this definitions framework well. Those of video game animation where what was done to create it means more than the frames themselves (in many cases). Still the definition doesn’t accurately convey all aspects of animation, while it is a great definition it is lacking. The definition applied to a lot of animation today doesn’t give credit to what an animator actually puts on screen. It does however define the physical act of creating animation but not animation itself. It’s a very cold almost mechanical definition of creation. Animation is not just a process of creating the final image but what is conveyed in that image. I think what is shown in images and dialogue is just as, if not more important that the creation itself. The definition isn’t in any way inapplicable to animation today but so many animators want the audience to be transported to another realistic world. For example Pixar, they try to create a realistic believable world though the experience of watching animation. In the article Furniss states, “…one might consider the way in which character design gives meaning to a work, or perhaps the use of colour and music in production.” The quote supports that the actions of the animator conveyed in each frame of film are important and thought about. The animator has a vision that they want to represent and if the audience is busy thinking about how it was created they miss what was created.
Question two from the article by Manovich, “Digital Cinema and the History of the Moving Image”: In what ways have animation and cinema become intertwined in order to have the type of cinema we have today? For example how has animation enhanced cinema and how has cinema helped animation further develop it into what it is today.
Question three from the article by Roush, “Second Earth: How second Life and Google Earth are merging into One Metaverse”: In your opinion how would a “Metaverse” effect the world today? And what kind of role does animation play in creating this world?
Answer: In applying this definition to animation today it constricts the genre as a whole. There are so many types of animation that fit this definitions framework well. Those of video game animation where what was done to create it means more than the frames themselves (in many cases). Still the definition doesn’t accurately convey all aspects of animation, while it is a great definition it is lacking. The definition applied to a lot of animation today doesn’t give credit to what an animator actually puts on screen. It does however define the physical act of creating animation but not animation itself. It’s a very cold almost mechanical definition of creation. Animation is not just a process of creating the final image but what is conveyed in that image. I think what is shown in images and dialogue is just as, if not more important that the creation itself. The definition isn’t in any way inapplicable to animation today but so many animators want the audience to be transported to another realistic world. For example Pixar, they try to create a realistic believable world though the experience of watching animation. In the article Furniss states, “…one might consider the way in which character design gives meaning to a work, or perhaps the use of colour and music in production.” The quote supports that the actions of the animator conveyed in each frame of film are important and thought about. The animator has a vision that they want to represent and if the audience is busy thinking about how it was created they miss what was created.
Question two from the article by Manovich, “Digital Cinema and the History of the Moving Image”: In what ways have animation and cinema become intertwined in order to have the type of cinema we have today? For example how has animation enhanced cinema and how has cinema helped animation further develop it into what it is today.
Question three from the article by Roush, “Second Earth: How second Life and Google Earth are merging into One Metaverse”: In your opinion how would a “Metaverse” effect the world today? And what kind of role does animation play in creating this world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)