i found this in a friend's book.

"for those around the turn of the century who were seriously committed to the potentials of photography as a creative art, the fundamental stumbling block seemed to be the medium's uncompromising specifity. if not allowed to follow it's natural bent, the camera described not Man, but men, not Nature but countless precise biological and geological facts. this tendency was not in harmony with the artistic spirt of the time, which preferred and idealized view, and which sometimes confused vagueness with poetry.'

i was unsuccessful on finding the accompanying image online, but this is it:
alvin langdon coburn
[untitled] no date
plate 3 from the cloud (1912)

charlie the unicorn 2

OH MY GOD. this is so much more ridiculous than the first. i don't think this would be completely great to watch while on drugs. craaazy.



i'm posting the first one again.

squiggle

if you click on it, a bigger image pops up.

trick or treating

i've been meaning to post this since we were given our narrative assignment and my inability to sleep right now allowed me to remember.

this is the first video i ever did- back in september '06 for my media arts class. we had to create a story (aka, narrative) in under a minute (which was challenging- i started out near two minutes and really had to cut down on the number and length of clips). i started my bad habit of not using tripods basically ever in this video (and it's horribly apparent; i've gotten a better at hiding it). and while making this i realized that yeah yeah yeahs' songs can be used in near any video (and i do use them quite often). if i went back and redid this, i'd change a few things and think i could do it a bit better, but mostly i was and still am quite satisfied with it.

my absolute favorite part is when she puts on the hanable lector (major way off spelling) mask and the lyrics are "lost my scene again." my not sure why i like it so darn much, but it just seems to go so well with the video and i think that's a great part where the visual and audio mesh perfectly together.


trick or treating

#22 out of 22 (maya deren)!

so i finally caught back up with the posts. woo! but i still haven't posted my flip book yet... i should get on that. oh well. and maybe my first post doesn't count cause basically i was just like "i'm not used to getting up early yet."

a few random things first:
1. herr's cheddar & sour cream chips are the shit.
2. orange juice is also the shit, but these two do not mix well.
3. insomnia sucks- especially when you have an 8:30 class.
4. writing class is a waste of time at the college level.
5. my "i" key fell off my laptop and won't go back on- this makes typing difficult.


okay, well. the basic things about maya deren:

• born eleanora duse on april 29th, 1917 in kiev, ukraine


• died october 13, 1961 new york city, usa


• became a naturalized citizen of the usa at age 11


• began college at syracuse university, finished at new york university; started master's n english literature at the new school for social research, completed it at smith college


• awarded a guggenheim fellowship for "creative work in the field of motion pictures" in 1946
  
• first and most well known film is meshes of the afternoon (1943)- with alexander hammid, music added in 1957 by teij ito


• at land (1944), photographed by hella heyman and alexander hammid


• a study in choregraphy (1945), choreographed collaboration with frank westbrook and rita christiani, featuring anaïs nin and gore vidal


• the private life of a cat (1947), co directed by alexander hammid- boooooringgg
  
• meditation on violence (1948), performance by chao-li chi, musical collage by maya deren


• the very eye of night )1952-55), with metropolitan opera ballet school and antony tudor, music by teiji ito


• four unfinished films, one unreleased film


• worked with 16mm film

the oddities i found interesting:

• married gregory bardacke at age 18 (married 1935- 1939)


• married to alexandr hackenschmied (aka, alexander hammid) from 1942- ????


• married to teiji ito from late 50s- death (who was 18 years younger than her and later married someone 12 years younger than himself)


• became a personal secretary after earning master's


• practiced voodoo


• claimed to make her pictures "for what hollywood spends on lipstick"


• died from a brain hemorrhage due to extreme malnutrition and 20ish years of amphetamihes (adderall and the like) and sleeping pills, which she was taking on a daily basis when she died

as always- thanks to wikipedia.


at land (1944)



i like the frantic/ crazed/ desperate/ confused nature of the beach part during the last 5min. a lot. more than the other sections. although her expression at the very first section's pretty sweet... and i don't know much what else to say. i'm kinda bad at interpreting stuff.

new narrative idea

i changed how i'd be presenting my narrative pretty much right after i posted about it. i'm going to either take out or reshoot the sections where the setting noticeably bounces around. i shot about 50 clips so far with the same story. i'm splittng them up for about 1/3 a second shown, 1/2 second missing, 1/3 shown, 1/2 sec missing. so it looks a little like images, but it's video.

i might change the lengths. i'm not sure about transitions. i'll probably change the order. i wasn't sure how long to leave the single still image shown for- that's why it's still at 5 seconds. and a whole bunch of other stuff that indicates this is an EXTREMELY rough draft of any idea.

and it goes on to say...

obviously the definition of avant garde has changed over the years.

"Each successive modernist movement of the 19th century-- Realism, Impressionism, and Post-Impressionism-- challenged artistic conventions with greater intensity. This relentless challenge gave rise to the avant-garde. Use of this term has expanded over the years; t now serves as a synonym for any particularly new or cutting-edge cultural manifestation. [Avant-garde] derived from the 19th-century French military usage... It then migrated to the art world in the 1880s, where it referred to artists who were ahead of their time and who transgressed the limits of established art forms... The avant-garde were modernists n that they rejected the classical, academic, or traditional and they adopted a critical stance toward their respective media. Yet they departed from modernism n their art's extreme transgressiveness or subversiveness." (Gardner's Art Through the Ages: Twelfth Edition, pg 886)


anyone in my class probably knows that though because they are also required to take art history.

internet in furness sucks ballz.

art history got me thinking about a few things. we're up to 19th century-ish in that class.

my reading today brought up avant garde very very briefly. for those of you who don't know, avant garde is the pushing of cultural norms, most commonly within art. so what made me go hum, was that orginally, vincent van gough's work was once considered avant garde. i never would have guessed cause his work seems... peaceful almost, i think. i knew he wasn't appreciated during his time, but... van gough- avant garde? anyone one else a little shocked by that?

our teacher mentioned today that early photography wasn't accepted as REAL art. real art took time and skill- photography didn't. i think photography back then had to be much more difficult than it is now. they didn't have little dials on their camera telling them what the best aperture would be based on the light. they weren't able to take pictures at 1/1000 of a second. early early photography must have been so challenging.

this is kind of how i feel about digital photography (for the very very most part). i think there's too many people who use a digital camera and know how to do nothing in a dark room and call themselves a photographer. with digital it's so easy to just set it to automatic and not have to do ANY work besides pushing a button. i suppose this is true for taking 35mm pictures too (my camera only has manual settings, so i've never done this and forget about it). someone in my high school photo class carried a digital camera around all the time and took pictures of every single and random object imaginable (i assume her logic behind this is that if you have 3,000 photographs a few are bound to be good). what really ticked me off though was that she took a picture with a digital picture, sent off somewhere online for it to be printed, had our teacher matt it for her, and got a gold star in scholastics for it. she's majoring in photography and never bothered learning to do things properly in a dark room.

i'm not bashing digital completely. i get it; i believe it can aid photography. i just think people use it as a crutch too much. and it makes me sad that it's replacing traditional photography.



i was going to mention henri cartier bresson here cause for some reason i thought he was taking pictures in the early 1900s (making him one of the early photographers). buuut. this isn't true cause he was born in 1908, haha. i'll mention him anyways cause he's super cool. he used 50mm film for a majority of his pictures and was one of the first street photographers. one of my high school teachers told me that he never used any filters or dodging and burning, that he only printed "perfect" photographs (i dunno if this is true, haha. that teacher said quite a few things that weren't unfortunatly).

the virgin suicides

[beware, i'm going to be critical- something completely new and unheard of for me]


let's begin wayyy back at the beginning:

over christmas break, my stepmom gave me a book to read, the ruins (i can't recall who it's by). she's a big horror fan and reads A LOT of books, but this was the first she actually recommended to me. a few weeks ago, i took it to etching in case i had some down time. this chick in my class asked if it was good, but of course i hadn't started to read it yet. well, i heard it was going to be made into a movie and i mentioned this to that girl today. annnd. her response was that the only books made into movies she liked were tankgirl (although it had been a comic book), children of men, and the virgin suicides. and we had a little discussion about that, so i figured the basis of that'd be a good topic for here (where i have trouble coming up with things to talk about.

i've seen children of men and the virgin suicides, but i haven't read either of them.

children of men i liked, a lot. but. the ending? apparently it was supposed to be left that wide open and make you wonder. i don't think it was a good place to stop. i was totally shocked when it did, i must have missed the whole climax of the movie. that movie made me realize what it was like to feel like you'd wasted hours of your life that you'd never get back. the second half of the movie exxxed out anything meaningful that had happened earlier. i was hoping for more. i think there could have been more.

i'd heard sooo much about the virgin suicides before i saw it and kirsten dunst was in it, so i was kind of excited to see it. buuut... i don't think any part of it was interesting. it seemed like a whole bunch of random, pointless moments strung together. a moral can easily be guessed at, but it's not really stated (clearly or un clearly). from what i've read about the book online, it seems to be written in a pretty interesting way: a group of men who had lived in the neighborhood during the time of the events regained fascination and searched for evidence and clues as to what had happened to the family.

but, yeah. maybe someday i'll read the books if i ever get enough motivation.

cindy sherman

okay, background info:
- born january 19, 1954 in glen ridge, new jersey
- originally went to buffalo state college studying painting
- gave up painting for photo cause of painting's "limitations"
- failed a required photo class the first time around
- supposedly not her work isn't feminist, yet many call attention to the stereotyping of women in films, television and magazines
- received the macarthur award in 1995
- named on of the top ten living artists by artnews magazine in 1999

series:
- untitled film stills (1975- 1980)
- gleams and reflections (1980)
- centerfolds (1981)
- fashion (1983- 1984)
- fairy tale disasters (1985- 1989)
- history portraits (1985- 1989)
- civil war (1991)
- mannequins (1992)
- the office killer (1996, film)



"Untitled Film Still #58"



"Untitled #250"


okay, so this is totally my opinion (duh), but i think the first image is a whole lot better and interesting. i think that her "sex pictures" are completely tasteless. the fairy tale series (which i had trouble finding decent pictures of online) are creepy in an interesting way. i don't think i've seen any of the history, civil war, or gleams and reflections pictures. but by far, i like the untitled film series most.

sequence and narrative using linear and nonlinear structures

for our current (and final) project we had four categories to choose from for the narrative: memory, appropriation, interpretation/reenactment, or folklore. i chose appropriation; i found a fable by aesop called "the astronomer." customary of aesop's fables, this tale is short. there was an astronomer who used to go out at night to observe stars. one night, while wandering around the village, the astronomer fell into a well because he was focusing solely upon the sky. someone arrived after the astronomer had been calling for help, all they said was "hark ye, old fellow, why, in striving to pry into what is in heaven, do you not manage to see what is on earth?"

for the first part, we are to create our own story with at least six photographs (the second part will be a book and video). i'm planning to stick close to the original fable. i was going to have someone wander around the city, always looking at the sky (or maybe things around them) without really paying attention to a destination. however, instead of falling into a well, the main character would just end up in one of the "sketchy" areas of philly. i originally wanted to have my series take place at night- in my head, it just seemed that would be so much more visually appealing than the day time. however, i shot a few images 30min before the sun came up. the sky was a light blue and it contrasts very nicely with the yellow light of lamp posts. i plan on taking many more pictures around 11ish at night. how those turn out will determine whether i go with the muted tones of night or the colors of day (early morning).

before shooting for this project, we were required to create a storyboard. i've never found them very helpful because, for the most part, i stray greatly from it to accommodate my surroundings. also, since i'm a simple type of gal, i've never really used the technical terms for camera angles and movement. i've always included the majority of the information within the image. for example, i use arrows to indicate either the frame moving or a subject.

my storyboard

"romeo+juliet"

A lovestruck Romeo, sings the streets a serenade
Laying everybody low with a love song that he made
Finds a streetlight, steps out of the shade
Says something like, "You and me, babe, how about it?"

Juliet says, "Hey, it's Romeo, you nearly gave me a heart attack"
He's underneath the window, she's singing
"Hey, la, my boyfriend's back
You shouldn't come around here, singing up people like that
Anyway, what you gonna do about it?"

Juliet, the dice was loaded from the start
And I bet, and you exploded in my heart
And I forget, I forget.. the movie song
When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?

Come up on different streets, they both were streets of shame
Both dirty, both mean, yes and the dream was just the same
And I dream your dream for you and now your dream is real
How can you look at me, as if I was just another one of your deals?

Well, you can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold
You can fall for pretty strangers and the promises they hold
You promised me everything, you promised me thick and thin, yeah
Now you just say, "Oh, Romeo, yeah, you know
I used to have a scene with him"

Juliet, when we made love, you used to cry
I said, "I love you like the stars above, I love you till I die"
And there's a place for us, you know the movie song
When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?

I can't do the talk, like the talk on the TV
And I can't do a love song, like the way it's meant to be
I can't do everything, but I'd do anything for you
I can't do anything except be in love with you

And all I do is miss you and the way we used to be
All I do is keep the beat, and the bad company
And all I do is kiss you, through the bars of Orion
Juliet, I'd do the stars with you any time

Juliet, when we made love, you used to cry
I said, "I love you like the stars above, I'll love you till I die"
There's a place for us, you know the movie song
When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?

A lovestruck Romeo, he sings the streets of serenade
Laying everybody low with a love song that he made
Find a convenient streetlight, steps out of the shade
He says something like, "You and me, babe, how about it?"





aw. i love the killers (they are one of the best bands you will ever see live). um, i just wanted to share this for some reason. i've only listened to sawdust, the killer's new cd, once and this is the only song that stuck out so far. um, to say more [so it actually counts as a post], it kind of reminds me of "jack and diane" by john cougar mellencamp... i don't know why and i'm pretty sure they're not that similar. anyways- have a nice night.

experimental video

after making experimenting with 16mm film, we worked on one in imovie. i concentrated on colors and textures for mine cause i wanted it to be truly abstract. i used a few effects in imovie (contrast, gamma, white something) and made lots of layers of sound. i started out with three different clips that i used multiple times on parts where it fit. after that, i added short little bits of sound where there wasn't any. then i put longer clips (15ish seconds) over these parts, and then, i added different sound clips that carried through the whole video. after that, i went through and added a few short little bits of sound. when i played it to the class, i noticed vocals (which i had tried to avoid) from the songs i included. if it'd noticed it earlier, i would have attempted to cover or remove it, but supposedly it sounds well in there... i think the reason i don't agree with this is because i'm able to recognize the song(s) it's from. 20 points if you can tell me!

16mm experimental film

in class, we were each given about 12 feet of 16mm film. i scratched the emulsion off my part, then put squiggles of acrylic paint over top (lots of different colors). after that, i scratched lines over the paint, removing it and leaving the area bare. i also had a roll of 35mm film from a project in high school that i hated and knew i'd never be using again. since the whole roll was faces, i cut it up and rubber cemented it to the 16mm film. unfortunately, it didn't stick very well and if i ever do that again, i'm going to try sewing it on. my section's about 20seconds long and starts 2min, 45sec into the video.

puppet show

i'm not sure what i was expecting on the field trip to upenn for my 3d design class (pretty much aka, sculpture/sucker of cash). each time this field trip was mentioned in class and by my peers, it was referred to as "the puppet show."

when i was about four, my mom took me to see "sleeping beauty" somewhere. i don't remember what kind of puppets were used, but i loved the setting and the costumes because they were so bright. i think i was expecting something like that.

i was horribly surprised. overall, i did not like the exhibit. AT ALL. i felt that, in general, it mocked childhood. for the most part, exhibits like this make me worry about the future of art. i'm hoping that soon all this rebelling against classical beauty and this desire to create the most shocking work "with meaning" [EVER. of course] will pass.

the two things that stuck in my mind most from the show were: 1) a gray child's onesie, strung up parallel to the ground with the sharp end of colored pencils sticking out at almost every possible angle; and 2) the video of a claymation- which i had NO desire to see all of- was repulsive... even to me. and i'm about one of the least conservative people ever. this was a rough animation of a robust hooker being followed by naked BOYS- dragging themselves from their third world houses all wide eyed. i refused to watch any further when multiple boys, at once, started to grope the "lady of the night" both under and over her clothes. try as i might, i can't find any decent meaning in this. and i really would like to know a reason for... whatever this is.

towards the end, i found an interview- albeit, borrring- of characters from my childhood [fozzy bear, lambchop, and that blue sesame character- not cookie monster (who i've heard is now "carrot monster").]. nothing interesting or worth remembering happened [except fozzy making bad jokes and lampchop being a smartass- who would have thunk?]. yet, i spent over thirty minutes in this mini room because it was better than the alternatives.

if i had anyone to tell, i would tell them not to waste their time and money with this exhibit- unless they like tasteless "art."

(this is all my opinion and i realize there will probably be MANY people who disagree with me and think i'm pompous. which stinks, cause i'm not.)




on a side note completely unrelated to time/motion: in about the past 100ish hours, i've slept 15. and i'm not even exhausted or tired, i just feel ill (although, i should mention i'm a hypochondriac against my will). the only things i've ingested in the past 30 hours is caffine-filled drinks. i can't wait to go home in 24 hours (look at all those hours. and math. whoa, college is a complex time)... I MISS MY DOG. i miss my non-camping mattress. i miss heating that actually works. i miss home. and the only people i miss are luke (who i completely hate like 45% of the time cause he's a stupid racist all of the sudden) and my sister (who i can't stand 55% of the time cause she's a nark).

gallery339

my "opinions" of art seems to only ever go one of three ways:
1) i REALLY dislike it for reasons that i have trouble explaining and must sound vague.
2) i like it for reasons i can't explain or figure out.
3) i feel i don't know enough about the work/process/subject/etc to be comfortable enough critiquing it.

i just want to take this moment to say that when i dislike something (and i tend to dislike a lot), i feel somewhat bad. firstly, i worry that i am making this judgement without fully understanding something that i haven't learned in my nineteen years. i believe that if i do not truly comprehend something, i shouldn't have a right to express such negative opinions. i technically haven't earned that right. nonetheless, i find myself not liking a lot of things that i, at this stage in my life, could not create. i'm not sure how or why i choose things that could easily belong to group number three, yet i classify them as a one or two. this is just my little disclaimer i suppose. i don't think that things i can create are roses or my examples are the best and right way. it's not confidence or arrogance; it's that i'm too opinionated [as one of my teachers last semester put it, i'm "too opinionated" for art, and maybe i should be a doctor because then, my opinion wouldn't matter].


anyways, for time motion yesterday, our class took a field trip to gallery 339. however, i overslept and by the time i arrived to the classroom, they had left. i went to the website to check out the current exhibit and overall, i'm not extremely impressed.

i believe gallery 339 is located on 21st&pine. i know that it specializes in exhibiting prints and photographs (and has been doing so for some time). the current display is called "philadelphia masters: george krause, william larson, ray k metzker, ruth thorne-thomsen." i've never heard of any of these people (or yet researched them) and all i know is that ruth thorne-thomsen is a pretty fun saying name.




george krause
fountainhead, 1970
archival pigment print
i know nothing about krause, 1970, or archival pigment prints (to my knowledge), but i like this. the contrast is a-ma-zing. and the subject matter ever so slightly, sparks curiosity. poor kid whos only identification to the world at large is fountainhead... i like to think i would have given him a name.

george krause
breast, italy, 1988
archival pigment print
again, i know nothing of krause, 1988 (except i was born for that year), italy, or archival pigment prints. but i know don't like this. there is hardly any contrast. and the work [to take this picture] is insanly simple (and uninteresting). i do not like when a photographer "documents" something to use as art. something like this that will never change (or nudes- i strongly dislike photographers using nudes because then-- for the most part-- they seem less interested in making a good picture or whatever... it seems they're just trying to take the picture and let the taboo of nudity speak for itself. I DIGRESS). it's a statue. not even enough of a statue to create any kind of story or hint who it is (unless i'm unaware of the existence of who the statue is of. and the price is something that infuriates me even more... an 11"x14" print- $1000?! 36"x48"- $3000. that's just ridiculous. for a TOURIST picture of a statue.

non-time/motion aspect.

so, i was flipping back through my posts (also, in case you haven't noticed, i've been slacking and am attempting to catch up. anywhos) and i noticed that pretty much all of them dealt with actual moving things. and although this is a class to do with motion, i'm sure that shouldn't be all that is about. i mean, motion can be displayed through non-moving images, right?

well in my QUEST (i really wanted to use that word), i found an image that i thought proves my point.


i can't really find the pattern cause the bottom row, unlike the other two doesn't change... it reminds me of some of the stuff hanging in the hallway here.

actually, i think it starts at the left and moves to the top. originally, i viewed it from top to bottom. you would think i would have started with looking left to right cause that's how we read (and not top to bottom). maybe i thought that way because i wanted to start with what would come first, the open hand... whatev, who knows.


(mostly i was just rambling for this... sorry.)

dizney's talking animal cartoons presents bambee

i watched this thursday and i absolutely love it. it's right up there on the ridiculous level with charlie the unicorn. i wanna talk about it, but i don't wanna ruin it for anyone, so... watch it!

i've only used flash a few times, and it's never been anything complex. things like that being made in flash blow my mind cause i know how difficult my mini-pieces of crap were hard to make. rumor has it, the creator of this spent three weeks working on it. i love the range of characters from the fluffy animals at the beginning, to the elf, to bambee's face at the end. i don't really think i'm going to be using flash in any of my classes, but i'm thinking after watching this, i might need to spend some time in it attempting to create something.






(and i figured i'd include charlie the unicorn because if you haven't seen it, your life is not complete)

stan brakhage

for part of our experimental film unit, we're supposed to research an experimental filmmaker. i'm lookin up stuff about stan brakhage who according to wikipedia was "one of the most important experimental filmmakers of the 20th century" (so, wooo stan, way to go). he called his stuff "visual music" or "moving visual thinking." um, the semi-disturbing thing i found out about him was that in 1996, he got bladder cancer. so, which his bladder was removed. ummm... that's really odd and i don't know... did he wear a diaper or something after that? supposedly the coal-tar dyes he used to paint his films prior to '96 had caused his cancer. i hoping this is one of those "wiki-isms" or whatever that people make up and post for laughs.

the first video of his i came across is "mothlight" (1963). i thought one of the things that was really nifty about this was his ability to keep the same thing projected slide after slide-- like the part with the parsley leaves (or clovers?). i noticed during my experimental film making with 16mm film didn't have that quality. it all seemed pretty random... there wasn't really anything to focus on or think about.




another movie i found was "black ice" (1994). i like this one a lot more. i think it's cause if color's going to be used than it should be really vibrant (if not, there's not much use for color in my mind... unless it's just a touch to black&white i suppose). it reminded me of stain glass windows. one thing that made it really interesting was that it seemed to be zooming in, while other parts were flashing... i think that'd kind of difficult if it's 16mm (and my thought it is).

experimental video (in progress)

as the title implies, this video's in progress. it's not actually due till march 17th.

i haven't really thought a lot about how i'm going to explain this. but i wanted this to be as abstract as possible. i worked close with things that mainly had to do with color (i'll let you in on a secret- it's fabrics... mostly). as far as effects added in imovie, i tended to stick with mostly with increasing darkness and upping the contrast and the cross dissolve transition (it's the only one i like actually).

the main thing i think i have left to work on is the sound. the stuff that's on there now isn't final, i might not keep any of it- i just thought some kind of sound should be accompanying it. i think i'll look through yeah yeah yeahs' cds cause their crap has always tended to go well with the videos i make (cause, basically, they rule).

i'm pretty happy with the clips i have and the order they're in. i might have to add more because i've been instructed that the length of the video should be three minutes... i dunno know about being under or over that mark, but i'm at 2 minutes 33 seconds, and i still have to add titles and credits. so... i'll see.

it's still this week!

we're supposed to post twice a week and i totally forgot to do it up till now.

i counted my steps on saturday.

5,739.

persistance of vision

so, if you're cat-type curious, you can go to the wikipedia page and read up on persistance of vision.


it's basically when there is such a small change and it happens quick enough that you're eye has trouble catching the space in between, said picture appears to be moving. let's see... examples:
1. film. it's thousands of images one after another in such a rapid susession, it appears to be constantly moving.
2. zoetrope (if done properly, unlike mine).
3. flip books (which is our new class project).
4. OH! the whole, pull the cloth off the table trick? it's done so quickly (so that nothing moves) and just appears to be there one second and not there the next (maybe?).


okay, so i thought this was pretty nifty and figured i'd share. the frames per second (fps) is just that, the amount of frames that are shown each second.
-if it's below 16fps, the eye doesn't view it as steady movement
- film at movie theaters run at 24fps
- video in usa&japan records at 60fps (50fps in "eurasia")


this part's long... but it's the best part:
"In drawn animation, moving characters are often shot "on twos", that is to say, one drawing is shown for every two frames of film (which usually runs at 24 frames per second), meaning there are only 12 drawings per second. Even though the image update rate is low, the fluidity is satisfactory for most subjects. However, when a character is required to perform a quick movement, it is usually necessary to revert to animating "on ones", as "twos" are too slow to convey the motion adequately. A blend of the two techniques keeps the eye fooled without unnecessary production cost.

Animation for most "Saturday morning cartoons" is produced as cheaply as possible, and is most often shot on "threes", or even "fours", i.e. three or four frames per drawing. This translates to only 8 or 6 drawings per second."

zoetrope

our first class exercize (i should figure out how to spell that, someday) was to make a zoetrope. let's see, mine's pretty sloppy because i glued things and ripped them apart and didn't think a whole lot through. my "story" is just a fly buzzing along, and THEN there's a tounge, THEN the fly's gone, and then, THEN the view keeps panning and you see a frog and his tounge's going back in, THEN the frog jumps in the water, THEN then it switches back to a fly buzzing over land. if i redid it, i'd add at least one more frame of the frog, cause you have to turn it really slow to see him.

i used to have some of these things as a kid, but the only one i remember is a horse galloping. real creative and complex, huh?

hated and favorited movies

okay. i'm trying to get the hang of things and i'm still not really sure what to be putting up here. so here goes-



on the first day of class, i said i liked every movie i'd ever seen. and i thought about it, and that's a lie. there are several movies that fell short of what i expected and/or hoped for.
1. harry potter and the prizner (wow, i can't spell) of azkaban: first of all, up to that point, that was my least favorite book (now the title goes to the fifth one. god, it was horrid). the director (who was different than the first two) completely moved around the landscape of the movie and there were tons of unnecessary sound effects that just hurt my head. and dubu-t-ef was up with the bus scene? just horrible. horrible horrible movie.

2. hard candy (which i just watched a few days ago): it was borrrring. the acting was okay i suppose. parts of the movie were akward (MAYBE that was intential?) i dunno. i really loved ellen page's role in juno so i was hopping for another good movie. and i just wasn't interested in this. it was missing... something.

3. empire records: again, i was expecting something more. i'd heard it was great. yet... i was bored. i made myself finish watching the movie. just hoping it'd get better. and the end... shesh. how much more cliche could it of gotten???

4. the grudge: EW. nuff said. just... blah. horrible HORRIBLE movie. plot made hardly any sense (if you stretch, you might find some). it wasn't scary. just stupid. and i can't believe i've seen this movie twice.

i'm sure there's more, but that's really all i can think of.



as for favorites... i guess i'll just list the ones i've posted on facebook as my favorite movies-
1. another gay movie: completely ridiculous. i love the totally unappropriate humor. it's completely out there... i don't know exactly why i love it so damn much, but i do.

2. the breakfast club: again, not quite sure why i love this. it's just... so classic. the sterotypes... yeah.

3. cars: i think the story's great; it's different. well, i guess not the whole obnoxious-no-friends-learns-to-be-human thing. but how it was presented and the... i can't think of the word... where the cars are made to seem human like in nature. and the childish humor.

4. closer: this is a movie that i actually know why i love it. i recaminde (again, i can't spell) anyone over the age of 16 watch it, but alone. cause some parts might be kind of akward to watch with a friend and definatly with a parent. it's this completely different story of a love rectangle. there's only four characters (natalie portman, julia roberts, clive owen, and jude law) and they interchange who they're dating. i'm not crazy about jude law... i just don't think he's that great- he's a wanker. not completely believable. clive owen's voice sometimes got on my nerve's but i'm just picky like that. although i'm hardly anything like her (i don't strip and my name really is what i say it is), i completely identified with natilie portman's character). anyways, great movie- watch it.

5. eternal sunshine of the spotless mind: everytime i watch this movie, i love it even more. the story's great, heartbreaking. the effects are simple, yet interesting. i think jim carrey does an amazing job at making his character soooo believable. although i'm sure everyone in the world has seen it by now, if you haven't watch it.

6. the incredables: ... i guess i'm a sucker for pixar. i think it's so cute and again, different.

7. juno: i love the sarcasim. i LOVE paulie bleaker (side note- my only true life long goal is to find someone with an amazing name like that); his innocence is so damn adorable. jennifer garner is a scary believable. i just absolutely love this movie.i don't know what it is about it, it's just so perfect (in my mind. i've heard that a lot of people actually don't like this movie).

8. little miss sunshine: again, i think this movie's so different than a lot of other movies out there. the complete disfunctional-ity of this family is great. this movie, i my opinion, does such a great job of keeping someone "on their toes." i just couldn't wait to see what would happen next. and it was all completely crazy, yet still in the realm of believablity.

9. psycho: this movie is completely classic. it's great. it's suspensful. i mean, i don't feel i even need to explain why it so great. watch it and you shall know it's amazing-ness.

10. scream 1, 2, 3: okay, yes, it can be described as horrible. but i love how it pokes fun at the whole horror genre. i think there's nothing else out there like it. i absolutely love these movies- all of them.

11. when harry met sally...: this is my feel good movie. my first all-time-favorite (well, it was tied with what dreams may come, but i don't really remember what i saw in that). it's cute and you root for the characters. well, at least i do.

a strange disorder.

okay. i swear this video's mine. i didn't transfer it from my harddrive at home, and i'm kinda pround of it, and i think it relates to the stuff we're supposed to be putting on this site for time and motion, so i just took it from myspace (wow, that was like the longest runon sentence ever).

um, let's see... the original assignment was to make a movie trailer, obviously i strayed from that a little. it's a little shaky cause i waited till the absolute last moment to do the project, which it happened to be 5 degrees that day. yeah, big props to caity for doing that. and... i swear the majority of the stuff i do isn't that emo and artsy.

first day of class

woo. it's early- i'm not used to this yet.