HOME!
FOLLOW!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 @ 11:07 PM 1. Is this acting or is this animation?
In my opinion, I think that Avatar is both acting and animation. The movie was created using real actors to act out the scenes and to use their bodies to manipulate them using computer technology into a fantastic animation movie. The actual movie is not real actors but animation which is why I think it contains both acting and animation. Without the roles of the actors, this movie obviously would not be successful but due to the amazing computer graphics and technology Avatar used, the effects turning into this into an animation was superb and made this movie worth watching.
2. Do you think the animated character should be eligible for acting awards?
I don't think the animated character should be eligible for acting awards because although the movie is made from real actors movements, in the end everything is dependant on computer technology and affects. This is just a animation, not an actual movie where it requires an actor to show their real emotions and facial expressions. In this animation you cannot feel the presence of the actor, so it would be hard to tell if the actor was in character 100% and to feel that they were representing their character well.
3. Do you ever think human actors will be obsolete? Why or why not?
I don't think human actors will ever be obsolete because although technology will continue to improve it doesn't mean human actors can be eliminated from the entertainment industry. If all movies become animation there would be no variety and all the movies would be the same. The audience needs to see some actual actors because nothing can replace a human's characteristics, feelings, presence and reality it brings to a movie. After all these years since movies have been created, there will always be actors no matter how much technology has been improving.
0 Comments
► From Spray Can to Light: Graffiti Revisited.
Friday, January 7, 2011 @ 10:10 PM
I chose this street graffiti because I'm amazed at how amazing this looks when it's just a graffiti artwork of a simple cartoon show that many people love. Making the graffiti look realistic in comparison to the actual thing is quite hard, and the artist did a great job at it. The graffiti is symmetrical as Spongebob and the colours it used are bright and visible. Yellow is a warm colour and it brings out the graffiti. Spongebob is rectangle it is drawn in 3D. This graffiti just brings a connection to everyone since Spongebob is a well favourite famous cartoon for everyone.
Both light and traditional graffiti give the artist who created it a way to express their feelings and emotions. Everyone has a different way to express themselves and I think this is an artistic and creative way to do so. Art is art, and both forms of graffiti fit under that title. Light graffiti is more technical as it involves photography, media programs like photoshop giving off a more professional look. Traditional graffiti is more physical as it gives a way for an artist to show their actual ability to create something since it is more difficult to use a spray paint and create graffiti. Light graffiti plays with light and is used for advertisements, while traditional graffiti plays with colours, shadows, techniques to create a picture usually on walls or in suburb areas. Both forms of graffiti show the same concept and that art is just something amazing to look at.
2 Comments
► Mashups and Copyright Law.
Thursday, January 6, 2011 @ 10:52 PM The example I chose is the mashup of Bon Jovi and Usher by Glee in its Vitamin D episode.
1. I think the mashup is trying to communicate popular songs that pertain to the plot of the episode the song featured in. The mashup of the two songs were by famous artists that had hit singles around the world, Usher's "Confessions Part II" and Bon Jovi's "It's My Life". The mashup would be a technical experiment as well as an abstract work of media art. Since these two songs don't have a direct meaning, Glee decided to put them together and experiment to see how both songs would sound. It is an abstract work of media because them just bringing out two really good songs shows that they wanted to try something new.
2. The creator follow copyright laws in its production because they did not copy the whole song and made it like it belongs to them. Glee combined both songs and made their own version of both songs together and technically that is not breaking copyright laws. Also, Glee is known for doing cover of songs and making it their own.
3. I think the mashup Glee did requires copyright permission because they are not creating their own song, they are doing a cover of someone else's original song. They should ask for for permission to use the song and transform it into their own.
2 Comments