For reasons unbeknownst to me, I can’t get the embedded movie to show as I’d wanted, so click here for the whole thing:

[movie]

For this adventure, I’m working with Tom to use iStopMotion (because I really did have way too much fun the last time around with stop motion stuffs) to capture the secret life of pennies.  No, not like those commercials you see on tv for CoinStar.  I have no idea what you’re talking about.  Shut UP!  Actually, in all seriousness, not so much like that at all — this would really be animating a pile of pennies (joined by others as the short goes on) doing stunts, crawling down a table leg, and dispersing again.  The storyboarding here was done via camera, (A) because that’s how we’ll have to do the real version, and (B) because I can’t draw for garbage.

Should be fun to shoot…

For full storyboard set: [clicky]

Yesterday my CommLab group met to film the outdoor scenes for our two-minute movie (which are most of the scenes anyway), filmed in Cooper Park, which I believe is in Greenpoint. I’d never been out in that neighborhood — plenty of time in Willyburg and wherever TSLOS practices — but it was quite lovely. We shot Addie knifing people, Justin covered in ketchup-blood under an SUV, me trying to convert peole to underage smoking and Neilson in a diaper. Should be a damn good movie.

And, because I figured I was already in Brooklyn and had never crossed any of the bridges on foot, I longboarded across the Williamsburg Bridge (after wandering through W-burg a bit and finding a really cool guitar store). I took way too many bad pictures, and a few even-worse movies, but bad documentation aside it was actually really cool. Really relaxing to do something so, um, “analog” for a while. Unfortunately, when I finally got back to ITP I was so tired and stinky that I just returned the equipment I’d borrowed and went the hell home. This week, I figure out how to make my tree… more to follow.

DSCN4452, by doryexmachina.

Our storyboarding for the CommLab 2-minute movie assignment went well today — as it turns out, we’re all twisted bastards, so the movie seems to be coming along accordingly.

In-progress action shots:

[clicky]

[clicky!]

In most ways, I find myself agreeing with Clay Shirky’s “Micropayments and Free Content” in that the second you’re asked to pay for something, you instantly do the mental calculation about how much it’s worth to you, in terms of energy, to buy something. It’s very difficult to think, in your mind, why something is worth a quarter to you, yet if the same article/picture/song was free, you’d be happy to read/see/listen to it. And, if it’s free and you appreciate the work in question, you’re generally quite likely to pass it along to friends/colleagues, and in doing so the artist’s fame/reputation grows.

Great, right? Well, sure, depending on the artist’s vision and plan. If the goal is simply to share ideas and/or works, cool! If the goal is to make money off the art (and, y’know, eat) and this leads to better gigs, sponsorship or advertising, great. But if they become rich in influence but poor in the pocket, that can be a problem. Suffering for your art is one thing, but having your best work shared around while you starve must suck, I’d imagine. This, of course, is both the cause of and solution to one of the biggest problems in the post-mechanical age — how do you regulate the trade of something that can be replicated infinitely? Are you actually “selling” or “buying” any object, or rather are you “renting” the chance for the consumer to see/listen/read it for a specified amount of time?

The lines are blurred quite a bit in the music world, which is likely where this subject has gotten the most attention (or at least the most press). If you buy a song from Apple’s iTunes store, you’re limited to only playing it on computers with iTunes, and from that, only 5 computers can play the same song. Is this ownership or rental? If you bought a basketball but were told you’d only be allowed to play on five courts at a time, and that you’d need to play on a certain-colored surface, you’d never buy it. However, any time big stuffy record companies are involved, the stupid becomes the norm.

I realize it’s old news by now, but the Grey Album still rules. It’s not just a great idea — it’s great MUSIC start to finish. However, the story behind it is still worth talking about. The best part about it, in my mind, is that (just like with U2/Negativland) Jay-Z openly said he loved it. The only legal actions were issued by the company representing The Beatles — which has nothing to do with The Beatles themselves these days (they don’t even own their masters!). The music industry, time after time, continues to respond to any “threat” to their kingdom (usually an improvement, rather than a direct challenge) with outright hostility, and approaches advances in the industry as an ostrich does by sticking its head in the sand — avoidance. It’s silly, but it’s the way it goes — and while we can hope that indies will continue to reshape the way music is bought, sold and licensed, there’s a long way to go.

Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one — so said H. L. Mencken (who died fifty years ago), before this crazy internet thing became all the rage with those youngsters I see at the malls. These days, anyone with internet access can reach anyone — the problem isn’t getting the word out, but rather reaching the right people. Cutting through the clutter is now priority one, and influence/fame/power/branding/whateveryouwanttocallit is a powerful currency. More so than hard cash? Beats me, I’m just a poor grad student.

The funny thing, to me anyway, is how much we expect to pay for things, and therefore what inherent value we give them. I personally have no problem spending $5 on a beer (and therefore easily $20 in a night out), but shy away from a healthy lunch that might cost $8, or even taking the subway. Why? The healthy lunch would be good for me, and my body needs food. The subway is only $2, and gets me from point A to point B nearly effortlessly. And alcohol is poision, and terrible for every part of my body… so why am I okay with this system? I’ll pay $9 to see a movie in theatres, therefore only paying to see it once, but I won’t spend that same money to purchase the DVD, whereby I could watch it over and over again. At some point we all develop inherent mental calculators, and we attach acceptable costs to things (which is why the world “SALE” can wreck such havok — you might not want it, but damnit, it’s 50% off!) — and honestly, most of us would happily spend half our paychecks on expensive meals, beer and other things that will rot our heads, but we shy away from buying things we need, or even life-enriching items like books or classes (not counting grad school, obviously).

Picture 1a, by doryexmachina.

Comics. Comics are something that I used to love outwardly, then learned not to talk about in public, and then sadly kinda tost touch with entirely. And here I am, reading about comics, researching for my internship (about comics) and making a web comic of sorts — and I’m getting a grad degree for this? SWEET.

Adam and I worked to make a web comic, and we brainstormed concepts, and then finally decided to make a comic about our procrastination process. We took Adam’s lovely Canon camera, set it for continous shooting, and then traced our steps — by putting the camera on my mint green tripod (because mint green is for playas, not haters) and pushing said setup down the hall on a rolling office chair, as previously posted. Elevator –> lounge –> shots of us working procrastination (mysteriously not recorded by Tom) –> actual shot of us working (thanks Tom!) –> foosball table –> foosball game –> Adam napping.

And if I may say so, it turned out NICE. I imported the shots into iMovie and made it into a movie at (0:10) per shot (easy, though frustrating) and Adam made the panels and web site (difficult, though awesome). Adam’s handiwork is freaking brilliant: [clicky].

(Oh, and the play button for the 2nd panel doesn’t work. We know that. Just double-click the screen like everybody else, damnit. Why do you have to be so difficult?! AGH! I can’t take this! You just don’t understand me!!! I’m going to stay with my sister! No, I don’t mean that, I’m sorry. Let’s not fight. Do you want to go get coffee? Great!)

Also, we were tasked to read Scott McCloud and Will Eisner — both of which made for excellent reading (and how timely!). Scott McCloud is a genius, first off — I’d picked up his book (Understanding Comics) as well, so being forced to read a chapter of it? Gee, well if I HAVE to… seriously, it was great. And while comics are a subject I’d thought myself rather versed in, I’d never really considered how/why they actually work for readers. (If you think that’s weird, tell me exactly how much you know about how a car works, yet you drive one. Same thing, I guess.) His explaination of panels and time was weighing particularly on me as we made this comic (and I think was Adam’s inspiration for the end layout, though I shan’t speak for him). All in all, great to think about.

Eisner was a bit more of a dense/convoluted read, though informative as well. I really appreciate reading the history of comic devices (streaky lines, text bubbles, etc.) so this was interesting to look into — and the example of Chinese and Egyptian characters vs. an actual image of a person praying was excellent. Studying Japanese, I wasn’t actually sure I was aware of the tie between the written language and the real world equivalent (except for one, two and three which are one, two and three lines, respectively). However, I was absolutely enchanted by people who can actually do proper Japanese (or Chinese, Korean, anything else) calligraphy. Whether or not it “looks like anything” it’s a true art, and the only case that comes to mind in which the written word is actually visually beautiful. I guess I’d never carried that thought into comics.

This will absolutely make me evaluate my internship in a new light, especially as we’re working on a comic now…

]]> http://www.doryexmachina.com/itpblog/2006/10/10/commlab-web-comic/feed/ 0 http://www.doryexmachina.com/itpblog/2006/10/10/this-is-homework-for-commlab-obviously/ http://www.doryexmachina.com/itpblog/2006/10/10/this-is-homework-for-commlab-obviously/#comments Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:46:22 +0000 mike. http://www.doryexmachina.com/itpblog/2006/10/10/this-is-homework-for-commlab-obviously/ .flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; } .flickr-yourcomment { } .flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; } .flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

This is homework for CommLab, obviously., by doryexmachina.

What, it’s a camera on a tripod on a chair, duh. Doesn’t everybody do this kinda stuff?

Without the silly quote:

Fancy, eh?

TJenks’ work on Tom Hanks is available hurr, my full PSD for wacko flying boy available here.

The sad thing is that I agree with the epilogue (and the intro, for that matter) in the discussion of the exploitation of the proletariat leading to war — and that I think this is a scary relation to current events. I’m not sure I can draw direct lines from art and duplication to exploitation and war, but maybe that’s something I just missed in the reading. I’m eager to hear everyone else’s take on the article.
Part II: Altered Images — find any images (web/magazine/newspaper/whatever) that have been manipulated.

The first thing that came to mind was a picture that had been nearly beaten into our heads at SCILS (School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers, for those curious — also home of the Journalism department, though we’ve never been given the name) of O.J. Simpson’s mugshot. The Newsweek cover (left) is pretty much how it was, the TIME cover (right) is clearly darkened — and in the mind of most people surveyed shortly after the printing, it changed their opinion of O.J., based on the altering done by TIME. It’s a classic case of the power of journalism, but also of the need for journalists to report, and not to opine and influence — and for the media outlets to define their stance as either entertainers or purveyors of news. For the former, this sort of thing is tacky, but within their range. For the latter, it’s just unacceptable.

Next up is one of my favorite albums of, well, ever — The Eels’ “Beautiful Freak” album cover. I had no idea what Photoshop was in high school, and when I first got my mitts on this album, the cover freaked me the hell out. The whole album insert is filled with images of bug-eyed people (including the band members) and I just remember spending hours trying to figure out how the hell they did it.

Something that came to mind because I happened to be listening to it when writing this is the latest Royksopp album — the cover is clearly tweaked, and to a very cool effect. The few isolated images on the very barren background end up providing a really cool result, and it fits the album very well (in my humble opinion).