Sunday, 18 March 2012

Online Greenlight Review: Part 1

Online Green Light Review Part 1


  1. OGR 20/03/2012

    Hey Frizzia,

    Okay - your story is simple - good - and your ending, with the tea-cosy is funny (though I don't think it will be 'pink' in a b/w line art animation, so you should investigate ways to communicate the 'sissy-factor' through it's actual shape etc. What's not entirely clear yet is what we're supposed to feel about the teapot or the coffee pot; what I mean is, if the coffee pot is being 'bullied' by the teapot, then the bit with the tea cosy is going to play very well, so I think you need to consider the nature of their rivalry; after all, if the coffee pot is too snooty, I think audiences might side with the teapot, and then not enjoy the ending as much. I think it's pretty clear in your script that the teapot just doesn't like the competition - on principle - you'll just have to make sure you establish this visually too. I think your animation would certainly benefit from a background soundscape of clinking spoons and polite chatter - to evoke the tearoom/cafe in which the action is taking place (without having to draw any of it). Obviously, there's a sense here that we should hear what the teapot is 'saying' - but the greater challenge is to convey his 'pugnaciousness' through his body language alone - that said, you're going to need the clatter of his lid and the blowing of his steam to assist you in this. Reading your script, I think you'll need to properly panel out the interaction between the teapot and the coffee pot - the mood has got to darken, which means escalating the aggression - things are a bit general in your script right now about how exactly the teapot goes about his provocation of the coffee pot; you'll want to be sure before you draw.

    I've been showing this animation to a number of the first years, simply because it makes great use of a kind of 360 degree relationship to the 'white space' in which the action takes place - and it's very dynamic in terms of squash and stretch etc. Take a look:

    Re. your written assignment; a note of caution; in the past, essays written about Pixar and Lasseter have often struggled to say anything of interest - because students don't dig deep enough; in terms of gauging Lasseter's influence etc. don't be afraid of seeking out contrary views that might view Pixar's dominance and adherence to formula as a negative thing, in terms of animation and innovation. Comparing and contrasting opinions and views can often enliven a discussion x 100...

  2. Re. Time Machine PPT.

    I think your Powerpoint's formatting went skew-whiff when I opened it - as your text, though very pink! - was all over the place.

    Okay - it's clear that you still don't know what to 'do' with your interest in Trompe l'oeil - which is why you're struggling to create a discussion around it. That said - that quote you've included by Hillberry is very good; so one of your key ideas, as expressed by this quote, is that Trompe l'oeil alienates us - for a moment - from our usual non-interrogative, unthinking relationship to the world around us - it creates cognitive dissonance - this much I know you know. So, what purpose, in a fine art sense, do Magritte's paintings serve? What's his point? Perhaps you need to look for some key quotes, about Magritte's work, perhaps, that also talk about 'art' that makes us look again at our perception? The following passage comes from the link below it:

    "Whereas Renaissance naturalism strove to represent the real by offering viewers the proverbial "transparent window" through which to observe scenes and personages, Baroque illusionism subverts this kind of realistic representation by calling attention to its own artifice, to its own perspectival manipulations, and thus to the problematic nature of referentiality as such"

    Now just consider that as a starting point - first, it's suggesting before 'trompe l'oeil' there was the idea of a 'transparent window' - i.e. that painters sought, via the rules of perspective, to vanish the surface of a painting and create a version of the real (i.e. that the actual painting/painter was vanished by the illusion of reality it created - the painting literally became a pane of glass for looking through at the world). Okay - but then you've got trompe l'oeil - that first appears to be a 'transparent window', but then actually draws attention to its own artifice, to the surface on which it is painted, and to the great skill of the painter who created the image; a trompe l'oeil makes visible what is obviously artificial about a flat surface and paint trying to 'be' real, by revealing that it is a very clever, virtuosic fake! This revealing of the nonsense of painting trying to pretend to be a 'real' likeness of the world lies, arguably, at the heart of modern art's move away form representational art - this is certainly the discussion of 'what is art?' that Magritte's Trompe l'oeils provoke...

    Have a read of the article above - and identify the key terms to which it refers (i.e. what trompe l'oeil challenges or confronts - that will be the first bit you'll need to deal with - the historical and cultural context to which trompe l'oeil was a reaction to - i.e. 'renaissance rules of perspective'... start there! And do not panic...