So like in most of the lectures, I didn't really have a great understanding of what today's lecture was about but I got a few little bits here and there about the importance of print and a little bit of its history. Whilst I didn't understand it, it's not to say it wasn't interesting because the idea that print had and still has a major impact on society is in fact quite fascinating and I was actually surprised to learn that print had and has such a major impact and influence on societies around the world.
I also leanrt that print doesn't necessarily mean or relate to a pretty pattern printed onto wallpaper or a poster, in fact print wasn't even considered an art form until many years after its creation. In the beginning print was created as a way of mass communication; used as a tool to spread a message or belief without it being mutated by people's understanding of it (like how the message passed along in a game of chinese whispers never comes back the same).
Despite not understanding most of the content of the lecture, as I feel that it was mostly just a jumble of jumping from one topic to the other, I did manage to gain an understanding of the importance of print and how influential it can be. Not only that but I have an understanding of how print could and was used as a tool of manipulation particularly when used in propaganda pasters for WW1 and WW2.
Overall, print is something I should always consider when creating work even if it's just when creating tags for exhibition work as it is likely to be the most powerful and influential tool of mass communication.
In today's seminar we discussed the topic of genre within animation. We defined genre as many different things but the the simplest would be that genre is the categorisation of film in recognisable ways (e.g. horror, western, musical, comedy, etc), that can often become deficient and contradictory. As the discussion went on we were asked the question, is genre useful?
Well my answer is yes and no. On the one hand I feel that it helps you to understand the narrative and what to expect of that narrative however, having said that last point, this leads us to expect a certain plot to take place and can make us judge the film before we even consider watching it and determine whether we watch it or not. So from that I'm unsure whether genre is useful or not. From a production side of view it can help to guide a story along although I feel that sometimes the genre of a film is taken too seriously and I feel that just because the film is of a certain genre it doesn't necessarily mean that the film should follow a stereotypical plot. However, it is going to make some films unpopular despite the content due to people's prejudices towards certain genres.
Alongside answering this question we were also told about Paul Wells' seven genres for animated films. I didn't quite understand all seven of the genres fully, but I did gleam a basic understanding of most. These genres included:
Formal
This is conditional to the narrative or thematic concerns, in order to text and explore the aesthetic and technical para metres of the animated form. In other words form is somewhat more important that the actual storyline within this genre.
Deconstructive
This reveals its own construction for comical or critical effect. A good example of this is "The Happy Moose" by Walter Santucci.
Political
This aspires to use the medium to make moral, ethical or political statements. For example, Disney's "Victory Through Airpower".
Abstract
This genre explores new techniques and approaches to facilitate non-objective, non-linear works, or works that resist traditional constructions of understanding and interpretation.
Re-narration
The re-interpretation of established stories, myths and fairy tales. Paradigmatic
A good example is, "When the Wind Blows", by Raymond Briggs.
Primal
This defines and explores a specific emotion, feeling or state of consciousness. For example, "The Black Dog", by Alison De Vere.
Overall, this discussion has made me think about the importance of genre within my work and how I choose the correct genre for my work and how it will be interpreted by an audience.
In Tuesday's Seminar we were given the task of comparing two animations against one another. The first being "The Hand", by Jiri Trnka, 1965.
After watching this animation all the way through in class, I didn't have much of an idea about the context of the piece only that it had an underlying message of political power. However, after some research I figured that the animation was related to the Communist ear in Czechoslovakia, and it began to make a little more sense to me when I watched it a second time round.
From what I gathered from the animation, the main character is a symbolism for society with the hand being the symbolism for political power. The character simply wishes to create pottery, in particular, small clay plant pots in which he can place his most cherished plant. However, the Hand comes along and demands that the character make statues to the Hand's ideals. Right there we have a demonstration of power and it relates to the situations that most artists found themselves in, in Czechoslovakia, 1965 when the political body would demand that artists create work to satisfy the political needs rather than doing it simply because they enjoyed it. In order to get what it wants the Hand uses seduction, money, fear and finally brutal force in order to get the character to do its bidding until in the end that character has been frightened and threatened so much so, that he simply turns into a real life puppet, making the character completely powerless.
This is when the Hand begins to physically manipulate the character, like you would a puppet, in order to do his work. To me this symbolises the powerlessness of the society at the time and the fear that the political body placed among their society. I feel that by turning the character into a real life puppet, Trnka was able to very effectively distill that sense of helplessness and powerlessness into the audience. Not only dose he use this scene to do this, but Trnka also uses a range of low angled shots in order to make the audience feel inferior to the Hand, demonstrating the lack of power society had against the political body.
Overall, I feel that this animation was very good at raising the awareness of the struggles of a society within the Communist era, particularly in Czechoslovakia and of how the political body exploited and manipulated a society in order to gain what they wanted. Having said this, I did find the animation very strange, yet aesthetically pleasing.
The second animation we watched was "Ersatz (Surogat)" by Zagreb Film, 1961.
Unlike, "The Hand", I understood that this animation was about ego, superior gender and, similarly to "The Hand", manipulation, yet in a slightly different way. Instantly this animation came across as less serious and as more of a comedic story with an underlying message that, at the time in the 1960's, would have been a lot less harmful to an audience than "The Hand".
In this animation a male character goes for a day out at the beach, which is his ideal view, as the whole scene is inflated. He then begins to inflate all the objects he desires to suite his needs before moving on to inflate a girlfriend. This is when the true manipulation begins. He decides that the first girl he inflates doesn't have the desired looks he wants in a woman, she has large hips and thighs and small breasts, so he deflates her and chooses another one. The second inflated woman is the complete opposite of the first, having a small waist, being slim and having large breasts. However, he is still not happy with this and he manipulates the size of the woman's assets by increasing their size by a considerable amount. This, to me, symbolises the idea that men were the superior gender in the 1960's and that women believed this to be so. It also demonstrates that women were idealised and objectified in the 1960's.
I feel that this animation also says a great deal about egotistical views back in the 1960's and how ego played a big part in which women men were more likely to want to be seen with. What interests me the most about this animation is that its context is still applicable to today despite the fact that it was made 40+ years ago. there are still women who are being exploited and objectified. However, I feel that if this animation was created today it would be seen, by a large amount of people, as offensive due to the rising equality between the genders and the improvement in views about women.
Overall, I find that, although this animation touches upon an important subject, it still has a high comedic factor, which I also find interesting, as today the subject wouldn't be seen as funny yet it was back in the 1960's. I also found this animation aesthetically pleasing and enjoyed the small tune that the character sang as he went along.
Between the two animations I feel that the underlying messages overlap both directly and indirectly, as they both touch upon similar issues, yet in a different way. I feel that "The Hand" is a much more powerful animation and that the message is a lot more clearer and a lot more forceful in the sense that you remember the animation and that it makes you feel uncomfortable and it makes you think about what is going on within the story. Whereas "Ersatz" has more of a comedic factor, dimming the underlying messages and making them a lot less clear to read. Having said this I preferred the second animation, "Ersatz", simply because of the comedy factor and because it didn't make me feel uncomfortable unlike "The Hand".
In Tuesday's seminar we talked about the importance of context within animation and how our understanding of context affects the way we read visual communication.
Within this discussion we were shown two images:
The first image we were show was the front cover of the TIME magazine from 9/11 (the image to the left) showing us the devastating terrorist attack on the World Trading Centre. When this image came up we were encouraged to discuss our experiences of 9/11 and what we could remember of it.
We were then shown an image of an album case (the image to the right). This album cover was actually created in August of 2001, a month before 9/11 occurred and was later retracted, however we weren't told this until after we had a discussion about how the context of this album cover came across. We discussed how this cover was extremely offensive in terms of what it displayed and the disrespect it showed but also about how badly the cover was designed.
This session has taught me that the context of something and our understanding of that context is based on our own knowledge of why and when that said something was created. For instance if I had known before the discussion had begun that the album cover was made before 9/11 occurred I wouldn't be offended in anyway at all as I would have known that it wasn't related to the incident in any way. This has also made me think about the context within my own work and the importance of making sure it is understandable to everyone who sees it.
Okay I know most people who look at the title will probably just not even bother skimming the text below because it sounds so boring, and yes for most of the lecture I was quite bored and slightly falling asleep (sorry) but from what I understand from my notes it's not all that boring given that typography actually has a history and there are reasons behind why certain fonts look the way they do.
So the first thing that stood out to me was that type can be classified into 6 different "families", which are; humanist; old style; transitional; modern; Swiss modern and Bauhaus modern; contemporary. This could be extremely useful when trying to determine which type would best suite your work if you knew which type came under which family (unfortunately I don't), as you could match the type closet to your ideas or messages you are trying to portray throughout your work.
The second thing was that typography exists within both visual and verbal communication; typography is meta-communication, para-linguistics and kine-sics. I don't really understand all that well what this actually means at the moment and I should probably go on and read a little more into to it so I can get at least a well grounded basic understanding of the history of typography in order to be able to use it to my advantage. However, this lecture did give me an understanding into the power of type and how, when the correct type is used, it can draw attention to your work and work alongside it to make your message clearer.
Going into this lecture I had NO IDEA what 'Visual Literacy' was, never mind hearing those two words used together to describe anything. However, moving on in the lecture I realised that I did, in fact, know what visual literacy was I just didn't how to refer to it. I actually was quite interested to learn about the different types of visual communication (e.g. syntax, semantics, semiotics, visual synecdoche, metonym and metaphor) but, as we are only into the first few weeks of the course, I'm not sure what I should be doing with this information other than it will effect the way I think about my work and how I present it in relation to my idea. The lecture gave me an insight into the cultural understanding of certain symbols and signs and how to make them globally understood and how presenting them in different ways can lead to them being interpreted in different ways.
