Last week's lecture was extremely confusing and I didn't understand the relevance of most of the discussion. However, I did manage to glean that there is a very fine line between art and graphic design, as both are a form of visual communication, yet graphic design isn't always meaningful.
In terms of mass media all forms of art are used to communicate messages and meanings across a very large audience. And as a society almost all of us are exposed to some form of art on a daily basis. However, I feel that the main focus in last weeks lecture was on graphic design and how it is used to convey a message to a large audience. I guess I didn't really get the relevance of graphic design to me, as I am an animator, which I feel isn't quite graphic design. Yet I do see the relevance of communication and how animation could be used as a form of mass media, as it is something that is seen by many and is widely available.
Other than that I can't comment on the lecture much more, as I didn't actually understand most of what the guy was saying (I think most of it was about graphic designers and examples of their work. I don't see the relevance of this at all) and I just couldn't grasp at the connection to animation.
Sunday, 16 November 2014
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Lecture 5: Monk Rhymes with Funk
Yesterday's lecture is one I actually understood (take a moment to cherish this because it's probably the only one I will ever understand this fully). The lecture had three different titles because our lecturer was greedy, these were: Pictures at work/ Illustration in action/ Emotional Experience of Image.
Illustration is more than just a drawing. It is a very powerful form of communication that can in more cases than not portray a lot more sophisticated of a message than many other forms of communication. Illustration is strategic mark making that conveys meaning through its aesthetic and its tone of voice, it makes us notice and it stands out to us on many different levels including emotionally. Whether the illustration is elegant, elegant, bold, playful, charming, sad, etc, doesn't matter. What matters is that illustration can be used to portray any meaning or message, which makes it one of the most powerful communication methods around. It also leaves an extremely large margin for personal interpretation, which also makes it a powerful communication tool.
This is definitely something that I should always be considering within my work and I should remember just how effective illustration is at conveying ideas.
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Seminar Three: Auteurship and the Avant-garde
Okay, so I'm left completely confused, yet again, by today's seminar and its topic of auteurship and the avant-garde.
From my extremely minute understanding I get that auteurship is a theory that suggests that film directors are artists in their own right. If they have their own style that is recognisable across all of their works and their work is then recognised by the public for this style and their work is distinguishable because of aesthetics and the running themes, then the directors can consider themselves an auteur. I also managed to grasp the idea that auteurship is a response to Hollywood cinema. Directors take risks to break from the 'norm' of what is considered culturally acceptable at the time, which allows for others to follow in wake if they like to. At first their work is criticised, but once it becomes something that is recognised others begin to imitate the style.
Towards the end of the seminar we touched upon avant-garde, which just confused me further, but from what I understand is the implication that progress is always a result of a rebellion against an entrenched establishment. So to me this seems like the same theory as auteurship. The creator or director of a film will purposefully create work that is out of the cultural norm at the time and present it as an art piece that others will latch onto and follow in stride (if that even makes sense).
Overall, what I gleaned from this seminar is that auteurship and avant-garde are simply ways for directors to get themselves noticed for the work they do. Personally I don't see why there is such a fuss over having terms like these. If a director hasn't completely ripped off someone else's ideas then I feel that the work should simply be appreciated for what it is. However, I feel that people are wanting recognition for what they have done more and more, which is why such terms are being used despite the fact that they seem ridiculous. Most people don't want their work to be mistaken for someone else's work but I feel that no one's work is truly original particularly in the film industry, as the stories are created from what they see in the world and more than often a piece of literature.
From my extremely minute understanding I get that auteurship is a theory that suggests that film directors are artists in their own right. If they have their own style that is recognisable across all of their works and their work is then recognised by the public for this style and their work is distinguishable because of aesthetics and the running themes, then the directors can consider themselves an auteur. I also managed to grasp the idea that auteurship is a response to Hollywood cinema. Directors take risks to break from the 'norm' of what is considered culturally acceptable at the time, which allows for others to follow in wake if they like to. At first their work is criticised, but once it becomes something that is recognised others begin to imitate the style.
Towards the end of the seminar we touched upon avant-garde, which just confused me further, but from what I understand is the implication that progress is always a result of a rebellion against an entrenched establishment. So to me this seems like the same theory as auteurship. The creator or director of a film will purposefully create work that is out of the cultural norm at the time and present it as an art piece that others will latch onto and follow in stride (if that even makes sense).
Overall, what I gleaned from this seminar is that auteurship and avant-garde are simply ways for directors to get themselves noticed for the work they do. Personally I don't see why there is such a fuss over having terms like these. If a director hasn't completely ripped off someone else's ideas then I feel that the work should simply be appreciated for what it is. However, I feel that people are wanting recognition for what they have done more and more, which is why such terms are being used despite the fact that they seem ridiculous. Most people don't want their work to be mistaken for someone else's work but I feel that no one's work is truly original particularly in the film industry, as the stories are created from what they see in the world and more than often a piece of literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)