Ten Things I Absolutely, Positively, Have to Say To You!

First of all, please everyone link to this site it's pretty interesting

Well, this is it guys, the last blog post.

And while I am not returning to this blog itself,  I will continue to use this medium in the future and will export some of the writing I have done here or at least link to it. So it's not the end of the world, but it is the end of SAGEWORDS.

But before I go, if anyone ever reads this, there is one last assignment I have to complete, and it's really important.

These could be the last things I ever say to you (who ever yo may be), or even the first, But I've learned a lot from this experience so it would mean a lot to me if you read them.

Okay, here goes...


10. WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN

This is so important. I haven't lost the greatest ideas of my life because I was too lazy to keep a journal, but I have made things a lot harder on myself. Keep a notebook with you, even if it's digital. And read it sometimes. Not obsessively, but down the road when the dust settles and the drama dies down you'll be surprised at how your perspectives on things shift.


9. KEEP WORKING AT IT!

It takes time to make things happen. It's important to treat creative endeavors as more than trivial pastimes. The best ideas take years to truly develop, but only if they've been nurtured with hard work along the way. I've heard it takes 10,000 hours to be really good at anything. Put the time in. and that leads me to the next one...


8. CHOOSE SOMETHING YOU LOVE TO DO

If you want to be really good at something it will take a long time to get there, so pick a field that you enjoy. I love writing, but I didn't put the time in when I was younger to develop a career as an author. So now, I'm studying digital animation and games, because I love them and will enjoy doing them on a day in and day out basis.

7. LET YOURSELF FAIL, BUT NEVER LEARN TO LIKE IT!

Defeat hurts.  But there's a reason you lost. I don't mean some bigger reason in the grand scheme of things, I mean there is actually a reason (or more likely a complex series of reasons) why you got beat. Learn what it was, and use it be better next time around.

It probably was in your preparation somewhere, but it may have been something beyond your control, in fact...


6. LIFE IS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL

Life isn't fair. We all know that. But you have to learn the difference between Acts of God and just not being ready for a given situation. Things will go wrong, it's just the way life goes, but there is more to it than just that. I would even go so far as to say...

5. YOU'RE LUCKIER THAN YOU WANT TO ADMIT

Luck is something that happens to the other guy. If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Yadda, yadda, yadda.... The truth is just being alive is lucky. Just getting born is lucky. You've come some distance in your life, and you should be proud of whatever it is, but realize luck played a hand in it. Be thankful for it. Just don't rely on it.

4. REMEMBER WHERE YOU COME FROM

Everyone starts somewhere. It may not be where you want it to be, but you can get where you really want to go from any starting point. In artistic terms your formative days will forever be a part of your creative voice. So be true to your roots, and let them be the base you stand tall upon.


3. TELL THE TRUTH

I know, everybody lies. But I believe that a creative work, whatever the text is, is some form of story. And we all want to figure out what the best stories are, because that, my friend, is the golden ticket. and I think the next thing I'm going to tell you is very, very true...

A few years ago, my best friend graduated from a very prestigious school in the east, and they had  a world renowned playwright named Athol Fugard (Pictured above) give the commencement address. He said he never set out to be a great writer, if in fact he was one. All he'd ever wanted to be was a good storyteller. That's what I want too. And what he learned in his struggles, toils, and travails was this:

"All good storytellers tell the truth".

So don't take it from me. Listen to Athol. I wish I'd listened to him from day one. But I believe it now. And it's really helped me get where I am, which compared to where I was, is a very remarkable achievement. And THAT is the truth.


2. KEEP THE FAITH!

Don't give up. It isn't too late for me, so it definitely isn't too late for you. You can get where you need to be to be a happy, creative, and successful person. Keep trying. Even if it seems like a small thing to do, do it. Even if it doesn't have a clear path to your goals, if it looks cool and interesting, try it. And don't lose your faith because that is what will nurture you when all else fails.

It could be religious, or spiritual, or personal. It could be just believing in something, anything, bigger than yourself. It could be whatever you cling to in times of trouble. That's up to you.

More than anything else, first and foremost I want to be a man of good faith. I'm not a devout person, and I'm not comfortable with labels like agnostic, humanist, or secularist. Those are terms other people want you to agree to so they can feel comfortable. We all want to categorize each other, but it's just a defense method and no label will ever fit a well-rounded person. Even "well-rounded person" doesn't sum anyone up who really is one.

To me, good faith means I keep my word to those I give it too. I don't give it lightly, not anymore. And it isn't easy. But life and love get better and better when you drop the bullshit and just follow through with what you promise to do.

Now here comes the Reaaaaallllllllyyyy important one.....

Drum-roll please!

1. I LOVE YOU!

I do. I know it's corny, but it's true. That doesn't mean you don't drive me crazy sometimes, or that your actions never deserve criticism, or even that we know each other. But you made it this far, you read this much, and for that I love you.

Loving each other is where it all starts. Why do we sing? Why do we paint? Why do we copy some thoughts down while leaving others to dissipate into the ether?

We do it because we want to love someone and be loved in return. Everyone with any ounce of sanity, regardless of affliction, wants at least that much. Truth, Understanding, and Love. That's the recipe we all crave.

All my life I wanted to be part of something special. I didn't know what it would be, but I thought I would know it when I saw it, kind of like the Supreme Court's feelings on obscenity.

So I searched and searched. I tried a million different things. Some were good ideas, some were not. Some were dangerous but thrilling, some were just self-destructive. But in the end, all the endeavors I tried, I never found that one thing could look at and call something special.

Then I fell in love. And she loved me too, and we got married, we're in the middle of the whole happily ever after part, which I hope isn't in any hurry to finish up. I never looked back. It's been the greatest, scariest, most amazing thing I've ever done. And it's the toughest, saddest, most difficult thing I've ever done as well. But it's worth it. It's sooooo worth it. Because love is where it's at. I love my wife, my step-kids, and my bat-shit crazy dog. I love my life, crazy and unpredictable as it is. And all that love has given me this perspective that I'm sharing with all of you.

I love making art, and I think my best ideas, my best stories, and my best work is still ahead of me. I think I will create something that will reach an audience outside the friends list on my Facebook page. And I think you all can too. But you gotta believe in yourself, love yourself, forgive yourself, and most of all be honest with yourself.

If anyone who reads this ever wants my help with their art, even if all I can do is give an opinion, I'm there for you. I'd love to be there for you. Because despite all our differences...

I love you.

Peace out, home slices.

Victor Sherrick has left the blogging.

Freaky is as Freaky Does

Here is a link to the article we'll be discussing today: FREAK FACTOR: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness.

Once again, while I like the format involved in the papers on the  Change This site, I fear that the subject is far more complicated than this slide show can really engage. The theme here is that we all have things we wish were different about ourselves, but instead of being insecure about them, turn them into a source of confidence.

That's a good suggestion, and this author may be pointing us in the right direction to delve deeper into this discussion. But the snippets here can't really transform a person's deep seeded fears into towers of strength. That takes enormous personal work and growth. It also takes either tremendous self-perspective, or the help of a counselor or therapist trained in recognizing the roots to these insecurities. Otherwise you will just end up claiming a weakness is now a strength but still needing the approval of others.

Also, not all weaknesses are strengths. Dishonesty, depression, violent aggression, pederasty, and sociopathy are not afflictions that can make you happier, more creative, or a better artist. The author isn't claiming that they are, but he also isn't giving the reader a good strategy on how to differentiate what is a quirky trait that may be misunderstood or what is actually a destructive pathology.

Let's look at three of Rendall's suggestions. starting with:

Number 4. FORGET IT: DON'T TRY TO FIX YOUR WEAKNESSES

This is a very attractive idea. Just accept who you are, warts and all, and hey while we're at it, who says that warts aren't beautiful? 

He makes four arguments for letting things be.

1 and 2. It is slow, difficult, and painful to make progress on our weaknesses. 

One and two seemed so similar that I combined them. He's right. Change will not come easily or quickly. But that's why it's crucial to know what you're trying to fix. Are you trying to stop biting your nails, or are you trying to stop maxing out your credit cards and ruining your credit? You can take your time on one, but you better get a grip on the other.

3. It distracts us from more important things.

I don't know. This is a rehash of my response to the first two. It's all well and good to let something slide if you are doing some really good work somewhere else. But you have to know what your fighting in order to prioritize it. If you are a brilliant composer you can probably get away with being abrasive. We forgive that in geniuses. If you write really good Harry Potter fanfiction but you can't have a conversation with someone without saying something sexually inappropriate you need to work on that now.

4. It doesn't work, at least not well enough to become a valuable strength.

This seems to contradict what he's talking about the whole time. He did define weakness and strength in terms of this essay, but I just completely disagree. You can turn a shortcoming into a strength because struggle can temper us in ways that easy mastery of something cannot. For me, playing the guitar is easy, writing is hard. I can't type, I can't spell, I'm wordy, and I repeat the same thoughts over and over. On the other hand, I have long fingers, strong hands, good dexterity, good rhythm, and already could play percussion before I ever picked up a guitar. But I'm a much better writer than I ever will be a musician. It was spending years and years struggling to write a sentence that didn't collapse under its own weight that led to me being a good writer. Now I still have a million typos, but the content of what I put on the page is stronger than anything I can create musically.

Here Mr. Rendall and I must agree to disagree.

5. FOUNDATION: BUILD ON YOUR STRENGTHS

Rendall's contention here is that you can't take for granted what you are already good at and you need to continue to imporve in these areas.

I don't really disagree with that. I think we need to keep striving to get better at the things we love to do, even if they at first come easy. There will always be a challenge if you follow the path long enough.

His arguments are

1. that is feels good to be good at something, so do it often.

If you love to do something, or at the very least make you living at it, then you need to stay sharp. I know many people who are good at math, but would rather not use it in their careers. However, they need to make a living so they do. It would be easy to become complacent in that scenario and I would recommend that they continue to expand their knowledge.

2. What comes naturally will be the area you can excel the most.

I don't know about this one. I stated my belief that through struggle comes growth above.

3. Strengths make up for our weaknesses. 

I also made an agreeing statement above when I compared Mozart's getting a fee pass for his Asberger's Syndrome to a creepy fan fiction author. It depends on how strong are you strengths and how bad are your weakness.

8. FREAK: THE POWER OF UNIQUENESS

Here Mr. Rendall compares a talented freak to the tower of Pisa. while it was never intended to lean, it now is the most famous structure in the city, and one of the most famous in the world. 

But this is because it never fell over. It worked out. Leaning is fine if it doesn't lead to total collapse. 

The idea that if something doesn't go as planned it can still be cool is a really good one. I hope that, of all the notions debated here, comes through to the reader more than any other. Especially for the young readers who struggle with self-identity and a need to be perfect more than old guys like me. 

But you can't predict happy accidents. You just have to recognize them for what they are. That is a talent in and of itself, and if you already have it you probably don't need self-help manifestos. But maybe you do.

My Own strengths and Weaknesses:

I've actually discussed them quite a bit earlier, but I will go over it here. As a creative person I am very spontaneous, I have a good memory for what I see, hear, or read and can use that to reference in my creative work later, and I have a lot of creative experience as I have been involved in the arts my entire life.

But I'm not a professional, so despite all that experience there comes down to something lacking somewhere. My feeling is that while I am a talented person is many ways, I lack the fundamental ability to package my ideas and concepts in a manner others want to engage. I believe my work has merit, but my presentation is flawed. I did not, for example, get one item presented to the class this week in our student showcase. I felt terrible about that since that meant my team-mates didn't get the extra points as a result. We all worked really hard on our projects, and I feel like I let my teams and partners down. It was a group effort, but I had a leadership position in both large group projects, and I came up short. (My partner Beth did get her song selected. I'm very happy about that). I'm not worried about the extra points (I definitely care about grades, but 25 points would not be enough to make a huge difference in my course GPA), but I do feel very sorry for my colleagues, particularly in the Game Design project since I was the only digital media student in our group and they really were counting on me. 

I have to learn from this and move on. I don't have another twenty years to figure out how to get people interested in my art, whatever it is. I came here to learn how to make it happen. This class has been a learning experience. And it has been painful.

There is a connectedness in all things

This is a discussion that involves a Trans-Media game called Collapsus. you can play it for yourself here.
  
The experience itself (which is closest to a game, but has a lot of other components as well) is a very layered one. The player needs to invest the time in the set up before you can start to engage the product. I understand the necessity to do that, but it took a long time before I was ready to interact with it as more than a passive observer.

Both the video download on my computer at home and in teh school lab had serious issues loading and playing. I admired what I saw of the  content, but it was a struggle to get to all of it. The video and graphics are done on a top flight quality. The game itself didn't hold my interest, but I would recommend it to someone who enjoys the conspiracy theory stuff more than I do. The technical capacity for this game may be there in Europe, but not here in our community. Not yet.


I've tried to make this class a very trans-media experience for me with various results. One thing I have done is link my blog to my facebook site, where I have around 125 friends. None of them have left a comment on any of my blogs so far. They might have checked it out, I have no idea. But just including social media into the process isn't enough. There still needs to be a hook to get people to want to engage in your work, whatever it is. 


And that's what I learned most about this class. Creative work, whatever it is, has to be presented in a way that other people will want to connect with it. Otherwise you have a blog with no followers except one beleaguered TA. 


I do think I can find ways to get my writing, animation, and gaming out to a larger audience. I just need to figure out how. This was a good first step.
 

Video Game Presentation

My group presented a game idea to our class today, done in the style of a corporate pitch. Here is the powerpoint we used first of all.

The Curse Of The Golem

While I do believe in the game itself I feel the presentation missed a couple of key elements that would have made it's concept and appeal clearer.

A brief description of the game itself: It's an interactive environment game where the player is a monster from Jewish Legend set in the Warsaw Ghetto during the eve of World War II. The player can fight the Third Reich, other Monsters their diabolical sorcerer conjures up, and even take on the forces of Hell. However the player is free to make choices for himself and can be a simple monster running amok that will bring it into conflict the forces of good including Angels.

Where we went wrong I think was the presentation didn't make it clear how much of this is inspired by legend and urban myth. The Golem is a story from the Kabbalah, and there were supposedly eye-witnesses who claim to have seen the Nazis fighting a stone monster in Warsaw. The origin of this myth is difficult to track down, but is prevalent enough that it has been referenced in comics since the 1970's and was a partial inspiration for the Eli Roth character in Quinten Tarenantino's Inglorious Basterds.

In my mind taking that myth out of the context of World War II diminishes the appeal of the game. It can be set in any era, but the immediate connection to this legend is a definite selling point for fans of the Horror genre as well as military games.

Also we should have focused on the roots in Jewish legend to explain the presence of the Angels and Demons in the game. I believe a sandbox game needs an ultimate consequence, and for a monster just fighting soldiers wasn't enough. But the theological elements (albeit in a very secular concept) end themselves to this ultimate confrontation of the divine and the diabolical.

The game itself is a tricky sell because it gives the player so many goal options. He can fight the Germans. He can try to complete the missions, defeat the German Sorcerer, and lay his soul to rest. He can just go on a mindless rampage and fight whoever shows up to stop him. He can try to follow the clues to his backstory and connect with his humanity. He can even turn on his creator. That is the nature of the interactive environment game. And I believe it is the future not only of gaming but of interactive media. No longer can we dictate which morality a player should embrace as he engages our creations. Just as the writer must put him or herself in the mindset of the villain to bring life to the character, now the player can do that as well. We've come far enough for the rational among us to believe that playing a rampaging brute does not make one a brute.

The mechanics of the game are so complex because the environment is so complex. To be able to interact with everything you come into contact with requires thousands of assets to be built in, a memory system that recalls that once a building gets smashed it stays that way, and doesn't restore until the player resets the game to beginning. This requires hundreds of possible inputs from the game controller and thousands of visual and aural clues tell the player what he or she can do in any given interaction. Explaining it isn't important to sell the game as long as we understand it's there.

I put my heart and soul int this project. I wish I had put more emphasis on selling the history and appeal of the game itself, rather then plunge into the playing of it.

A Case Study of Nonverbal Lobsters with Black Lung

Here are the two videos my group produced once again. The first is:

Case Study of Nonverbal Communication

It was a mocumentary, satirizing the school film genre as a supposed expert analyzes a brief exchange between two individuals using only their body language.

The second is called Blck Lung and Lobster

This was a more straight forward short sketch, and while it isn't a parody, I think it works well as comic short.

There is a great deal of contrast between the two in framing. In the first the director had the actors framed very differently. The protagonist is always shot from a higher horizon line which gives him the impression of being very vulnerable.

 The antagonist is shot from a low horizon to make him more powerful.

 
They also have very different shaped heads, with the protagonist having a triangular head.

And the antogonist has a square head with square sunglasses.

Now let's take a look at the same techniques employed in Black Lung and Lobster.

In this video the use of horizon line isn't as important. What is more critical is the use of space. The protagonist is in flat space with a plain white wall behind him and square, flat computer monitor blocking him. Having a flat background makes the viewer focus more on the character, and hiding him behind the monitor not only solves the audio dubbing problem, but forces the viewer to look into the character's eyes, which are above the monitor ridge.

Now lets look at the antagonist. He has a cluttered background using limited space to make it harder to focus on him. This shot makes us focus less on the man in the picture and more on the environment itself. It's disorganized nature is a true contrast to the first office's austere appearance, and gives the viewer a lot to look at. This also not only solves the issue with the same actor being used, but it also makes this office appear busier than the charity's.

But where the two films do use a similar method is in shape pertaining to the characters.  The protagonist has a triangular head. The hat makes him almost a perfect triangle. This makes him less sympathetic, and that is important for the joke to work.

The antagonist here has a round head. This is good for comedy, and that alongside the cluttered space he's in makes the viewer empathize with him at first, which sets them up for the surprise ending that he isn't that sympathetic after all.

The two films have a contrast in the emphasis and use of lines and space, but have something of an affinity for their use of shape. What I think is remarkable is that Mathew played three of these characters and was able to take on all three distinct shapes in his characters. Simple props like a hat or sunglasses helped transform from one shape to the next as we needed him to.

These were both very good short scripts that took an amazing difference in style to tell the same story. I was very happy with the way the both turned out. They did what we set out to do.

I Wish I could Swm, Like Dolphins, Like Dolphins Can Swim....

Here, Listen to this one while I wax poetic on my classmates super-heroes.

Bowie is cool.

Okay, the topic today are the very creative projects my classmates did in the create a character part of the course. Starting off with one Dan Ahrens. You can link to his blog post here.

His hero is called "The Creep". It's a plant monster along the lines of Swamp Thing, Man-Thing, The Heap, Jason Woodrue the Floronic Man, the last Cotati from the Avengers' comic, Medphyll from Green Lantern, Plantman, Blackbriar Thorn, some versions of Solomon Grundy, the James Arness version of The Thing From Another World, the Triffids from the movie Day Of The Triffids, the Krynoids from the classic Sc-Fi series Doctor Who, and last but not least the Jolly Green Giant.

Here's a picture of the green monster.

Beautifully illustrated. It may have been the best rendered in the entire class. I wouldn't envy the comic book artist who had to draw all that detail in every panel, but I suppose that's why they pay him the big bucks. The Creep's nemesis was created by Dan Wanio and here's a picture of that nefarious guy.

 

 The key part o these images is the lighting in my opinion. The hero is draped in shadows while the villain is basking in the spotlight. This creates a shift in mood since we tend to assume it will be the other way around. But if you look at the defensive posture of the Creep, you notice he isn't an aggressive figure at all. He s hiding in the shadows, not lurking in them (despite his name). He's a misunderstood character. One who is called a derogatory name, not one who choose it. 

An interesting source of light in the upper image actually comes from the eyes of the monster. Glowing a bright red hue, this unexpected brightness makes the character standout, and creates the impression he can't hide in the background as much as he wants too.

The Villainous Ringleader wears a bright red jacket, which contrasts with the dark green of the Creep. The jacket makes the entire character pop out of the image, rather than the how the Creep's eyes make you focus on just a part of the character. This sends the message that the Ringleader is a man who walks in the open daylight. But with his exaggerated features, and his dark eyes, we feel like he's hiding something in plain sight. This message is sent actively and lets us make the connection ourselves.

Both characters are interesting and very well drawn. They evoke familiar archetypes (hmmm, that isn't a vocabulary word. Maybe it will be next quarter), meaning we've seen similar images before and we have certain expectations as a result that the narrative can then conform to or contradict depending on the level of said familiarity to these contextual images the author is counting on the reader to possess in order to manipulate the reader engaging the text to expect something but get the binary opposite instead leaving him or her surprised but still feeling that the narrative arrived there logically. In other words, we've seen guys like this before, and as long as the creators are aware of that they can use that knowledge to play with our expectations. Or not. It's just a super-hero, after all. 

Beth Carter

Beth posted her character here.   Here's a picture of her stalwart hero "The Good". 

 And here is his dastardly enemy, "The Ugly"  created by Megan Scalf.

I like these two a lot since they aren't overly serious and stay very kid friendly. I also like that they went into a different genre with their characters and did cowboys here. As super-hero and villain they stretch the definition of the term, but that's good because why should we stick to rigid classifications for something as intentionally silly as comic book heroes. In fact there are dozens of comic book western super-heroes, mainly published in the 1950's. Here are a few pictures of some of them. 

There were more, and that doesn't even begin to cover characters like The Lone Ranger, Red Ranger, or Zorro who started out on Radio or in the dime novels. 

So I really love the nostalgia Beth and her partner evoked with their characters. There is a rich tradition of western comic books, and many legendary cartoonists thrived in the genre like Dick Ayers, Joe Maneely, Doug Wildey, and Carmine Infantino.

Now here are the two characters again:

If we look closely at the two drawings we see that color is the primary trait to contrast the two figures. The Good uses much brighter coloring and hues, the Ugly sticks with dark blues and black, sort of like a walking bruise. This darkness is saturated in his costume. While the earth tones the Good wears keep him from being too obviously a goody two shoes, and show his character actively instead of making him more didactically the hero with primary colors and the obligatory white hat.

Their posture also creates different lines and shapes with the characters. The Good has some sharp angles and broad shoulders which effectively frame him as a square character, while the Ugly is curvilinear and therefore contrasts with the hero without being too threatening for younger viewers.

These are fun characters. I think the laid back nature of The Good makes for a good contrast to The Ugly, who is a more over the top character. If both were chewing the scenery it wouldn't work. One needs to be calming to the viewer, particularly if you are skewing the product to a younger audience. These two could definitely spur (pardon the pun) a light-hearted western animated series or strip. In fact, Nickelodeon Movies just released Rango to capture that very market.

Not the same thing exactly, but similar target audiences perhaps. I could see The Good and The Ugly as a Cartoon Network counterpart to the gunslinger chameleon.  Mighty props to Beth and Megan.

Katie Everett

Katie ad her partner used a different take on the project than everyone else in our lab and went for a  toon version of The Hangover.

They are Doctor Owen

And the insidious Rib

If Beth and Katie could have pitched their idea to Cartoon Network, then these two could find themselves on the cable network's very popular (particularly with college aged viewers) programing block Adult Swim. The despicable Rib would fit right in alongside the cast of characters on Aqua Teen Hunger Force or on Squidbillies.

The gist of these characters is simple here. Te Rib Tempts Dr. Owen to indulge in all manner of drugs and decadence. Rib gets Dr. Owen high and then, one supposes, hilarity ensues. 

If you can get comfortable with the concept, then we can engage the actual designs of the two. On inspection there is nothing active in the insinuations here.  This is purely didactic. The rib looks like piece of anthropormorphic (another word that may not have been in the vocabulary: Essentially giving human characteristics to a non-human figure such as an animal or inanimate object so as to stress a particular element of human personality and character through symbolism and metaphor. Essentially making a syringe talk in order to show the folly of drug abuse.) drug paraphanalia and the message is crystal clear that he is going to mess Owen up.

There is very little contrast among the colors, hues, or even brightness of the two drawings. Dr. Owen does wear purple red and blue, but he is surrounded by a yellowish aura that is very similar to The Rib's coloring. This probably suggests an affinity between the two, and is could be a statement by the artists on the inherent duality of all men and the manner in which we bury the darker demons of our natures in a futile attempt to suppress their control over us and our actions as Judeo-Christian ethics suggest that all indulgence is sinful but is undeniably part of human nature. Or this could be a part of the lighting that the illustrator is trying to use to create the mood of being in Las Vegas. I really couldn't tell.

So, good work Katie. I think you have a very creative piece here. 

Super-Powers

Give a listen to This American Life's podcast 178: SUPERPOWERS

The gist of the program is whether or not you would like to have the power of flight or the power of invisibility. It's really more about what the choice reveals about the person making the selection. If you're prone to flight you have a free-spirited personality, if you pick invisibility then you tend to be more shy. No one, it seems, chooses to use either power to fight crime (The interviewer must never actually ask the question to people who do fight crime). Personally I tend to lean toward the flight side. And on a day like today when a tragedy has struck Hawaii and Japan, I hope I would use it help people. There are probably more ways I could help people now, but I think I do what I can.


The power I would pick though is more selfish. I'd choose the power to compose and perform beautiful music on a super-human or supernatural level. I would spend my days writing and playing music I can only dream of now. I would play for others if they wanted to hear it, but I wouldn't strive for fame or stardom, since I would know the music I was making was inhumanly good. If I was the only person to ever hear it I would still be satisfied with it. I write songs I don't really intend to play for other people now, but they have reached their ceiling from a technical standpoint, and I haven't written new songs in a long, long time.

But if I had that power, my songs would never, ever hit their ceiling, and I could write and play and create music forever. If you're wondering if I would still appreciate the music I was creating if it came with no effort, no work on my part, I seriously don't know. Maybe its really overcoming the struggle to create something that matters. Maybe anything given without cost has no value. But I think I love music enough that I would still enjoy going along for the ride.

Here's a picture of a super-hero who actually has this power.

I assure you I am not making this up....

His name is Koryphos, and he actually did appear in a few Marvel comics (Mostly in the '80s), though never as a lead character. He's part of an immortal race of beings who survive eternally (Hence their name Eternals) by focusing on a single interest that propels their longevity. Kory here is an Eternal musician who inspired the legend of Orpheus in Ancient Greece. He has songs that last over a year in length.

In comic terms he's called a "Mort", which basically means dead on arrival. Here his costume is bad, his power doesn't translate well to a soundless medium like comic books, and his name lacks a strong connection to his concept (the problem is the name Orpheus is difficult to warp around into something recognizable with out sounding filthy). The fact that I even vaguely remembered him (I had a tough time finding a picture of him since I couldn't remember his name for the life of me). I would love his power, but no, I wouldn't want to be him.

It's  not the most kick-ass superpower, I admit. But music is a part of the creative process that seems to me to be the most "god-given". We discover it like a physical location rather than process we intentionally work toward. In fact, it is a process, and you do have to work at it, and there are formulas and methods that you learn and use to write music. But after it's done, it all seems so magical.

Wiz & Oz, the animation!

Here it is, the animation debut of Wiz & Oz!

My Hero Project

Here is the image I created for my Hero/ Villain project. The Characters are called Wiz and Oz, and are a team like Batman and Robin. The bunny is not the bad guy, which is a little confusing in the artwork, I'm told.

The Adventures of Wiz & Oz!

Here these two characters stand in my personal favorite buddy cop pose. The image is a little smaller here then I wanted but the idea is still conveyed.

The light and color's are bright to make him appealing to a young audience. I chose primary colors for Wiz to contrast with the villain my Partner Max designed. I colored Oz orange to contrast happily (not violently) with Wiz and  also to evoke the classic comic book character "The Thing", who Oz is partially inspired by.

The story is that the boy, Wiz (Short for Wilbur Isaac Zimmerman, poor devil) wants desperately to become a great stage magician. He can't afford a proper magicians kit, however, and buys an old dusty magic kit from a stranger who claims to have bought it from Harry Houdini himself. Later, when Wiz is in a Jam he finds out he can summon an 8 foot tall super rabbit named Osric. Together the two have a series of adventures guaranteed to be fun for the whole family! Or at least they would if they ever were continued beyond this project. But hey, who knows?

Here is the original sketch before I colored it. The too were based on other cartoon characters. Wiz is actually taken from Luigi of Mario Bros. Fame. The wardrobe was my design with my step-daughter Emily doing the initial rendering of it.

Oz was based on Genie from Disney's Aladdin. He has the same light-bulb torso. I liked the angles they gave to Genie's cranium, and it was a way to make the hero bunny have a square head. The round curves still make him a friendly character though.  Having him rise from the hat also lends to that Genie effect. If I had it to do over again I'd have Oz springing from the hat instead of appearing from the smoke.

Here is an early draft of the character. Emily actually drew Wiz's body and Oz's face here. I re-drew the face on Wiz, although I wish I hadn't. I also drew the "Where's Waldo version in the upper corner. I really liked Ozzie's face here, but I felt he needed to be a little more square in shape. It doesn't quite work as a super-hero, but it's a perfect cartoon bunny though.

This is the finished version of Wiz's face. He needed to be younger thean he was in the initial sketches, so I made his nose and chin triangular to make him look more like a teen. Even his hair forms a triangle. Typically this is a look for a villain, but I think he comes off as a character who has to grow into being a hero. This look is very similar to Ash from Pokemon.  I later changed the face in the upper sketch to practice drawing it. I wish I'd kept the original for the record.

Here's a small sketch of Oz lifting a bus.I wanted to show how strong he is (Like a Hercules or Captain Marvel character), but this ended up looking like he was going to throw the bus instead of save it. I chose this pose to show the weight of the bus pushing down on his ears, which I hope makes him a different type of super-hero character.

So that's the genesis of a comic book hero.  I had a great time drawing and designing them, and I hope to re-visit these two when I have more time to dedicate to the project.

2nd Video Joke

And here is the second! Enjoy!

Video Jokes

Here is the first video joke my group produced.

Roy Lichtenstein is a dirty rat!

In a pretty interesting twist this week,w e were assigned the task of re-imaging (Or re-imagining) a visual we had worked with before. We needed to show or revision next to the original and then explain ehy we chose them and what was at work there.  So here  they are. Roy Lichtenstein's original is on the left.

Now, they seem pretty similar side by side like that. I zoomed in on her face becasue there seems to be so much guilt on her face. I really wanted to focus on that. To discuss the question why the artist framed the image the way he did we need some quick historical context.

Roy L was a very successful painter in his own right, but the image above directly lifted  by him from a comic book by Tony Abruzzo called "Young Romance". He projected a blown up version of the panel onto a canvas and painted it. Now, Lichtenstein selected the single image from  god knows how many, but the painting itself was a straight replication.

The visual intensity of the image is incredibly powerful. The emotion is boiling over. The lines on the man's flesh show her grip to be so tight it's almost smothering him. In my zoom in, I focused on the softer curves in that portion of the image to make the intensity less immediate and put the attention on the rounded tears in her eyes.

I hate to criticize a buck-eye made good like Roy Lichtenstein, but what he was able to accomplish using "inspiration" from others has always been somewhat uncomfortable to me. In fact, to read an article written by Don Marksten on Roy Lichtenstein's methods and his personal issues with a cartoonist named Irving Novick, click here.

Songs

Some songs my classmates composed, and my analysis, such as it is.

Dan Wainio and my post

Joshua Strizak and my post

Alex Wiseman and my post

Soundscapes

Sorry for the delay, but as always, I'm a pair of brown shoes (PC user) in a Tuxedo (Mac) world.

Here are my musings on my classmates soundscape projects:


Megan Scalf  and  my post

Ian Reynolds and my post

Erin Riordan and my post

Cover Song Battle Royale

“This old world is rough, and it’s just getting rougher.”

That little sample of lyrical vim is from the Song “Cover Me” by Mr. Bruce Springsteen, and it introduces the notion I’m exploring today: The cover song. This is a topic very dear to me since some of my oldest friends have spent years in cover bands. Is this a worthwhile endeavor? Is it just for fun? Is it a colossal waste of time?

Well, probably somewhere in between.

There are thousands of cover songs out there. I don’t know if I could even pick my favorite cover of all time. Quite often it’s a cover of a song I didn’t like as well originally, like “Personal Jesus” by Johnny Cash (which I much prefer to Depeche Mode’s electronic opus) or a song where I heard the cover before ever knowing the original existed, like the Grass roots’ “Let’s Live For Today” (which is much more famous than the obscure original “Piagni Con Me” by the Rokes).  But I did select one song to look at, or two if you believe the separate versions constitute two songs .

“Mad World” by Tears for Fears.

Tears For fears did this song in their debut album The Hurting” in 1982 before finding international success (click on the title above to listen).  Essentially a two man act, it was written by Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith. It is a song very much in the mold of what was popular in England at the time. It has a hint of electronica,  dreary incomprehensible lyrics, and beat that you can dance to. I first heard the song in 1992 on their compilation disc “Tears Roll Down” which was ironically a second version of the song by the band, adding more techno elements to make it sound more like the music of that day. It was probably 1999 before I heard their original take, which is much softer and more heartfelt in my mind. It’s the 1982 version listed above

"Mad World" by Gary Jules. 

Like many fans of his version, I first heard it in the movie “Donnie Darko” and the song lingered in my memory far longer than the film.  It’s haunting vocal and dreamy piano were so moving hearing the song was a transforming experience for me. That’s a very grandiose statement, but warranted in this case.

The two songs are very dissimilar, but not completely different. 

The lyrics of the two versions completely identical.  They use the same exact wording, and even sing them in the same pattern (Verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, verse, etc. ect.)

The melody is also identical. It is almost as if the cover artist was playing the sheet music to the original.

The rhythm is completely different. The Tears For Fears is a dance song with up-tempo rhythm that serves in contrast to its lyrical darkness. The Gary Jules version is down-tempo, possessing affinity with its bleak verbiage 

The timbre is also completely different.  The two versions differ in their aural tone greatly. The Tears for Fears version uses studio techniques such as heavy doses of reverb and echo, and what is undoubtedly a drum machine.  It’s almost as if the artists were embarrassed by the lovely melody they created and had to drown it in a backlash of discordant layers. This causes a sort of musical dissidence that the song becomes bogged down by. The Gary Jules version, in contrast is straightforward in its engineering and production, using the sounds of a piano in place of synthesizers, and strings in place of guitars to create a harmony between the beautiful orchestration and the likewise beautiful melody.

The two versions contrast each other in their approach and production methods. The first relies too much on the electronic technology that was novel at the time of the recording. The second realizes it is a beautiful and haunting melody and uses its studio wizardry very subtly. It has a dreamy effect, where the Tears For Fears version is more a bad trip.

But the British duo really did write a beautiful song. I’ve head them perform it live and they really do it justice now.  And it’s their version, not one overly reminiscent of the popular cover song.  I’ve heard Jules perform it too, and he does a nice job, but it isn’t as powerful as his recorded version. I think he caught lightening in a bottle in the studio that day and he created a very rare creature indeed: A cover better than the original, and that ain't bad.

Squeeze the Lizard

“Think outside the Box “

It’s such a common phrase that no one examines it anymore. It’s a cliché. A mindless utterance made by the mediocre in hope to appear cutting edge. It’s so ten years ago.

But we have to keep telling ourselves that this is true today and we need to keep saying it, in some form or other. We need to stop letting ourselves be categorized or channeled, herded like so much intellectual cattle. We need to think for ourselves the way the our own minds want to think, not the way some system, some culture, or some authority figure insists. Break the mold and free your mind.

That’s’ the essence of Seth Godin’s manifesto “Brainwashed” as I interpret it. You can read it here.

I don’t totally disagree with Mr. Godin. In fact, on the elements of his argument he and I are largely in agreement. I do question whether or not merely reading his essay is enough to bring about the kind of social revolution he imagines, but I admit this may be a matter of semantics, as one man’s questioning authority is another’s open insurrection. 

Mr. Godin gives us several suggestions on how we can reconstruct our intellectual identities and take part in this digital revolution. In fact he gives us seven.  I’ll look at two, starting with…

“Acknowledge the Lizard”

The reptile n question is the part of all of us that has been socialized into going along with the flow. Keep our heads down and do our work and everything will be all right. We’d like to erace this primitive thought process, but that isn’t possible, at least according to Mr. Cohen. We need to accept the lizard is along for the ride so instead of an insidious whisper in the back of the ear, it becomes a recognized naysayer we can simply ignore.

“Ship”

I like this article a lot, because it acknowledges the importance of productivity. “Ship” in this instance refers to the verb “To move out” rather than the noun with its nautical references. Get your product ready. Get it out there. Get it to the public first. These are incredibly truthful statements about the more practical side of the creative process. The fact that I already agreed with it and therefore feel reinforced by the inclusion on the list may tell you more about me than about the author’s intent, but include it anyway because I haven’t seen this type of pragmatic honesty in the intellectual arena often enough.

I also had to look at the assignments I have been given in this course, two of which you can see here and here. 

Have these helped me reinvent myself, or did I merely  reinforce that which I already knew about myself in the making of them? I honestly did change my thinking process in the creation of them. I had no idea what would happen when I began my sound and music projects, and I used a sort of “Let the art lead me where it wants to go approach” which I typically wouldn’t do. That was caused by my own inexperience with the digital platforms the projects were constructed on. But that lack of technical confidence led me to try things I wouldn’t have done had I used a camera, guitar, drum, or microphone. I know what I can do with those devices. I can create anything I can conceive of within their own confines with them. But this made me rely on the new technology to lead me instead, and I created two works I would never have done with more familiar tools. Are they better? Probably not. But I would never have written a dance tune, or made an expressionist collage on my own. Now I have, for good or ill. And that part of it makes my lizard afraid, and my inner revolutionary very, very happy.

Song Project

Hey Y'all

Here's the link to my song.

Enjoy it and remember to dance, dance, dance!

Soundscpae project

Here is the link to the soundscape

Hope you enjoy it, if that is the right word. 

A Lament for the Lamb

Those rascals at http://changethis.com/ have a nifty article Johnathon Flaum called "Finding Your Howl". Lets take a look at it and see what we can glean from it.

First of all it begins with a neat story about a red wolf named Mumon, and his bizarre acid trip like voyage of self discovery and emancipation. Then Mr. Flaum gives us a critical analysis of this story and some of its deeper themes. I'd like to talk about one in particular: That of the need for the elder self to die a metaphorical death for the new you to emerge. This will, I hope, tie in nicely with my choice of quote later on.


Mumon is part of a breed that is virtually extinct. They must be bred in captivity to survive, but it really living? And as a civilized man, reading this in the comfort of my modern home, what parallels are there for me?

One, to be too content is to be stifled, and that is true of man and beast alike. Struggle brings inspiration, though often alas, not in time. To live in comfort and shelter from all life's perils would stilt our human spirits and creative minds. We would lose our need to exist, as we have habitually defined that existence as one of championing over all that would end it. Classes on creative writing discuss the three main plots: man versus man, man versus nature, man versus self. Without something to put after "versus" man stands alone. We are defined by our conflicts and we need them to even justify our own existences.

Heady stuff, but if it doesn't appeal to you on some visceral level, I think you may be too socialized into believing that all conflict is bad. War is bad, violence is bad, disease, rape, murder all horrible. But we need to be in conflict to really be alive and to be human. We just need to overcome the worst devils of our natures, which is easier said than done.

The poem I chose to read aloud is Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night". One of the first things reading it aloud brings to mind is how often that opening line is misquoted as "Go not gently". I think the awkward language makes us uncomfortable, so we alter it a little.

Here's the work in its entirety. Feel Free to sing along!

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

This poem has always been a favorite of mine, and as the son of parents who are now deceased I cannot read it but to think of them. But in this case I was pondering the story of Mumon and his need to die metaphorically before he could live as a new wolf. This is not just the railing against our biological cessations, but the mournful expression of the pain of change. To change our perspectives we must discard an old way of thinking, hopefully for a better one. But it is still painful and uncertain and a part of will never want to go. A part of us will always howl, and rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Deconstructing Ditkoff

Part One: So You're THIS Close  To A Breakthrough?

Those progressive thinkers over at http://changethis.com have posted a manifesto by Mitch Ditkoff called "14 Ways To Get Breakthrough Ideas". It's not exactly Das Kapital, but it does follow the general theme of the blog thus far. 


To begin with we will critique the essay as a whole and in part, then we'll take a stab at some of the exercises and see if I end up getting any humdingers of an idea. If it does I will take my proverbial cap off to Mr. Ditkoff. I'm not saying I don't believe it, let's just say I remain a little skeptical.


Personally, I believe you can increase your creativeness through mental exercises, and moreover, a lack of effort toward original thought will atrophy those creative muscles. However, I don't think that a power point presentation done in the style of a self-help guru is the truest way to thine own self-discovery. In this modern virtual world it isn't enough to just put your thoughts into text, but while reading the presentation I felt like the intro music for the Chicago Bulls should be playing in the background. I imagine Mr. Ditkoff giving these seminars in the convention rooms at airport Holiday Inns. To be fair, he's posted these ideas for free on this web-site, so I'm not calling him a cheap huckster out to make a buck, but presentation is key and this feels more like corporate training than it does artistic nurturing.


That isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But is the best idea the one that can be implemented in the workforce for profit immediately? Are the best leaders really those who can organize groups in to productive units to complete assigned tasks within the resources allotted? I have a feeling there are a lot of people who hire corporate trainers who would say yes to both questions. And I am sure that Mr. Ditkoff would not pigeon hole his program in that narrow a box. But for those who think that the notion of generating new and original ideas in any kind of structured formula this essay will raise their eyebrows. 


2. Just What Does This Ditkoff Fellow Say Anyhow?

Let's look some of the specific postings here. He has 14 steps to help the reader increase his or her idea potential. Let's start with number one:


1. Follow Your Fascination

Right from the start I like what I'm reading. Yes, of course, if something fascinates me beyond the scope of other topics naturally focusing on that is bound to get my creative juices flowing. Of course, naturally. Well, actually, Mr. Ditkoff is referring to the fascination we get by a new idea, suggesting that there's no thrill like a new thrill. And to that end I think he's being fair to human nature. We do get wrapped up in novelty and that certainly could extend to new ideas. It's a simple idea and one that no one would reasonably object to or disagree with. Not that I'm a reasonable man. 


The problem is that this isn't really more than the recitation of commons sense. It isn't that it's just such a good idea that it seems simple, and that all good ideas are simple ones (The old "Why didn't I think of that?" philosophy) but that this is a bit too obvious. I don't need someone to give me intellectual permission to muse my most recent notion. I need someone to help me GENERATE new notions. That's a bit trickier.


The other criticism of this article lies in the third paragraph. He takes more than half the text to define the word fascinate down to its Latin root. That's interesting to know the origins of the word but doesn't give his thesis more validity. He attempts to give his concept additional gravitas (another Latin word, so I must know what I'm talking about) by linking it to ancient Rome and therefore the authority and majesty of the classical age. But saying that fascination is a powerful word doesn't mean it will help me get new ideas. 


Concept number three:

3. Tolerate Ambiguity

This is a better article from the reading standpoint. he has a concept here that isn't just common sense, and he makes and supports an argument or it. He's saying that things won't go according to plan, and you need to accept it. Well, when put that way, it doesn't sound as radical as the title to this chapter would suggest. In fact, I have to wonder what the title actually means. The word "ambiguity" is in and of itself ambiguous. I know you should never use a word to define itself, but I think that's better than what Mr. Ditkoff does here, which is to mis-define it.


This article is not about accepting the uncertain, but plodding on in the face of failure. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Another old saw. And one that wouldn't be impressive so he just used a word in place of failure that doesn't actually mean failure but is odd enough to avoid that kind of labeling. The story about Edison is one of perseverance, not tolerance. Henry Miller's quote “Confusion is a word we have invented for an order that is not yet understood.” (paraphrased a bit by Ditkoff,, this is the original)  is about the acceptance of others with alternative lifestyles and is taken completely out of context. Even if Mr. Ditkoff is attempting to re-contextualize it, it has nothing to do with the creative process. 


Concept number five:


5. Fantasize 


This is the most straight-forward chapter in the entire essay, and the one that in theory I have the least amount of trouble with. Creative thinking does require us to think in the abstract, to dream, even to daydream. I wholeheartedly agree with that. He is in essence saying, "Use your imagination". And lest you think this is just Mr. Ditkoff dusting off another chestnut, he has a great quote about the power of fantasy from chess champion and grandmaster Gary Kasparov, fresh from his conquest of super-computer Deep Blue. Kasparov cited in his victory two human elements that the vaunted machine could not equivocate: intuition and the ability to fantasize. That's pretty heady stuff. 


But it doesn't wash. Kasparov didn't easily defeat Deep Blue. He won the six game match 4-2, with two draws. Kasparov was, unfortunately a terrible bully, and was notorious for complaining to judges in situations he could not win and ultimately getting a  draw from a circumstance other players would have simply lost. In fact, when he gave the computer a rematch in 1997, he lost to the silicone giant. 

Now at he bottom of each chapter he gives a task to be finished. For number five, he assigns this:

Think of a current challenge of yours. What would a fantasy solution to this challenge look like?
What clues does this fantasy solution give you?


A current challenge of mine is to get to school during inclement weather. A fantasy solution would be to improve my car so that it can drive though any amount of ice and snow. Put chains on the tires and soup up the engine. Switch the transmission four-wheel drive install a cable and mechanical crank on the bumper like they have on jeeps in the jungle to pull myself out of any ditches. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!


The clues I take from that is my vehicle is not really road safe during heavy snowfalls and I am very worried about that. I'm not sure how that helps me get to a solution. I also don't think I violated the spirit of the exercise since it said only to use fantasy to consider the problem. It just didn't really help.


And that's the problem with the entire "manifesto". Good ideas are hard, and they are not always simple. Rewording axioms we already know may give the reader a sense of security in the material since it doesn't really challenge us, but it doesn't come closer to helping us not only get ideas, but promises "breakthrough ideas".  I wish it could help with that. And in some ways this can help a little. Nothing in here will inhibit creative thought. But it just doesn't add up to much of anything special.