hjc309’s blog

Commlab Final Flash

click to watch

Flash animation

click to watch

Flash animation -storyboard

Audio File

click to listen

Response of Marshall McLuhan’s “Understanding Media”

I found that McLuhan’s prediction of media and its’ influence to be hauntingly accurate.  My one criticism is that he perhaps takes his definitions beyond the limit of logic.  I think that his definition of media is far too broad and I find the interchanging media and medium distracting.  For example, I can easily see where he would reference newspapers, magazines and television and forms of media.  Indeed I think that the blackberry (including all variations of it), would also be included, as well as the i-pod and various other forms of technology.  This is especially so for the new Apple I-phone.  What I find to be incredible however is the reference to a light bulb.  I am not convinced that a light bulb or any form of lighting is something that should be acceptable as a form of media.
Rather, lighting in any manner may influence our interpretation of media rather than being a direct medium.  The distinction should not be confused and unfortunately, in my opinion it is in this book.  It is contradictory to say that lighting is a direct message; it merely adds or detracts from interpretation.  Likewise as applied to cars, trucks or other automotive vehicles.  The size and shape of the vehicle can lead our interpretation of the actual message to be casual (Jeep), intimidated (Hummer), refined (Lincoln or Buick) or earthy (Honda). Unless these objects are the subject of a message they cannot be considered a medium but simply an influence towards the interpretation of the message.  This does not mean that there important messages cannot be delivered by these subjects but that the operative word here is delivery.
Aside from the foregoing, I found the book to be enlightening and somewhat over the top.  I am curious to know what he would have to say about media today.

Storybord of new video

click to watch

Based on Kristen’s 55-word story
Carefully, slowly, Roger cracked the cubes of ice into the glass. He looked out the window. Nancy would be home shortly. Carefully, beautifully, he poured the cyanide into the glass. Vodka. A drop of sweat. Then the cranberry juice. A little swirl of the ice now. Nancy at the door now. Swirl, twirl; drink, Nancy.

stop motion

click to watch

Response of Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics

I thoroughly enjoyed this book.  I absolutely embrace McCloud’s definition of “icon”.  This to me is one of those rare books that makes absolute sense out of the ironies and idiocies of life.  What I do not understanding is omitting the “Far Side” from this definition.  I would have liked to see a conclusion in the term “moment”.  The definition seemed open ended to me but perhaps that is because it depends on whose moment we are referring to.  It can be my moment as I am reading or viewing the cartoon, or it can be the moment of the character. I like the way McCloud demonstrates that the realm of comics has brought our earliest forms of communications (Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mayan drawings on cave walls for instance) to a level that is humorous and sophisticated at the same time.
I personally had failed to make the connection and it is a simple one.  McCloud’s definition of closure has a definite psychological backdrop and I cannot say that I honestly see that in cartoons independent of what I have already “assumed” through my own impression of closure.
I also admire the way he differentiates between show and tell.  It is true that as youngsters we see them as one and the same yet as we get older and more educated, they are distinct actions.  This, I think we take for granted.  What would be interesting would be to show my opinion of this book as opposed to telling it.  All in all, it was an intellectually entertaining read.

Which one is the orange juice?

Yingxian and I wanted explore the conflict between real and fake in a questioning way rather than making a moral point such as telling people being true or real is always good. I think the moral value really depends on the subject.

Response of “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”

Walter Benjamin discusses the nature of art in relation to politics, human behavior and technology. He believes that technology shapes what a piece of art actually is. By reproducing an art work, such as a print of a painting, the original piece of art becomes devalued. The original work is no longer the only image of itself that people can enjoy. Suddenly, the masses can also enjoy a work that only the elite who could travel around the world to museums could enjoy. Benjamin believes film has become an art medium that is also enjoyed by the masses. However, he believes that filmmakers, particularly those engaged in “capitalistic exploitation,” are “trying hard to spur the interest of the masses through illusion-promoting spectacles and dubious speculations” (Benjamin X).
Benjamin accurately predicts that the art of film will become more popular than the traditional art of painting because it represents a more realistic view of the world. Also, film provides viewers with a collective, interactive experience that painting cannot provide itself. Benjamin also says that film will offer scientific value to psychologists because it will be able to document human behaviors for their study. “Fifty years ago, a slip of the tongue passed more or less unnoticed. Only exceptionally may such a slip have revealed dimensions of depth in a conversation which had seemed to be takings its course on the surface” (Benjamin XIII).
In my opinion, Benjamin was ahead of his time in predicting how new technologies would change the nature of art itself. He was talking about technologies that we consider outdated today, such as printmaking and early cinema. He could never have guessed how computer graphics would revolutionize both art and filmmaking. Benjamin was also accurate in predicting how the masses would eventually dominate the world of art. This is evident in the commercialization of filmmaking, which today is more of a product sold to the masses than a true art form done without financial considerations. Benjamin accurately predicted the use of film in the mental health field. Today, videos of psychological studies show how the subjects behaved during the experiment.
Benjamin’s linking of politics to art accurately predicted that film would be used as propaganda by governments. This is perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn from Benjamin’s essay: technology can have beneficial, as well as negative, impacts on human civilization.