For a "cut-up" project, I used an article from the most easily available paper around here, the Onion. The article involved an interview by the AV Club. I may have gone overboard a bit on cutting it up, but the stitching-together of it almost makes sense.
Beginning, middle, funny to some sense. Bob Odenkirk a lot of that. It was an apple on TV? Punchline humor. Let us be in charge. Moments that make lines happen in peoAVC: Did you have any funny at the same time? Create a dead beat, then so polarizing? We don't need to act. A lot of awesome reached out to us, cackling at it all. It was a surprise, what are on our show, the strict parameters about Adult Swim, who suck because of how sin-element out there on what they're doing. Da rules, not a big set... that feel it's important singing, "it's funny." When you know. You can send message boards if then, on the show, we say, it happens to all other planets, work and not funny. Frank Black says it's meaningless, and it goes across a portion of people, "put ourselves on a pedestal of the public that are happy to be ridiculous or be something else," and if the show exists at all, not Johnny Knox- or something. So we're here, sitting up top and a really small percentage on our show.
Tension and release. Coming from an idea that Tom would be interested in being mean-spirited friend who loves Carol. You hear reaction is loved it or just didn't get it, because it's so brutal. We were warned by, I think, and in many other Guest movies, but the first bit she said, "Listen, there's this reaction against the so-principle, just setting up. Do your pathetic, sad people when we make a commercial." That 15-year-old kid. Where lots of weird child-man experiences on the internet, and this show, and maybe now it's paced and how it started looking like avoiding an actual fake personality.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Barthes and Miller
Now, for something a little topical to this week's discussion of Paul Miller's book, Rhythm Science.
Of course, phonetically, a topic sentence would seem to be quite topical indeed (if you don't believe me, sound them both out). Therefore, I offer you my main argument right off the bat: Miller's Rhythm Science bears striking resemblances to the arguments of Barthes, covered near the start of the semester.
It simply wouldn't be polite to let such a topic sentence stand without some further explanation and examples, however, and so I have taken the liberty of writing here a couple of the more obvious ones. Others are most likely present, but these will serve our purposes well enough.
For one, the most obvious similarities are in the distinctions drawn between the reality of language and the perceptions of language. The sign and the signified, claims Miller, blend together and form the comprehension of music as well as literature. And, like Barthes, Miller places the bulk of the importance upon our own perceptions of the medium, transforming music into statement and statements into music. Of course the material source of the mix exists as its own entity, argues Miller; the true art of the work lies in both the transformative work done and the interpretive reaction provoked from the audience.
The second type of resemblance between the two works is a more subtle statement, yet more ubiquitous. Barthes challenges the contemporary notion of the author, decrying the influence of the author's own experiences and influences upon the work, yet acknowledging the association of the author with the consequences for the work they produce. Similarly, Miller works towards the idea of a common knowledge of sounds, saying that there is no sound from his experience that could surprise his imagination at this point in his life. The creation of new works from the stuff of old authors that are not themselves beholden to their "original" sources is an affirmation of the Barthes concept of "dead" authorship. However, like the arguments of Barthes, this too flies in the face of current culture and law, as violators of copyright are hounded by the legal system and credit given mainly to the original sources.
Having made a few points, I come to the close of this post. However, feel free to make your own arguments, with whatever materials you wish. How you go about making your own arguments is simply up to you.
Of course, phonetically, a topic sentence would seem to be quite topical indeed (if you don't believe me, sound them both out). Therefore, I offer you my main argument right off the bat: Miller's Rhythm Science bears striking resemblances to the arguments of Barthes, covered near the start of the semester.
It simply wouldn't be polite to let such a topic sentence stand without some further explanation and examples, however, and so I have taken the liberty of writing here a couple of the more obvious ones. Others are most likely present, but these will serve our purposes well enough.
For one, the most obvious similarities are in the distinctions drawn between the reality of language and the perceptions of language. The sign and the signified, claims Miller, blend together and form the comprehension of music as well as literature. And, like Barthes, Miller places the bulk of the importance upon our own perceptions of the medium, transforming music into statement and statements into music. Of course the material source of the mix exists as its own entity, argues Miller; the true art of the work lies in both the transformative work done and the interpretive reaction provoked from the audience.
The second type of resemblance between the two works is a more subtle statement, yet more ubiquitous. Barthes challenges the contemporary notion of the author, decrying the influence of the author's own experiences and influences upon the work, yet acknowledging the association of the author with the consequences for the work they produce. Similarly, Miller works towards the idea of a common knowledge of sounds, saying that there is no sound from his experience that could surprise his imagination at this point in his life. The creation of new works from the stuff of old authors that are not themselves beholden to their "original" sources is an affirmation of the Barthes concept of "dead" authorship. However, like the arguments of Barthes, this too flies in the face of current culture and law, as violators of copyright are hounded by the legal system and credit given mainly to the original sources.
Having made a few points, I come to the close of this post. However, feel free to make your own arguments, with whatever materials you wish. How you go about making your own arguments is simply up to you.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Share and Share Alike
And now, for something not quite completely different, here's another work using classmates' images.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Dewey, Takem and Howe (Sampling Reflection)
This past weekend was essentially spent taking pictures, images and photographs not nailed down from the internet and combining them into visual expression. The results are found below.
The general argument, that a nasty side effect of stringent copyright law interpretation is plainly to keep large corporations in control of their respective industries, is accomplished much more easily (though quietly) in the first version of the project, in which uses images not truly considered "legitimate" for such use. Availability of a larger pool of images is the main cause for this. The use of a well-known image (you'll know it when you see it) makes a more acute impact on the viewer, despite the more subtle nature of the first cartoon in comparison with the second. With the second, I was forced to be both crude in artwork and blunt in argument, simply because of the restrictions placed on the range of available material. Thank goodness for the Creative Commons and their helpful search directories.
The added effectiveness brought on by the familiarity of that icon in the first image, as well as the photos from the "Think Different" Apple campaign, tends to raise new questions regarding the use of these images. If the pictures or icons are purposefully chosen for the audience's recognition of them, that would place the credit for the effectiveness of your work partially on the original creators and distibutors of those images. This, of course, you may wish to avoid, particularly under threat of copyright infringement suits. However, as that oft-mentioned artist using Campbell's soup can images seems to be telling us, what else have we grown to universally recognize that is not already a trademark or logo of some corporation? The very advertising campaigns designed to acquaint the general public with these icons has perhaps succeeded a little too well for comfort.
---
Image 1
Image 2
The general argument, that a nasty side effect of stringent copyright law interpretation is plainly to keep large corporations in control of their respective industries, is accomplished much more easily (though quietly) in the first version of the project, in which uses images not truly considered "legitimate" for such use. Availability of a larger pool of images is the main cause for this. The use of a well-known image (you'll know it when you see it) makes a more acute impact on the viewer, despite the more subtle nature of the first cartoon in comparison with the second. With the second, I was forced to be both crude in artwork and blunt in argument, simply because of the restrictions placed on the range of available material. Thank goodness for the Creative Commons and their helpful search directories.
The added effectiveness brought on by the familiarity of that icon in the first image, as well as the photos from the "Think Different" Apple campaign, tends to raise new questions regarding the use of these images. If the pictures or icons are purposefully chosen for the audience's recognition of them, that would place the credit for the effectiveness of your work partially on the original creators and distibutors of those images. This, of course, you may wish to avoid, particularly under threat of copyright infringement suits. However, as that oft-mentioned artist using Campbell's soup can images seems to be telling us, what else have we grown to universally recognize that is not already a trademark or logo of some corporation? The very advertising campaigns designed to acquaint the general public with these icons has perhaps succeeded a little too well for comfort.
---
Image 1
Image 2
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Backwards and Forwards
If there's one thing that we can do to make the effects of our past mistakes worse than they already are, it is to dwell upon them.
While reading Lessig's book and the chapter on the Eldred Case, I was struck by how hard the author has personally taken the loss of that case. He has given a significant section of that chapter over to mentally flogging himself for his "stupidity" and "stubbornness," and the story of the Eldred case is the only one in the whole book to fail to clearly represent a real example of a concrete truth about the framing of the copyright debate. If one were to seek out a moral to his sad story, one would only come away with the fact that the legal and political system of the country does not quite function as it should, something that is usually understood even by those without any direct experience with the court system. It seems that Lessig has been hoping to get this off his chest for quite some time, and one wonders if this were not the original impetus for writing this book.
Far better than beating one's self up over mistakes is to learn from them and refuse to repeat them. Fortunately, Lawrence Lessig eventually proves to have finally overcome his own bitterness about these errors, and the remainder of the book provides not only an optimistic account of the next steps to be taken (and currently being taken), but also a glimpse of future possibilities for solutions to the present copyright issue. The Creative Commons, open-source licensing, and proposed Eldred tax all seem designed to prove that progress is still being made at individual, corporate, and governmental levels, despite all the setbacks. It is still too early for anyone to tell for sure how all this will end, but I personally tend to think that we will manage to work out something in the end.
While reading Lessig's book and the chapter on the Eldred Case, I was struck by how hard the author has personally taken the loss of that case. He has given a significant section of that chapter over to mentally flogging himself for his "stupidity" and "stubbornness," and the story of the Eldred case is the only one in the whole book to fail to clearly represent a real example of a concrete truth about the framing of the copyright debate. If one were to seek out a moral to his sad story, one would only come away with the fact that the legal and political system of the country does not quite function as it should, something that is usually understood even by those without any direct experience with the court system. It seems that Lessig has been hoping to get this off his chest for quite some time, and one wonders if this were not the original impetus for writing this book.
Far better than beating one's self up over mistakes is to learn from them and refuse to repeat them. Fortunately, Lawrence Lessig eventually proves to have finally overcome his own bitterness about these errors, and the remainder of the book provides not only an optimistic account of the next steps to be taken (and currently being taken), but also a glimpse of future possibilities for solutions to the present copyright issue. The Creative Commons, open-source licensing, and proposed Eldred tax all seem designed to prove that progress is still being made at individual, corporate, and governmental levels, despite all the setbacks. It is still too early for anyone to tell for sure how all this will end, but I personally tend to think that we will manage to work out something in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)