Jackie ♥ [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Jackie ♥

[ userinfo | scribbld userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

.010 - Memorials [Apr. 18th, 2012|02:56 pm]
When asked to do a memorial, I hadn't really thought I had one. My house doesn't exactly keep things outside of some pictures on display of lost loved ones like some people have. Little things, sure, but nothing is ever in the same spot. I have consistent collections of things like movies and toy trolls but I hadn't thought of them as much of a memorial.

What was an alter, I thought was the origami birds I strung across my ceiling using fishing wire. I had a count of them at one point but there's too many to keep track of lately. They're all folded not by me but a pen pal from Japan. Her name is Rei (Rei-sama jokely referred to for an entire summer when she convinced me that was 'chan' and not what it really is, which is about the equivalent of saying she's of much higher respect than I am.) I've known her since about 6th grade. She used to live her for a while but she moved back and now I could claim she's a 'pen-pal.'

Rei is amazingly allergic to those little packing peanuts (those styrofoam-y things. It's a polystyrene allergy) so when sending her something I packed it full of newspapers to keep the item safe. Unfortunately whoever was handling it spilled something on it and the letter I had in the box along with everything else was filled with newspaper ink.

The package I got back from her was filled with origami cranes to replace the newspaper and packing peanuts. ツルボックス which I think in English was actually 'Crane Box' but I've been calling them 'Package Cranes.'

I didn't want to throw them out since they're beautifully folded and there was so many of them so I strung them across my wall and sent her a picture. The next thing I sent to her had ones made by myself and she did the same thing. Since then we've been covering our ceilings in cranes and it creates a really beautiful color look when the sun shines through window and then through the paper. Depending on the box, I get about 120 cranes of all different sizes and colors. I think there's a thousand on my ceiling so I could probably make a wish on them.
LinkLeave a comment

.009 - A Film Before 1975 [Apr. 8th, 2012|11:18 am]
Naturally when I saw I was going to watch a film that dated before 1975, my immediate thought was Disney. And how could it not be? With their most classic ones dating prior to that year, I had a hard time picking.

It's finally settled on Dumbo, which I only briefly covered as existing and that's about it. The film was originally released in 1941 and one of the reasons it was made was to get the money back Disney lost over Fantasia. This is important to mention because I think Disney purposely made it far more of a kids movie since Fantasia kind of lost the little ones.

The story focuses on a baby elephant, who has HUGE ears, that gets separated from his mother and the trails his faces on his way back to her. It was the 4th film they released. Now I love this movie-- and elephants are in my top 3 favorite animals so it gets me by its sheer adorableness.

Dumbo is actually never really the main focus of the movie, despite him being the title character -- much like Legend of Zelda is more about Link, the guy saving her, than the actual princess only Dumbo is actually on screen the whole time. The focus is on the world around Dumbo, with him as the observer. The story itself is basic. Tiny guy gets bullied and you feel for him and then he gets a happy ending -- aka Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer. But the visuals and the emotional investment you end up putting into it by how gosh darn cute this elephant is are what really makes it one of those Disney classics and sets it apart from the rest

The visuals are down right weird. It's a circus so it's probably justified but there's an entire sequence in there were he gets drunk that I'm always a little confused about but the animation is gorgeously done and feels like one of those weird paintings I adore so I love the hell out of it. I can see Dali doing drunk elephants. Why not? Oh and people get upset about the grows possibly being a little racist but they make the elephant fly and are otherwise the coolest characters in the movie so I'd disagree.

Overall, there's not a downside to this movie and I will be watching it again. Repeatedly.
LinkLeave a comment

.008 - Favorite So Far [Mar. 28th, 2012|11:03 am]
My favorite artists so far having changed since the beginning of the course much.

My first is still Edvard Munch for how beautifully weird his work is. He's so strange and his paintings are just something I've loved and grew up with. There isn't much else to say, really. My favorite painting of his still being Scream and it's something I'd love to see in person one day.

The second is still Vincent Van Gogh, who is only more of a favorite of mine after getting a better look at his beautiful paintings. His use of color, the swirls, ... I've already talked about how much I love it but let me mention something else that added into how much I'm in love with this. Not only his paintings but the artist himself became fascinated to me.



There's actually an episode of the newer Doctor Who called Vincent and The Doctor that I accidentally caught on the BBC channel. I don't even watch Doctor who but I had to stop when I realized who they meant by 'Vincent.' I won't spoil it here because I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend watching it for the pure beauty of it. Some shots are shown above. There's one scene where they take him and he realizes his own greatness and it was quite a tearjerker.

And lastly, of course. I still love Salvador Dali for his surreal worlds he creates.
LinkLeave a comment

.007 - Sucker Punch [Mar. 21st, 2012|10:35 am]
This week I watched a movie I didn't exactly plan on to write about in the blog this week. When told to right any film, one I already saw and focus about things I missed -- I planned on watching a Disney Movie. I planned on watching Tangled again actually.

Instead, I caught Sucker Punch while flipping through my HBO channels and ended up getting my DVD and watching it about three times in a row. This film is the brainchild of director and writer Zack Synder. He's the one that directed 300 and Watchmen. Now this movie wasn't exactly what everyone that went in there wanted. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has about a 25% Rotten Score and most of those fancy-smancy critics dislike it. People often dismiss it as "too weird", "nothing but fan-service and cool looking CGI", or "offensive as all hell to women."

But really it's none of those things. This is a highly underrated film in my opinion and you can love it or hate it but it deserves a little more credit. The first time I watched it I wasn't even sure what to think but this second time around, then third, then forth, then fifth... I found myself liking it more and more every time.

The most important thing I noticed is that the "levels of reality" so to speak. It got compared to Inception in the trailers but that's not really it. Nor is the lead character, Babydoll actually insane. The CGI fights and having the asylum suddenly become a brothel for 90% of the film is a visual metaphors employed in the film are for our benefit, not hers. She's not fighting dragons in her head because she's nuts (she might be but that's not the point)-- she's fighting them because it's an interesting way for the audience to view her world. Without them it would be a typical escape movie where they sneak around stealing things and it would be horribly depressing and probably have a disturbing scene of molestation in it for shock value and the critics would have loved it and maybe it would have won an Oscar for Emily Browning playing a poor mental patient because old folks love that kind of stuff.

But I would have hated it. The visual CGI bonanza looking like a video cutscene was called great but it's said to take away from the story--- only it definitely doesn't. Snyder is telling the story of these girls in this asylum by providing these amazing visuals that are as epic as their situation feels to them. Without it the girls would be sitting around like a soap opera, probably. By comparing their problems to visions of epic battles and carnage, it makes for a better movie in my opinion and that's probably what he was going for.

As for what else I noticed there was little clues here and there tying in one reality to the other -- Like Babydoll using the same gun she aimed at her Stepfather in the beginning during the rest of the movie and it having a little bunny charm on it that matches the one her little sister is shown sleeping with in the opening (and is also on Amber's robot) and the Paradise Rum bottle showing up almost everywhere.

My brother joined me for the viewing and pointed out how unlike most action films, the girls were actually using the weapons correctly (never crossing paths, holding them right, correct stance/form/everything) and the correct guns for the era the film takes place in---- which is absolutely amazing and never would have even thought about. To make something accurate like that shows how much effort gets put into a film.

And let's not forget the music. The soundtrack contains mixes and covers of songs already made-- not a single original song in this film. I don't care that none of it is original though because it sounds new the way they do it and fits perfectly into the film as a storytelling device. The music is used as cues for when Babydoll switches from one world to the magical fantasy one-- and at one point the radio stops and she gets sucked back into reality. It's great. Zack also had Emily Browning, who plays Babydoll, to sing the covers of three of the songs.

The first scene is put here for viewing pleasure-- which introduces the main character and shows how visually it's beautiful and how the music really plays into how this movie is viewed. Overall it was a film I was confused about and now put in my list of favorites thanks to a rewatch (or six).

LinkLeave a comment

.006 - Singing in the Rain [Mar. 11th, 2012|10:11 am]
Out of all the choices to write about this week, I'm going with Singin' in the Rain. Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and Raging Bull are to me very different movies from this one and not the kind I'd actually watch on my own unless someone was forcing me to to do a homework assignment.

Singin' in the Rain, however, is a comedy and a musical, which is vastly different and contains a song in it I sing to myself and have tried to reenact in the middle of the rain with actual tap shoes on before. Overall the film is witty and enjoyable. The characters are likeable, even the ones you're supposed to find annoying and obnoxious. The performances are well done (I might just be biased as a huge Gene Kelly fan), the writing is beautiful, and it gives a lot in sight into the film industry even if it might not be 100% accurate for comedic effect. It's the first time I've actually watched it all the way through but I have seen bits of it before. I did enjoy it a lot even if I got a little antsy and might have made a sandwich in the middle of it while waiting for my favorite song to come up.

While most of the songs are easily forgettable nowadays, there is one that stands out strongly and is used and used and used and referenced in media all the time. It's an incredibly catchy one.



The scene is about five minutes (exactly 4:36 according to this Youtube clip of it.) The scene comes right after a boring musical number I don't remember any of the words too. He doesn't have a care in the world and can just be free. Within the context of the movie, Singing in the Rain is actually the name of Don and Kathy's new film at the end -- wither or not the song he's singing in the rain is actually put into their film Singing in the Rain isn't clear but it probably is put in. The entire film is probably the one they have the billboard for at the end.

To convey the carefree attitude, the lyrics talk about being free and being happy again. The song is upbeat, cheery, and gets it across. It's something anyone would want to sing when they're feeling great. The actor himself conveys it too by not caring if his umbrella covers him, purposely splashing in puddles, and naturally dancing around like he just doesn't care. He's got face expressions showing he doesn't really regret anything he's doing -- even to the cop at the end who is giving him that scolding look. The camera work and sound, besides the tap dancing splashes, are all rather boring all things considered. It's not a lot of shots or angles but that might be to convey it feeling like one long linear take to show off Gene Kelly's skills instead of using it as a narrating tool, since doing so would be rather odd.
LinkLeave a comment

.005 - 1950 to 1985 [Mar. 8th, 2012|02:33 pm]
1950 and on was that time of Pop Art, if I'm not mistaken. Amazing things were coming around but as far as actual paintings go I consider it a downfall. Any section where Soup Cans are considered a highlight has be moving away from it in terms of art.

So let's talk about what I love during the period, which obviously is more Disney Movies. 1934 came Snow White as the first animated feature film followed by Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi --- but they really got good post WWII even if they films around then are less critically acclaimed. This is where they got themeparks and finally hit television and turned into that huge monster people think of it today.

1950 brings everyone Cinderella, which while Snow White was the first Disney princess -- Cinderella really kickstarted that entire thing and it was also the first feature-length animated film they tried after the war. (Bambi was the last in '42 so that's a long time.) They used a live action model for reference to animate -- and she's the same one that would be used for Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians.

It had a lot of deleted things (the prince originally had a large role but in the end his dad ended up having more dialog than the poor guy), the story is really simplistic, the characters don't really have much personality, and by today's standards it really wouldn't hold out story wise as the most interesting thing but the end product was a huge success, the animation is gorgeous -- the scenery in particularly makes everything looks huge and you get an amazing feeling of how small Cinderella is. Most of it's memororability comes from music -- for which it won three Academy Awards for and if anyone starts singing Bibbity Bobbity Boo at you you know you're going to end up humming along.

It was really their first hit after Snow White. The film's profits and money they made off of record sales, music publishing (The first music they actually owned!), publications and other merchandise got Disney off the ground and gave him enough to establish his own distribution company, enter television production, make more films, and try a hand at theme parks. ...So while it's probably the film I'd consider pretty damn boring in comparison to the others it really is what revolutionized the entire thing and made everything else possible.

Now Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland came out here too in '53 and '51 respectively. Both being number 2 and 5 in my favorite books of all time and number 2 and 3 in my favorite Disney films of all time. Peter Pan alone just being one of my favorite films period even if they don't follow the books to a T. --- And I'll be damned if the Disney versions of the characters aren't the ones everyone immediately thinks of when they think of Peter Pan or Alice. TinkerBell ended up becoming the mascot of Disney overall and I could really write an entire 20 page paper on how that little fairy matters to the world and those TinkerBell movies that they're still making are horribly underrated and have CGI styles I like better than some theatrical films.

To spare this a little bit and not going into Lady and The Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, lots of dalmatians, and how xerography was first used here (every animation cell used to be hand inked. Animators have the biggest patience!) --- Let's talk about comic books.

1962 in a 15th issue of Amazing Fantasy was Spiderman. I have to point out he's a really really really big deal -- just alone for making Marvel a big deal by being their top selling comic of all time and their poster child (and the reason everyone in the class gets to watch an Avengers movie this year.) And that's all thanks to him being extremely ground-breaking. Design wise it's mostly just typical of how comics were drawn then (Current days they are miraculously detailed works of art!) -- the real art lies in the story.

Spiderman was the first comicbook character that was a teenager and not immediately regulated to sidekick. He's one of those characters that was able to relate to adolescence and had relateable struggles that got to the readers. He had to learn on his own instead of having some mentor around the entire time. I can't think of any media before him actually that related to anyone in a teenage age group as much. Spiderman brings about a lot of art and touches every single form of media. Every. single. form now. I'm not kidding -- and one can't really argue why he wouldn't be. It's the first or perhaps the first noticed thing to appeal to that age-group in a relateable way.
LinkLeave a comment

.004 - The Abriged Museum Trip [Feb. 29th, 2012|02:10 pm]
My trip to the Museum of Modern Art, MOMA, was unfortunately a bit rushed due the horror of rain during the week and the people I went with not wanting to be caught in it along with complications like train schedules. I would have liked to gone to a museum where I would be able to view animation but that was horribly out of the question.

The first piece of art I aimed for was the only Edvard Munch piece I could find, The Storm, from 1893 was which depicts, according to the label there, --- a Norwegian seaside resort Munch and other artists frequently visited that was possibly inspired by a storm that happened there one summer.  It was slightly disappointing that it didn’t improve my view of it being one of his least impressive works.


One of my favorite paintings of all was featured, of course. Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh was even the painting featured on the pamphlet I grabbed at the Ferry to make sure I knew when the place was open. I would recommend this in person over a picture.

Since I’m fond of van Gogh’s work – I also took a peek at Portrait of Joseph Roulin, which is just a strange painting in my opinion. It’s very strange looking in person.

Since I was rushed, none of the paintings I wasn’t aiming for popped out enough to stop or were something I’ve already seen and wasn’t at all a fan of to want to fill time in my notebook with. Paintings in person point out how messy I think most of these pieces are.  A sculpture shaped like an old woman’s head stuck out that I failed to get the name of. It was black looking bronze and I almost fell over into it. It was rather ugly but considering how hard it would be to sculpt bronze, it has its appeal.

To the later art, I immediately set out to find Salvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, one of my absolute favorite pieces. The painting in it looks almost flawless and it’s extraordinary in person, however I would rather view it on a very high quality screen that wouldn’t mute the colors where one can take in every detail. It’s better viewed large.

Next up, because it was noted in class and the sheer size of it attracts attention, is Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31, which is perhaps the ugliest thing I have ever seen on a wall, in my opinion. I am far more attracted to it when not in person.

The Campbell’s Soup Cans by Andy Warhol was viewed. I’m mostly indifferent to it now but in person would probably be better for the viewing of giant soup cans.

 Now there was paintings, some which were intriguing but most of which I wasn’t fond of from this fourth floor. While I wasn’t not attracted to them like I am with something from Dali, they were particularly attention grabbing – The Sculptures. If one could call them sculptures. They certainly raised eyebrows. One like Sleeping Figure by Louis Bourgeois, made me think it was a broken coat stand until I read the description. The sculptures were a mix of something broken I might find in a thrift store that could be interesting and something in my garbage.

Overall, I prefer the museum with the dinosaur bones.

Link1 comment|Leave a comment

.003 - 1910 to 1950 [Feb. 8th, 2012|12:56 pm]
Entry three gets combined with entry five, right? One museum trip.

Between 1910 and 1950 came a lot of works I can come up right off the top of my head like the description about The Scream in the last post. All memory! ...Though I hate about 90% of them. Loathe. They're terrible. Half the things look like something I'd doodle in my notebook. At age 4. What art-art was then-- and I mean paintings specifically are horrible.

One exception that I enjoy and the one I immediately thought of seeing the period in the assignment was of Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory. A really odd name for the painting, I think -- as people that usually aren't familiar with any art know it as 'that one painting with the melting clocks' and saying the name of it at them might have them thinking there would be a painting of a brain or something.



I first found it out because there was a Loony Tunes cartoon where the imagery of it was used. And knowing me, you'd get I'm pretty fond of cartoons and interested in where they get their ideas for things.



Besides the fond memories of cartoons, the painting itself is phenomenal in my opinion. I once read somewhere that Dali was thinking of the theory of relativity when he painted it? ...But I'm not sure how true that is. It's in this Art History book I have that he based the clocks on some kind of cheese. In any case, it's a very meaningful piece though the meaning might be different for people looking at it. I think the name of it along with the melting clocks and the ants actually represents the passing of time. Time goes on, you start forgetting things, and then death.

Now to save one a horrible rant about how much I hate soup cans (though because cans are art anything I say after this is now also art)

...What I consider actual art from this period is things from The Golden Age of Animation. This came into being. The first feature-length animated film... animation in general.

Walt Disney came along between this time period and I could go on about him for hours. Hours and hours. Unless you've played the recent Mickey Mouse game for the Wii -- most aren't aware Mickey Mouse came into being because Walt lost the rights to an anthropomorphic rabbit by the name of Oswald. Thank Universal for their fine print contracts for that one, world!

Don't forget about Warner Bros. Their first cartoon Sinkin' in the Bathtub(click it to watch!) from 1930. It follows Bosko through a little adventure after some gags in a bathtub. Bosko became the first reoccurring character-- staring in over 3 dozen shorts after that one. His design was based off of Felix the Cat but since he resembled a blackface of the time he ended up being a boy. ....A little racist, yeah but it's important for the period. Disney and Warner Bros cartoons then were on par with animation but Warner Bros had a budget of about $6000 per cartoon and Disney spent $10,000.

Cartoons were groundbreaking and important for the art world, the film industry, and my brain. The above Porkey Pig cartoon that got me interested in Dali? Dough for the Do-Do is from 1949. Animation is very very relevant.

Also relevant? Comic books. Most superheroes originated from this period-- and that's art but I've already used up my wordpage so I won't get too into it.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

.002 - Art of 1860 - 1910 [Feb. 2nd, 2012|08:27 am]
The period was rather difficult to pick since I had trouble thinking of paintings I actually knew the name of and like. Most didn't come between 1860 - 1910 or aren't available for viewing at all in the nearest museums. I'll probably have to pick another couple of work of art or two for a museum visit.

My favorite painting of all is The Scream painted by Edvard Munch. You know that painting with the alien-looking person putting his hands on the side of his face and screaming? Currently it's own display in Munch Museum in Oslo --- which is all the way in Norway.

I like The Scream because it's unique. My mother gave me an umbrella with the painting on it when I was a lot younger and I've been buying the same exact umbrella every time it breaks because I like it so much. I use to think the painting was of an alien but looking into it and what every art book says it's probably something inspired by a Peruvian mummy mixed with insanity. It's said to represent the "universal anxiety of modern man."; It makes you think and I quite enjoy it. The use of color and how everything in it just seems so completely bizarre is part of what I think makes it a really famous work and why people would want to steal it a lot.

MoMA unfortunately only has a single painting actually on display as far as I'm aware from Munch called The Storm. It's a depressing piece and absolutely pales in comparison to works of his that I've seen. It's dreary and doesn't have a lot of color-- but then again he is painting something taking place during a storm so that's probably what he was going for there.

There is a painting actually in the MoMA that happens to be a favorite of mine. The Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh. It doesn't matter the history behind why he actually painted it and if he did it because he had a "terrible need for religion" or whatnot. What matters is that it's so intricately put together and inspirational that I've ended up basing a majority of things I draw on how it's put together. The many many careful little strokes put together in flowing lines to make up the image is incredibly difficult to do instead of making one single stroke with a single color. You lift your hand up and put it back to make up the image.

I always found the swirls relaxing and showing the window blowing and the clouds and starts without actually drawing out the clouds or a star shape like so many other artists might. Just a careful use of color and it's all right there.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

.001 - What is art? [Jan. 24th, 2012|05:02 pm]

‘Art’ has had many definitions and interpretations throughout time. There’s no definite definition for it. ‘Art’ is subjective. Art is whatever an individual person interprets as art for themselves, it seems. In that sense, anything and everything can possibly be art. If a person looks at a painting and says it is art—it is art, though it might only be art to that person, since art is what an individual things is art. Paintings are only listed as art in a textbook – because a majority of individuals would think paintings are art.

            Every person attempting to define art would then give a different definition of what it is. About.com’s Shelley Esaak lists several points and raises questions about what it is and say’s my entire first paragraph where I decide art is subjective – “would require a stack of paper from here to the moon to cite all of your 6.8 billion references.” This is true and I really shouldn’t go into this that far or it would be TL;DR (that’s ‘Too Long; Didn’t Read’ meaning it was too long so you don’t want to read it/didn’t actually read it, for you people not aware of the various internet slang here).

            Esaak sums it up a little nicely and settles for: Art is form and content. That, to me, is basically saying art is everything and subjective in a very philosophical way that doesn’t require the 6.8 billion references she thought it would. Now that I’ve established art is subjective here I will end this with a short list of some things that I subjectively view as art or not. Feel free to add these to your own subjective view.

-          Anything that one takes considerable effort to make aesthetically pleasing for themselves or  others is art.

-          Anything that one takes little to no effort for the purpose of impressing an art critic/teacher is not art. Meaning: If you pump out a very poorly written poem for no other purpose but to not have an incomplete homework assignment – I wouldn’t consider it art and you’re very very undeserving of that grade and ticking me off.   ….However, if there was little to no effort put into this and everyone in the class is pleased with it, I may view it as art depending on if you’re a comedic genius or not and the poem makes me laugh.

-          Good jokes are art.

-          Crayon doodles by children are art, even if it doesn’t look anything like what they say it does.

-          Photographs taken by teenage girls and given the self-description of ‘artsy photos’ are not art. That is just a picture of a slightly tilted tree and making it black and white is not going to make it any better. 

-          The tree itself is art, especially the color-changing leaves.

-          Photographs candidly taken are art.

-          Cartoons, anime, Pixar-esque animations, and comic books are art. And also very colorful.

-          Floor tiles are art.

-          Fashion, make-up, and hairdos are art.


Link2 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]