Uncategorised – Page 3 – John's Learning Journal

A look back on Constellation this term.

This was a waste of time.

I really was hoping I’d learn something here. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t care for modern art. I feel most art from the 1970s onwards has become a self-serving mess. Full of artists who don’t make art but only put on a spectacle to get people to talk about them. Tracey Emin and Damian Hirst don’t make art. They make promotions for the Emin and Hirst brands. The statement “There is no art, only artists” has become an excuse for artists to turn themselves into rock stars who don’t make music but just talk about how great they are for existing. I hoped would find my expectations challenged, learn about something cool that I could actually like. Or at least come to understand modern art a bit better and maybe gain a bit of respect for the modern art scene. I was disappointed on all fronts.

We didn’t really tackle the question of the problems and possibilities of modern art as was promised. We were just shown somethings modern art has done and maybe expected to like it.

The pitch was, “For many people contemporary art is both too easy (it often doesn’t seem to require any particular artistic skill) and too difficult”. I’ve always fallen into former camp. I’ve never really felt it was hard to understand. It’s often opaque. But a lengthy explanation of why it exists is always nearby. (And this isn’t even a modern thing. Many classical paintings are impenetrable without the title to tell you what’s happening and totally opaque if you don’t have a strong knowledge of The Bible or Greek myth). But I’ve always felt it was too easy to make (Or in many cases it is never “made” at all), and that I can understand the nonsense being spewed just fine. But I was really hoping maybe I would find out I was a little wrong. Just see that there was something in the modern art scene that I was missing. But I was disappointed again. The past six weeks have been me staring into the void of modern art. Hearing arguments and sentiments I’d already heard. Not feeling my intellect challenged at all. Just wishing this would end so I could put effort into my real work.

The idea that this stuff could help my animation work is a joke. This is if anything a drain. It diverts mental energy that could be going into the course I’m meant to be doing or the writing I should be doing about said real work

The First week of Constellation was the hardest. We were given the most texts of any week and they were the hardest to understand. I was afraid the whole term would be like this. Dense philosophical texts that would make my head hurt. I certainly put more effort into that first journal than any other. I actually tried to make arguments of my own. But it was also the one I found the most disappointed by.

I hoped it would be a look into where art is right now. Instead I found myself knee deep in post-modernist “Narratives are dead” BS that ironically is a narrative. A lot of self-aggrandizement over how the evils of modernism have been slain and pondering how to express one’s self in a narrative free world. But nothing about art or where it actually is. Just where these intellectuals want to go. The irony is they claim narratives are dead but they can only see their own narrative and nothing-else. Like the fish that doesn’t know it swims in water. Why can’t we talk about what art is rather than what non-artists want it to be?

Again. I don’t feel like my mind is being expanded. Just that I’m hearing the same old rubbish.

In short. The first week felt like a debate over question that never needed to be asked. Something I would feel again later.

Week 2 got off to a very bad start. I hated Hito Steyerl’s essay “In Freefall” so much I had to write my own response to it separate from my regular journal. I guess it wouldn’t be a Constellation term without at least one reading assignment that made me regret being alive. But this year it wasn’t because it was badly written but because the ideas in it were so bad.

The theme “What does the world look like?” Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with last week’s theme or the main them at all. If you believe the question is in doubt it will always be in doubt. It’s an eternal question. Not a contemporary one.

The next question was “What are our responsibilities [as artists] to the wider world?” I do at least agree this is an important question, even if I stand by my stance that artists are not social actors and shouldn’t be obliged to make socially conscious art unless they choose to. The only limit I’d agree to is that artists shouldn’t call for real-world violence.

I feel like the whole exercise was just a subtle attempt at trying to make an activist out of me. I resent this attempt to try to shape my political views.

And once again. If you believe artist have some ethical responsibility to the world then what that is an eternal question more than a contemporary one.

We weren’t really shown much art. Just substandard activism posing as art to seem more relevant. So not only is the contemporary part missing, but so is art. It reminds me of when a lecturer in Treforest made us all watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. It had nothing to do with art. He just really cared about environmentalism. I’m all for saving the planet. But using our art course that we paid for to lecture us on your politics is a pure abuse of power and waste of our time.

The final question. What, if any, role should pleasure have in art is at least interesting and about art again. But again it feels like a non-question given way more thought than it needs. What is the place of pleasure in art? Art, or at least good art, is inherently pleasurable and that is not a bad thing. Case closed.

I reread all the journals I posted this term. And I feel like I tried really hard to engage with this course. My responses very long reads. But I got nothing out of this. Just pain. I feel like all that has happened is I’ve had all my biases about the worthlessness of modern art reconfirmed. I’ve had weeks lost answering dumb question that never needed to be asked or explored.

This wasted time I could have spent on animation.

The possible lessening of library standards

For Constellation I was tasked to think about how the design of the University campus is made to influence our behavior and thoughts. This is all I can think of.

When I was child library standards seemed to be a thing made of stone. You were quiet. You read. You asked before you used the computers and could only use them for so long. And if possible you took your books back to renew them.

Well somethings have changed. You now just use computers whenever you feel like it and can normally stay on them as long as you want. It is now normal to renew books online. And here at uni the renewing is done automatically unless someone else has renewed the book. These are not bad things. I find the auto renewing makes me complacent, but that maybe says more about me than the system. And even if I don’t like these changes they are just things changing with technology rather than a real lowering of standards. And the quiet rule is still enforced almost as vigorously.

But the thing on our campus library I do have to question is a sign near the entrance that says “No hot food to be eaten in the library”.

What is the issue here? Well in every other library I have been to the rule has been no food or drink. Period. Why the change here? The other changes are simply done to accommodate a new digital centric lifestyle. But the reasons for banning food are still as relevant as ever. Food and drink can stain or even destroy books, and you want the library to look as clean and tidy as possible. There must be specific reason for this divergence. Well here’s my theory.

Out library is open 24 hours everyday. We are allowed to stay there indefinitely. There are even blankets near the door for people who might work so long they need to sleep. We are encouraged to work flatout in there. Now it is hard to work for days at a time without food. One could always go to the near-by canteen or even up to restaurants and shops in Llandaff and eat there. But that takes time away from study in the library. And once you leave you might want to go home. Letting people eat and drink in the library (provided it’s junk food) not only encourages less fastidious students to enter when normally they might be hesitant. But encourages binge working for the overtaxed. I guess risk to the books was considered a worthwhile to make the students come in more and for longer. But I have to wonder. If the students our encouraged to lower there standards inside the library, will it have a knock-on effect elsewhere? I think knowing that someplaces aren’t the right place to eat gives one more respect for ones self and the world around them.

Or maybe I’m just a grumpy old man at age 28.

On the demerits of teamwork

I’m going talk a bit about the problems I feel are endemic to teamwork. This is not an attack on teamwork, or an attempt to say that solo work is always better. That’s nonsense. Most of the great things the human race has done were done through teamwork and could never have been done alone. Imagine if one person had tried to build the Empire State Building by themself! This is more of a rant than anything else. An attempt to vent some steam and point out that for all the good that can be done with teamwork, it does have problems of its own. Especially in an unstructured environment.

When put into a team the first thing that happens is that everyone just sits or stands around nervously. Mumblingly trying to make some kind of common ground while including all people. It’s awkward. But it’s still better than the alternatives.

Normally what happens is some extrovert with more balls than brains (regardless of gender) starts doing all the talking for everyone and doesn’t let anyone-else offer a point of view. If an individual has an idea of their own or just sees a problem with the extrovert’s plan and tries to voice it he or she will be beaten down. The extrovert will not consider the other idea because it did not come from them, and just discards it. So they beat down the opposing idea. Not through logic, but through refusing to use it. This strategy of never looking at any other POV or ever admitting to doing anything wrong is how modern politicians keep their minions in line. Logic and empathy are human traits. So by disregarding them the extrovert makes himself/herself superhuman in the eyes of others. Or maybe it’s just too much effort to fight back for the rest of the group. And when the final product has real flaws, or just falls apart altogether the extrovert takes none of the blame for it. As i’ve said before. This scenario turns the other group members into effective slaves. And the slaves end up suffering for the extroverts mistakes, and even get the blame if things go really wrong.

The other scenario is the Instant Clique.

In this one Two or maybe Three group members start talking and find themselves so interested in each other that no-one-else matters. The other members become invisible. Sometimes these people know each-other, sometimes it’s a first meeting. It happens more often with girls, but does happen with boys. But I’ve never seen it happen with a set of people of both genders. But the effect is always the same. The new clique becomes the group. The other members are divided and conquered, and then reduced to hangers on. Often struggling to keep up with the clique’s ongoing progress. While the Clique is less averse to new ideas than the Extrovert, any idea that goes against the clique’s preset idea or that they just don’t like will be shut down immediately on the grounds that “We’ve all agreed on this!” Even if the clique makes up less than half of the group.

But the end effect is much the same. The other members just trudge alone. Being little more than unpaid interns for the clique. But The Clique-centric group is less likely to be met with disastrous failure, and if failure there is the blame is more fairly shared.

But let’s talk about some problems that can be found in any group.

For starters. No one ever puts the objective or need of the group above their own enjoyment.

When grouped people only have a surface interest in the group as a unit. Their main goal is to survive to the end of the mission, the other people there are a means to an end. Tools to be used. With this in mind people tend to talk to the ones they like the most. Interact based on pleasure rather than logic. If someone isn’t doing well or feeling left out that is no-one’s problem to fix. If the team as whole isn’t doing well then that just how it is. No-one has to try to make things run better. Just as long as things run well enough.

During the planning phase you need to be on your toes all the time. Trying to keep up with what is going on requires the same kind of twitch reflexes needed for a classic 80s arcade machine. You might think you know what’s going on and what’s been agreed on. But if you stop paying attention, even for a second, and you’ll find not only has the conversation shifted completely, but the goal you’ve settled on and how you are going to do it will also have totally changed. And if you object to all the changes that have happened in the past 30 seconds you will be met with the aforementioned cry of “But We’ve all agreed on this”. So if you want any say in what goes on then treat the planning stage like hunting a tiger. If you lose your concentration, it will get you.

Speaking of agreements. Agreements are never formal but they are always binding. Things are rarely put to a vote. And as mentioned before no-one ever asks everyone-else if they agree. Two or three people will just agree on a thing very casually without considering the implications, and then it’s law. Totally irreversible. How anyone keeps track of what has and hasn’t been agreed on in this system is beyond me.

I’ve alluded to the fact that most groups have a defacto leader whether they choose to of not. These people tend to have too much confidence. But it certainly is funny when they don’t know what to do. The leader will um and err and look worried. But as often as not they won’t take any suggestions you might give them. They have a plan, they just need to figure out what it is.

The bigger problem tends to be that if the leader goes missing there is suddenly no plan at all. Everyone has to just sit on their heels until daddy/mommy comes back. I think this is why in the military there is a chain of command and usually a second in command. A opposed to general group work where there is a leader and everybody-else. regardless, I hate being so dependent on someone-else. It’s irritating and even a little humiliating.

And that’s all I have for now. I may think of more, given time.

The Missing element

In science, philosophy, and logic we can often intuit things that are beyond our senses by observation and deduction. Things like gravity and dark matter can’t be perceived by our five senses be we know that they exist through logic.

I was lying down in a room full of screaming people playing with cameras and lights as part of our course work. This was meant to be a group effort. But not being ennfusistic about either the task or working with others I decided I would sit down and wait until someone told me to do something. But even though I waited for an hour no-one did.

The project was going fine without any supervision. I had to wonder why. No-one was forcing the other students to do anything. I suppose they were enjoying it?

This got me thinking. They were all engaged in this group effort. But I was waiting for someone to make me engage. So I asked myself. What would make me engage given there was no set amount of work or failure state?

Well. A sense of vision for one thing. A sense that I am making something I care about and share in making with others. I love coming up with ideas for stories with other people. Adding, fine-tuning, and creating something great with a person I care about. But this exercise had no room for creativity. It was just mechanically playing with lights and cameras. And as for the people there? They’re fine. But I wouldn’t call them friends. And I don’t think most of them would give that moniker to each-other.

Money would be the second option. I’ll happily do a mindless task if there is some-sort of tangible reward for it. But here there is nothing to be gained by doing it.

So there’s no structure or failure-state. No reward. And no vision to be expressed. What am I missing? Was it fun for the others? That wouldn’t explain why they would start it though. They wouldn’t know it was fun to start with. Do they just like each-other that much? But then why didn’t the exercise just breakdown into something else? Why did they keep working long after having each had a turn?

I think I am missing something. Some vital element that would keep a group of people working on a pointless task that I can’t discern and probably just don’t have.

My Presentation

1: Here are my animations

2: I did not do the gestalt theory animation group work. I was told it was not mandatory and I judged that I need the time it would take to start my looping animation. Given how much trouble that gave me I feel vindicated in that choice

My Bouncing Balls

My looping Animaton

My Unfinished Film

3: During my first brief I was very ridged. A total perfectionist only concerned with doing a small amount of “correct” work.

Over time, I have gotten freer and more creative with my animation. At first I was scared to work pose-to-pose or do anything other than ones. But necessity is the mother of invention. And I have found I can not only do them but do them well!

One area where I’ve HAD to learn new technology is in using Dragonframe and a camera to film my work. It’s hard. But I am getting better at it. Each project shows less and less mistakes in this area.

When it comes to learning new things, if I am not overwhelmed with love for the new thing, I find learning to do one thing over and over and slowly building on it is easier and more lasting than trying to learn everything at once.

For the second brief I had to jump from just doing drawn animation to multimedia. And I feel I did all the different types of animation well

I’ve found my mental work plays out very well. I’m good enough at figuring how things will look in my head that I barely need to test my work (Which is good as I don’t normally have time to do that). The fact I can figure out how to make an animation just by thinking it through in my head has been a life saver. The end result was as I imagined it and it is beautiful. The same is true with my bouncing balls and my metamorphosis film.

I tried Stop-motion. That I love doing. But not as much as hand-drawn. Cut-outs I can do and they look nice. But they’re boring. I pray I never have to do digital 2D again. It took me and hour to make 12 frames. I’m not cut out for it. I can see why for most people it is so much quicker and simpler. But I am not most people. I do at least like the bright and clear colours a scanned in drawing has over one that has been photographed. I hope to use this to my advantage someday.

Doing hand-drawn animation is hard as hell and takes an infinite amount of time. But even though it drives me crazy, I enjoy doing it more than any other. And seeing the results pleases me a million times more than all the other types of animation do.

Sadly. I’ve found I love using colour in my classical animation. Which makes my workload ever harder.

Working on the third film nearly sent me insane. I can now understand why the animators who worked on ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ had to go to hospital after making it.

One reason I remain confident this is the right choice for me is I’ve shown I can make really smooth hand-drawn animation. Even on threes! It’s a joy for me to look at. And I wish I had time to make it even smoother.

I’ve learned I work best in silence. With no people, books or the internet to distract me. Because those don’t just distract me. They sap my energy.

I’ve learned I can make good animation using threes and pose-to-pose.

I now know that an adrenaline rush from some sudden exercise can really bring my creativity back when it’s flagging.

I’ve learned that I am not good at drawing faces or expressions at all. Hence why I made my characters faceless.

But I’ve also learned I can get better at them. Of the two facial animations I did the second one is miles better than the first one.

I just need to lean to draw faster and better.

There were times when I wanted to give up. That I felt that I’d picked the wrong subject and that I should pack it in. But when I saw my drawings move, and just how well they move. I have no doubts. This is what I love doing move than anything-else.

4: I find my timing is very solid. Sometimes it even comes out better than I had hoped. Though I struggle to keep my work long or slow, and keeping the smooth look I like. And I like to have both.

Spacing does give me trouble. I had assumed that it was less important than timing. I was wrong. I don’t know how I can improve beyond practising. Though I do now understand if you need a pose seen you have to draw it. Before and Afters don’t always cut it, or can even show the wrong thing.

5: I am no master of gestalt. But I was able to give my faceless characters a strong amount of expression just using hair and posing. I hope in time this means I will get better at drawing expressions.

I think I also did well conveying the idea of movement in my animatic without animation.

And using movement to connect all my different balls in my marble run despite looking so different. I think I’m getting there.

6 : I was only able to try transformation from 2D to 3D space during my marble run animation. I would switch from 2D to 3D balls and did so convincingly. I also had to make 3D balls look like they were running down a 2D marble run. Again. I think I pulled that illusion off pretty well.

7: When it comes to digital vs analogue, I have to say I suck at both. But in very different ways.

Analogue is my passion. It fills me with joy. But I draw quite slowly and not very well. And I get caught up in making each drawing perfect. It wastes a lot of time and sucks a lot of energy out of me. I can step back and work more roughshod sometimes. But it takes a conscious effect.

Digital anything on the other hand sends me into panic mode. Just looking at Adobe Premier makes me want to cry. It feels like someone has asked me to translate an ancient Greek text in mere hours.

I’ve needed help with all the computer elements on the course so far, and I don’t think that will change. Even if I had the brain for it (Which I don’t I do) It gives me no joy. I sometimes long for the ’90s. Back when handing in work didn’t require half an hour’s computer work!

8: I think I am good enough with the idea of metamorphosis. Granted my transformation was mostly spiritual. But My woman’s change from executioner to angel looks good to me. The change works and you could never mistake either for the same character.

9: I already knew all the great artists and animators who would inspire me. I’ve been prepping for this course for 7 years. I know who my influences are. But it was very nice watching that documentary about Norman MacLaren.

10: Despite all the pain it gives me there is no doubt in my heart I want to continue making hand-drawn animation next year. So, I might get better at it. It is the greatest art form in the world.

In particular I’d like to start adding in colour and backgrounds to my work. But we’ll just have to see what happens.

Final thoughts: I know this is not what the people here want to hear. But I find time and again the things I have loved since childhood are my greatest influence. And I find I work best by trusting myself that I know what to do. I often leave timing and spacing notes for myself that puzzle me later. But I follow them, and they turn out to be exactly the right thing to do.

Art teachers tend to want to reinvent you. To remake you in their own image. Saying that you know what you’re doing is the biggest way to annoy them. But the more I work the more I find I know what I need to do. I just need to learn how to do it. And that is a lot harder.

I was born

I was born almost exactly in the transition between two worlds. The old analogue world. And the new digital one. Something that only a small number of people will ever be part of.

I have a unique chance. The chance to insure that the wisdom of the old world is transferred over to the new. Because the old world is wise.

There is tendency to assume everyone born before 1970 was a total moron. But the old world gave us Astronomy, Spirituality, logic, music, books, history, poetry, maths, the architectural marvels of the world. The great novels. geography, domesticated animals, morality, psychology, language, liberty, the visual arts, boats, aircraft, spacecraft, beauty, love of learning, happiness, and kindness. These things were made by very smart people. And all just using the human brain.

What does the new world have to offer to compete? Minecraft?

I can make sure that the wisdom of the old world is appreciated by the new. I am one of a small number of people who can claim to have been in both. And thus, appreciate both.

I hope I can make the most of it.

On being god-like

In the 18th Century the intellectuals of the day claimed that man was perfectible.

It angered them when Kant suggested there was merit in Saint Augustine’s idea of original sin.

South African cleric Desmond Tutu once said that we are made to be god-like.

Does man need to be perfectible if he can be godlike? Would the former even be better than the latter?

Looping Multi-media Animation

This has been the hardest piece of coursework of my life.

I loved the idea of working in multi-media animation. The idea set my mind alight with possibilities.

In the end I settled on making a marble run animation. I could use one background and make the balls out of plasticine, card, paint, and other materials. And that’s what I did!.

I now have a fifteen second marble run which when looped shows a ball changing colour and size as it moves down the run before vanishing into a hole and reappearing again endlessly.

I found some mediums easier than others. Stop motion came as naturally to me as a duck takes to water.

Cut-out animation gave me a super-smooth movement that is a joy to watch. My first attempt with paint used like cel animation was a nightmare. But the second attempt where I painted, scrubbed out and repainted the ball was not only really easy but really fun! I must do it again. My one piece of digital 2D was hell. It came out alright. But I stand firm in saying my brain does not handle computers well. I can only learn programs mechanically like a bird in a Skinner-box. The bird does not know how the food button works. Only that it works sometimes.

My greatest hell and greatest joy was doing 12 frames of classical animation. Drawing not only the ball but the whole background over every time. I Had to pull overtime twice. Once working until midnight the result is not very good. The spacing is all wrong and the colours on ball are not consistent enough.

https://youtu.be/c1j6z1Rk8K0

Here it is again slowed down

https://youtu.be/DnjHe_6Fy9g

But instead of discouraging me it just makes me want to try harder. I’ve put more effort into this half second of animation than I have anything else in my life.

Over these past two weeks I’ve learn that spacing is just as important as timing. That I love animating but hate filming my work. And that hand drawn animation lights a fire in me to create that nothing else in the world does. Even if it’s harder than Far Cry 1 on nightmare mode.

I Shall return!

Pop Art: My thoughts.

Here is an extra Journal on Pop art to show I have thought about what I’ve seen and read. I will attempt to answer some of the questions raised in the slideshow.

I for one do not think of art as a pyramid with say Banksy at the top and Drake at the bottom. Nor do I see it as a continuum with artists going in and out of style. I like to think of it a being like an Eco system. Like a coral reef. Many things living in harmony and co-operating to make one beautiful world.

High-art, “Low art”, and everything in between all influence and build on each other. Even the finest artists need to be entertained and to relax with a fun movie or silly video game. And even if all you do is make Sonic the Hedgehog fan art you are being influenced by centuries of fine art. Pop culture acts as a gate way for people to access and better understand fine painting and literature. And most of the people who make violent video games and write erotica will have their favourite classical composers and poets. Even if they’re shy about talking about them.

I pop art did mean to challenge that binary idea of high and low art I can respect that. But you can’t just try to tear something down for the sake of tearing it down. You work will be ugly and hollow. It’s why The Last Jedi is such a terrible film. At the bare minimum you need to have an idea of what you want to put in the place of the old stuff. The Futurists had an idea of what they wanted the art world to look like, even if they failed.

But what you really need is something to say in your own right. Breaking the taboos is not the end in itself but a necessary step in marking your masterwork.

Alfred Hitchcock did not plan to reinvent Cinema when he made Psycho. He wanted to make a film that would make audiences scream in terror. In pursuit of that goal he made a film that challenged the nuclear family idea. talked about issues of childhood trauma, guilt, control, sanity and identity, sexuality, and self destructive behaviour. And to do this the film had to be more violent and sexual that any Hollywood film before it. In doing so it changed what could be shown in films forever.

Psycho is shlock horror film who’s most famous scene is of a naked woman being stabbed to death. Psycho is a beautifully shot, acted, and scored film in a tradition of tragic fiction that is as old as western society.

It embodies the reef-like Eco-system I was talking about. It takes the best of both ends of of artistic spectrum and makes something that can be enjoyed by connoisseurs and casual film-goers alike

That, to me, is the real Pop Art.

I Just rewatched Sledgehammer…

Ow!…… Oh. My. God! How did they do that! It hurts to watch.

There is more creativity and vision in this 5 minute film than most artists show in their lifetime!

How did they do it. 7 years since I first saw it and I’m still spotting new things in it. It’s no mere music video. It’s the greatest animated film ever made!

And now I’m in pain trying to figure out what to even take away from it to add to my own art.