That last micropost was fun, wasn't it?
Let's have another.
My mom used to watch a science show called Mr. Wizard.
I grew up later, and watched a science show called Bill Nye the Science Guy (and also Beakman's World, but that show wasn't as widely known, being Canadian).
For the current generation of children, the designated "guys who make science un-boring" are the Mythbusters.
I find two things about this trend interesting- first, the fact that each generation essentially repackages the same information in different wrappers that reflect the sensibilities of the time (Bill Nye's show now seems like a perfect time capsule of "the 90's" to me).
The second thing I find interesting is that only one science show per generation achieves enough popularity to be culturally relevant. There have been many more science shows over the years, but very few appear capable of making the general public give a crap about science - a topic which is inherently fascinating, yet extremely easy for teachers to make dull and elitist.
It just occurred to me that I forgot to give props to the Magic Schoolbus. Fortunately, thanks to the timeless junk drawer that is the internet, there is a cumulative build-up of quality content. Bill Nye remains strangely watchable, and I honestly can't imagine Mythbusters ever seeming dated or boring to a future audience. The first episode features a remotely-controlled Impala with a jet engine welded to the roof, ferchrissake.
Friday, July 29, 2011
How the Internet Works
This is how I learned about a DJ named Girl Talk (without intending to):
So I was having a discussion with a reader in the comment section of a comic I posted on deviantart, when something I said reminded him of a song by Negativland. I looked the song up on youtube, and then started browsing other Negativland videos until I got to a lecture by one of Negativland's members about the nature of copyright, and he mentioned Girl Talk as an example of a contemporary artist who was remixing copyrighted material in an interesting way.
So I looked up Girl Talk on youtube, and I'm listening to his music right now, and it's awesome.
The end.
So I was having a discussion with a reader in the comment section of a comic I posted on deviantart, when something I said reminded him of a song by Negativland. I looked the song up on youtube, and then started browsing other Negativland videos until I got to a lecture by one of Negativland's members about the nature of copyright, and he mentioned Girl Talk as an example of a contemporary artist who was remixing copyrighted material in an interesting way.
So I looked up Girl Talk on youtube, and I'm listening to his music right now, and it's awesome.
The end.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Breakdown: Will Power #1
This isn't going to be a review of "The Legend of Will Power #1."
If you want a review, here it is: it's awesome. If you like superhero comics, you will like THIS superhero comic.
So, that's the review. If you are interested in supporting independent creators - and, more importantly - if you are interested in reading a good comic, you can buy Will Power #1 at this website: RIGHT HERE.
But now I'd like to talk about what specifically makes Will Power #1 awesome in my SPOILER-TASTIC breakdown. I'm calling it a 'breakdown' because it's shorter than 'nerd dramatically summarizes comic' and also because 'breakdown' sounds cool.
Much hullabaloo and kerfuffle is made these days about a narrative technique in comics known as 'decompression.' Basically, instead of trying to condense a story into a single 24-page issue, authors tell that same story over a couple of issues. This allows for more natural dialogue and a slow build-up of dramatic tension. Also, evil villains no longer have to explain their entire evil plan in a single dialogue bubble two pages before they are kicked off a cliff.
On the flipside, this style sometimes results in the second or third comic of a four-comic "arc" consisting entirely of superheros standing around a table arguing with each other over the philosophical implications of it all. These segments might be compelling when the entire story is collected in a trade paperback (otherwise known as a book). However, when people pick up a superhero comic and expect them to do superhero stuff, and instead find 24 pages of Wolverine arguing with Cyclops over a grilled cheese sandwich... well, they can be a tad miffed.
Which finally leads me to Will Power. Will Power bucks the decompression trend and how. Will Power #1 isn't just compressed, it's hyper compressed. It's ironic that Will Power's uh, power, is that his molecules are super-dense, because the comic he's in is pretty dense, too. Seriously, it reads less like an origin story and more like a Wikipedia entry on the Will Power universe, complete with little blue links masquerading as characters who literally pop into the story out of nowhere and then vanish. If the old saying is true about great stories asking more questions then they answer, then Will Power #1 is the greatest story ever told.
This is a comic that contains: epic legends, gods, science experiments gone horribly wrong omg, shadowy villains, time travel, robots, super heroics, and a quarterback winning a high school football game. Oh, and there's a two-page epilogue with monkeys and dinosaurs in it.
It starts with an intro... or should I say intro(s).
The first tells the bombastic legend of a guy who was "once a man, but now a God."
A guy who likes to hover above cliffs, apparently. Wait a second... the guy on the cover is wearing jeans and a t-shirt! Am I reading the right book?
I'm not the only one confused, as at this point, the actual narrator is interrupted:
The next page reveals that the narrator is some Viking-type dude talking to a bunch of kids. All of them are apparently gods. And the "godlings" don't want to hear about Will Power's epic... power. They'd rather hear about how he was really good at football. So after a splash page revealing a giant statue of Will Power engraved with the words "GREATEST HERO" (foreshadowing omg) they cut from the distant future to the 1990's where quarterback Will Power single-handedly wins an important football game by running the ball into the endzone himself.
The fist emblem on his shirt -
is revealed to be the logo of his football team. The team is called the Titans, although for some reason, their mascot is a giant fist:
Please tell me he's not called "Fisty." Oh god.
Anyway, after the game, they head to the office of Will's dad - who JUST SO HAPPENS to be a super genius super-scientist. What. a. coincedence.
Will's dad is so friggin' smart that he literally has a time machine just lying around that he hasn't fixed yet because he's too busy with other stuff. You know, like taxes. Or whatever.
The first invention he mentions is actually a "Fifth-dimensional stasis chamber" that can keep anything inside it nice and safe gee I wonder if that's gonna come up later here's a hint YES.
Long story short, some shadowy figure flips the switch on one of the other physics-raping inventions in Will's dad's lab, resulting in THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE becoming less dense. Not just the planet (which would be sufficient for most stories), not the solar system, NO.
The universe - you know, the infinite expanse of space in which all matter exists - gets transformed in about eleven seconds. Damn, Will's dad. Don't you scientists ever consider the consequences of your actions?
Come to think of it, why do you leave your matter-density machine on the "f**k-up the entire universe" setting, and then design the machine to turn on by flipping one frickin' switch?
Seriously?
I mean, you don't wanna like, have two keys that hafta be turned or... even one key? Hell, couldn't there just be like a shut off valve? Somebody press ctrl+alt+delete!
Also, it makes the coolest noise ever - actually, it's five noises in a row:
FFFLLLLLAAAAAZZZ!!!
And when the world came to an end, a sound echoed across the veil of time: ZZZZING!
God, I love comics so damn much. What was I talking about?
Oh, right. Will's dad shoves him into the stasis-chamber-thingy that was conveniently introduced like half a page ago, and Will is protected - effectively making him super diesel in the now less-dense universe. By the way, has anyone outside of a comic ever referred to their dad as "Pop"? Like, after the Depression, I mean. Wait, why was the matter-density machine so dangerous again?
WHY WOULD YOU BUILD IT THEN?!
He probably got taxpayer money for it, too. Thanks, the government.
So then a time-traveler with a wrist-mounted robot appears and kidnaps Will's dad.
No, seriously:
Nice hoodie. And I don't mean to tell you your business, time-traveler guy, but "There's no time!!!" ?
???
How can a time-traveler ever not have enough time? What part of time-travel do you not get? Or do you just suck at your job?
So some other stuff happens, blah blah, and Will wakes up in the future.
And he seems pretty chill about it.
He's even got
Like, literally hanging onto him:
I forgot to mention that Will had a girlfriend (or at least a girl who thought she was his girlfriend) in the past. What happened to her? Oh, right - he heroically saved her during the lab accident.
I mean, he shouted over his shoulder at her to save herself while he ran in the opposite direction. Like a
By the way, possibly my favorite part of the whole comic is the explanation Vince came up with to explain why Will takes waking up in the future like a champ. Instead of going, you know, "Where am I? The future??? Everyone I've ever loved is dead!!!"
(There is never NOT a reason to show that meme.)
So why is Will totally okay with waking up in the f-f-f-future?
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
So, long story short, Will fights a robot and his friend winds up in the distant past (having hidden in the time machine during the lab accident).
That's two cliffhangers in a row. Unless you count "what happened to Will's female friend." Or whatever that time-traveler guy was about. Or...
Forget it. There's a lot of stuff to look forward to, is what I'm saying. I can only hope Vince can keep packing so much random awesomeness into each issue.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Thoughts on Cameras
Photography is the only medium in which you can buy improvement. This is because photographs are more of a byproduct of technology than any other type of art (even digital drawings, which require... drawing). If a photographer doesn't plan to mess around in the darkroom or use digital editing software, the only input they have on the final image is choosing the subject and its composition. Whether the scene being photographed is a carefully set-up still life or a random event, the artist doesn't create the resulting photo - the camera does.
This is not to say that photography is easy, or less valuable than other art forms - merely that the artist's input is so separate from the output. Photographs combine the simplest, most potent form of creation (the artist's "eye" for composition) with a very cold technical process (the chemical and physical principles with which a camera captures and records light). Even though the camera does all the physical work of image creation, it deserves none of the artistic credit. A camera cannot differentiate between a "good" photo and a "bad" one. It simply records a scene when asked. Cameras are just as happy to take a picture of your feet as you're fiddling with their settings as they are happy to record a sunset or a rose blossom.
But the technology behind the camera does determine one very important thing: the limits of the artist's choices. (For instance, none of the cameras I've used have been good at capturing night scenes, so I stopped taking pictures at night).
Of course, all mediums limit the artist in some ways. Besides the characteristics that define different mediums (acrylics dry faster than oils, etc.) there are always expensive tools designed to make creating art easier (using a genuine sable brush instead of a Dollar Store brush, using canvas instead of paper, etc.)
My cousin was at an art school orientation where a lecturer mentioned that some types of paint can cost hundreds of dollars, at which point her dad leaned over and whispered "Don't use those kinds."
And art history is filled with artists who made the best of what they had. Toulouse-Lautrec painted some of his most famous works on cardboard. Kurt Schwitters made gorgeous assemblages from scraps of trash he found in the street. Pollock used house paint instead of oils.
A true artist can make art from anything. Of course, this ingenuity comes at the cost of convenience. That really expensive brush makes curves much easier than a cheap brush. The costly paints last longer and don't fade.
And some artistic mediums are impossible to get into without serious investment. Try making your own printing press or loom out of scrap materials and you'll find that the cost in free time may not be worth the savings in price.
But because the quality of the photographs you take is so dependent on the camera you have, photography is more dependent on technology and therefor money than any other medium.
Some demonstration is in order:
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my first digital camera (my mom's old hand-me-down). I used this camera for years because I so fervently believed that an artist's creativity was the most important factor in art creation, and that a good eye could make up for shoddy technology any day. Also, I rarely ever looked at my photos full-size and so I never noticed those angry little red and blue dots. Those dots are caused by a lot of technical issues that can best be summed up as "Your camera sucks." Cheap cameras just tend to have these problems in low-light conditions. They dots can be edited out in Photoshop, but that's a huge pain that you don't have to deal with if you have a better camera.
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my current camera, a Kodak EasyShare Z915. I'm very happy with the camera overall, but as you can see, when you zoom in on a photo, it looks like a mottled mass of pixels. Also, there is a limit to how much the photos can be blown-up. I can get a gorgeous glossy 9" by 12" but if I wanted something poster-size for an exhibition it would look all pixelly.
Just for reference:
This is a section of a full-size shot from my little sister's real-deal several-hundred-buckaroos professional camera. You know, the ones with the giant zoom lenses that make you look like a tool if you take them anywhere.
As you can see, even at maximum magnification, you can't even see the pixels. It still looks clear.
Of course, my sister barely ever uses that camera, because she's terrified that she'll break it. The Kodak that I use for all my of photos fits in my pocket, so I take it everywhere. As a result, I have a much better eye for composition than my sister simply because I take so many more pictures (and photography is learned by doing). Even so, some of my sister's blandly composed pictures still wind up looking gorgeous because her camera lens is so good at capturing details and handling different lighting conditions. Also, she can make prints as large as she darn well pleases.
In the final analysis, the camera you buy depends on what you're going to use it for. If you're only going to display your photos online, then even the cheapest camera should be able to produce a decent looking photo. Cheap cameras can also be great if you plan to use a photo as the basis for a work of digital or glitch art. In fact, some really terrible cameras (like old cell phone cameras) mangle and distort images in really interesting ways. If you plan to make small prints for friends, family, etc. than a good DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera can be had for under $200. And if you're going to do gallery shows, you'll probably want to bring out the big guns.
But I don't think of all the photos I took with my old camera as being obsolete or worthless. I could still "salvage" most or all of them if I decided to put the time into editing them. But there's a trade-off between time and convenience. Why put several hours into 'fixing' an old photo when I can take a new photo that's perfect as-is? Ultimately, I still think that an artist can make great art with humble materials, but the cost in time may not be worth the payoff when just a little more cash investment can result in instantly better results. And I have cameras to thank for that insight.
This is not to say that photography is easy, or less valuable than other art forms - merely that the artist's input is so separate from the output. Photographs combine the simplest, most potent form of creation (the artist's "eye" for composition) with a very cold technical process (the chemical and physical principles with which a camera captures and records light). Even though the camera does all the physical work of image creation, it deserves none of the artistic credit. A camera cannot differentiate between a "good" photo and a "bad" one. It simply records a scene when asked. Cameras are just as happy to take a picture of your feet as you're fiddling with their settings as they are happy to record a sunset or a rose blossom.
But the technology behind the camera does determine one very important thing: the limits of the artist's choices. (For instance, none of the cameras I've used have been good at capturing night scenes, so I stopped taking pictures at night).
Of course, all mediums limit the artist in some ways. Besides the characteristics that define different mediums (acrylics dry faster than oils, etc.) there are always expensive tools designed to make creating art easier (using a genuine sable brush instead of a Dollar Store brush, using canvas instead of paper, etc.)
My cousin was at an art school orientation where a lecturer mentioned that some types of paint can cost hundreds of dollars, at which point her dad leaned over and whispered "Don't use those kinds."
And art history is filled with artists who made the best of what they had. Toulouse-Lautrec painted some of his most famous works on cardboard. Kurt Schwitters made gorgeous assemblages from scraps of trash he found in the street. Pollock used house paint instead of oils.
A true artist can make art from anything. Of course, this ingenuity comes at the cost of convenience. That really expensive brush makes curves much easier than a cheap brush. The costly paints last longer and don't fade.
And some artistic mediums are impossible to get into without serious investment. Try making your own printing press or loom out of scrap materials and you'll find that the cost in free time may not be worth the savings in price.
But because the quality of the photographs you take is so dependent on the camera you have, photography is more dependent on technology and therefor money than any other medium.
Some demonstration is in order:
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my first digital camera (my mom's old hand-me-down). I used this camera for years because I so fervently believed that an artist's creativity was the most important factor in art creation, and that a good eye could make up for shoddy technology any day. Also, I rarely ever looked at my photos full-size and so I never noticed those angry little red and blue dots. Those dots are caused by a lot of technical issues that can best be summed up as "Your camera sucks." Cheap cameras just tend to have these problems in low-light conditions. They dots can be edited out in Photoshop, but that's a huge pain that you don't have to deal with if you have a better camera.
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my current camera, a Kodak EasyShare Z915. I'm very happy with the camera overall, but as you can see, when you zoom in on a photo, it looks like a mottled mass of pixels. Also, there is a limit to how much the photos can be blown-up. I can get a gorgeous glossy 9" by 12" but if I wanted something poster-size for an exhibition it would look all pixelly.
Just for reference:
This is a section of a full-size shot from my little sister's real-deal several-hundred-buckaroos professional camera. You know, the ones with the giant zoom lenses that make you look like a tool if you take them anywhere.
As you can see, even at maximum magnification, you can't even see the pixels. It still looks clear.
Of course, my sister barely ever uses that camera, because she's terrified that she'll break it. The Kodak that I use for all my of photos fits in my pocket, so I take it everywhere. As a result, I have a much better eye for composition than my sister simply because I take so many more pictures (and photography is learned by doing). Even so, some of my sister's blandly composed pictures still wind up looking gorgeous because her camera lens is so good at capturing details and handling different lighting conditions. Also, she can make prints as large as she darn well pleases.
In the final analysis, the camera you buy depends on what you're going to use it for. If you're only going to display your photos online, then even the cheapest camera should be able to produce a decent looking photo. Cheap cameras can also be great if you plan to use a photo as the basis for a work of digital or glitch art. In fact, some really terrible cameras (like old cell phone cameras) mangle and distort images in really interesting ways. If you plan to make small prints for friends, family, etc. than a good DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera can be had for under $200. And if you're going to do gallery shows, you'll probably want to bring out the big guns.
But I don't think of all the photos I took with my old camera as being obsolete or worthless. I could still "salvage" most or all of them if I decided to put the time into editing them. But there's a trade-off between time and convenience. Why put several hours into 'fixing' an old photo when I can take a new photo that's perfect as-is? Ultimately, I still think that an artist can make great art with humble materials, but the cost in time may not be worth the payoff when just a little more cash investment can result in instantly better results. And I have cameras to thank for that insight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)