Sunday, October 6, 2013
This Blog is Sleeping
This is a new post to tell you not to expect any more new posts. I like writing in this blog, but not as much as I like working on comics, which is my new focus.
If you'd like to keep updated on my shenanigans, check my tumblr: chrisbairdisdead.tumblr.com
(P.S. - that ebook I mention in the last post is called "Lez Vamps," and it's out now, if you're interested)
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Fantasci and Stuff
So, Fantasci was Saturday. It was the first con I'd had a table at. I brought some free micro comics and some Gothtopus comics I was selling for a dollar each. I was surprised at how many people would respond to the question "Would you like a free comic?" with "No thanks." I mean, who turns down free stuff?
Afterwords I realized that maybe people weren't there for comics. There were also cosplayers and local fiction writers and retro games - a real mishmash of stuff. People were also hesitant to read my Gothtopus comics, even though they had a sign above them saying "Read before you buy." Perhaps they were suspicious of such a generous offer. Maybe they thought I would somehow entrap them into buying something. Maybe those people are allergic to fun, and dare not stray too close to strange entertainment.
Anyway, I wound up selling four copies of my Gothtopus comics (all to people who read the comic before buying) and I gave out all my micro comics. People paid money for my comics at a convention - a personal first! I met some cool people, too. Some of them even talked to me without walking away immediately thereafter.
Oh, while I'm writing, I also won second place in a writing contest run by Mark Wheatley. So I'm gonna have a short story published in an e-book with his illustrations (and a few other stories). So good news all around, I guess.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Mini Comics Day!
Things I did on Mini Comics Day at 757 Labs:
Made a 16-page minicomic in under 8 hours.
Ate an entire package of doublestuff Oreos in under 8 hours.
Found out that costume-making is a legitimate hobby.
Partially inked a zine cover.
Created the phrase "Lesbooyah!"
Listened to a cool guy play a song he wrote.
Had lots of fun.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Free Piano! Sortof
Apparently, one of my neighbors was dissatisfied with their old upright piano. I found it smashed to splinters in their front lawn, awaiting the garbageman. I promptly snatched up the intact keyboard and stowed it in my car's trunk. The trunk lid wouldn't shut, but it was an uneventful thirty second drive to my house.
I then managed to manhandle the thing up the folding staircase to the attic, where it will remain until I should happen to need it for a sculpture. Or something.
I have NO IDEA what I'm going to do with it, but when God gives you a free piano, you don't refuse.
I then managed to manhandle the thing up the folding staircase to the attic, where it will remain until I should happen to need it for a sculpture. Or something.
I have NO IDEA what I'm going to do with it, but when God gives you a free piano, you don't refuse.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
757 Comic Anthology
Hey, I guess I have news for once!
At the last 757CCC meetup, Juan and I wrapped up work on the comic anthology and ordered a test copy from Lulu.
So it's looking like the anthology might actually happen after all.
Now I get to work on the next one (fluttershy yay).
At the last 757CCC meetup, Juan and I wrapped up work on the comic anthology and ordered a test copy from Lulu.
So it's looking like the anthology might actually happen after all.
Now I get to work on the next one (fluttershy yay).
Monday, December 5, 2011
Patrick Nagel
Screw trying to come up with succinct, thoughtful blog posts.
I just found out that Patrick Nagel has a site with a gallery of his works that you can look at with your eyeballs: LOOOOK.
I can't think of the eighties without thinking of Nagel's graphic paintings. Fair warning: he liked to paint women who didn't like to wear clothing. Thinkofthechildren!/Whatisthisworldcomingto?!/etc.
I just found out that Patrick Nagel has a site with a gallery of his works that you can look at with your eyeballs: LOOOOK.
I can't think of the eighties without thinking of Nagel's graphic paintings. Fair warning: he liked to paint women who didn't like to wear clothing. Thinkofthechildren!/Whatisthisworldcomingto?!/etc.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Arguments I'm Tired Of
I don't really mind when people disagree with me on political issues - in fact, I love debate because it exposes me to new ways of seeing the world, and defending my viewpoint often helps me to clarify what my view actually is. But some lines of argument just fly in the face of facts, and don't actually help people defend their side - in fact, they may cause others to dismiss them altogether. Here's a short list of arguments I'd be glad to never hear again:
Marijuana isn't a drug, it's a plant created by God.
So is poison ivy, but I wouldn't smoke that.
If everyone had guns, no one would ever shoot anyone.
Yes, because that worked so well in the Old West.
If women were in charge, there would be no wars.
You think Hillary Clinton wouldn't bomb someone just because she has ovaries? Who do you think is sending drones into Pakistan?
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
True, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people. What would the death toll of Columbine or Virginia Tech have been like if the shooters had to chase people with a knife?
Marijuana is a "gateway drug."
Only because it is illegal, and people have to go to criminals to buy it. If it were sold in stores the way alcohol and tobacco are, people wouldn't be exposed to the other drugs that drug dealers sell.
Marijuana isn't a drug, it's a plant created by God.
So is poison ivy, but I wouldn't smoke that.
If everyone had guns, no one would ever shoot anyone.
Yes, because that worked so well in the Old West.
If women were in charge, there would be no wars.
You think Hillary Clinton wouldn't bomb someone just because she has ovaries? Who do you think is sending drones into Pakistan?
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
True, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people. What would the death toll of Columbine or Virginia Tech have been like if the shooters had to chase people with a knife?
Marijuana is a "gateway drug."
Only because it is illegal, and people have to go to criminals to buy it. If it were sold in stores the way alcohol and tobacco are, people wouldn't be exposed to the other drugs that drug dealers sell.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
24 Hour Comics Day
Just woke up... an hour ago.
Did 24-Hour Comics day at 757 Labs in Norfolk. Started at 1:30pm and finished around 9:00 am the next day (today). Our fearless leader and event host, Kevin, had just gotten out of the hospital the previous day after being checked out for chest pains. They wanted to keep him overnight, but he told the people in the E.R.: "I gotta host 24-Hour Comics Day."
Do you see that, people? That is what a cartoonist looks like.
We are dedicated to our art.
(He's fine now).
It was my first time, but I managed to complete my 24 page comic, "Robot Hitler is Going Down to Loser Town," with several hours to spare. (Though I didn't ink my pencils). There were highs and lows, times of excitement and frustration. And we all goofed of at 3AM and watched some Patton Oswalt videos on the youtube. I had to stop drawing because my hands were shaking and I was crying from laughing so hard.
Definitely an experience I would recommend to others if you can find a group of like-minded crazy people to enjoy it with.
Did 24-Hour Comics day at 757 Labs in Norfolk. Started at 1:30pm and finished around 9:00 am the next day (today). Our fearless leader and event host, Kevin, had just gotten out of the hospital the previous day after being checked out for chest pains. They wanted to keep him overnight, but he told the people in the E.R.: "I gotta host 24-Hour Comics Day."
Do you see that, people? That is what a cartoonist looks like.
We are dedicated to our art.
(He's fine now).
It was my first time, but I managed to complete my 24 page comic, "Robot Hitler is Going Down to Loser Town," with several hours to spare. (Though I didn't ink my pencils). There were highs and lows, times of excitement and frustration. And we all goofed of at 3AM and watched some Patton Oswalt videos on the youtube. I had to stop drawing because my hands were shaking and I was crying from laughing so hard.
Definitely an experience I would recommend to others if you can find a group of like-minded crazy people to enjoy it with.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Shooting Through Binoculars
I discovered a new little photographic trick I'd like to throw into the bottomless abyss of the internet.
For this, you will need a pair of binoculars. Nothing too fancy or expensive, but the bigger the better. First, flip the binoculars around so that the larger lenses are towards you. Then position your camera so that the camera lens is half-on one lens of the binoculars, and half-off. A visual illustration follows:
(I spare no expense on illustrations. Or is it 'spend no expense'?)
You might have to move the binoculars around until you can see an image through them.
It should look something like this:
The ship in the bottom-left corner is seen through the binocular lens. The ship in the top-right corner is the same ship, but seen by the naked eye. The black part of the picture is the body of the binoculars.
If you adjust the settings on your camera, you might be able to get rid of that black area almost entirely. I find that using the automatic setting (where the camera auto-focuses and adjusts lighting itself) helps with this. With some fiddling, you can get something like this:
It looks like a Photoshop composite, but this is the image as it was captured by the camera. Pretty neat, huh? I thought so.
Give it a try.
For this, you will need a pair of binoculars. Nothing too fancy or expensive, but the bigger the better. First, flip the binoculars around so that the larger lenses are towards you. Then position your camera so that the camera lens is half-on one lens of the binoculars, and half-off. A visual illustration follows:
(I spare no expense on illustrations. Or is it 'spend no expense'?)
You might have to move the binoculars around until you can see an image through them.
It should look something like this:
The ship in the bottom-left corner is seen through the binocular lens. The ship in the top-right corner is the same ship, but seen by the naked eye. The black part of the picture is the body of the binoculars.
If you adjust the settings on your camera, you might be able to get rid of that black area almost entirely. I find that using the automatic setting (where the camera auto-focuses and adjusts lighting itself) helps with this. With some fiddling, you can get something like this:
It looks like a Photoshop composite, but this is the image as it was captured by the camera. Pretty neat, huh? I thought so.
Give it a try.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Videogames Are Art
I just read an old editorial someone wrote about videogames, and it got under my skin. The author actually said that, in his opinion, videogames would never be culturally relevant. The "never" part is important. He's saying that the videogame industry, which already rivals the film industry in size, will not be culturally relevant, even if given an infinite amount of time.
It's not just that I disagree - I think any sane person would disagree with such an overly broad statement. But I think it crystallized for me the problem I have whenever anyone raises the question of "Are games art?"
Because the person asking the question always has the answer all along. One hundred percent of the people I've seen who ask that question already believe that games are art. No one who didn't think much of games would bother to ask that question. People who ask "Are games art?" are really asking, "When will other people realize that games are art?"
And frankly, that's weak. It's not surprising. We all want our hobbies to be accepted by society at large. We want what we love to be valued, or at least respected. But we shouldn't ask society for permission to enjoy the things we enjoy. That is weakness.
Novels, film, radio, and television were all derided as empty spectacles for the ignorant masses when they were first introduced. Heck, television wasn't really respected until The Sopranos. But they didn't grovel and beg for society's acceptance. They weren't bestowed cultural relevance by benevolent elders. They took it. Like fire from the gods. Fans of the medium became critics and advocates. They started up the Pulitzer prize, the Oscars, the Emmys. I'm sure those awards were seen as industry self-congratulation when they first started out (hell, they're seen that way now) but they brought with them a sense of dignity and gravitas. Those industries were taken seriously because they took themselves seriously.
Videogames still have a way to go, but they've come so far so fast already. This is a medium that has only existed for forty years. Film has been around since the 1800's! But we will get nowhere simply waiting around for other people to arbitrarily allow videogames into the "club" of established media. We must break down those doors.
Write videogame criticism on blogs. Make your own 'artsy' games with the free tools out there. Friggin do something. Wringing your hands and timidly asking whether videogames will ever be respected feeds the problem. Pretending "are videogames art?" is a valid debate is like pretending "is the world flat?" is a valid debate.
The time for debate is over.
The time has come to prove what we know is true.
It's not just that I disagree - I think any sane person would disagree with such an overly broad statement. But I think it crystallized for me the problem I have whenever anyone raises the question of "Are games art?"
Because the person asking the question always has the answer all along. One hundred percent of the people I've seen who ask that question already believe that games are art. No one who didn't think much of games would bother to ask that question. People who ask "Are games art?" are really asking, "When will other people realize that games are art?"
And frankly, that's weak. It's not surprising. We all want our hobbies to be accepted by society at large. We want what we love to be valued, or at least respected. But we shouldn't ask society for permission to enjoy the things we enjoy. That is weakness.
Novels, film, radio, and television were all derided as empty spectacles for the ignorant masses when they were first introduced. Heck, television wasn't really respected until The Sopranos. But they didn't grovel and beg for society's acceptance. They weren't bestowed cultural relevance by benevolent elders. They took it. Like fire from the gods. Fans of the medium became critics and advocates. They started up the Pulitzer prize, the Oscars, the Emmys. I'm sure those awards were seen as industry self-congratulation when they first started out (hell, they're seen that way now) but they brought with them a sense of dignity and gravitas. Those industries were taken seriously because they took themselves seriously.
Videogames still have a way to go, but they've come so far so fast already. This is a medium that has only existed for forty years. Film has been around since the 1800's! But we will get nowhere simply waiting around for other people to arbitrarily allow videogames into the "club" of established media. We must break down those doors.
Write videogame criticism on blogs. Make your own 'artsy' games with the free tools out there. Friggin do something. Wringing your hands and timidly asking whether videogames will ever be respected feeds the problem. Pretending "are videogames art?" is a valid debate is like pretending "is the world flat?" is a valid debate.
The time for debate is over.
The time has come to prove what we know is true.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Generational Resurgence of Cultural... Stuff
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Best Idea Ever
I'm mostly posting this so I don't forget it - I was watching a documentary about art in America. They profiled some library in... Massachusetts? Or Maine. See, I'm already forgetting!
But the library took some old books they were going to throw away, and gave them to artists to turn into altered books. The altered books were then displayed in the library. Nice- giving artists something to do, recycling, promoting local culture blah blah blah
Then came the genius part: they slapped bar codes on the books and allowed people to check them out. Loanable art! Why bother buying a sculpture when you can rent one for 2 weeks? Anyone can have some art in their house for awhile, then give it back for other people to check out.
Why is this idea not everywhere?
But the library took some old books they were going to throw away, and gave them to artists to turn into altered books. The altered books were then displayed in the library. Nice- giving artists something to do, recycling, promoting local culture blah blah blah
Then came the genius part: they slapped bar codes on the books and allowed people to check them out. Loanable art! Why bother buying a sculpture when you can rent one for 2 weeks? Anyone can have some art in their house for awhile, then give it back for other people to check out.
Why is this idea not everywhere?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Productive? Me?
Always.
Always busy with the clients and the whirlwind world of commissioned work. Yep. That's the stuff that I do when I do stuff. Which I'm always doing.
Also, yesterday I went to Cory's going-away-to-become-better-than-everyone-else party and wrote part of a comic script in between geeking out on comic books and being beaten by a small child in Super Mario World. I thought that was the most fun I was going to have this week, but today I shot a photocomic with Cory and some of the other 757 comic creators.
I even roped Mike into shooting some of the photos. At first, I just used him to take photos I was in, and therefor couldn't see. But he turned out to have a real creative eye for it, and made the photos super awesome. I should've assumed he'd be great, him being an artist and all, but I sometimes forget he's an artist since I so rarely see him doing art. Mostly he's just helping everyone else be awesome and lurking in the background. Lurker.
Also, Vince was there (always a fun event!) and he posed for the comic too. At first he was all shy and whatever, but as soon as I asked him to pose, he put on the most badass expressions and got into it instantly. I just hope the comic turns out as awesome as the photos.
Hypothetical fingers crossed!
Always busy with the clients and the whirlwind world of commissioned work. Yep. That's the stuff that I do when I do stuff. Which I'm always doing.
Also, yesterday I went to Cory's going-away-to-become-better-than-everyone-else party and wrote part of a comic script in between geeking out on comic books and being beaten by a small child in Super Mario World. I thought that was the most fun I was going to have this week, but today I shot a photocomic with Cory and some of the other 757 comic creators.
I even roped Mike into shooting some of the photos. At first, I just used him to take photos I was in, and therefor couldn't see. But he turned out to have a real creative eye for it, and made the photos super awesome. I should've assumed he'd be great, him being an artist and all, but I sometimes forget he's an artist since I so rarely see him doing art. Mostly he's just helping everyone else be awesome and lurking in the background. Lurker.
Also, Vince was there (always a fun event!) and he posed for the comic too. At first he was all shy and whatever, but as soon as I asked him to pose, he put on the most badass expressions and got into it instantly. I just hope the comic turns out as awesome as the photos.
Hypothetical fingers crossed!
Friday, May 13, 2011
It's a Small Internet After All
I was just looking over some of my photos from the Renewal show, and I remembered this close-up of Mallory Jarrell's piece:
When I first saw the piece at the show, I was like... no way. I KNOW that caterpillar. Or its identical twin:
See him in the bottom corner, with the tie? That's from my collage at the same show. Ever since I started doing collages with images from Google image searches, I've noticed other people using 'my' images. That caterpillar is like the 3rd picture you see if you Google 'caterpillar.' Which means he's probably been featured in a ton of other artworks - but maybe Renewal was the first show he was featured in two separate works at the same show.
It's a small internet.
When I first saw the piece at the show, I was like... no way. I KNOW that caterpillar. Or its identical twin:
See him in the bottom corner, with the tie? That's from my collage at the same show. Ever since I started doing collages with images from Google image searches, I've noticed other people using 'my' images. That caterpillar is like the 3rd picture you see if you Google 'caterpillar.' Which means he's probably been featured in a ton of other artworks - but maybe Renewal was the first show he was featured in two separate works at the same show.
It's a small internet.
Sekret Updaite
I got a little carried away with the funky spelling. Anyway, someone wanted an update on my sekret prejekt. Here it is.
Yeah, I'm still not very far along. I've been focusing on other things. For the last couple of weeks I've been backing up all my online files, which I've neglected to do for... six years. So that's taking awhile.
Also anytime it's sunny I run outside to take pictures. Which leaves me with more files to back up. Fun.
Oh, I mean, I love being busy. I'm doing art and stuff. Constantly. For people who commission me on my webpage: www.wix.com/crushkill/art
It's awesome.
Yeah, I'm still not very far along. I've been focusing on other things. For the last couple of weeks I've been backing up all my online files, which I've neglected to do for... six years. So that's taking awhile.
Also anytime it's sunny I run outside to take pictures. Which leaves me with more files to back up. Fun.
Oh, I mean, I love being busy. I'm doing art and stuff. Constantly. For people who commission me on my webpage: www.wix.com/crushkill/art
It's awesome.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Renewal 2011
Renewal was a blast this year, which is nice because I didn't know if they were even going to have it again, after losing their previous space. I learned about the new show about a week before the submission deadline, and managed to squeeze out a collage that got accepted (/bragging). Also, I sent in 3 of my Swirl-o-vision photos, one of which was accepted and got a lot of positive feedback at the show.
I met a lot of cool people - and I'm not just talking about the people who complimented my work (although they are empirically the coolest). There were some old school chums, professional artists, "alternative" teens or whatever they call alternative teens now (Hipsters?) Mallory was there with her crew - okay, with her parents and husband, but they moved around the show like an artsy amoeba with her as its nucleus. See, high school science teacher? I remember stuff! Nucleus!
Two traditions were broken tonight. The first is that, in my last 3 group shows, my work had been 'featured' in the corner of whichever gallery the show was held in. I like to think they were keeping it a secret so all my fans could enjoy it away from "the rabble." But tonight my collage was one of the first things people could see as they entered the main room. And my photo was brightly lit and hung with 3 fantastic pieces of the same size. Clearly I'm moving up in the... oh wait, Mallory's giant piece dominated the back wall near the band and thebooze wine table. I will catch you yet, person who is more successful than me!
(Here's her site: it's awesome.)
I thought the other tradition, a drunk girl being magnetically drawn to me and trapping me in a conversation/spontaneous intervention, was going to be continued this year. But it turns out this lady wasn't drunk, she was just foreign. When I handed her a free artcard/business card that happened to have a crude globe on it, she pointed to where she was from. The blotchy squiggle on the right. "Spain?" I guessed from her Spanish accent. "Further east." She replied mysteriously. And we had a delightful conversation in which she revealed the secrets of her beautiful painting. And those secrets will go with me to the grave. Because I forgot most of them. But it was fun! We talked about Edvard Munch. Can you name a painting of his besides The Scream? We both could and did.
I also got into a nice conversation with a fellow who gave me a lot ofhomework photography events to check out. He's a fan of abstract photography, too. They do exist!
And by "got into" a conversation, I mean my portable gallery "Artjacket" lured them in like a bugzapper. Or some other less gross metaphor. For someone without bubbly social skills or the ability to say the word 'networking' without throwing up a little, it's great to be able to WEAR a conversation-starter. Of course, once I actually start talking, I just enjoy it so much that I totally forget about connections I could be making. Like when that nice young lady swooped in at the end of the show because she "had to" talk with the guy wearing his own art, I totally forgot that I'm looking for models for a photocomic I'm working on. Not that she would have said yes, but how do I know if I don't ask? I don't! And it will kill me until tomorrow, when I will wake up having forgotten the whole thing.
There was ONE tradition that I upheld, however. At last year's Renewal show, there was an "afterparty" at which a DJ played some dance music. And there were people standing around, almost dancing. Every once in awhile, a girl would start to move rhythmically, in the hopes of enticing her friends to do the same. No one did - so I had to get out there on the dance floor and bust a move. I was the only one. And this year - same exact thing. The DJ started playing Jailhouse Rock, and my feet, they started tapping. I couldn't help it. As the immortal Gloria Estefan once put it, the rhythm... is gonna getcha'.
See you next year, Renewalites! I promise not to call you that! I'll think up something better. I'm wiped.
I met a lot of cool people - and I'm not just talking about the people who complimented my work (although they are empirically the coolest). There were some old school chums, professional artists, "alternative" teens or whatever they call alternative teens now (Hipsters?) Mallory was there with her crew - okay, with her parents and husband, but they moved around the show like an artsy amoeba with her as its nucleus. See, high school science teacher? I remember stuff! Nucleus!
Two traditions were broken tonight. The first is that, in my last 3 group shows, my work had been 'featured' in the corner of whichever gallery the show was held in. I like to think they were keeping it a secret so all my fans could enjoy it away from "the rabble." But tonight my collage was one of the first things people could see as they entered the main room. And my photo was brightly lit and hung with 3 fantastic pieces of the same size. Clearly I'm moving up in the... oh wait, Mallory's giant piece dominated the back wall near the band and the
(Here's her site: it's awesome.)
I thought the other tradition, a drunk girl being magnetically drawn to me and trapping me in a conversation/spontaneous intervention, was going to be continued this year. But it turns out this lady wasn't drunk, she was just foreign. When I handed her a free artcard/business card that happened to have a crude globe on it, she pointed to where she was from. The blotchy squiggle on the right. "Spain?" I guessed from her Spanish accent. "Further east." She replied mysteriously. And we had a delightful conversation in which she revealed the secrets of her beautiful painting. And those secrets will go with me to the grave. Because I forgot most of them. But it was fun! We talked about Edvard Munch. Can you name a painting of his besides The Scream? We both could and did.
I also got into a nice conversation with a fellow who gave me a lot of
And by "got into" a conversation, I mean my portable gallery "Artjacket" lured them in like a bugzapper. Or some other less gross metaphor. For someone without bubbly social skills or the ability to say the word 'networking' without throwing up a little, it's great to be able to WEAR a conversation-starter. Of course, once I actually start talking, I just enjoy it so much that I totally forget about connections I could be making. Like when that nice young lady swooped in at the end of the show because she "had to" talk with the guy wearing his own art, I totally forgot that I'm looking for models for a photocomic I'm working on. Not that she would have said yes, but how do I know if I don't ask? I don't! And it will kill me until tomorrow, when I will wake up having forgotten the whole thing.
There was ONE tradition that I upheld, however. At last year's Renewal show, there was an "afterparty" at which a DJ played some dance music. And there were people standing around, almost dancing. Every once in awhile, a girl would start to move rhythmically, in the hopes of enticing her friends to do the same. No one did - so I had to get out there on the dance floor and bust a move. I was the only one. And this year - same exact thing. The DJ started playing Jailhouse Rock, and my feet, they started tapping. I couldn't help it. As the immortal Gloria Estefan once put it, the rhythm... is gonna getcha'.
See you next year, Renewalites! I promise not to call you that! I'll think up something better. I'm wiped.
Monday, April 11, 2011
A Thought About Fashion
Fashion trends tend to take useful details and exaggerate them until they are purely for show. The classic example is the pocket square:
Handkerchiefs are useful for wiping away dirt and sweat. I'd be willing to bet the first handkerchiefs were just rags some sweaty guy happened to carry around with him. Somebody else decided that handkerchiefs could be pretty as well as useful, and made a colorful handkerchief. Eventually, they became so fashionable that even though most people - other than my dad - no longer carry handkerchiefs, the distinctive sight of one tucked neatly into a pocket had become tradition. Once something becomes tradition, it no longer has to have a rational reason behind it. (Place your own socio-religious commentary here).
A more obvious (and current) example is the baseball brim conundrum - forwards or backwards? QUICK YOU MUST DECIDE! IT IS IMPORTANT!
Like most things that are cool in America, the backwards cap was invented by black people. Like most fashion trends started by black people, it was started simply to make black people look different from white people.
The brim was invented to shield one's eyes from the sun. Wearing the brim backwards negates this, but it does send the message that the wearer is 'different' and that he doesn't go along with other people. Rational people. Still, the backwards cap is still less awkward than super-baggy pants. And more useful than other trends:
Of course, there is still a tipping point where a trend begins to point to its own ridiculousness and lack of logic:
When a fashion trend reaches that point, people soon realize how nonsensical the trend was in the first place, and move on to wearing something else that doesn't make sense and/or something that didn't make sense 20 years ago.
Handkerchiefs are useful for wiping away dirt and sweat. I'd be willing to bet the first handkerchiefs were just rags some sweaty guy happened to carry around with him. Somebody else decided that handkerchiefs could be pretty as well as useful, and made a colorful handkerchief. Eventually, they became so fashionable that even though most people - other than my dad - no longer carry handkerchiefs, the distinctive sight of one tucked neatly into a pocket had become tradition. Once something becomes tradition, it no longer has to have a rational reason behind it. (Place your own socio-religious commentary here).
A more obvious (and current) example is the baseball brim conundrum - forwards or backwards? QUICK YOU MUST DECIDE! IT IS IMPORTANT!
Like most things that are cool in America, the backwards cap was invented by black people. Like most fashion trends started by black people, it was started simply to make black people look different from white people.
The brim was invented to shield one's eyes from the sun. Wearing the brim backwards negates this, but it does send the message that the wearer is 'different' and that he doesn't go along with other people. Rational people. Still, the backwards cap is still less awkward than super-baggy pants. And more useful than other trends:
Of course, there is still a tipping point where a trend begins to point to its own ridiculousness and lack of logic:
When a fashion trend reaches that point, people soon realize how nonsensical the trend was in the first place, and move on to wearing something else that doesn't make sense and/or something that didn't make sense 20 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)