I found the Kidd article very interesting in the way it
dissected form. Labeled Basic Interlude,
the author, who I am assuming was an art professor, presents this text in a lecture
format. Kidd discusses size, direction, and depth, but not in any abstract way.
In the simplest context, form dictates the
shape of and object or the layout of a system. Kidd took this concept to new
heights and offered some in depth opinions. His statements really challenged me
to think about these simple things that most of us take for granted. It was
also very intriguing for Kidd to make the point that art gives you the freedom
of not having to follow rules that we usually associate with form.
Though Kidd
made a lot of great points that got the gears turning in my head, he may have
gotten a little too theoretical with some of his analogies. I found many places
where he could have simple stated something to make it easier to understand. As
a student, I would usually prefer something to be a simple and easy to understand
as possible. However, this gave character to the piece and made it more
interesting to read.
Being a fan
of basketball, especially our Buckeyes, I found this piece very entertaining,
and possibly up there with one of the more influential things I’ve read in my
life. Simply, life itself is a game, and as Hickey said, we just need to take a
step back and marvel at the beauty of it. He encourages us to allow ourselves
to become free from the bondage of the rules that surround our lives. This
theme of rules connects to the Kidd text as well and takes it a bit further
with the solid analogy of basketball, which more people can relate to.
I had this
article quite easy to follow, but that could be from my knowledge of
basketball. For someone that is less familiar with the game, I can see how it
may be a little difficult, for instance, they may not know what zone defense is
or why it would make the game “less beautiful”. Also, I really can’t decide if
I love or hate the ending to this piece. He threw in a personal touch by giving
his experience as a writer, but at the same time, he also says if you are not a
freelance writer then you wouldn’t understand what he is talking about, and
that I don’t agree with. Anyone can find pleasure in something simple, and
think deeply about anything or everything. I do this very often, and I’m not a
freelance writer.
Wow, that’s
pretty much all I can say about the Weschler article. Before reading this text,
my knowledge in the animation department was basically non-existent. I had no
idea that so much thought and effort has gone into replicating a human face on
a screen. I also really liked the whole connection of the face with someone’s
soul. When you think about it, this concept really holds some weight and I feel
is a good way to look at the complexity of the problem faced by these
animators. And boy did Weschler do his research! He made the story very
entertaining and factual at the same time by offering so many experiences he
had with different companies and projects he worked.
The
only problem I had with this article was the direction. It seemed like it was
heading in the right direction of explaining the process of animation while
also coming to a solution for this problem. But, with some false hope, he
through a curve ball and said that their solution turned the faces “too real”.
It is very hard to visualize this without an image, but for the most part is
was rather disappointing. The closing probably saved this piece with Weschler’s
explanation the Zeno paradox.
No comments:
Post a Comment