Lecture: Digital Production and Distribution (OUAN401)

This lecture covered the digital revolution and how it's affected the production and distribution of media. We got on to a topic that's very near and dear to my heart, mechanisation and the impending robot uprising that will overthrow our way of life. This quote was particularly interesting to me:

"We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us"

 - Marshall Macluhan, a philosopher who lived from 1911 to 1980. What interested me most about this quote was not only the fact that this man died before computers were even invented so he has, like, crazy future knowing skills, but also how relevant it was to the fact that I too have become a slave to technology and it's something I think about often. Adobe has shaped how animation and effects work, for instance, and now because I either have to invent my own technology or be a slave to another guy's. I have to pay twelve quid a month for the full Adobe suite or be shunned by the animation community. THANKS ADOBE.

We were taught about how digital culture makes some jobs obsolete, like how robot butlers have replaced regular butlers, but also brings about perks that benefit humankind and creates jobs that would otherwise have not existed, like Apple tech support. I think that's cool, but the amount of jobs created by machine and digital work do not counteract the amount of jobs that it takes. The high profile jobs remain intact (FOR NOW), like ones in science or creative industries or politics, but mechanisation has seen the destruction of millions of menial jobs that used to keep the middle class afloat.

Robotics has always played a key role in many depictions of dystopian futures, where humans have become irrelevant and after a while all jobs in even the creative industries and politics have been sucked away and we are all in poverty. There are other, more utopian depictions of robotics in the future, like where since computers can do everything for us, we can exist purely for leisure and become a super race of artists and creators, living on a higher cultural plain while computers do the menial work and everyone gets paid a living wage. I dunno which will happen. Maybe both. Probably neither.

Digitalisation has certainly changed animation for the better, though. Some would argue that it pushes classic methods of animated filmmaking aside, but I disagree. Stop-motion is still very much beloved, as is C.G animation. All this allows for is a broader variety of art styles to exist, which is always great! It can be argued, though, that since C.G has become generally the norm for animated movies, we have become more jaded towards styles that don’t look quite as flashy or fluid, like stop motion, to the extent that stop motion films have to use so much green screen and added effects in post-production that they might as well be C.G anyway to appeal to a broad audience. I dunno.

Lecture: Print Culture and Distribution (OUAN401)

Honestly, I found it rather hard to absorb all the information in this lecture. Perhaps I was distracted by the fact that earlier that day I learned that America had elected as leader of the free world a giant, rotting peach that wants to sleep with its daughter.

Savvy political commentary from me

But that aside, here is what I pieced together of the lecture.

We were taught about how printed media went from being a luxury item for the elite to being available for the lower classes thanks to the invention of Gutenberg's printing press, the concept of having art exhibitions for all to enjoy popularised by painter John Martin and other things. This meant print media could be mass produced and in some cases, homogenised and dumbed down to the point where it loses all meaning.

What I enjoyed most was the internal debate that this lecture sparked in my head about the issue of how much distribution of print culture is too much. It's a good question. For instance, since the Mona Lisa has been parodied and put on tea towels a billion times, is can be debated that this has changed our perception of the original artwork, which it totes has. Since it's been made available for the general masses, it's lost it's artistic importance.

Ugh, you can't trust anything with the general masses. The Mona Lisa, legal fireworks, our future within Europe etc.

Scholars Frank and Queenie Leavis argued that culture should be in the hands of an educated minority, which might help to make art more important as it would be more rare, and getting into the industry would be more of a class thing for people to aspire to as art schools were once highly revered (not like now where they're all a bit crap).*

Having the means of distributing culture placed purely in the hands of the educated elite would also mean things like tacky knock offs could be avoided, but the biggest problem with this for me is that printed culture is important for moving society forward and it can start revolutions, make people aware of important global issues and unite people of all classes. I've mentioned this in previous COP blogs. Printed media covers a massive spectrum and if it's in the hands of the elite and the elite only then it can quickly become propaganda, with the elites in power using it to help them cling on to power. I think I'd happily have a million pictures of Mona Lisas smoking bongs if it also meant that everybody was free to express themselves however they pleased. For every twenty Mona Lisa bong paintings, you get one piece of revolutionary underdog art like this:

A painting celebrating the Young Turks' revolution which overthrew the absolute monarchy of the Ottoman Empire. There is a caption which reads "liberty, equality, fraternity".

Matthew Arnold, a cultural critic in the 1800s, had the opposing view to the Leavis' and said that he sought to "minister the diseased spirit of our time" that was the class divide when it came to art. I also thought during this lecture, "where can the distribution of print media go from here?" It has already evolved to the point where anybody can create art or photographs or written think-pieces and share them with the whole world instantly. While there are plenty of places where print culture is still monitored by the elite, we are living in an age of (mostly) artistic freedom. Does this mean that the print culture market will become over-saturated at some point now that everyone has this freedom?

Does this in turn mean that there will be so much stuff out there that being innovative and original will be virtually impossible? Will the trends move so fast that we won't be able to keep up? Now that EVERYBODY can make powerful political statements through print media, does that mean they cease to be powerful?

Syndrome from "The Incredbles" said it best:

Used without permission, but no one will read this anyway.

*only joking

Lecture: The History of Type PART TWO (OUAN401)

As a continuation of our last lecture, we were taught about all things type-y from the 1920s up to the bold modern era of 2011 or whatever we're at now.

Man, the Bauhaus is rad.

My favourite part of the lecture was learning more about the Bauhaus and how it brought about a whole new era of design and typography based around the philosophy that less can be more. I find it difficult to visualise the thought process that it must've taken to strip everything away that was previously accepted about good design and build it again from the ground up. It's very impressive. I can apply that lessons of the Bauhaus to all sorts of aspects of animation, be it aesthetically by using bold, simple design to best convey information on screen to an audience, or by using colour cleverly. Too much detail can be overbearing, I guess. Also, sometimes some subtle movement, like the raising of an eyebrow, can convey more than something more exaggerated.

I also learned in this lecture that Microsoft is bad. This was because Microsoft ripped off the Helvetica typeface in 1987 when it became public domain and forged the very similar "Arial" typeface which was free of copyright law because it changed JUST ENOUGHT for it to be considered a new typeface. Also, our speaker expressed his distaste for Comic Sans. It doesn't really bother me so much. As a 21st century boy I was born and bred with Arial and I enjoy Comic Sans. You have to pick and choose your battles, I suppose.

This lecture also cemented for me the idea that truly brilliant and iconic typography can bring about change in society. It sounds rather pretentious at first to say that it does, since there are other things that I think have much more of an impact. However, there are certain fonts that have become universally representative of trends, ideas and cultures and have left a historical mark.

The punk rock graphic designs by Jamie Reid are a widely recognised emblem of the subculture

And everyone associates this one with whimsy and magic. It's like a security blanket.

This lecture seemed to harken back to our earlier one on the language of design and how we are a very visually literate generation in terms of how we interpret symbols. It goes hand in hand with typography.