Monday, November 22, 2010
Modernism and Movies
Both movies, "Playtime" and "Monterey Pop," were filmed relatively around the same year, '67 and '68 respectively. That, however, may be the only thing they have in common. "Playtime" is an obvious spoof, if you will, on modernism and its characteristic. One will take notice of the gray color in just about everything, forms, in terms of automobiles and furniture are very basic and seemingly futuristic. Also, the movie represents the neutrality of the modernist movement. Although it takes place in France, there are several American characters in the movie and there is a minuscule amount of difference between them, say their accent, or the language they speak on screen. Everything in the movie, visual aesthetic as well as aura is very proper, low in vibrancy and plays as close as it can to modern quality and appeal. The movie itself, however, is quite different in purpose. As it allows for nothing other than plain modernism, the plot, whatever that might have developed into, as well as the message of the film have a type of anti-modernist approach, taking the factors associated with modernism, basic elements and qualities associated with sheer performance rather than expression and color, and turning those qualities onto themselves, in turn, creating the most dry, and quasi-distopian, while at the same time being sheik and high-class, environment and screen play. Quite different in just about every aspect, including purpose, is the Monterey Pop film. Released in America around the same time as the French "Playtime," this movie incorporates elements from the opposite side of the 60's, or the antithesis of Modernism. As mentioned, the purpose of this movie in terms of casting judgement, or the analyzation and portrayal of a certain culture, Monterey Pop takes a more serious role in depicting the hippie culture of the 60's. There are no awkwardly funny characters, absurdly crafted settings, or blatant gibes at what the culture entails; essentially there is no farcical exaggeration of the movement's qualities. But in terms of production, better yet, style and approach, "Monterey Pop" and "Playtime" have next to nothing in common with each other. As the modernism in "Playtime" is heightened to the level of comedy, it would be more appropriate to compare Monterey Pop with something more of a result of modernism, not something about it. The colors, however, are vivid and plentiful, the type in the introduction is all hand-written, as opposed to a modernist san-seriff font, even the music; Monterey Pop being actually about music, but the jazz band towards the end of Playtime is nothing like the music performed on Monterey. Also, the diversity in Playtime is almost non-existent aside from language. Everyone in the movie looks the same. They all seem to be around the same age, expect for two younger jocks, but in Monterey Pop the audience is witness to people of all different races, ranging from adolescence to elderly, not to mention, the way they are dressed. As one can assume, a bunch of hippies coming together for multiple concerts and whatever else a hippie in the 1960's comes together for, will be dressed in a drastically different way than a movie made to exploit the quirks of modernism. In Playtime you see everyone wearing a gray, brown, or black suit and coat, with little to stand out besides a hint of color from a light or a flower stand, however Monterey Pop portrays a more rebellious culture, one without business attire and a briefcase. More over, the difference between the movies and their styles is present in almost every aspect of each one. Ravi Shankar wouldn't have been seen in Playtime, let alone a standing ovation for his performance.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Pascal
Pixel Perfect
- Dangin's ability is not merely his prowess regarding Photoshop, but in a way, his talent lies even more so within his eye, and the way he can interpret a photo.
- He does not only adjust the photo to be visually attractive, but translates its emotion and message.
- Most photos in magazines are reworked in Photoshop and Dangin is behind most of what we see as perfection in an image.
- Although a major part of the photography field, Dangin is like the unsung hero. He is rarely credited in the periodical but those who put the magazine together know of him as the most talented professional in terms of working with photographers and mixing his expertise with their perspective.
- Retouchers are often labeled as too interpretive or overdoing the subjectivity of photographs, however they are also given credit for reshaping beauty and defining social expectations of anatomy.
- This, however, can be done appropriately in Dangin's case.
- The software allowing people like Dangin to change photos in such a way that the photograph will look appealing but that does not mean the photographer is particularly good.
I find Pascal Dangin to be an artist rather than a professional retoucher. It seems that he knows how to treat a photo in a way that compliments the photographer's vision and enlightens people's opinion of tasteful beauty. It seems that there is a conflict in what he does, in terms of defining the social standards of beauty through fixing the imperfections that only a photograph could capture, but in the article, Pascal comments on this conflict by saying something like people don't want the movie starlet to look like an average person, the public and observers of magazine photography want what they picture to be a movie star; no zits or birthmarks, but radiant skin and perfect hair. Like the article says, don't shoot the messenger. In other words, if the photo needs retouching, someone needs to do it, and Dangin happens to be the most talented in a way that people can appreciate.
- Dangin's ability is not merely his prowess regarding Photoshop, but in a way, his talent lies even more so within his eye, and the way he can interpret a photo.
- He does not only adjust the photo to be visually attractive, but translates its emotion and message.
- Most photos in magazines are reworked in Photoshop and Dangin is behind most of what we see as perfection in an image.
- Although a major part of the photography field, Dangin is like the unsung hero. He is rarely credited in the periodical but those who put the magazine together know of him as the most talented professional in terms of working with photographers and mixing his expertise with their perspective.
- Retouchers are often labeled as too interpretive or overdoing the subjectivity of photographs, however they are also given credit for reshaping beauty and defining social expectations of anatomy.
- This, however, can be done appropriately in Dangin's case.
- The software allowing people like Dangin to change photos in such a way that the photograph will look appealing but that does not mean the photographer is particularly good.
I find Pascal Dangin to be an artist rather than a professional retoucher. It seems that he knows how to treat a photo in a way that compliments the photographer's vision and enlightens people's opinion of tasteful beauty. It seems that there is a conflict in what he does, in terms of defining the social standards of beauty through fixing the imperfections that only a photograph could capture, but in the article, Pascal comments on this conflict by saying something like people don't want the movie starlet to look like an average person, the public and observers of magazine photography want what they picture to be a movie star; no zits or birthmarks, but radiant skin and perfect hair. Like the article says, don't shoot the messenger. In other words, if the photo needs retouching, someone needs to do it, and Dangin happens to be the most talented in a way that people can appreciate.
Digital
Museum Piece
- The introduction of computer design technologies has increased the field of design, allowing the discipline of graphic designer to reach new levels of visual communication.
- The combination of schooled graphic designer traits and designer programs prepares the grounds for new ways of creating visually stimulating work as well as easily conveying information at the same time.
- The poster done by Greiman is an example of a renowned graphic designer using the, at the time of the article, new tools in the digital format as well as her exercised talent in order to produce an award winning piece of design.
- Greiman's effective use of the Paintbox technology led the design field to believe that this new convenience was to become a significant, if not infinite, way of creating good design.
- The productivity of computer technologies as opposed to creating design by hand opens up the creator's field of possibility. Essentially, when there is leeway for mistake and time to rearrange it without the hassle of doing so by hand, some mistakes can lead to very happy accidents.
Although the article was dated, and the "new" technology in the article is now the primary medium for graphic designers, the fact that the computer has not debased graphic design, or included any instance of work-shy tendencies in the field still remains true. The computer, as the article implies, is much more than a luxury or an easy way to escape the old, process-based way of putting together a poster. The design programs, now much more advanced and available (not $500 dollars per hour), have broadened the position of professional designer as well as approach to design. At one's finger tips is a limitless expanse of tools in which to create good design. The application of design technologies has created the amateur label for anyone with the programs, but in terms of professionalism, the computer has bestowed upon all who can use Illustrator or Photoshop the ability to create great design on the level of the professionals. This of course leads critics, not just those of which who are published, but other designers to appreciate good design in a more conceptual manner, for the obstacle of craft has become obsolete. I also enjoyed the step by step information the article included on Greiman's usage of the Paintbox program and her production process when actually putting the poster together. I most enjoyed, however, the information regarding the printmaker's process. It was exciting to hear that the poster was printed by lithography and how he used a process yellow and then a fluorescent with varnish to produce the desired effect on the poster. The combination of digitally designing the poster and then using printmaking techniques to reproduce it was intriguing and also satisfying to a student of both.
- The introduction of computer design technologies has increased the field of design, allowing the discipline of graphic designer to reach new levels of visual communication.
- The combination of schooled graphic designer traits and designer programs prepares the grounds for new ways of creating visually stimulating work as well as easily conveying information at the same time.
- The poster done by Greiman is an example of a renowned graphic designer using the, at the time of the article, new tools in the digital format as well as her exercised talent in order to produce an award winning piece of design.
- Greiman's effective use of the Paintbox technology led the design field to believe that this new convenience was to become a significant, if not infinite, way of creating good design.
- The productivity of computer technologies as opposed to creating design by hand opens up the creator's field of possibility. Essentially, when there is leeway for mistake and time to rearrange it without the hassle of doing so by hand, some mistakes can lead to very happy accidents.
Although the article was dated, and the "new" technology in the article is now the primary medium for graphic designers, the fact that the computer has not debased graphic design, or included any instance of work-shy tendencies in the field still remains true. The computer, as the article implies, is much more than a luxury or an easy way to escape the old, process-based way of putting together a poster. The design programs, now much more advanced and available (not $500 dollars per hour), have broadened the position of professional designer as well as approach to design. At one's finger tips is a limitless expanse of tools in which to create good design. The application of design technologies has created the amateur label for anyone with the programs, but in terms of professionalism, the computer has bestowed upon all who can use Illustrator or Photoshop the ability to create great design on the level of the professionals. This of course leads critics, not just those of which who are published, but other designers to appreciate good design in a more conceptual manner, for the obstacle of craft has become obsolete. I also enjoyed the step by step information the article included on Greiman's usage of the Paintbox program and her production process when actually putting the poster together. I most enjoyed, however, the information regarding the printmaker's process. It was exciting to hear that the poster was printed by lithography and how he used a process yellow and then a fluorescent with varnish to produce the desired effect on the poster. The combination of digitally designing the poster and then using printmaking techniques to reproduce it was intriguing and also satisfying to a student of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)