Lucid Waking

Archive for the ‘Newsflash’ Category

Newsflash: Value of Shock Value

Dear Professional Photographers (and other artists),
        This letter is not to tell you how to do your craft; I don’t know anything about techniques or how to determine composition through a camera lens. But I do know the value of art and its relationship to shock value and I would like to teach you a bit about differentiating the two.
        Now, this is mostly aimed at the fashion industry and their methods to get their product stuck in the minds of consumers, but I think I make some points that can be worth noting for anyone in a visual, art community. (I have yet to learn of a music composer who addressed these issues. They are too busy convincing the public that any ol’ sound is music).
        First of all, themes of domestic violence, rape, or slavery are distasteful. But, worse than that, they’re insulting because you are not using them to represent anything. What exactly are you trying to say? Good art may use these themes, but for a greater purpose. The shock value is meant to get the viewer to reflect on their lives and their society in order to change it. The picture looks wrong because it is wrong. It looks disturbing because the artist wants you to think the value it represents is disturbing and then keep the image in your mind for the next time you can do something about the issue. Sometimes this action to fix the world is small, but the important thing here is that the artist is trying to say something, even if they aren’t trying to pressure the viewer into doing something drastic about it.
        But what are you trying to say? You’re selling a product and nothing else. So what does violence have to do with this? Nothing. If you want to argue against me, I point to your flippant remarks regarding said issues or descriptions accompanying your photographs. You aren’t making a point to stop domestic violence, for example (though if you are, you’re doing a bum job of proving that), you’re using it to get people to have an emotional reaction so that they remember the name of your product. However, this backfires as people now have a negative reaction when they think of your name and won’t shop there. So fine, you succeeded in getting your name out there, but I don’t think you’ve encouraged them to shop, so what’s the point?
        There is an inherent problem of objectification in the industry that I would love to address but I know is pointless. But I ask you to try and keep things in mind when you’re designing a photo shoot. Of course, your point might be too racy or banned for reasons you disagree with, but if you want substance in your photos, then make sure there is substance, not just playing with a touchy subject. The world is bad enough without us encouraging people to hurt each other. So please, keep that in mind next time. Controversy might be good advertisement, but it sucks for business.

        Sincerely, your friend,
                B.N.

Newsflash: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due?

        Ah, the age-old question: what is art? It’s a hotly debated point mainly because there is no answer, but if I learned anything from my modernism and postmodernism art history class, it’s that art is defined by our intentions and perceptions. This definition has problems, I’m aware, but I want to put this to the test in this little article about a 4-year-old girl named Aelita, who has her own gallery show.
        Angela di Bello, who is the Angora Gallery director that hosted Aelita’s works, stated that

“She [Aelita] is special in that she really knows what she’s doing. In that, she really understands color, composition, texture. If you look at her paintings, you’ll see that they’re balanced. Also, she’s consistent. … So, she’s already developed a style that is hers.”

and she also goes on to claim that Aelia’s artwork is surrealist in addition to abstract expressionist for her use of objects. For those of you who are non-visual artists in the community, Surrealism is Dali and his melting clocks, while Abstract Expressionism is Jackson Pollock. Not being an art expert myself, I thought I might only be seeing the bare bones of surrealism and therefore didn’t understand that surrealism can include the random placement of objects within a wash of color. But after consulting the Merriam-Webster dictionary (which defined “surrealism” as “the principles, ideals, or practice of producing fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects in art, literature, film, or theater by means of unnatural or irrational juxtapositions and combinations”), I’m still not sure how her use of pipe cleaners, pom-poms, and masks are a demonstration of surrealism.
        Is this show an ironic demonstration of the typical high art community snobbery? We all know the jokes; one of my favorites being a short improv sketch one of my friends made up where a “Caution: Wet Floor” sign was critiqued as high art and the janitor who put it there regarded as a genius. I know the temptation in dismissing postmodern art as something anyone can do, and in a certain way anyone can. Anyone can have these ideas and anyone can pull them off well. In many modern works, it’s these ideas that make them appealing to me, not necessarily the work itself. But because I base my opinion on modern art from the artist’s creativity and ideas, I can’t give much value to this girl’s work. I do see something very mature in her artwork when looking at it, but when I listen to her talk about her paintings—during and after the process—I can’t see a mature artist taking her works seriously. Obviously, because she’s 4 years old and that would be giving her too much credit. Maybe she has an innate sense of color and placement that she can’t explain, but for us to say that she understands what she’s doing, that’s a bit of a leap.
        So can we say that this is art? If we stick purely to my definition, we have to take it’s perception into account, so, yes. I will agree, however, that it is a bit ambiguous. But who am I to belittle her accomplishments just because she is four. If someone wants to spend several thousand dollars on something like this just because a gallery moderator says her works have a mature continuity, then that is the buyer’s prerogative. Me, I want to see what she comes up with when she’s older. If she’s going along like other child protegees, then there should be some amazing works of art.

Newsflash: The Art of Conning

Technically, this isn’t a “newsflash” because I did not hear about this article in a newspaper, but I think it’s necessary to share. The article in question was written in May of this year, but seems to have just caught the attention of the artist community. A supposedly well-established game designer describes his controversial strategies for securing an artist to draw for flash games. Mainly, he suggests hiring unexperienced artists who believe their work is worth less than it is and to press impossible deadlines on the artist in order to get their work in a timely manner.

 I will admit, I’m a bit torn by this article. On the one hand, he clearly describes ways to manipulate others into getting something for nothing. Anything worth having should be worth paying for and it seems unjust to purposefully keep people in the dark in order to get them to estimate a price much lower than it should be just because s/he is inexperienced in terms of pricing. You (the supposed game developer) are deliberately scamming the artist to give you something of high quality much less than its worth; in fact, I’d even go so far to say that you are conning them.

 I also feel that it isn’t right to suggest techniques to pressure the artist into doing something fast. Although it is a job, by picking amateur artists, you are guaranteed people who do art, in certain respects, as a hobby. Although he suggests hiring artists who are18+, the notion that they will have more free time and less “IRL things come up that they can’t control” because of their age is bull s**t. I should know, being an 18+ with a very chaotic lifestyle once the colder seasons start up. Personally, I would have very little time to devote to a job, especially one with purposefully impossible deadlines.

Yet, I can see where he is coming from with some of his recommendations. If you are managing a large project with limited funds, budgeting is important and hiring an artist for less money might save you from going bankrupt. Also having deadlines with the artist will make sure that you end up with the work in the end and not waiting years before a trickle of art starts appearing. Paying an artist after the work is done also makes sure that you get your money’s worth. If budgeting is most important, all these things can save a project from failure.

Most importantly, though, is that the article has gotten enough attention that the author added an addendum and apologized to all parties who were offended. To me, the worst offense was his tone, but I can’t hold anything against someone who revises their argument and then apologizes. While I don’t approve of his original article, I am not going to outright flame him, especially since he has some valid points that were explained extremely poorly. Poorly enough to get a large art community extremely angry.

My motives for sharing my thoughts and this article are two-fold: 1) I think people should be a little more cautious about receiving commissions and conducting business and 2) I think those on the hiring end should be a little more cautious about sharing your needs to those you are hiring. I feel that passing along this article will help people make better decisions about the commissions they accept. I am not asking anyone to read this article and ban the author nor to leave nasty, unhelpful comments, but I think it’s important to know that people like him are out there and with that knowledge, it should be easier to make better decisions for both parties.

Newsflash: Oh My…

Tired of sitting around and waiting for your prince charming to come and present himself from where he’s lurking in the shadows? Well, have no fear, another distraction is here! Ladies and gentlemen of darkness we present to you more Twilight merchandise because what you have simply isn’t enough! For your enjoyment, and your enjoyment only (because we really aren’t making money off of this) we present to you: Twilight the video game!

All right, all sarcasm aside, I’m amazed. Amazed at the notion that economists and video game developers think that they can get a 7-figure profit margin from making a video game based off of the Twilight saga. I’ve never read Twilight, so I probably shouldn’t talk, but I have read numerous reviews and  parodies as well as word of mouth reviews from people who’ve read it. I’m not going to be mean and say that, as a real writer, I can legitimately say it’s bull pucky, but knowing what I do about Twilight, I can say that there is way too much hype about a story that is illogical, unrealistic, and has sparked a new trope in the fictions "don’ts."

Why would people buy this stuff? I don’t understand some people’s obsessions. Though this could be true about anything. The biggest thing with something that gets popular, is how it is a model in how we live. I’m not saying that we should revere everything we read or everything that’s popular. I’m saying, if you’re not going to take it with a grain of salt, you might want to check out exactly what you’re getting. Specifically: relationship advice. I’m not so sure how we could take any good relationship advice from Twilight, but some people seem to think so. The author’s claims seem accurate, in a sense, but I have some problems with his arguments; mainly I dislike sweeping generalizations. The more I’m around the more I learn that an individual is and individual and to try and understand a person based on their gender will end up mostly wrong. Seems to me, this article is more accurate. There’s more wrong with their abusive, stalker relationship as well and even though I’m an egalitarian and not a feminist, I’m siding with their take on the issue.

My main point is this: since Twilight is so popular (enough at least to even consider making a video game out of it) then young people are getting the wrong message. It’s not a good work of fiction and it’s most definately not "a perfect relationship." Ugh.

Hopefully these children will grow up to be rational, intellegent adults. And that’s a genuine hope, not sarcasm. I really do hope the world is not as stupid as it seems to be. Or at least, we can be open minded enough to be smarter.

Newsflash: What Are We Teaching Our Girls?

I was perusing Yahoo!’s home page when two articles that caught my eye. The first said: “Is that pink ribbon doing what you think?” Naturally I was curious; I thought I was spending my money wisely by getting things I needed and being philanthropic. Well, it turns out that Lucy van Pelt was right when she exclaimed that “this sort of thing always has a loophole.” It turns out that many companies are using the pink ribbon-which is an unlicensed, unregulated image-on packaging so that people are more willing to buy it thinking that they are helping out Breast cancer.

Take Proctor & Gamble’s pink ribbon-bedecked Swiffer mop. Daily Finance’s Aimee Picchi reports that although the words “early detection saves” accompany the Swiffer’s pink ribbon, simply purchasing the mop will not help fundraising efforts.

Has marketing really stooped so low as to use a universal symbol to help their own gains? On principle, I’m not always against marketers and business. Knowing how hard it is to self advertise I can sympathize with businesses trying to make a profit. The money they make then goes to workers which in turn feeds families and, in a perfect world, will also go towards helping others. But I’m not naïve. I’m aware there is greed in the world, but why should we lump honest entrepreneurs who got lucky with their businesses and became big businesses with those trying to swindle people out of money? But obviously, trust only goes so far. Quite frankly, I’m disgusted that companies would claim to help out a cause while really filling their pockets because they are not legally bound to their claim. Well, I hope all those college students studying law are happy because the world is getting more and more corrupt and they have job security knowing that every single advantage taken is another law suit to follow through on. I’m just sad no one knows what ethics are anymore. What ever happened to class?

So after deciding I was just going to donate money direction to the Susan G. Koman foundation (which I know also uses a lot of the donations they get towards advertising and not free mammogram services), I return to the front page and am drawn by “Digitally altered model speaks on firing.” Being curious, I naturally click on the link and am confronted with a picture of the front page of a Ralph Lauren catalog. I’ve taken many art classes before and I know, at first glance, something is seriously wrong with the proportions in the photo. Not only is she too skinny, but her bone structure would be impossibly flat (even the ribcage to spinal column would create a curve) and her head was much too large. After skimming the article, I was even more horrified. Apparently, Ralph Lauren was called out for obviously photo shopping the picture and for making the model even skinnier than she really is. To remedy the situation they fired the poor girl claiming that she was “too fat to model for them.” She was 5′1″ and 120 lbs; if you ask me she’s slim. In fact anyone who weighs 120 pounds (unless its a small child) is perfectly healthy. I’ve always had issues with what passes as attractive in magazines (thanks a lot, Twiggy), but this made things worse. I just don’t understand how morals are the first thing to go out the window.

Since October is breast cancer awareness month, go here to contribute to the cause. And if you know anyone (male or female) who is struggling with their self image, don’t be afraid to give them a hug and tell them that they’re beautiful. That’s all I ask.

Newsflash: Where in the World Is…

…Santa Claus? I know many of you out there are skeptics of Santa Claus and might have a different point of view on NORAD’s tradition than I do. But really, there is something sort of cute about the whole thing and well, if we have a "holiday spirit" of Christmas, this does sort of fit the bill.
        But slow down…what is NORAD’s tradition? The whole thing started in 1955 when a hopeful child called the number listed on a Sears, Roebuck, and Co. advertisement as being the direct telephone number to Santa. Unfortunately, the little boy reached the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)–an organization that monitors air and space around the U.S. and Canada. Not wanting to let the little boy’s spirits down, Col. Harry W. Shoup who had picked up the phone pretended to be Santa Claus. Little did he know a myriad of calls would follow, the officers in charge of taking the calls would get carried away, and 53 years later its a tradition to "follow Santa’s flight" throughout the world for boys and girls curious when they will get their presents.
        Is it aiding in the commercialism of Santa? I’ll leave that up to you to answer. I think it’s cute. These people are giving children something besides physical presents to be happy about. And if you don’t believe me, you can read the article. No, it’s not penguins being knighted, but it isn’t about the world destroying itself, either. And really, a 53 year old tradition stemming from someone not wanting to disappoint an unknown boy…
        It’s a good thing that NORAD doesn’t have any threats to look out for in the air on Christmas.

Newsflash: An Honored Knight

Well, the last time I had to do a news post was because of the new Muppet on Sesame Street. That was more than two years ago on August 14, 2006. But today, I saw something just as cute and perhaps more perplexing. On August 15th of this year, an unusual candidate of the Norwegian Royal Guard was knighted. He had been a colonel-in-chief for years and honored with medals for long service and a statue in his honor. But what makes him so different from all the other wonderful Norwegian soldiers? He’s a penguin.

Yes, that’s right. You can see the video here if you don’t believe me. Nils Olav had been the army’s mascot for a while and he was finally knighted by the king of Norway at the Edinburgh Zoo. Darren McGarry, animal collector at the zoo, said Nils was on his best behavior for the event. He certainly did a good job checking the troops, although he did try to walk away when he was being knighted. He was being honored for strengthening ties between Norway and Scotland during his lifetime.

Unfortunately, the real Nils Olav died in the 1980s and was replaced, but obviously, his legacy continues on. I’m sure wherever he is now, he’s puffing his feathers with pride at being a knight for the king of Norway.

Newsflash: The New Kid

All right, I couldn’t resist: I’m going to do news. My parents already know this, but for those of you who don’t, Sesame Street has a new resident. Three-year-old Abby Cadabby moved to Sesame Street from Fairyside, Queens. She’s the first new female character in thirteen years to join the show and has been brought on to honor their thirty-seventh season on television. Her mother is a fairy godmother and she is the show’s first fairy godchild. Yep, a fairy. She also has a magic wand that she likes to use for magic. But the only magic trick she knows is turning things into pumpkins. Because she’s only a fairy-in-training, she can’t turn them back. In an interview for TV Guide, she said, “But you know what, for the fall, what could be better?” Read the rest of the interview here and learn a lot more about Abby.

Abby took nine months of careful planning to create. Every detail from eye shape to color was taken in account to create a character that kids-specifically girls- could relate to. Fairies have never been on the show before and executive producer Carol-Lynn Parente hopes that by adding another species, it “will give the show another way to teach about diversity.” and “by having her be a fairy it allows us to deal with entering new social groups, accepting differences, and having her learn about the differences of the characters on our street.” They also wanted to create a strong role-model for girls, hoping to make her strong and girly but not a girly-girl in the way of a victim. “Creating characters for girls is the ‘challenge of trying to write so that they’re reflective of girls and their character, but also are strong and smart and funny,’ Parente says.” And she’s also a role model for healthy female relationships to girls in the audience. “There’s not a lot out there that models healthy female relationships,” Parente says. “There’s a mean-girl syndrome, so this was a good opportunity to show how girls get along in healthy ways.” Hopefully, with helping kids to deal with differences and new things, she’ll help with the literacy basics Sesame Street is trying to help with. All of her spells have to rhyme in order to work, so girls that want to be Abby, knowing how to rhyme is a must.

But what does she have to offer for the show? While Rosita is teaching kids Spanish, Abby says she’s trying to teach Rosita Dragonfly. “It’s like Morse code, only it’s flap-flap, flutter-flutter-flap…. I’m trying to teach that to Rosita, but she’ll need to make herself some wings first or something,” she says. It’s good for kids to learn a little magic because you only live once. She’s not just there because the producers love puppets, she’s there because they love kids. She’s meant to teach about diversity and teaching kids that it’s ok to have a new kid join your group of friends. Children need these good values because by the time they’re my age, they long since lost them.

Leslie Carrara-Rudolph, voice of Abby Cadabby

Bibliography:

1. NPR
2. Toronto Star
3. TV Guide
4. ABC 7 News
5. Muppet Central <--learn more about Leslie here (but you'll have to scroll down)
   
6. United Press International