Monday, May 11, 2015

Transmedia Storytelling

Discuss some of the specific examples on our Haiku page in relation to how they fit into the definitions given of Transmedia Storytelling (also on our Haiku page).

*What pieces do you think are particularly remarkable in how they create content or a shared experience between creators and audience/creators?
I think the Elegy for a Dead World writing app was really interesting because it allows the users to create and add on their own imagination into what's going on. It is completely interactive because it's more of an inspirational writing prompt, rather than just something for people to watch and soak up the information. The experience becomes more about the user and less about the original content itself.

*What examples do you see as being particularly creative or innovative in their use of technology within the art?
Lizzy Bennet Diaries was cool because it took a classic piece of the art, and completely transformed it into something new.

*What questions seem to arise, either from the articles or from your own thoughts? What other transmedia examples have you come across or can find?
One question would be: what kind of transmedia entertainment tends to get the best response from an audience, and how do the companies decide on what kind of platform to use?

*What are examples of marketing pieces that aren't really transmedia storytelling and how do you tell them apart?
A lot of trailers for movies or TV shows have a twitter hashtag that pops up at the end of the commercial, either telling the audience to tweet something or try to win something. This is much more advertisement than some of the other pieces we looked at, such as the Lizzie Bennet diaries.

*Did transmedia storytelling exist before the internet - and if you think so, how?
On TV shows such as America's Funniest Home Videos, the audience used to be asked to send in their own tapes at the end of the show. Or shows such as American Idol where the audience is asked to vote for the winners of each round.

My Proposal for the Project: Karenna and I want to make a Blair-Witch-Project-style blog video, but a comedic spoof version of it. Our transmedia element will be that she will have a twitter page that she will be tweeting during the filming and that the audience can follow and look at after or while they're watching the video. We will be posting it on Youtube and hopefully will have it done by Friday, May 29th.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Artist vs. Audience

The relationship between artist and audience has become much more interactive and personal. It’s almost like technology has allowed the audience to literally become a part of the art, rather than just observing it. In the Obama tweeting video, Obama personally reads out tweets that have been written about him. The fact that technology has allowed important figures, even the president himself, to directly interact with viewers is pretty remarkable. It’s also interesting to think about the effect this kind of interaction can have to the amount of viewers/followers to TV shows. 
The show “Scandal” has a huge fan following due to the actors and creators live tweeting episodes, allowing the audience to truly interact with the show and feel more a part of it. For an audience member to watch a show and become attached to the characters is one thing. But to actually be able to interact with the real actors directly seems much more compelling, and a smart way to target an audience. 
There was even a part on the Jimmy Fallon/Kimmel show where a band includes the exact words of tweets about popular culture into improvised songs. This is a whole new way to interact with an audience. 

It’s interesting to think that twitter has become a website that so many famous artists and celebrities use on a day to day basis, and commonly tweet directly to their fans. It seems like the relationship between artist and fan has changed a lot. it’s less of the fans feeling completely isolated from this idealized figure who is put up on a pedestal, and more of truly rooting for them and feeling like you are more connected to them in some way. Having access to their personal photos and tweets in your news feed seems much more personal than seeing photos taken of them by paparazzi on the street. It’s much more of how the celebrity wants to be viewed, rather than how other media sources are portraying them.

Monday, March 2, 2015

Abbey's Mashup

My intention in this piece was to make a statement about how consumerism has flooded the media, and how our culture has become brainwashed by materialistic values. This piece is different from the original commercials I used because I mixed it into a completely new piece rhythmically, as well as with other footage that I got myself. It is also different because I am saying something completely new than the original works and giving the images new meaning. It is fair use because I’m not planning on selling or distributing it anywhere, but simply for the artistic expression. I really enjoyed making this piece. It was interesting being able to make something completely new out of someone else’s work, and finding new meaning in “recycled” clips. 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Copyright responses

Do you agree that many artists borrow as a fundamental part of the artistic/creative process? Should artists have the freedom to do so?

Yes. I think everything that artists create today is somewhat borrowed from other artists that they have been exposed to. It is also important that artists have the right to use media such as commercials and movies to be able to make statements or modify them into a new creation in some way. 

The authors make a distinction between borrowing that is derivative versus borrowing that is transformative. Is one wrong and the other right? How can we tell the difference and who ultimately determines that?

I think that derivative art can be wrong, if you are taking someone else’s work and releasing it as your own without crediting the original artist. Transformative would mean taking someone else’s work, modifying it or re-purposing it in some way and crediting the original artist. I think that it is only wrong if you are releasing someone’s work without making a new piece, but simply releasing it as your own. 

What other examples of appropriation can you think of?
Appropriation could be stealing music or movies online, but I know that a lot of people do that. It could be downloading a movie and redistributing it, or releasing someone else’s artwork/film as your own.

How would you feel if another artist appropriated your work?
I would feel pretty upset, but at the same time I think it would depend on how they did it. If they were trying to release it as their own creation, I would be really mad. However, if they were using one of my films for a different purpose then I don’t know if I would care that much. 

In what ways have you been influenced or appropriated another work?
In a lot of the films I make, I like to use found footage such as commercials from the 60’s (if I am trying to make a statement about consumerism or the media’s effect on culture). I think that this is a huge part of my style as a filmmaker and I couldn’t imagine not having the right to using this media. 

In the current remix culture, when anyone can create something using digital technology, how is authorship being redefined? Consider the ideas of the "instrument" (piano vs turntable or computer, paintbrush vs camera) as well as the "process.”

I think that authorship now can mean a collection of other works mashed up into one or the alteration of other works. In Girl Talk, they take other pieces of music and mash it up into their own. This kind of process is used in so many different art forms, such as visual art and filmmaking. For example, in a collage you can add in images and words from many different sources such as ads in magazines, photos from everyday life or parts of other art. 

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Setting in The Queen

One major theme I noticed throughout "The Queen" was the opposing forces of tradition and new ideas. The art director in this film did a wonderful job of portraying this through set design and color palette. Specifically, two settings that contrasted the most to me were the Prime Ministers' home compared to the interior of Buckingham Palace. Not only did it reflect these opposing forces of tradition and modernization, but it exhibited the characters overall. 
In Buckingham Palace, everything felt very neat and proper. The furniture was perfectly aligned and geometrically pleasing. The color palette consisted of muted yellows, greens and browns. This also coincided with the Queen's wardrobe for most of the film, which made her fit in very well with her surroundings. This represented Queen's firm beliefs of the traditional monarchy which she has been supporting since her childhood. 
On the other hand, the Prime Minister's house was almost the complete opposite. It was very messy and there was a lot of clutter in the background from his kids and family. The color palette consisted of reds, blues, whites and other colors that contrasted against the yellow of Buckingham Palace. This is a perfect visual the modernization that he believes in. 

Friday, October 3, 2014

Set Design in Dogville

Arrogance. Throughout “Dogville", I noticed this to be one of the major ideas expressed throughout the film. This town is isolated from anything else happening outside of their minuscule community. They are blind to what is morally right and wrong, which is why they treat the outsider Grace so inhumanely. The set design in “Dogville” is one of the many ways that Lars Von Trier portrays this arrogance. 

The very first shot of the movie shows the entire town from bird’s eye view, revealing chalk lines drawn out like a map to represent where houses and roads would be. This gives the audience a very God-like and objective point of view, easily accessing everything and anything that happens in the town. This choice of set design makes the audience hyper-aware to the entire town. One example of this payoff would be the moment Grace is being raped for the first time, and the camera then moves far back to reveal the rest of the town going along with their business. Although the audience can see everything in that moment, what makes it so uncomfortable is the oblivious townspeople. 

The borders of the set are completely blank white or black nothingness, depending on whether it’s day or night. This aspect made it very clear that the town only sees what is in their own little world and nothing else. They are all trapped in their own blindness, unaware of anything but their own personal needs. I thought that one of the most powerful moments of the film was when the blind man finally opened the curtains, and for the only time in the film, real sky was shown. The set design gave us no access to the world that we are used to at all, which is what made that payoff so effective. 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Life Lessons

While watching "Life Lessons", I noticed the particular way that Scorsese introduced the women throughout the film. Lionell Dobie's warped and obsessed view of Paulette put her up on a pedestal, romanticizing her as an unattainable ideal. I specifically noticed the way the iris effect was used to evoke this feeling throughout the film. I think these choices worked really well to express Lionell's mindset and unhealthy attachment to someone who doesn't love him back. 

The first time Paulette appears on screen, the iris effect is used as a way to single her out from everyone else. The iris grows bigger and shrinks, giving a kind of warped point of view. Everything is in slow motion, creating a very dreamy and surreal atmosphere. It then cuts to very close up shots of Lionell smoking a cigarette, giving us access to him in that moment of obsession. 

Another time the iris effect is used is when he is admiring her ankle after telling her she wanted to kiss it. This shot is cut back to 2 times, and a third time very quickly (maybe a millisecond) when she pulls the cover over it. It's obviously something that was not going to happen, but the iris effect lets us peek into a fantasy world that Lionell imagines for himself.

When he meets  the new girl at the end of the film, it's another perfect example of a romanticized point of view. It quickly cuts to close-ups of her lips, neck, ear and fidgeting hands. Then it cuts to a wide shot of the entire room where everyone else disappears, and the iris effect closes in on just the two of them.