Pardon the cliché, which by the way is also a cliché, but Catfish is not your ordinary movie. I mean that in the best way possible, I’ve never seen another film quite like it. The film skillfully blurs the line between reality television and documentary. On one hand, it is an accurate depiction of real events, a trait associated with documentary filmmaking. However, the way the film relies on human emotion and reaction has close ties to the way reality TV is made. The unique nature of the movie makes it impossible to describe with current terms, thus a new one is need: Reality Film.
Because of the uncertain nature of the filming process and the costs associated with filmmaking it is unlikely that this style of film will become widespread. Studios would likely be unwilling to give people money for a project that “might not pan out”. This type of filmmaking is only feasible with a small scale production. Unlike other forms of art which are pioneered by a small group of people and adopted by the recognized channels after proving commercially viable, this style will likely remain in the hands of the smaller crew.
The film is entirely dependent on the ending, without such a dramatic twist it could not be said if the film would have got made. Unlike other films this one was not scripted, the filmmakers had no idea how it would turn out while filming. Some films leave the ending open to several options, but very rarely is a film left as open-ended as Catfish. There was a strong possibility nothing film worthy would come of the processes. Given that fact you have to respect the filmmakers to some degree for taking such a risk in making this movie to begin with.
Catfish is just as much a study of human behavior as it is a revealing look into the newfound freedom Web 2.0 can offer. The film showcased an extreme example of anonymity gone wrong. Under the current requirements to make a Facedbook profile this type of scenario is unavoidable. The only real barrier to similar actions is the massive time and effort requirement needed to create so many unique and intertwined profiles. With these obstacles out of the way the last bulwark of certainty is firsthand knowledge of the person’s existence. With relationships that exclusively exist within the realm of Web 2.0, this last ditch failsafe must be abandoned.
It would be very simple to dismiss the woman in the film as a nut. You wouldn’t be wrong in saying that either in my opinion, such elaborate means to deceive are the workings of a crazy person. Given her circumstances however, can you blame her? Taking care of two severely handicapped kids, artistically stifled, living in Michigan; we’re all lucky she turned to Facebook as an escape instead of more drastic measures. She was looking for an escape from the daily monotony of her life; Facebook provided the easiest avenue to do so. On the internet she was able to become the pretty girl all the guys wanted, the aspiring artist, and the rest of her cast of characters. On the internet she had no obligations to be herself; we all just assume this is the case. Sure she may have been deceiving Nev, leading him in into believing she was a nubile young artsy chick whose one wish was to be alone with him. But Nev allowed himself to be duped. He was eager to jump at the prospect of a pretty woman taking interest in him. Granted, there was no way of knowing she wouldn’t be who she said she was, but there was no way of know she was actually her either.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
MBW
Upon viewing the movie ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ my first thought was “wow, how can I get into street art?” The second half of the film, concerning Mr. Brainwash and his art exhibit “Life is Beautiful” served as an expose into how phony the whole art scene actually is. Here we have a guy, not an artist, just a guy creating $30,000 works of art simply by ripping off other people. His work was little more than rehashed Andy Warhol paintings with spray paint accents and eye patches…and people loved it. People at the exhibit genuinely thought he was a genius rather than some hack trying to take their money. Sure he may not have been completely original, but people loved him anyway, and he made a ton of money. In his first show he was able to achieve what many artists strive for their whole lives: popularity and commercial success.
But the genius of Mr. Brainwash was not in the art (strange as that is for an artist) but rather through his promotion. Enlisting the support of his friends who happen to be major players in the street art game changed his show from emanate disaster into a massive success. He realized that the art has very little to do with making money, success depended on how many people came to the show and how many people bought pieces. He knew that in the world of street art an endorsement from Banksy would be an invaluable asset, so not only did he get one, but he plastered it on a billboard. Sure, he may have been exploiting his friends and ripping off their styles in attempt to make money, but is there anything wrong with that? Given the same situation I was have acted in the same way, so I can’t criticize Terry for “selling out”. Neither can any other artist in my opinion, the man has a family to support, can you really blame him for trying to make money? And besides, what he did was available to any artist, he was just the first to realize the enormous opportunity to make money.
Artistically, Mr. Brainwash is to street art what Thomas Kinkade is to landscapes: different pieces that are all the same. MBW just took popular images and distorted their original meanings to represent the counter-culture. Elvis with an assault rifle or Obama with Marylyn Monroe hair, not exactly high art. Compared to Shepard Fairey’s “Obey” or “Andre the Giant has a posse” MBW is not even on his level. Yet MBW did the Madonna album cover and Fairey is getting sued by the Associated Press, so what kind of statement is that about the art world? That they reward people who make art as easy to digest as possible? Or that no matter how much artistic integrity one may have, popularity is still determined by the masses.
But the genius of Mr. Brainwash was not in the art (strange as that is for an artist) but rather through his promotion. Enlisting the support of his friends who happen to be major players in the street art game changed his show from emanate disaster into a massive success. He realized that the art has very little to do with making money, success depended on how many people came to the show and how many people bought pieces. He knew that in the world of street art an endorsement from Banksy would be an invaluable asset, so not only did he get one, but he plastered it on a billboard. Sure, he may have been exploiting his friends and ripping off their styles in attempt to make money, but is there anything wrong with that? Given the same situation I was have acted in the same way, so I can’t criticize Terry for “selling out”. Neither can any other artist in my opinion, the man has a family to support, can you really blame him for trying to make money? And besides, what he did was available to any artist, he was just the first to realize the enormous opportunity to make money.
Artistically, Mr. Brainwash is to street art what Thomas Kinkade is to landscapes: different pieces that are all the same. MBW just took popular images and distorted their original meanings to represent the counter-culture. Elvis with an assault rifle or Obama with Marylyn Monroe hair, not exactly high art. Compared to Shepard Fairey’s “Obey” or “Andre the Giant has a posse” MBW is not even on his level. Yet MBW did the Madonna album cover and Fairey is getting sued by the Associated Press, so what kind of statement is that about the art world? That they reward people who make art as easy to digest as possible? Or that no matter how much artistic integrity one may have, popularity is still determined by the masses.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Abraham Vector Lincoln
For my trace image I chose Abe Lincoln, my favorite President. I left the image black and white but chose to add words that describe the man.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Vector Image Original and Reproduction
Original logo, BMW. And here is my reproduction...
As you can see, my illustrator skills need some work. Although for a first effort on a new software I don't think it is too bad.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Keen Questions
1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links. Include this idea of "disintermediation".
According to Andrew Keen, author of “How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture” democratized media are websites with user’s creating the content. Unlike in the past where professionals accounted for the majority of the media we consume, the internet is opening up a world of opportunities to amateurs. This presents a problem according to Keen; these amateurs do not have the formal training necessary to proliferate trusted news. Trust is a large focus of Keen, mainly the lack of it democratized media offers. Websites allow anyone to submit and edit content, the result of which is less credible and reliable than the work of professionals. Without fact checkers and editors people can post stories of pure fabrication or bias.
The term “disintermediation” is the lack of a gatekeeper party between website hosts and content submitters. There is no one around to check on the accuracy of the submitted material. Without fact checkers Keen argues that the whole medium is discredited and nothing more than amateur journalism. Without traditional pathways disintermediation is crossing the roles of content submitter, webmaster, and reader. One person can play multiple roles creating a conflict of interests that threatens to discredit the entire medium.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
In the ever changing world of technology standing still is not an option. The world is changing and people's viewpoints cannot afford to stall. One side of the spectrum argues that technology will help us make the next evolutionary step towards becoming the hyperbeing while others argue that this technology will eventually be our downfall. Douglas Rushkoff belongs in the first group of people, although he is cautious of the abuse of technology he is overall in favor. In his opinion the changes made in communication have made a positive change on our lives. At first glance it would appear he is right, we now have the ability to communicate with people is distant countries as easily as someone down the block.
On the other hand, there are people who argue that this technology will eventually prove negative. Andrew Keen is among those people. He views the change in communication and the rise of democratized media as a bad thing. He argues that we are becoming dependent on this technology and the further on we go the more this addiction will grow. My opinion agrees with Keen's, I too believe that the continual dominance of technology will have overall negative effects on people. More and more of my generation are wasting time on Facebook rather than spending time face to face. As Facebook becomes an even more critical aspect of our society I can only see the problem spreading.
According to Andrew Keen, author of “How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture” democratized media are websites with user’s creating the content. Unlike in the past where professionals accounted for the majority of the media we consume, the internet is opening up a world of opportunities to amateurs. This presents a problem according to Keen; these amateurs do not have the formal training necessary to proliferate trusted news. Trust is a large focus of Keen, mainly the lack of it democratized media offers. Websites allow anyone to submit and edit content, the result of which is less credible and reliable than the work of professionals. Without fact checkers and editors people can post stories of pure fabrication or bias.
The term “disintermediation” is the lack of a gatekeeper party between website hosts and content submitters. There is no one around to check on the accuracy of the submitted material. Without fact checkers Keen argues that the whole medium is discredited and nothing more than amateur journalism. Without traditional pathways disintermediation is crossing the roles of content submitter, webmaster, and reader. One person can play multiple roles creating a conflict of interests that threatens to discredit the entire medium.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
In the ever changing world of technology standing still is not an option. The world is changing and people's viewpoints cannot afford to stall. One side of the spectrum argues that technology will help us make the next evolutionary step towards becoming the hyperbeing while others argue that this technology will eventually be our downfall. Douglas Rushkoff belongs in the first group of people, although he is cautious of the abuse of technology he is overall in favor. In his opinion the changes made in communication have made a positive change on our lives. At first glance it would appear he is right, we now have the ability to communicate with people is distant countries as easily as someone down the block.
On the other hand, there are people who argue that this technology will eventually prove negative. Andrew Keen is among those people. He views the change in communication and the rise of democratized media as a bad thing. He argues that we are becoming dependent on this technology and the further on we go the more this addiction will grow. My opinion agrees with Keen's, I too believe that the continual dominance of technology will have overall negative effects on people. More and more of my generation are wasting time on Facebook rather than spending time face to face. As Facebook becomes an even more critical aspect of our society I can only see the problem spreading.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Comments
http://mikeflorio1.blogspot.com/ Mike Florio - Primary response
Additional responses
http://mikenicsmedialit112.blogspot.com/2011/02/whither-individual.html Mike Nicoletti
http://jessicafrancia.blogspot.com/2011/03/whither-individual.html Jessica Francia
Additional responses
http://mikenicsmedialit112.blogspot.com/2011/02/whither-individual.html Mike Nicoletti
http://jessicafrancia.blogspot.com/2011/03/whither-individual.html Jessica Francia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)