Dark Days was shot well as it portrayed the lives of the people in the tunnel. The first thing that stood out to me was the black and white coloring through out the video. The black and white sort of made the story seem more sad. i believe the absence of color just makes it seem like there was little or no hope. it just didn't seem bright and warm. There was little sound as well. the only things you could really hear was the sound of the tunnel, the people talking, and the occasional train. i noticed as well that they used transitions just like the ones we watched but in this one it was a train.
The shots were good too. the story seemed more natural then the other videos we watched. like to me, it just seemed like they were just tagging along for the ride it was almost like the documentary we watched over the basketball player. At on point of the film, one of the homeless people asked surprisingly "you're still here" which made me believe they didn't even know when they were going to be filmed or for how long. And it appeared more natural because they would take shots of the people talking about random things, but i fill like that was kind of framed mostly cause they talked about the problems of the tunnel. It also didn't focus on just one persons perception of the tunnels, but it focused on the whole group.
all these elements mixed into video made the life of being homeless seem more real. There was hardly any interaction between the crew and the homeless which made it seem more natural. the way the documentary was framed actually made it look worse and worse from scene to scene. like in the beginning they were just chilling out, then it showed them recycling, but then it showed them dumpster diving. and after all that a guy came on and talked about the dangers of tunnels which really added to the situation of tunnels from what was seen. overall, it showed that organizing shots really play a role in effectiveness.
What really made Dark Days more interesting then the other two documentaries is that it could relate to anyone. the story can actually link to people in that we could end up like that. I mean the first one we watched was about a guy who was having trouble selling his old records which people barely have nowadays and the second one was about a basketball player who had to fly a lot and was scared of it. the thing is anyone can be homeless. It was a more deeper issue and thats another reason i think it was in black and white as well. When we see colors, it can sometimes take away from the meaning of the message. So when we see black and white, we have no choice but to focus on whats being said rather than whats in the shot.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
documentary stuff
1. Facebook more than a social site. (organizer)
2. Facebook connecting people to the world.
3. Facebook keeping track of your life. (timeline)
2. Facebook connecting people to the world.
3. Facebook keeping track of your life. (timeline)
Friday, October 26, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
video games
My interpretation of art is that it depends solely on the person observing. Art is what we as an audience choose to get out of something. So to me, anything could be art especially video game.
What art really does for the mind is open it up to interpretation. For example, i could look at a light post outside my dorm and find some natural beauty in it. Video games tell a story through a series of elements. It sets a story and incorporates elements such as sound, dialogue, and video representation.
The "rock" concept to me sort of hit me more as foundation. The story set by the creators of a game is that foundation, but its elements that bring a game to life and make it art. For example, video games tend to use songs to add the intended emotional response. I think of final fantasy games from nowadays which have actual composers incorporating this sort of passionate music which in my mind the sound makes me think of troubles i experience and hope that I've acquired. Again, this is off my interpretation of the sound though. An artist doesn't necessarily intend to make their art effect everybody. To me this element is art, to others it could just be some noise in the background.
The main goal of artist of all calibers try to achieve is to connect to an audience. Video games do a great job of this. I totally disagree that dialogue takes away from a video games art. In some cases, the dialogue could actually reach an audience. Some games carry some inspirational messages through the dialogue. Although it isn't the first thing that comes to mind when we think of art, words can be art in themselves. As Santiago said, art is an arranging of elements in a way to appeal to emotions. So why cant words be art? It doesn't take away from the meaning of a story or the art. The words actually might add clarity to the art. I cant really think of a specific example of a game, but the music in coherence with a character talking could actually enhance a deeper meaning in what the game is trying to convey.
And again, these meanings from the game are all perception from the audience.
the main thing that i think qualifies games as art are the visual representation. When i play futuristic games i tend to think of what my future will be like. When i play a game that displays beautiful scenery in high def, the art pops out at me and makes me think of places I've been to. The visual aspects are what make the game art. Even though the gaming art isn't as visually striking as genuine art done by hand, it still finds a way to connect with the audience in ways nothing else can.
All of these elements together combine to form what i believe is art. However, it is truly up to an audience to decide what they want to take from any art piece. The problem with most games nowadays is that they are in some ways just mindless fun instead of providing some sort of emotional attachment. And isn't that the point of a game? It is important to realize though that not all games are the same. As one of the articles said some art is good and some are bad. Video games do a great job at combining multiple elements to grasp an audience and tell a story. i believe anything can be made into art. Art is purely perception.
What art really does for the mind is open it up to interpretation. For example, i could look at a light post outside my dorm and find some natural beauty in it. Video games tell a story through a series of elements. It sets a story and incorporates elements such as sound, dialogue, and video representation.
The "rock" concept to me sort of hit me more as foundation. The story set by the creators of a game is that foundation, but its elements that bring a game to life and make it art. For example, video games tend to use songs to add the intended emotional response. I think of final fantasy games from nowadays which have actual composers incorporating this sort of passionate music which in my mind the sound makes me think of troubles i experience and hope that I've acquired. Again, this is off my interpretation of the sound though. An artist doesn't necessarily intend to make their art effect everybody. To me this element is art, to others it could just be some noise in the background.
The main goal of artist of all calibers try to achieve is to connect to an audience. Video games do a great job of this. I totally disagree that dialogue takes away from a video games art. In some cases, the dialogue could actually reach an audience. Some games carry some inspirational messages through the dialogue. Although it isn't the first thing that comes to mind when we think of art, words can be art in themselves. As Santiago said, art is an arranging of elements in a way to appeal to emotions. So why cant words be art? It doesn't take away from the meaning of a story or the art. The words actually might add clarity to the art. I cant really think of a specific example of a game, but the music in coherence with a character talking could actually enhance a deeper meaning in what the game is trying to convey.
And again, these meanings from the game are all perception from the audience.
the main thing that i think qualifies games as art are the visual representation. When i play futuristic games i tend to think of what my future will be like. When i play a game that displays beautiful scenery in high def, the art pops out at me and makes me think of places I've been to. The visual aspects are what make the game art. Even though the gaming art isn't as visually striking as genuine art done by hand, it still finds a way to connect with the audience in ways nothing else can.
All of these elements together combine to form what i believe is art. However, it is truly up to an audience to decide what they want to take from any art piece. The problem with most games nowadays is that they are in some ways just mindless fun instead of providing some sort of emotional attachment. And isn't that the point of a game? It is important to realize though that not all games are the same. As one of the articles said some art is good and some are bad. Video games do a great job at combining multiple elements to grasp an audience and tell a story. i believe anything can be made into art. Art is purely perception.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
So its not exactly in the order i want it yet but...
1. this is a pic of me being lazy at a tennis match cause i didn't get good sleep. (ball was in play)
9. represents me falling asleep on a competition day
10. my life felt scrambled due to time management
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
10 pics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)