When first going into this project I knew that I wanted to make a stop motion video. My interest peaked after watching multiple stop motion videos on Youtube, and most importantly after watching: My creative process started by just noting what others had done to produce similar videos. I then went to the drawing board to think about what type of stop motion I would go into. I thought that the most intriguing style would be a messy follow cam. From there I thought of all the cool effects I could do, such as making my subject float or have the camera spinning around the subject to change the location. All of this sounded fun and interesting but I was having a hard time developing a story that would engage the viewers. A crazy technical movie would work well but that takes an incredibly precise hand and plus, I wanted the video to seem fast paced and make the viewers feel like they are part of the action. That is when I developed the squirrel hunting story. My friend and I had recently been looking into what is called "squirrel fishing" and we thought of attempting this sport but never got around to it. I developed the idea of a follow-cam on a squirrel hunter, or "a day in the life of..." type video. I drew out a rough version of a timeline but then when we began shooting it became more of an impromtu chase. The story was meant to follow the squirrel hunter through a day of chasing a squirrel, and by the end he was supposed to die. I later changed the idea that this was just one day in which the squirrel hunter was not able to catch a squirrel, a "normal" day. I decided that letting my friend do whatever he felt like would be more effective in that it makes the video more humorous. His spontaniety in the movie keeps the mood light and entertaining. He is such a commical character, just his presence as the main subject works well with the idea of the video.
This video should come out light-hearted and funny. I'm hoping to cause a few laughs and giggles, or at least put a smirk on the viewer.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
One Laptop Per Child
The One Laptop Per Child (otherwise known as OLPC) is a program that is attempting to integrate modern technology in lesser developed countries. They are doing this by creating a laptop that is very inexpensive but also durable and useful at the same time. I am in agreement with everything this program stands for and I support the vision of OLPC. I think that this program is stepping in the right direction for helping poorer countries become better educated and more developed. Also the specs of the computer are withouta doubt ground breaking. The laptop can withstand heavy impacts and harsh conditions, which is what the laptops will most likely be experiencing in the countries that they are sent to. These can be used as an educational tool for the children of the globe. The laptops will teach the children how to become connected to the world around them along with basic educational skills. Overall, I support this laptop and the program. Although it would be nice to see the program attempting to be sustainable also, because this can just teach the world to consume at the same time.
http://www.heise.de/mobil/The-One-Laptop-per-Child-project-enters-its-critical-phase--/artikel/88916/0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM33EEAszHA
http://www.heise.de/mobil/The-One-Laptop-per-Child-project-enters-its-critical-phase--/artikel/88916/0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM33EEAszHA
Monday, March 2, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Stop Motion Videos
I've been googling and youtubing stop motion to get a general idea of what I have to do to have a successful video. Here are a couple videos that do the same thing I am attempting to do with my Squirrel Hunter project.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JexiISPNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzU3NjDikY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JexiISPNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzU3NjDikY
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Response to Benjamin
Carson Schoellkopf
DMST 2000
February 16, 2009
Walter Benjamin Response
From the start of this paper I was lost. But as I reread over the preface I understood that he was foreshadowing his paper completely by making a reference to Karl Marx. Walter Benjamin discusses the idea that Marx understood what was happening with society and what would happen. And by discussing how Marx foreshadowed the future, Benjamin is then able to go in talking about how different technology has created the same effect for itself. Also, another point that Benjamin goes on to discuss is how the reproduction of work has changed dramatically since the early times of visual art. I feel confused in that I first thought he was a supporter of reproduction but then he goes on to discuss how the reproduction of art actually devalues and jeopardizes the authenticity of the work itself.
In the first section of Benjamin’s paper he discusses how different forms of art have lead into one another. And he talks about how technology has advance so far as to come from just the beginning print to modern movies. I think that this is interesting because he talks about how one form of art has lead into the other. And by studying how the art has changed it is possible to see how the technology also transformed along with the art. I find this interesting because I have found myself almost working backwards in the process of learning new art. When I first became introduced to modern media I was interested in producing films, generally in the area of action sports. From there I then started to be interested in film and digital photography. In Benjamin’s paper he discusses how from pictures humans advanced into video. And then I found myself more interested in drawing then anything else. I thought it was interesting in that the depiction of the advancement of modern art I found myself working backwards.
Benjamin then goes on to discuss the importance of aura, which is where he really loses me. I understand what the aura of an image of piece of art is, but what I can’t seem to get is that I believe Benjamin is arguing the point that the reproduction of some art causes a loss of aura within the piece itself. I disagree with these statements in that I feel that sometimes the reproduction of a piece of work can sometimes create a different aura and possibly an even stronger one. Being a photographer I am constantly looking for photos that inspire me and cause me to think in a different way. What happens occasionally is that I will try to reproduce a similar image when I shoot. Although my picture may be somewhat of a reproduction I feel that it still has an aura of a different nature, it brings something new to the table.
What I did not understand the most from this entire essay is that in the end he attempts to connect everything with fascism. I do not understand what the point of his piece is when he talks about fascism and he only continues to perplex me when Benjamin finishes with the line about communism politicizing art. Overall the essay by Walter Benjamin is very confusing and hard to follow. I think I picked up on a few general ideas but for the most part it just seemed like a long rant about modern art.
DMST 2000
February 16, 2009
Walter Benjamin Response
From the start of this paper I was lost. But as I reread over the preface I understood that he was foreshadowing his paper completely by making a reference to Karl Marx. Walter Benjamin discusses the idea that Marx understood what was happening with society and what would happen. And by discussing how Marx foreshadowed the future, Benjamin is then able to go in talking about how different technology has created the same effect for itself. Also, another point that Benjamin goes on to discuss is how the reproduction of work has changed dramatically since the early times of visual art. I feel confused in that I first thought he was a supporter of reproduction but then he goes on to discuss how the reproduction of art actually devalues and jeopardizes the authenticity of the work itself.
In the first section of Benjamin’s paper he discusses how different forms of art have lead into one another. And he talks about how technology has advance so far as to come from just the beginning print to modern movies. I think that this is interesting because he talks about how one form of art has lead into the other. And by studying how the art has changed it is possible to see how the technology also transformed along with the art. I find this interesting because I have found myself almost working backwards in the process of learning new art. When I first became introduced to modern media I was interested in producing films, generally in the area of action sports. From there I then started to be interested in film and digital photography. In Benjamin’s paper he discusses how from pictures humans advanced into video. And then I found myself more interested in drawing then anything else. I thought it was interesting in that the depiction of the advancement of modern art I found myself working backwards.
Benjamin then goes on to discuss the importance of aura, which is where he really loses me. I understand what the aura of an image of piece of art is, but what I can’t seem to get is that I believe Benjamin is arguing the point that the reproduction of some art causes a loss of aura within the piece itself. I disagree with these statements in that I feel that sometimes the reproduction of a piece of work can sometimes create a different aura and possibly an even stronger one. Being a photographer I am constantly looking for photos that inspire me and cause me to think in a different way. What happens occasionally is that I will try to reproduce a similar image when I shoot. Although my picture may be somewhat of a reproduction I feel that it still has an aura of a different nature, it brings something new to the table.
What I did not understand the most from this entire essay is that in the end he attempts to connect everything with fascism. I do not understand what the point of his piece is when he talks about fascism and he only continues to perplex me when Benjamin finishes with the line about communism politicizing art. Overall the essay by Walter Benjamin is very confusing and hard to follow. I think I picked up on a few general ideas but for the most part it just seemed like a long rant about modern art.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
