My creative Manifesto would consist of ten points
1. An idea alone is not valuable
2. Nothing is completely original, ideas aren't formed without outside influence
3. Ideas come more often from living life than brainstorming sessions
4. Team brainstorming yields more varied results
5. Work with things you know
6. Always learn new things
7. Be open-minded
8. Inspiration can come from anywhere, be on the lookout
9. EVERYONE is a creative person
10. Art is an extension of yourself, no matter the context
These ten points embody a creative persons relationship between creative work and living life. Throughout my growth as a creative individual, even over just the course of this class, is largely influenced by changes in my life and new experiences.
Creativity and Life are closely intertwined, you can't Live without Creativity and Creativity cannot exsist without Life.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Freak Factor
The article Freak Factor: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness, by David Rendall, talks about how weaknesses can be exploited and defeated using different techniques. I'm going to take some of his techniques and critique them on how useful and true they are.
The first suggestion I will look at is number 5: "Foundation: Build on Your Strengths." I found this part to be a bit insightful although it at first seems rather common sense. The article says that there are three basic reasons to work on your strengths. The first reason is that working on strengths feels good, its doing something you excel at to further your own capabilities. The second is that your strengths have far greater potential than your weaknesses because your are naturally adept at them and get enjoyment out of them. The final reason is that well developed strengths can make up for weaknesses, making one more well rounded as a whole. I thought this was a particularly important bit of advice because many people take their strengths for granted as if they are static abilities, when in reality we can always work to improve upon them.
The second is number 6: "Focus: You Can't Do Both." The main point of this suggestion is that you can either work toward improving your strengths or weaknesses but trying to both at the same time will likely not have good results. When Rendall asks his students if they would work on their strengths, weaknesses or both, the usual response is both. It seems like not a bad idea, improving on what you're good at, while working on your weaknesses. But the fact of the matter is that working on your strengths and weaknesses is not easy, most people hardly have the time or energy to successfully improve on one, let alone both. Not only are personal resources too low to work on strengths and shortcomings simultaneously, but doing so also inhibits the advancement of either. When focusing on some skills, others being worked on recieve less time and dedication. Ideally one would want to work on a single strength or a single weakness at once, thereby giving appropriate time and attention to their work.
The final suggesting I am critiquing is number 8: "Freak: The Power of Uniqueness." This part uses the leaning tower of Pisa as an example of how freakish characteristics, what makes each person unique, is often their greatest asset. The original architects of the tower tried fruitlessly to fix its lean. But the "leaning" quality of the leaning tower of Pisa is its main draw, ultimately what was once seen as a flaw has now become the cornerstone of the Pisa tourism industry. Rendall says we can learn five things from the leaning tower of Pisa that can applied to utilizing our own "Freak" qualities. People come to see the tower because of its flaw, like the tower our flaws can be our greatest resource. People tried to fix its tilt even tho that it has become a positive characteristic now, sometimes the "weaknesses" we try to fix could one day become our most useful trait. Efforts to fix major flaws often fail. It is often worth it to preserve the flaw just as it can be to develop ours. And people will say that your own personal "tilt" should be fixed, when in reality it can be a good thing to maintain.
I have found that my personal strengths are my ability to gauge how long work takes me, my dedication to my work and my ability to look at many sides of the same problem. I have used these skills in my creative work in order to work on projects effectively and take many unique perspectives of my work. My weaknesses would have to be collaboration and communication. I don't mind working with other creative individuals, but when our styles aren't compatible I often have trouble conveying my ideas on the project and working together in harmony.
The first suggestion I will look at is number 5: "Foundation: Build on Your Strengths." I found this part to be a bit insightful although it at first seems rather common sense. The article says that there are three basic reasons to work on your strengths. The first reason is that working on strengths feels good, its doing something you excel at to further your own capabilities. The second is that your strengths have far greater potential than your weaknesses because your are naturally adept at them and get enjoyment out of them. The final reason is that well developed strengths can make up for weaknesses, making one more well rounded as a whole. I thought this was a particularly important bit of advice because many people take their strengths for granted as if they are static abilities, when in reality we can always work to improve upon them.
The second is number 6: "Focus: You Can't Do Both." The main point of this suggestion is that you can either work toward improving your strengths or weaknesses but trying to both at the same time will likely not have good results. When Rendall asks his students if they would work on their strengths, weaknesses or both, the usual response is both. It seems like not a bad idea, improving on what you're good at, while working on your weaknesses. But the fact of the matter is that working on your strengths and weaknesses is not easy, most people hardly have the time or energy to successfully improve on one, let alone both. Not only are personal resources too low to work on strengths and shortcomings simultaneously, but doing so also inhibits the advancement of either. When focusing on some skills, others being worked on recieve less time and dedication. Ideally one would want to work on a single strength or a single weakness at once, thereby giving appropriate time and attention to their work.
The final suggesting I am critiquing is number 8: "Freak: The Power of Uniqueness." This part uses the leaning tower of Pisa as an example of how freakish characteristics, what makes each person unique, is often their greatest asset. The original architects of the tower tried fruitlessly to fix its lean. But the "leaning" quality of the leaning tower of Pisa is its main draw, ultimately what was once seen as a flaw has now become the cornerstone of the Pisa tourism industry. Rendall says we can learn five things from the leaning tower of Pisa that can applied to utilizing our own "Freak" qualities. People come to see the tower because of its flaw, like the tower our flaws can be our greatest resource. People tried to fix its tilt even tho that it has become a positive characteristic now, sometimes the "weaknesses" we try to fix could one day become our most useful trait. Efforts to fix major flaws often fail. It is often worth it to preserve the flaw just as it can be to develop ours. And people will say that your own personal "tilt" should be fixed, when in reality it can be a good thing to maintain.
I have found that my personal strengths are my ability to gauge how long work takes me, my dedication to my work and my ability to look at many sides of the same problem. I have used these skills in my creative work in order to work on projects effectively and take many unique perspectives of my work. My weaknesses would have to be collaboration and communication. I don't mind working with other creative individuals, but when our styles aren't compatible I often have trouble conveying my ideas on the project and working together in harmony.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Collapsus
Collapsus is a transmedia experiment that combines written media, videos, and a game to convey a single narrative. It has a single story followed in the game, but is accompanied by videos and articles that give depth to the world. The narrative uses a fictional story based on real world facts and issues. The whole experience is unique in that it is both a fictional game and a factual statement. I personally wasn't too into it, but I see how the transmedia ideas used in the project could be further developed into something better.
Transmedia has potential but I feel that Collapsus falls short of that potential. It changes too much of a standard media format at once, too much was going on at once making it a clustered experience. I think if the different forms of media were combined in a different way it could be a more structured, sound experience. But as an experimental work, Collapsus does provide a stepping stone for future developement of a transmedia experience.
My own transmedia experience in this class has definitely effected the way I see the creative process. Although there are differences between different media platforms, there are certain properties that are valid through any, and many skills in each that can be applied to other mediums in one way or another.
Transmedia has potential but I feel that Collapsus falls short of that potential. It changes too much of a standard media format at once, too much was going on at once making it a clustered experience. I think if the different forms of media were combined in a different way it could be a more structured, sound experience. But as an experimental work, Collapsus does provide a stepping stone for future developement of a transmedia experience.
My own transmedia experience in this class has definitely effected the way I see the creative process. Although there are differences between different media platforms, there are certain properties that are valid through any, and many skills in each that can be applied to other mediums in one way or another.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Reflections on Gaming Project
In our game presentation, the thing that wasn't conveyed properly was the objectives and the goals. Essentially, our problem was that our game had a bit of complexity in those areas. The objectives, or explicitly stated directives, heavily rely on the narrative of the game, which we didn't cover well. The premise of the game takes place in 3 acts, the first act is when he is a cop in training and his is wholly dedicated to the force. The objectives here are always for the police. In the second act, the player is an undercover officer. In this act he must make decisions to work with the mafia for the money or stick with his mission. These objectives offer the player the choice between two ends. In the final act, the players choices lead them to either becoming a better police officer or becoming a mob lord. One path is basically the heroes journey while the other is a dynamic shift to antihero. The objectives of the third act are based on your status and the choices made in the past.
The goals also reflect the choices of the player. After the narrative is over, the game becomes either about building a mob family or advancing in police rank. Both of these goals are totally up to the player at this point, they can extort businesses, bust crime lords who weren't in the initial family, upgrade weapons and do much more to further their own personal experience. What happens in the final act is largely up to the player, and which goals they wish to pursue.
The goals also reflect the choices of the player. After the narrative is over, the game becomes either about building a mob family or advancing in police rank. Both of these goals are totally up to the player at this point, they can extort businesses, bust crime lords who weren't in the initial family, upgrade weapons and do much more to further their own personal experience. What happens in the final act is largely up to the player, and which goals they wish to pursue.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Super Hero Reflections
Juliette and John's hero project
My first critique is of Juliette and John's project. Individually, I thought the characters were good and original. Eros is a very original and interested "villain", and Captain Stickman is rather lame character but has a very original back story featuring a "doodling accident. My main concern is the disparity between the characters. They don't even seem remotely related, there's no chemistry, nothing to connect the two in any way.
My favorite aspect of these characters is their color schemes. Both had analog hues, Captain Stickman had Blue and yellow, while Eros had yellow, orange and red. Both featuring analog hues and primary colors give the characters some affinity despite their contrasting motives. This affinity indicates that they aren't such bad enemies or that their is hope for friendship in the future; either that or that they were made for one another. The primary colors and analog schemes make the target audience of the characters quite obviously children. Understanding that their design is geared towards young kids makes their characteristics seem fun rather than ridiculous. They also had affinity in the lighting, both characters are brightly lit, giving a sense of happiness or energy to the characters. The characters also had similar saturation, being that they are both rather vibrant in color to emphasis the light-heart and fun mood of the hero. The combination of similarity between lighting, hue, and saturation all point toward the overall art style of the concept, which embodies ideals of content designed for children
Tanner and Cam's
This is a critique of Tanner and Cams hero/villain project which features the villain Caligula and the hero who is a gladiator but his name isn't listed in their blog. They also used the properties of color, using hue, brightness and saturation. The characters had similar hues, featuring a color scheme of browns and yellows. Their affinity in hue was to show that they come from the same era, the same setting. These colors are reminiscent of ancient Rome or at least what we like to assume ancient Rome looks like. The brightness of the characters contrasts their status. The gladiator features darker colors, showing his role as a lowly slave, whereas Caligula has bright robes, showing that he is royalty. The saturation of the two would indicate the style is intended for youth, but the violence of the action would insist a middle to high school age audience.
I personally liked this project. While most groups used rather generic character designs of cliche heroes and villains who where tights and capes, Tanner and Cam had an original idea. They used a Gladiator or Spartacus type setting, but with a younger target audience. And in this world we still find a classic example of hero vs. villain and good vs. evil. Their project is original but still plays off the character components we learned about in class; I really like where they took the whole "hero/villain" assignment.
My first critique is of Juliette and John's project. Individually, I thought the characters were good and original. Eros is a very original and interested "villain", and Captain Stickman is rather lame character but has a very original back story featuring a "doodling accident. My main concern is the disparity between the characters. They don't even seem remotely related, there's no chemistry, nothing to connect the two in any way.
My favorite aspect of these characters is their color schemes. Both had analog hues, Captain Stickman had Blue and yellow, while Eros had yellow, orange and red. Both featuring analog hues and primary colors give the characters some affinity despite their contrasting motives. This affinity indicates that they aren't such bad enemies or that their is hope for friendship in the future; either that or that they were made for one another. The primary colors and analog schemes make the target audience of the characters quite obviously children. Understanding that their design is geared towards young kids makes their characteristics seem fun rather than ridiculous. They also had affinity in the lighting, both characters are brightly lit, giving a sense of happiness or energy to the characters. The characters also had similar saturation, being that they are both rather vibrant in color to emphasis the light-heart and fun mood of the hero. The combination of similarity between lighting, hue, and saturation all point toward the overall art style of the concept, which embodies ideals of content designed for children
Tanner and Cam's
This is a critique of Tanner and Cams hero/villain project which features the villain Caligula and the hero who is a gladiator but his name isn't listed in their blog. They also used the properties of color, using hue, brightness and saturation. The characters had similar hues, featuring a color scheme of browns and yellows. Their affinity in hue was to show that they come from the same era, the same setting. These colors are reminiscent of ancient Rome or at least what we like to assume ancient Rome looks like. The brightness of the characters contrasts their status. The gladiator features darker colors, showing his role as a lowly slave, whereas Caligula has bright robes, showing that he is royalty. The saturation of the two would indicate the style is intended for youth, but the violence of the action would insist a middle to high school age audience.
I personally liked this project. While most groups used rather generic character designs of cliche heroes and villains who where tights and capes, Tanner and Cam had an original idea. They used a Gladiator or Spartacus type setting, but with a younger target audience. And in this world we still find a classic example of hero vs. villain and good vs. evil. Their project is original but still plays off the character components we learned about in class; I really like where they took the whole "hero/villain" assignment.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Reflection on Hero/Villain assignment
Our group had two villains and one hero, because we were a group of 3
Here's Minuteman, our hero: Hi-Hat, our villain:
And our second villain, Silver Spoon:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)