Are Video Tapes and VCR's Running Out Of Time?

From our generations and generations above us, video taping was the main way to take family videos and record memorable moments much like cassettes were used to play music. Now as technology advances, it is apparent that the use of videotapes and their player, a VCR, are being used less and less and made even less significant in people's lives. People now use their phones or put videos on DVD's or maybe even just keep it on a computer to save. It is all now electronic and digital to look back on one's first steps walking or that baseball they played when they were young. However, is this a bad thing? Most would say no but in the bigger picture it is putting companies out of business. 

On another note, the ability to watch movies and shows online is also putting companies out of business. Companies like Netflix, Hulu, or HBOgo are much more convenient and likable than having to go to a video store. For example, Blockbuster has been closed down because people do not see the worth in going to a store and back to return it when they can just order a movie on demand or use companies such as Netflix to watch their favorite show. In my opinion, I am a bit concerned that video tapes are not being used to record sentimental moments within families, especially mine. It is such a cherished thing that all of my childhood and my sisters has been documented and left within video tapes. However, I don't own a VCR anymore so how exactly would I even watch these tapes? It seems that in order to keep older things available to you, you must start upgrading to the newer things. Sadly, I have realized that technology is only going to become more difficult to adapt to and the best way to handle it is to be adaptable. 

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

- Albert Einstein 

Vote For Pedro

For the graffiti stencil, I wanted to make some type of ironic joke about Donald Trump. After some thought, I decided it would be a funny example to use "Vote For Pedro" with Napoleon Dynamite from the movie. As some of you may know, the movie, "Napoleon Dynamite", is a comedy about a nerd in school and the events in his life, one of which he meets a Mexican, Pedro, who ends up running for class president. When the decision begins to come up, Napoleon, Pedro, and another girl from the school make posters, buttons, and a bunch of other items to promote Pedro's campaign. After the class president candidates say their speech, they can do an act that can show some sort of talent. One of the girls running does a dance with a couple of other girls. However, when Pedro must do his act, Napoleon puts his tape on and dances to a song that makes the crowd go crazy, which causes Pedro to win the election.
I thought that putting a stencil of Napoleon's face and the words, "Vote For Pedro" would be funny to use as a silly campaign sign. In most of Donald Trump's speeches, he ridicules immigrants and makes them seem as they are stagnating the lives of people of America. He uses them as a scapegoat for many of the problems United States' citizens are enduring to gain his own fame towards becoming president. He promotes the idea that if these immigrants are thrown out of America, it will become a better place. He even wants to castrate children who were born in America when they have the human right to live there. I believe that making a sign with "Vote for Pedro" is a good way to show how ridiculous Donald Trump due to the fact that the movie, "Napoleon Dynamite", is a ridiculous and funny movie.
I created the stencil with Bristol paper, which is somewhat less flimsy than regular printer paper. It was difficult to cut out Napoleon's face but I was able to successfully do it using an Exacto knife. It was also difficult for me to find spray paint so I made due with what I could find and used body and hair glitter spray in a silver color. It actually looked pretty cool with the ending result; however, I used it to close to the paper when I first began at the top left.


P.s. If you haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite, you should definitely watch it!!

Source of GIF: www.giphy.com

"The Skeleton Dance" by Walt Disney

"The Skeleton Dance" is a black and white skit made by Walt Disney and is part of his series of silly symphonies. It does not have actual dialogue in it except sound effects in the back and choreographed music, mostly to go along with the characters movements. I used to enjoy the black and white cartoons of Walt Disney, especially how Mickey and Minnie looked when he first created them. I feel as though children would not be entertained by this type of cartoon in this day and age. They are more enveloped with cartoons that are well drawn as well as portrayed in bright colors. However, these silly little symphonies are more than that. They express how silly humor within cartoons has continued to prevail from back then. Although they are no words, the characters are shown to have feelings and personalities, which makes the skits very entertaining.

Just like many of his other black and white cartoons, Walt Disney created "The Skeleton Dance" as having a plot, but more so to have the skeletons dancing to the music. It really is creative at how even with no dialogue or real people, a complete story can be expressed within these skits. A lot of the time Walt Disney's characters are clumsy and usually have some sort of villain in them that the main character is trying to get away from.



Here are some pictures of Walt Disney's older cartoon images:

Mickey and Minnie

Pluto 

Mickey and Donald Duck

Singing in the Rain: Prevailing Even into Modernity

The movie, Singing in the Rain, is such a classic. I even know what people are talking about when hearing of that phrase even though I have never seen the movie. It seems as though watching the clip on youtube of the main character singing this song the movie is definitely a love story. I believe that this scene can be one of the greatest in the film industry back then as it is recognized by almost everyone. As I did more research about the movie, I realized that it is actually a musical about a man starring in a musical, which is ironic in itself. Furthermore, I was fantasized by the use of colors within the musical as they appear vibrant and compliment each other. This was especially impressive to me as it was not the most advanced use of color within films back then and the directors were able to use them very successfully.

When I asked my grandmother of the scene when the main character, Gene Kelly, sings in the rain she said that they actually used this very part of the movie to advertise it and it was almost immediately a hit to people in that generation. This scene plays an important role in how significant this movie was in film history. I mean, how was I able to recognize this song without seeing the movie? The scene of "Singing in the Rain" most likely was the appealing drive for people to go and see this movie and because the movie initiates with this scene, it probably excited people. I love the lyrics to the song because although it is very simple and repetitive, it is talking of falling in love. When most people think of the rain, it is dark and gloomy. However, when Gene Kelly sings in the rain with his brightly colored yellow rain jacket it really lightens the mood and potentially gives people a different perspective of being stuck in the rain.

Musicals are a form of art within themselves. They contain dress designs, music compositions, props, and other aspects that really adhere to the smoothness within them. I believe this musical was a memorable time for people that popularized in the 1950's. However, this film will be a lasting memory of a successful time within Hollywood film history.

Source of GIF: www.giphy.com 

Flip Book Tutorial

If anyone is having trouble and is worried about making a flip book, here is a tutorial that really helped me get a better feel of how to create one. I will post the youtube video link as well as a photo that shows the different pages side by side below! I hope it helps!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iExiCGV7jzI

Source of Photo: wonderwren.blogspot.com

Jason Theodor and the Creative Method

Firstly, the main notion that Jason Theodor centralized his method on was the fact that copying was not being creative. In order to be creative, you have to dig deep within your mind and make up your own individualized thoughts and really surface mental images that were not taken from a previous experience. Creativity is a path to unravel things that you may have no even known were present within your mind, its not effortless. With this being said, the idea or definition of creativity is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can think of the word creativity in any way you want as long as your perception of it is a driving force for you to reach your ultimate creativity level. And if there is not definition, then there is no technique. It is invalid to guide someone in a direction if they are attempting to be creative because people can be creative in their own way.

The ideas expressed within a creative manner is not solely if it is making the person a more creatively oriented artist but more so if they are on the right path to becoming more creative. It is important to keep in mind the significance of a piece of artwork that not only challenges you but makes you more aware of the type of artist you are. Waiting for the right opportunity is never justified, an artist themselves is the right opportunity. In my opinion, there should not be any "writer's block" within an artist's mental process because they should always be open to enhancing and shaping ideas. I think its important to realize how much information is stored within an artist's brain and it is only them who can access it. That is why individualization is the necessity of creativity, it cannot derive from another human being. An efficient way to push through a block within an artist's mind is to write down how one is feeling or what experiences they have gained. In this way, they can let their mind do the talking, almost as if having a journal could depict images for the writer. Along with this, an idea should not solely express itself but moreover should produce a chain of ideas that the artist can run with, preventing any block from happening in the future.

Art and Mechanical Reproduction

Interesting enough, I have been learning about Mycenaean and Greek ceramics in my hand building class lately and it emphasizes on their use of molds and mass reproduction of the same forms. With this being said, the Greeks did make forms in mass production but mainly used engobes of human forms on the outside of the piece, which took a lot of time and care. Their most prominent forms were the use of "black style" and "red style" forms using decanted slip, which could both reduce and oxidize the kiln in order to get the preferred look of the ceramic ware. As the development of different art techniques advanced, the most obvious form of reproduction that completely shaped the path of this mass production was the use of print. It is crazy to think about how before printing was available people had to rewrite everything that was created if they wanted there to be numerous duplicates of it. However, I did not know that lithography was a very important turn for the advancement in the art world. Walter Benjamin states that lithography not only made it easier to duplicate pieces but also grasped expressing genre scenes within the art work. He really intrigued me when he put into perspective that reproduction of pictures could keep up in pace with the fastness of speech.

I believe that as art reproduction became more easy, it also became more pleasurable for the artist to duplicate the forms. For example, imagine Andy Warhol, the inventor of pop art, had to redraw every single campbell's soup can or every single representation of Marylin Monroe.. That would have taken him forever! I agree with Walter Benjamin that the ease in reproduction could diminish the artist's touch of it. Simply put, if an artist is using a tool such as a mold, for example, he is not putting his own individualized talent within the piece because it is just a basic reproduction of his original form. Just as Benjamin put it, "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity. I feel that if an item can be completely duplicated to the original piece their is no uniqueness that can differentiate duplicates from the original piece. It is especially important to emphasize the fact that duplicating an object will not take as long as the original piece and therefore will not need as much artistic effort to be put into it, fading away the authenticity. I surely do not agree with people who say that if the aura of the work is there then it is just as good as the original piece. This is because it is not only the aura that makes artwork so fantastic but that actual object that creates this satisfying aura for people. This statement is not validated when talking about a natural, physical object that was not created for artwork. The artwork of this object is replicating the aura the original object exerted. For example, if someone is listening to a song that sounds like another song they like, they would not just have a likeness for the song's aura but it would revert them back to remembering the song it sounds like.

It has long been noted that our world has had remarkably talented artists from the beginning of time. So does this bring into question if there can ever be an artwork that is completely unique and has not been derived from a previous idea? Of course they're can be, although it may be difficult to fully not use any ideas from previous pieces. I believe this is where people don't take other people's ideas but instead manipulate them into a new and maybe modern or improved way.

Rewinding back to when I spoke of Andy Warhol and his use of replicating the same form but with minor differentiations and maybe even colors.. I am going to post some of his pieces that began the path of pop art to establish its name. These pieces are currently being held in the official Andy Warhol Museum.

Skull, 1976 

acrylic and silkscreen ink on linen

15 x 19 in. (38.1 x 48.3 cm.)

The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Founding Collection, Contribution The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

 Daisy Waterfall (Rain Machine), 1971 

mixed media and xographic prints

107 x 248 x 69 in. (271.8 x 629.9 x 175.3 cm.)

The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Anonymous gift

©The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

1991.1

Read more at warhol.org:  http://www.warhol.org/collection/art/work/1998-1-183/#ixzz41mZkZs7L