Showing posts with label Fundamentals of Interactive Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentals of Interactive Media. Show all posts
Monday, 28 April 2008
Monday, 21 April 2008
Aarron the Boy
Drawing Technique
Another extract from "Drawing Cartoons", this time breaking down the technique into stages, each time distorting the drawing furthermore until the final product. Notice how the artist has not only altered the front profile with all the features, but brought the rear of the head nearer and shrunk the neck to make it more suggestive. Interesting how the artists used parallel lines to keep all the features in exact vertical proportion, and only distorts on the horizontal.
Martin Luther
More images taken from "drawing Cartoons", this time showing the artists (i think it's still Alex Hughes) development process and variations from the final piece. Again stressing how important the quality of line is to the overall final piece.
Eyes
Got this book out of the library called "Drawing Cartoons" (778.5347). Gives a comprehensive background to the budding cartoonist. Here's a couple of pages from it detailing one of the most expressive parts of the body, the eyes. Really important to get this right, you can have an ace picture of a figure but it's the eyes that do most of the talking. Get this wrong and the whole thing will look totally bland. Anyway, there's a good start on this page.
Baby Bush in a pram
Did this drawing of Baby Bush originally. Not as keen on it as the other baby drawing. Seems that the whole layout of the image is too centralised, making it appear too rigid - the complete opposite of what i want to achieve. Could make his pram look a bit more tank like, to insinuate his early obsession of war. Possible area for character development? Maybe if i had a bit more time.
Alex Hughes
This is a caricature done by artist Alex Hughes of Richard Nixon. Nixon was a bit before my time, but i think this was a famous pose he assumed after a speech he had made. The tape stuffed into his pocked of coarse refers to the Watergate transcripts. I do like this style, really captures the essence of the character, also effective use of black and negative line to depict his features. Class!
quick drawing of Bush Baby, integral to the story. Prefer this one to the previous drawing in the pram, bit more motion involved and, less complicated and you get to see more of the figure. Needs a bit of tweaking with the features - need to play about with the eyes, wanted to maintain a combination of his mature features with baby characteristics. As i say, needs tweaking.
Caricatures
I have decided that my interactive fable will be made up of caricatures, so been searching the internet for examples. Need to develop cartoons of Bush, Blair (who will appear in the shape of a dog) Sadam Hussein. In this image the artist has used the dodge tool depict highlights. Think this technique can be very effective, but not quite the comic book look i'm going for. Line quality also appears to be very important, usually determined during the inking stages. This picture appears to be outlined with a uniform stroke, with the pen tool in Illustrator or Photoshop.
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Sadam
Sadam the wolf, would like to put a twist on his character - could portray him as a piece loving hippy style character like Ned Flanders dad in the simpsons.
Bush 2
Another sketch of Bush Jnr, this time i've made his features a little more extreme and given him a ill-proportioned tie.
Might like to base his body on the character "Penfold" From the children's cartoon series "Dangermouse".
Bush
Started sketching the "characters" for my fable, both George Bush Jnr and his dad will make an appearance as the boy who cried wolf. One or two characteristics i've noticed in previous caricatures of the pm is his narrow forehead, broad yet pointed nose, large ears, beady eyes and broad cheekbones - same facial structure of a chimp.
RE: Modern Day Boy Who Cried Wolf
I'm trying to dig out examples of how the listed fables can be applied to modern day circumstances. The obvious one that springs to mind is the current situation in the middle east regarding Great Britain, United states, Iraq and Iran.
Events foregoing 911 follow a similar pattern to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" fable but doesn't appear to have a suitable ending to suit. The fable states the shepherd boy cries wolf twice before losing credibility. Bush Snr's invasion in the first place equates to the first instance, Bush Jnr's invasion the second, so where's the wolf?
The story could pose an open question that could even refer back to the boy who cried wolf at the end to make the point.
I remember seeing an animation in Michael Mores "Farenheit 911" about the establishment and abolition of slavery. Really liked it's illustrative style because it chronicled a very much adult theme within a child context, and although the end result appeared over simplified, it managed to pertinently emphasise the key elements of the events.
I like the idea of appropriating two different components and making something that's cogent and conspicuous.
Events foregoing 911 follow a similar pattern to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" fable but doesn't appear to have a suitable ending to suit. The fable states the shepherd boy cries wolf twice before losing credibility. Bush Snr's invasion in the first place equates to the first instance, Bush Jnr's invasion the second, so where's the wolf?
The story could pose an open question that could even refer back to the boy who cried wolf at the end to make the point.
I remember seeing an animation in Michael Mores "Farenheit 911" about the establishment and abolition of slavery. Really liked it's illustrative style because it chronicled a very much adult theme within a child context, and although the end result appeared over simplified, it managed to pertinently emphasise the key elements of the events.
I like the idea of appropriating two different components and making something that's cogent and conspicuous.
2Advanced
Screen shot from the 2Advanced website, a company based in USA. I've been monitoring its progress over the last five years or so and been overwhelmed by its content. Navigation is really slick and smooth - most things are activated by rolling over them but unlike the .... website, its sensitive but non obtrusive. I think if you we're in a bit of a hurry and needed a bit of information quickly from the site, it would be a frustrating ordeal. Plus there's so many small components that make up this interface, lots of clever little rollovers and buttons, i wouldn't truly be satisfied i'd seen all the information available.
Modern day "Boy who cried wolf"
The boy who cried wolf in Iraq is at it again in Iran
By Scott Taylor
December 10, 2007
It would seem that during President George W. Bush's upbringing neither George Sr. nor momma Barbara sat him down to tell the tale about the little boy who cried wolf. At a news conference last Tuesday, Bush remained defiant in his anti-Iran stance despite the release of new U.S. intelligence that shows the Iranians suspended their nuclear program four years ago.
For the past two years, the U.S. administration has been demanding that the world take a tougher stance against Iran and as late as Oct. 17, Bush himself was invoking images of a nuclear-capable Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launching "World War III."
The latest National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, after the U.S. intervention in Iraq, as a result of increased international scrutiny. Instead of being humbled by the fact that he has been trying to frighten the world with false warnings of an imminent Armageddon, Bush redoubled his efforts to demonize Iran. "They hid their program once. They could hide it again," cried Bush. "(That's) not going to happen on my watch."
One can envision him pleading with the disillusioned villagers: "But it could have been a wolf. It might be a wolf. A wolf could still come."
Unfortunately for little Georgie, his defence of his Iran war-in-waiting policy came in conjunction with his having to defend his current Iraq war-in-progress policy. While memories may be short, surely no one has forgotten the reason the U.S. got involved in Iraq in the first place?
Back in 2003, the "wolf" of the day was Saddam Hussein and his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In co-operation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (whose intelligence service 'sexed up' satellite photographs to indicate a reconstructed Iraqi nuclear power plant), and a clever quip from Condoleezza Rice, Bush convinced Americans not to wait for the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Relying on their own independent assessments of Iraq's military capabilities, the rest of the world remained unconvinced and stayed away in droves. Despite the propaganda built around the phrase "coalition of the willing," the intervention in Iraq was purely a U.S. and British operation. The few countries that did contribute token troops soon rethought their position after the early and easy tactical success over Saddam's army turned into a nasty insurgency. After months of occupation and with the allied forces unable to uncover the WMD arsenal they used to justify their pre-emptive "self-defence" invasion of Iraq, Blair admitted the jig was up. During a speech to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress in July 2003, Blair acknowledged the premise of Saddam's WMDs could be false but suggested that he was confident it was something "history will forgive."
At that point, Saddam had been deposed but was still in hiding, and the insurgency was still in its infancy. In other words, the war had been won, but the peace had yet to be lost. Subsequent events will make it all but impossible for history to "forgive" Blair and Bush for the devastation caused by their foolish foray into Iraq. However, while Blair was quick to offer up his mea culpa, Bush was already pointing his finger at Iran and shouting, "Wolf!"
Now that the NIE has temporarily eliminated the Iranian nuclear distraction, Bush still has to justify the ongoing and mind-boggling expense of his last false alarm. The U.S. Congress is being asked to approve another $190 billion to continue military operations in Iraq. This will bring the total cost to date to $700 billion, with nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed and another 35,000 wounded. No one has an accurate count of the Iraqi civilians killed since the intervention and the outbreak of sectarian violence, but the number is well over 200,000 by even the most conservative estimates. The level of U.S. troops currently deployed is higher than at any point since the war began, and the violence is at an all-time high.
Despite those statistics, Bush says Congress should simply approve the additional funds without putting any pressure on the military in terms of how they conduct the war.
What is the president's rationale for the carte blanche?
"The strategy is working," he says.
By Scott Taylor
December 10, 2007
It would seem that during President George W. Bush's upbringing neither George Sr. nor momma Barbara sat him down to tell the tale about the little boy who cried wolf. At a news conference last Tuesday, Bush remained defiant in his anti-Iran stance despite the release of new U.S. intelligence that shows the Iranians suspended their nuclear program four years ago.
For the past two years, the U.S. administration has been demanding that the world take a tougher stance against Iran and as late as Oct. 17, Bush himself was invoking images of a nuclear-capable Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launching "World War III."
The latest National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, after the U.S. intervention in Iraq, as a result of increased international scrutiny. Instead of being humbled by the fact that he has been trying to frighten the world with false warnings of an imminent Armageddon, Bush redoubled his efforts to demonize Iran. "They hid their program once. They could hide it again," cried Bush. "(That's) not going to happen on my watch."
One can envision him pleading with the disillusioned villagers: "But it could have been a wolf. It might be a wolf. A wolf could still come."
Unfortunately for little Georgie, his defence of his Iran war-in-waiting policy came in conjunction with his having to defend his current Iraq war-in-progress policy. While memories may be short, surely no one has forgotten the reason the U.S. got involved in Iraq in the first place?
Back in 2003, the "wolf" of the day was Saddam Hussein and his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In co-operation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (whose intelligence service 'sexed up' satellite photographs to indicate a reconstructed Iraqi nuclear power plant), and a clever quip from Condoleezza Rice, Bush convinced Americans not to wait for the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Relying on their own independent assessments of Iraq's military capabilities, the rest of the world remained unconvinced and stayed away in droves. Despite the propaganda built around the phrase "coalition of the willing," the intervention in Iraq was purely a U.S. and British operation. The few countries that did contribute token troops soon rethought their position after the early and easy tactical success over Saddam's army turned into a nasty insurgency. After months of occupation and with the allied forces unable to uncover the WMD arsenal they used to justify their pre-emptive "self-defence" invasion of Iraq, Blair admitted the jig was up. During a speech to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress in July 2003, Blair acknowledged the premise of Saddam's WMDs could be false but suggested that he was confident it was something "history will forgive."
At that point, Saddam had been deposed but was still in hiding, and the insurgency was still in its infancy. In other words, the war had been won, but the peace had yet to be lost. Subsequent events will make it all but impossible for history to "forgive" Blair and Bush for the devastation caused by their foolish foray into Iraq. However, while Blair was quick to offer up his mea culpa, Bush was already pointing his finger at Iran and shouting, "Wolf!"
Now that the NIE has temporarily eliminated the Iranian nuclear distraction, Bush still has to justify the ongoing and mind-boggling expense of his last false alarm. The U.S. Congress is being asked to approve another $190 billion to continue military operations in Iraq. This will bring the total cost to date to $700 billion, with nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed and another 35,000 wounded. No one has an accurate count of the Iraqi civilians killed since the intervention and the outbreak of sectarian violence, but the number is well over 200,000 by even the most conservative estimates. The level of U.S. troops currently deployed is higher than at any point since the war began, and the violence is at an all-time high.
Despite those statistics, Bush says Congress should simply approve the additional funds without putting any pressure on the military in terms of how they conduct the war.
What is the president's rationale for the carte blanche?
"The strategy is working," he says.
Monday, 14 April 2008
Sagmeister
Another entry on the "best flash website", again nothing too spectacular, but had an embedded video of Stefan Sagmeisters latest exhibition in London (there are other posts on this blog regarding sagmeister). Really liked this typographic piece of work he'd created by painstakingly arranging bananas to give an embroided effect. Very clever, use of natural materials to give the impression of a machined finish.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)