Blue Mouse Monkey Blog

Today we looked at examples of two more from the list of ‘dominant models of narrative’. Firstly, Multiple perspectives on a single incident was represented by the Slovenian film ‘Four’. (Which I can’t find of the web). There’s a core incident – the climax, and we see developments towards this climax four times, each through the point of view of a different character. The characters are related to each other in some way, and to the climax. Variations on this structure can be seen in live action films such as Beautiful People, and Thirteen Conversations About One Thing.

We then paired off (me with Christopher Huizar) to devise a narrative based on 1 core event, with three characters for whom the event is meaningful. While also considering what animation could bring to the story the live action filming could not. Christopher and I got going with a truck/bicycle crash. Trick driver, cyclist, and witness who inadvertently causes the distraction that causes the crash.

We also looked at the narrative model of the list-led set of relationships to a core topic. For example, Portland animator Bill Plympton’s 25 Ways To Quit Smoking. We also watched a great piece by Nikki Braine called Procrastinating Gus. Our paired-up response to this one was ‘How to Fake Technical Proficiency’. But early on we concluded that the list we were coming up with was more about language, and would be challenging to express with images. Unlike Plympton’s ‘Smoking’, which is one sight gag after another. So when were were given the choice of which of the two exercises to pursue over the final two days, Christopher and I decided to go with the 1-story 3-POV one.

Then we talked at length about moral dilemmas. Starting with the chestnut example in which one imagines various numbers and types (friends, strangers, drunks, surgeons) of people lying on train tracks, and the train is coming and you can not stop it but you can flip the switch to run over the folks on track A or track B…you know the kind of thing. Comes up in ethics 101 and other places. Anyhow, characters’ agency is the key point, and that you can build a story on a moral dilemma, and have it play out based on the characters and their levels of agency. So the next exercise was to construct a set-up of a situation that presents a moral dilemma, then develop two tracks of problematizing from the one dilemma. I.e. answering ‘yes’ leads you down one track, which gets progressively more complex to answer ‘yes’ to, and same with answering ‘no’. Bag of money found at a bus stop was our starting point. It got more interesting when we gave the money-finder some significant backstory. Anyhow, moving on…

One interesting point that came out, as we were discussing ambivalent reactions (e.g. “I’d keep some of the money but hand the rest back…”) is that drama is driven by specific responses. You go one way or another, when faced with a dramatic choice. So muddying the response is not a great way to create drama. Comedic drives, however, often hinge on complications. If you were creating a dark comedy around the finding of cash by a sympathetic protagonist, introducing ambivalent responses would work. A lot of contemporary storytelling plays with ambivalence.

Then we looked at some major themes, such as desire for justice, fear of the unknown, self-discovery, etc. And tomorrow we continue our work on our multiple-perspective stories.

The late afternoon session was a lecture by Larry Sherman, a neuroscientist at OHSU. How the Brain Sees Motion: From the Static to the Animated Image.

Dr. Sherman did a good job of presenting the material to us lay people in a way that removed the jargon but presented the fascinating aspects of the latest findings in neuroscience. There was a compeling list of agnosias, the specificity of which point to neuroanatomical specificity is handling different type of information. A person with Drawing Agnosia, for instance, can recognize objects just fine, but cannot recognize the same object in a drawing. Achromatopsia robs a person of the ability to distinguish hues, even thought they can see perfectly well otherwise. There are distinct areas in the brain the light up in fMRI studies when the subject views or thinks about faces. And another area for bodies. And another area for houses, would you believe! There is a ‘house’ slot in the brain.

Dr. Sherman also talked about the limbic system, and in detail about how visual perception works, and how much data is processed in the eye before is gets to the occipital lobe, and the what goes on with it once it’s there.

The area of the brain that processes motion is called hMT+ . It’s very small. Damage to this area prevents you from seeing things in motion. Kind of the opposite to those reptiles that can only see something if it’s moving. The speaker cited a case where a woman woke up one day (presumably after a stroke) and found she could not see the coffee pot in her hand. She could feel it, but because it was in motion it was invisible to her. Then she was pouring coffee on herself and she couldn’t see it. She’d see a car in the distance, then step out onto the road, and suddenly the car was right there. So moving things she saw as still objects, a few seconds apart, with no ‘frames’ in between. I can’t imagine how you’d adapt to this. You wouldn’t be able to see your own body unless you kept still.

Then Dr. Sherman showed us some MEAs, motion after effects. Like how you stare at a red spot for 30 seconds, then at a white wall and you see a green ghostly shape, but this was with motion. He showed us a spiralling black and white animation, after which we looked at the back of our hand. The flesh was crawling of its own accord. Visually, of course – not really, but the effect was stong enough to creep me out and make me hind may hand. A motion after effect.

Today the workshop started to feel harder. Paul Wells, such an entertaining and buoyant (one of his favorite words) teacher, is speaking less now, and getting us to work more. Plus it’s an intense course: 8 hours a day for 5 days. For the record, The faculty at the Animation Institute are Rose Bond, Suzanne Buchan, Paul Vester, and Paul Wells.

More tomorrow…

Another great session with Paul and the class today. We began by finishing off yesterday’s exercise in storytelling without dialogue or text. Most stories are driven by language, but what if you drive the process through visuals? Based on the Aristotelian structure, the project was to come up with a story told visually in 6 frames. This following would make more sense with visual examples, which I don’t have. But I can outline one of the examples that was given us.

1.    Set the scene containing a character, with maximum suggestion using minimum of imagery. (Drawing skills were not important: stick figures would do.)
Sad man sits alone in empty room with tiny scrawny Christmas Tree.

2.    Second character enters and establishes a relationship with the first character. The second character must have what Paul Wells calls ‘animation quality’ – i.e. it must have or do something that could not be achieved if you were shooting this story as live action.
Santa Clause flies in through the door. The sad man is startled out of his chair.

3.    Something happens between the two characters. An exchange takes place that develops the narrative.
Santa gives the sad man a wrapped gift.

4.    One or both characters has an emotional reaction to what just happened.
As Santa leaves, the sad man is so happy and grateful he is kneeling on the floor, praying, with tears of gratitude.

5.    Preparation for the conclusion. Something happens that looks back on the foreshadowing that occurred earlier. This frame may be used for suspense/postponement. Or it may extend the nature of the exchange or emotional reaction.
Formerly sad, but now excited man starts unwrapping the gift.

6.    Conclusion of the implied relationship that was set up through the exchange. Revelation of that which was foreshadowed.
Sad man is in back in his chair, and back to being sad. He holds a badminton racquet in his hand. He’s assembled the gift: A badminton set with racquets, net, shuttlecock. But he has no one to play with.

Sounds simple, right? IT IS NOT SIMPLE. It was amazingly hard to come up with a story in 6 frames, using no dialogue, based on an exchange between two characters, in which what happens at the end is set up and foreshadowed earlier. And that isn’t just plain stupid. After 9 attempts I came up with a story that involved a confident seed, and a malevolent mower.

Some other points from yesterday:
Philip Parker’s Creative Matrix of a screenplay contains 6 free-floating components:
theme, story, form, genre, style, and plot
At any time any two can be linked for emphasis. E.g. genre (western) gets redetermined by style (comedy) in Blazing Saddles. And gets redetermined by theme (gay love) in Brokeback Mountain.

But Paul Wells thinks the matrix of an animation is different, because the mechanisms are different, because the whole economy of a film is embedded in early choices. Unlike live action filming, with animation you can’t make a whole bunch of material and edit it down. It’s just too labor intensive. You have to plan major choices ahead. The choice of technique, to begin with, will have a huge effect on subsequent choices. 2D stop motion using collage? Claymation? Flash?

Animation’s inherent ability to pass on metaphor and symbol invites people in. We are more inclined to watch a short piece about an anthropomorphized lamp playing with a ball, than we are to watch a similar piece involving a child playing with a ball. The audience immediately asks questions in a way that makes the work accessible.

The language of animation includes:
-  Metamorphosis – The ability to facilitate the change from one form to the next without edit. This generates a different model of storytelling.

-  Condensation – the maximum degree of suggestion with the minimum of imagery. E.g. focused gestures suggest particular things, and drive narrative precision.

-  Anthropomorphism - the imposition of human traits on animals, objects, and environments. Such characters often take on dominant traits. E.g Goofy is the empathetic amateur at sports. This gives a very direct way of understanding human behavior, by abstracting it into the non-human.

-  Fabrication – the physical and material creation of imagery, figures, and spaces. Built worlds create their own limits and currencies. These limits make for a clarity of impact of the story.

-  Penetration (term from John Hallis in the 1940s) – the visualization of psychological, physical, and technical ‘interiors’. E.g. animation can clarify something extremely complicated and mysterious, such as the workings of the human body. It can also easily represent dream, memory, and imagination. Can represent primal dynamics.

-  Symbolic association – the use of abstract visual signs and their related meanings. E.g. Felix the Cat pulls off his tail and it becomes a banjo that he plays. Or he pulls down two castle turrets, scoops up clods in them, and gives on to a lady he is wooing.

-  Sound – the illusionist stimulus and catalyst. Unlike film, where sound is driven by the primacy of dialogue and/or music, with animation you start with no diagetic sound. Whatever choices you make about sound will support the telling of the story.

Okay, we also talked about sources (prompts) modes of association, and the ’6 panel theater’ exercise was begun. But if I write all that out it will take me all night.

TODAY we talked about satisfaction. And about the 3-act structure (related to the 6-frame theater). Also Jacques Rancière‘s “ideaism” and “matterism”. “Regimes of visibility” and “Planes of intelligibility”. But that was only briefly, and pretty soon we were back on the ground in Paul Wells’ more straightforward analysis or what’s what. Then we discussed the 5 dominant models of narrative and looked at examples of a couple of them.
1. multiple perspectives of a single incident
2. list-led related events to a core topic
3. transitional narratives based on metamorphoses and associations
4. Single Scenario (e.g. John and Karen by Matthew Walker)
5. Character-led vignettes (e.g. Harvie Krumpet by Adam Elliot)

(John and Karen was wonderful. The clip on Walker’s site is not the whole piece, unfortunately. Harvie Krumpet was overambitious and required more empathy than it delivered. Was it’s Oscar win a pity vote, because it’s about marginalized people?)

Scene from John and Karen, by Matthew Walker

THEN in a separate session, we discussed the very term animation, what it meant, what it includes. And that it is used to describe such a huge range of cultural production that maybe it has become meaningless. We also discussed its relationship to the term ‘cartoon’. And its relationship with art. I knew there was some contention in these areas, but I had no idea how much.

I suggested we revisit the root of the word, ‘anima’ – the soul, suggesting that to be animated is to be ‘ensouled’. Live action figures move under their own volition. Sure they’re following a script, but they are propelling themselves. They have cognition, sentience, and so on. When a figure (whether human or not) is animated, it is given qualities that make it seem to come alive. But it is not moving under its own volition. So animation is creating the illusion of aliveness, of ensoulment (Not meant in the Catholic sense, of course).

And we discussed that cartoons are not opposed to animation, as some fine-art animators think. Cartoons are rather a subset of animation. What defines that subset, though? The jury is still out on that. We got to a point where we were considering whether animation as an umbrella term could even include live action. Huh. Interesting idea.

Also, at what point does one draw the line? Is a CGI’d explosion in a live-action film animation? Do we still want to make a distinction between hand-crafted animation and that done digitally? And if my definition is correct, that animation is the illusion of ‘ensouling’ something to make it move and seem alive, then should I include the life-size animatronic Santa Clause I saw outside a thrift store on my way home? He was heavily dressed in the brilliant evening sun, waving his stiff mechanical arm back and forth. Next to him was a female mannequin sprawled in a pose that was probably supposed to be sexy. Together they were a splash of red velvet and white fake fur, doing their repetitive unseasonal dance for passers by. The mannequin stared at me through the bus window, and for a creepy moment they seemed to be really alive.

Portland’s new mayor Sam Adams is an arts advocate. Let’s show him that Portland supports his beleif in the importance of creativity in the modern world.

Image from Sam Adams's website

WHAT: RACC’s State of the Arts address to the Portland City Council

WHEN: Thursday, March 12th at 2:00 pm

WHERE: Council Chambers at City Hall
1221 SW 4th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

The Creative Advocacy Network, a new non-profit working towards a regional dedicated funding solution for the arts, is working hard to make sure that the Regional Arts and Culture Budget is preserved by Portland City Council and they have sent us this notice and request.

On March 12th at 2:00 RACC will be giving their “State of the Arts” presentation to Portland City Council and describing how last year’s investments in the arts benefited the City. This is the first step in the FY10 budget process. We need to have the Council Chambers full of arts supporters to send a strong message:

The Arts CAN, and must live here.

The Council will be facing major budget issues this spring so our objective is to pack the Council Chamber with arts supporters to show the Commissioners that the arts and cultural community have a strong voice. We all know how many people there are living in Portland that are in the arts and care passionately about the arts, but we need to insure that the Council understands this too. Please come out and show your support.

If you know you will be attending please RSVP to info@theartscan.org

For more information visit www.racc.org/advocacy/local.php

moss

Walking in Washington Park today, my zoomy eye spied these secret and magical worlds. 

Okay, so my new camera has a macro function. Now that I’m losing the closeup range of my eyesight (just old age, nothing serious), this camera will have to fill in for me!

pine

Designer and design theorist Tony Fry presented a PNCA-sponsored lecture today based on his book ”Design Futuring, Culture and the Coming Age of Unsettlement“.

The idea were huge and his presence steady, quiet and firm. He began by framing his talk with the idea that we (human beings) are designers, we design our world, we live in a designed world. We are very good at creating things, and very bad at recognizing what we’re destroying in the process. The implications of this are of course enormous as we face global climate catastrophe. The social and cultural changes to be forced upon us from dealing with upheavals, including the displacement of about 10% of the world’s population, will be of a scale not seen since the last time humanity reacted to major climate change, about 12,000 years ago when disparate peoples moved into Mesopotamia, and nomads turned agrarian.

The following selective bits and pieces from the rest of Fry’s lecture made it into my notes:

War is the most dramatic manifestation of unsustainment. It destroys the environment, it destroys bodies.

The current economic recovery is really just a reinstatement of the status quo, rather than the paradigm shift needed from a quantitative economy to a qualitative economy.

An economy base on perpetual growth is like the concept of perpetual motion. It’s physically impossible.

Our current form of democracy won’t deliver sustainment. People won’t vote for a different world if they are unable to imagine it. What’s needed is the creation and dissemination of a vision of a different world.

The problems we’re facing can’t be solved by individuals (i.e. the ‘genius’ model). What’s required are teams of people with ranges of expertise.

Designers need to move from just designing things, to learning how to mobilize them strategically. Fry proposes a ‘redirective practice’, which entails new design practices and new design activities. E.g a practice of ‘design for elimination’ – how do you turn a designer’s eye toward the problem of how to get rid of things? 

It’s not just about changing the world, it”s about changing ourselves. It’s a process as big as the Enlightenment, but we don’t have 500 years to do it.

Seems impossible? Human history is the history of the attainment of the impossible. It’s about changing the perception of what’s possible. The world, after all, is not flat.

When the inevitable audience question came up of, ‘there’s so much to be done, how does one prioritize?’, Fry quoted a Swedish associate: “Dig where you stand.”

Time’s slipped by fast, but I wanted to get a word in about our party last Saturday. Before it becomes embarrassingly late to do so. Like it was embarrassingly late for us to hold a housewarming party months after we moved into the Ford building, so it became a first anniversary party instead.  Jimmy Thomas and I were super lucky to get into this building before it filled up. Whether we can stay as rents rise remains to be seen, but for now it’s a great place to be. The party was fabulous. You could hear the noise all the way down the hall (which runs a city block long). There were supposed to be photos but someone (not mentioning any names, but I’m married to him) got so absorbed in talking to people that he forgot to take any! Maybe there will be some from the second anniversary party.

Leaving the 4D Brane, 2007; 12” x 36”; ink, acrylic, paintpen, inkjet collage on paper, mounted on wood

Three of my paintings are in the current group show at Mark Woolley gallery called Small Wonders.  Preview last night, public opening tonight.  The show is up through November 29th.

View from halfway up Mitchell Point

Mitchell Point is a stop on the Oregon side of the Columbia Gorge just a few minutes west of Hood River. It’s the site of the now demolished but once famous Mitchell Point Tunnel. The hike to the top of the rocky outcrop is 2.2 miles round trip, with a 1000+ foot elevation gain. Last weekend was perhaps the last mild sunny weekend of the fall (or maybe not!) so we took the opportunity to have a picnic at the top. I feel lucky to live close to the amazing scenery of the Columbia Gorge.

More photos from this hike on my Flickr page.