Last Day

As for what helped me the most of what we did in class, I think when we would run through a technique a couple times so that I could physically do it, I understood it a lot better than when we would run through it quickly.

I think some of the readings helped me to think about what the boundaries were and how to push them, and interspersed with the Flash work, helped make sense out of what I was doing rather than simply giving me a new toy to play with.

I enjoyed getting feedback on my work and ideas for what to do differently...it's very easy to paint yourself into a corner with an idea and opening the door for other people to help is a good idea. I like the idea of working with a partner on a project, but would be interested to see it take another form other than a conversation project...maybe something where students build off of it and give it back to the other to experiment with what they added, like that kid's game where one person starts telling a story and people add to it, one line at a time.

I also enjoyed the open forum style of the class, how ideas are on the table and there is no defined right or wrong, just a free flow.

What could have been done differently?...other than having the class later than 8 am? I guess I wish that certain ideas could have been explored more, i.e. sound and video. Ultimately, I'll get to play with those ideas in my own time, but I might have enjoyed learning how better to navigate through that stuff.

Overall, very happy with this class even when Flash would frustrate me and freeze or suddenly switch into some ridiculous mode. I enjoyed pushing boundaries and putting time into these pieces.

Faith...Final

October 27

In regards to the ontological perspective, when translating writing or artwork into another medium, there is inevitably both something lost in the translation and imprinted on the work by the technology used. For example, when someone takes a photograph of say, a 10' by 14' painting, they at first lose the effect of size of the original and second, transform the painting into a digital etching on a disk. Next, when they transfer that image onto a computer, the image now becomes a series of pixels that can be manipulated using editing software. Lastly, the photographer can print a representation of the painting that is smaller, pixelated in nature and vastly different from the original.

The text refers to this phenomenon in stating that "even if the essential messages remain intact, the respective medium imprints its signature into the code; consequently, every medium creates something new, even if it works with preexistent codes." I disagree, however, with the assertion that because "that which is perceivable reflects the underlying structures" that it is therefore "not a surface," and simply an emergence of interaction of other levels. To go back to the painting, there are multiple layers of paint on the canvas, each building on one another and interaction as a whole. When complete, the finished piece is more than just the sum of different layers of parts. Another level has been created that is more concrete and alive that the individual layers.

Similarly, when someone begins to use computers or Flash to communicate or to create art, they are creating something beyond just all the layers. It's like putting all the pieces to a puzzle together only to find out that when the last piece is in place that the puzzle is alive like some jigsaw Frankenstein monster. Yes, it is true that the monster could not live without the existence of each layer, but nor could the layer fulfill its potential without the life of the whole.

How I use Flash in this context is to remember both sides: that each layer is important and vital and consists of bits and pieces that have the potential to live and also that only when every layer is in place can there be hope for life. Referring to the idea that things will inevitably get lost in the translation, I think that absolutely true, but not necessarily as a kind of failing. Moreover, often what happens when I plug all my ideas into Flash is something beyond what I saw in my mind. The technology contributes and polishes the ideas I have and creates something better...well, normally it's better. On occasion, the technology distorts and twists my intentions, but normally it's the former.

Lastly, what I find interesting about this process, as we refer to it as translating and encoding, is that, like two foreigners trying to communicate despite language differences, that there are ways to break through and to understand. Flash teaches me and shows me its version of what I'm telling it to do, even though I might stutter with the syntax and accidentally tell it something different. My original intention is lost in my own lack of knowledge of the language of Flash, but sometimes the accident is better than the intention. In this way, I learn from my mistakes and create more than I intended.

October 1

One idea in this writing that intrigues me is the concept that writing effectively takes the place of memory. Where ancient poets committed entire works to memory, they no longer are forced to, freeing them to experiment with individual form as opposed to memorization. This concept, that writing thus transformed what language was by freeing the author makes sense and as we explore various technologies and how they can make us even freer, we discover new ways to communicate our own voices.

Also, the idea that writing was really the translation of language from spoken form into written form, rather than a capturing of the speech is interesting. I think a lot of people carry the misconception with them that all of a sudden in history scribes showed up and started putting pen to paper each letter and word spoken verbatim. However, because language spoken is such a different beast than language written, there must be a filter by which the reader can understand, albeit it in different way than the listener understands.

Often people speak about how speech differs from the written word—“people would never actually talk like they do in novels”—and likewise, writers who would never dare to violate a stroke of grammatical law may be heard throwing around slang words and run-on sentences in haphazard fashion. Neither way is better; they each have their own rules and each serve a specific function.

Another idea that interested me was that writing changes language as much as it records it. If we can see how slang words seep into the written word, we can also see how written words seep back into spoken language. Writers create new words and concepts and everyone cheers and spreads those ideals around and around until speeches are given or other works are written to spin the original idea. Everything is in flux and everything changes with time. This is as true now in the printed age as it was before, when poets used to update and take stories, making them their own but relying on the same basic outline. Stories once changed with every telling. And while language is still in flux and ideas are still in flux, written language give a semi-permanent record of what language was like at that moment. We can hear our history through written volumes and thus try to imagine what language was back then, who the people were in times past. Writing records a version of the truth, but only a version.

What have I learned

There's a lot I will take away from this class. Learning how to tell a story using images as well as words will help me be a better writer and a better journalist. Sometimes words are not enough and using images or fonts or animations can provide me a new voice to communicate with. Also, I think this form of expression will help me reach a wider audience with my work and give me a leg up when I'm looking for a job.

Most importantly, however, is that as an artist, flash gives me a new way in which to express myself and to pour out what is inside myself into these animations. By using this software and getting better at it, I feel like I can communicate better, can integrate different styles of my art--photos, paintings, collages--better and write better. The articles and different things in this class have shown me the importance of writing outside of convention and of writing for an audience. That translates outside of this class and even into research type papers...I'm not convinced that essays have to choke other people with boredom. I want to engage and entertain and provoke. This helps me do that.

In Class Feedback

The feedback I received indicates that I was overall successful in this section of the animation. Different people caught pieces of it--the complexity of faith, that it is something serious and abstract. The font and the contrast both seem to be working for people which is cool.

Where will I go from here? This piece is intended to be a short story describing how I arrived where I am with my faith, how it isn't a picture perfect journey and how life beat the hell out of me in some ways before I woke up to what God was trying to say to me. I would like to make the distinction that while faith is essential in my life--it moves me and motivates me and holds me together--that it didn't transform me into some robot either. I can be a "Jesus freak" without losing hold of myself. There is more than one layer to who I am.