Film Acting Tips : how to act on camera, with Chris Mack

Film Acting Tips : how to act on camera, with Chris Mack


You don’t try to do the exact [same] thing in each take each time we’re looking for just a perfect moment I’ve worked on independent films when I was young. I remember, I don’t know how many films I did or worked on, where we had these amazing moments, but we didn’t see them on the camera They were amazing moments between the actors, but it wasn’t for the camera. And on stage you can look everywhere the audience can watch what they want. On the camera, it’s only what we see in the frame and this is all obvious but we forget that. The camera is really a director’s medium or the editor’s medium or the producer’s medium more than it is the actors medium. The actor needs to offer a wide variety of choices But they don’t get to decide what they mean I could frame my face right now like this, and I could put a voiceover that says “this is Chris” he wasn’t always like this until he started sniffing glue. Or I could frame myself again and I could go This is Chris He’s going to help you call now And it changes what I signify. Your creativity is in coming up with a series of honest spontaneous believable choices, and you don’t get to choose what they make those choices mean Yes, exactly, okay. Does that make [sense] it [does] completely because also. I think that people think that Good acting is an acting that is truly felt and whatever you feel is gonna show, but as you just said What is not in frame is not gonna show yes, so it is about offering it to the camera And it is also about diversifying it absolutely so you can you know do something useful for editor after and you want you want to be somebody the editor wants to keep coming back to and one way of that is by offering a series of choices so in each take You’ve got something and you try something you don’t try to do the exact [same] thing in each Take you try to hit what you need yeah But then each time we’re looking for just a perfect moment because you’re not going to use the whole tank usually it happens But it’s rare usually you’re going to edit into so in each in each take go for a different perfect moment, okay, okay? I think it’s useful that’s perfect. There’s something that we did with you in your class playing opposites Which I found fascinating at the time can you explain what this is yeah the whole notion of playing opposites How can I explain that so you you read a scene Romeo loves Juliet Juliet loves Romeo? What the kiss life is wonderful, and then they kill themselves because they’re hormonal arranging teenagers and all these things happen shit happens [but] but it’s easy for actors for all of us just to see the surface and To know the end result we know because we know the future We know what happens at the end of the scene so we think oh, I’m gonna play it He’s in love so he’s going to try [to] get love But that’s an obvious choice, and it’s just on the surface and it’s already in the words, so what’s useful Is also to find the opposite impulse? To get them to reject me or to get them to prove themselves to me or to get them. I’ll go for an opposite impulse Because then stuff that’s are under the surface stuff that’s happening in the engagement [between] me and the other actor between me and and The moment [that] this stuff comes out that is incredibly useful because [otherwise] you run the risk that what you’re playing is just melodramatic Because you’re playing the words and the job of the actor is not to play the words the words are there the story has already Been Written you need to know the words they have to be inside you, but then you have to forget about them It’s kind of like you have to do all the preparation. It’s like falling in love [my] Barry white story. Do you remember this okay? It’s Acting as a really bad metaphor, but but I think it works in a way You fall in love with somebody you invite them to dinner So you you know what you’re going to say you know you’re going to try to kiss them you know you’re going to try to Find this perfect moment, and you you make a beautiful dinner and you you light some candles you put on the very white and then the person arrives and all This stuff that you tried doing all the stuff you prepared goes out the window because if you try too hard, [hey] How you doing, [you’re] pushing it? But then you live the moment you trust that everything you feel everything you’ve prepared is still there But then you live the moment and see what happens and you you’ll surprise yourself [and] the greatest gift you can give to you [so] it give to yourself is surprise because you’ll suddenly experience something you didn’t expect [to] experience because anticipation Knowing the future anticipation are death for an actor so when you go for an opposite It’s not what you expect so something real happens usually when we watch a film or we watch a play [we’re] looking for those moments where something extreme happens where there’s a change a change in the people’s lives So they’re reacting in a very strong Emotionally Visceral way, it’s when the body becomes engaged that I’ve become thrilled by what the actor is doing And by body, I mean emotions physical reactions are emotional reactions all of it

Visual and Performing Arts Center at OCCC  “See You at the Theater!”

Visual and Performing Arts Center at OCCC “See You at the Theater!”


(Music begins) Narrator: Since
2014, the 1,067-seat Visual and
Performing Arts Center at Oklahoma City Community College
is a cultural crown jewel to patrons and performers
worldwide. We so enjoyed playing
here. Great crew, great sound, fantastic sold
out audience – it’s just the best date of the year.
(Applause) I think we’re very fortunate on the south side
to have a venue to give us this type of culture. It’s
just a beautiful place. TR: The theater was
very big. Lots of space. The dressing rooms are
huge. The load in was very fast. We are a crew of 16 people
total. People helping us backstage
and everything went seamless. One of the best theaters we’ve
done so far in the United
States. KD: To see performance at this
level, it reminded me of the kind of show I would go
to Vegas or New York or
Philadelphia to see. (Applause) RP: I’ve
had season tickets now
for a number of years and that’s the best. Of
course, all these seats are
good. I’ve got row M – love it! VA: It’s a very convenient
theater. It’s very comfortable. I live in Norman, and so it’s
great to be able to come and see very high-quality theater
without having to go farther
north. Easy access from the college
location to the highways and
free parking. The environment is electric.
You really get pulled into a performance in a way that you
forget is part of live theater. The Visual and Performing Arts
Series is a gift to the city
and our community – They wouldn’t just be supporting the arts; they would be having a marvelous night out For tickets, showtimes, or more information on rentals please call or visit us online See you at the theater!

Off Camera Secrets | Punch-Out!! Series – Boundary Break Ft. Summoning Salt

Off Camera Secrets | Punch-Out!! Series – Boundary Break Ft. Summoning Salt


What up contenders, welcome to episode 57 of an ongoing series where we basically take the camera anywhere we want. And we try to find secrets and new discoveries to some of our favorite games. This week is all about Genyo Takeda, a man who’s been at Nintendo for a very long time and he retired this month. He created punch out and star tropics. (two of my most favorite games on Nintendo) and to make it even more special I had Clockwork Pixel do the animated intro this week, You know, awesome, dude, And I also brought on the record holder for Mike Tyson’s punch-out, as well as a fantastic YouTuber Summoning Salt. So I hope you enjoy it, and with that said, let’s get going. *Piston Honda/Hondo speaking Japanese* So the very first thing that I wanted to talk about is probably one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen in a video game, or at least a nintendo game, where here you see Piston Honda looking at a book you’re not exactly let in on what exactly he’s reading, but if we take the camera over onto his side where the pages are open, you can actually see that it’s a manga of some sort. Here’s where it gets really crazy. So you may notice in some of those panels you can actually make out what the character looks like, and as it turns out these are actual scans of panels used in the Sailor Moon manga. Now, the panels themselves are rearranged in a way where it’s not identical to the pages in the actual manga, but the panels are. (from the manga) In the original punch-out, a few pixels of every boxer’s skintone is stored off to the right of the screen, and if you remove a layer it reveals the pixels in their entirety. The developers tried to cover it up with an audience member, but they didn’t do a great job with it. You can actually boot up the game on your own right now and see for yourself. So we actually have developers offering real insight into these games, some of which choose to remain anonymous, but I can verify the source, and one of them wanted to provide an explanation for this scene. So some of this might go over a few of your heads, but a lot of you wanted some real answers as far as what’s going on in some of these more mysterious scenes. To explain this one our anonymous source says, “So shaders are used to render out” “…geometry, they can be as simple as for a brick wall,” “…but they can get fancier like when you go see water or animated particles.” Now, this shader gets even more fancy. So their goal was to fit a giant crowd in this small room, so to do this they are constantly getting distance from which the camera is a reference point close to the center of the ring, and multiplying it to apply it on a scale of the model via the shader, which makes the characters that are close to the ring close to original size, but the characters that are further away get progressively scaled down. That’s looking like a giant crowd! This is way less costly than having different sized models, and it was most likely the best solution. So you might notice that when you take the camera further away the crowd gets shrunk down. The reason why when you turn the camera left and right the models get all distorted, is most likely because the reference point used for the shader doesn’t move with the debug camera, thus breaking the illusion. Unfortunately, Super punch-out doesn’t have a whole lot going on. The opposing boxers get only one layer dedicated to them, and the ring is one whole layer as well. At least Little Mac gets two layers, one for his clear body and another for his gloves Okay, so I thought this one was extremely strange, but you know what, there’s probably some sense to it. So in all the menus where you’ve got the a button pulsating, just begging to be pushed, apparently there’s always an equal sign underneath it. Personally I don’t think this was left behind for the developers while they were using this on maybe a computer, I think it’s probably more likely that it’s just a placeholder that the developers later on went back to and placed an “a” on top of So seriously how am I going to do a punch-out episode without King Hippo? That would just be the wrong way to do it. But anyways, we got King Hippo here and he’s got a manhole cover covering up his weak spot, but at some point you can break off the manhole cover and expose his weak spot. But where does the manhole cover go? So at first it just looks like it disappears, but in truth it’s actually well below the boxing ring, and it’s still rigged to the character model, so every time King Hippo moves around, the manhole cover actually mimics the movements. You can actually see something very much like this when you’re fighting Soda Popinski. Where the soda bottle he uses to refill his health, is resting below the stage as well. The original punch-out uses two layers for every boxer, white pixels like things like eyes and teeth are almost always on the bottom layer, and things that can be changed later on are on the top layer ready to be swapped out with stuff like battle damage. Uh, yeah, but you know what? Great Tigers a little bit special, see behind his boxing gloves is one of gaming’s best-kept secrets on the NES, Great Tiger has a chest! So since we just talked about battle damage just one second ago, let’s talk about that in punch-out Wii. Now, one of the cool things about, punch-out Wii is that all the battle damage that are on all the boxers, are actually hidden and stored inside their heads. So as you can see here with Soda Popinski, he eventually gets a lump, band-aids, and frayed hairs on his eyebrows, and all of that is stored inside of his noggin, only to grow in size and go into position when Little Mac hits him enough times. And the same can be said for any boxer. But now here’s the part that’s a little bit strange to me and I was trying to figure out why. Some characters get other kinds of objects in particular when you rematch Bear Hugger, there’s a squirrel that hides underneath his hat but not only can I not find the squirrel if I look under his hat, but when the squirrel reveals itself in the actual game you can actually see a frame where it blips into the screen instead of actually showing itself coming from underneath the hat. So I asked my anonymous source what was going on here, because you would just think that they would shrink down the squirrel as well. And the answer we got was “You can hide skeletal meshes however you want in recent game engines” “…so it makes sense for extras like the squirrel not to be rendered and hidden when we don’t see them” “…so why not do the same for band-aids? Most likely because they are part of the same “…skeletal mesh as the character and the reason why they would want those to be a part of the character and not “…separated, is because when the band-aids and lumps appear, they have to be perfectly stuck to the model.” “…It’s very tricky to get two separate skeletal meshes to synchronize an animation” “…perfectly. The reason why is because animations get compressed, and thus create unpredictable tiny offsets” “…and you might notice this in games that use props, like a book or swords. The character will sometimes shake a little bit, and won’t” “…be perfectly held. That’s what’s going on there.” So they decided even if it would cost a bit more to have those bruises and band-aids rendered at all time, the payoff to see all those bruises and everything move with the character organically is just too worth it. There’s a lot to be said about what happens in between rounds as well. And again we’ll start with Bear Hugger. Normally you only see a boxer from the waist up just like in the classic NES game, but there’s oftentimes things that are just strange, like Bear Hugger has his own stool There’s even a chip on the surface of the stool. So this is Bear Hugger’s stool. It’s strange that the developers went through the trouble, because Little Mac doesn’t have any stool at all, he sits on nothing. But the same service can be paid out to all the other boxers as well, Von Kaiser uses a stool that he actually uses in one of his cutscenes, while he’s shining his shoe, and King Hippo has almost like a superhero pose, and you may be saying, “No, well, “…they just did that so he could fit into frame.” Incorrect. If they wanted him to fit into frame, most developers would just shove their character model into the ground. A lot of these poses that you see off camera are completely intentional. Like also, for example, Piston Honda, who sits on his knees. I know that the camera in punch-out is very restricted, so stuff like this really means a lot to people who played the game, so here’s a side view of Bald Bull doing the “Bull Charge”. And here’s a satisfying side view of Little Mac getting a three star punch on a “Bull Charge”. Surprisingly, Little Mac’s eyes actually track the position of the opposing boxer on punch-out Wii. Of course, the player would never notice normally, since the camera’s never tracked from any other angle other than directly behind Mac. You know what’s something that we haven’t done yet, a zoom out of at least one of the boxing rings. And it’s pretty impressive how much there is to these boxing rings when you consider the fact that the camera keeps it very close knit to the inside of the ring. In fact, the second boxing ring in the game keeps it’s spotlights hidden underneath the entire ring the entire match when it’s not being used in the opening scenes. And also I want to take a look at the 2D audience members I don’t know about you guys but these drawings for the audience are a real contender against the “Hell Valley Sky Trees” for the creepiest stuff hidden in the background of a Nintendo game and here I am acting like everybody knows what the “Hell Valley Sky Trees” are. They’re something in the background of Super Mario Galaxy 2 if you didn’t know. Alright, now we’re gonna be talking about Donkey Kong. Lots of people on Twitter were asking me about Donkey Kong for some reason, whether it be, “Does Donkey Kong have hands underneath his gloves?” “Is the Donkey Kong model in the audience different from the Donkey Kong model in the actual fight?” Well, let’s answer both those questions, so first of all, by checking Donkey Kong’s gloves, this is my way of giving an opportunity to say that none of the boxers have hands underneath their gloves. Aran Ryan does not have horse shoes underneath his gloves, nobody has anything underneath their gloves, but what’s really interesting is that yes, the model used in the audience for Donkey Kong is different from the one that’s actually in the fight. In the audience he does have hands. Ergo this model is different from the Donkey Kong that’s used when you fight. It also doesn’t help that the audience member Donkey Kong doesn’t have any legs. And also for Donkey Kong’s intro he comes in from a ladder. And I suppose the question is what does the ladder look like off-camera? And when we do get the ladder into full view of the camera, you can see that there is nothing attached to it. But, it does have a really funny awkward animation that you’re not allowed to see off-screen. So, first of all, I have to thank Clockwork Pixel. He did the animated intro this week, he does amazing work with pixels, and I thought, “punch-out’s a great franchise to bring on his talent”. You might have seen him from “Stop Skeletons From Fighting”, and if you want you can follow him on Twitter, I will leave a link in the video description down below. And also if you’ve never heard of Summoning Salt before, I highly recommend you go check out his series. If you wanted to know all the information about who holds what records and when they got those records for certain video games it’s called “World Record Progression” and this guy is absolutely passionate about the scene, and for something that would take you a long time to find all the information for, he condenses it into many documentaries per episode. It’s absolutely one of a kind and he deserves your support. And also this is a first so I absolutely want to share it. There’s some artwork that was made before the episode came out This was made by “LugiDog”, and you can find her on Twitter, and I will leave a link to her Twitter page as well. And if you want to support me and you want something in return I have t-shirts for sale! You can get them in the iconic Lavender color or something more typical so you don’t stand out in a crowd (like black). And lastly the biggest thank you I have to give is to Genyo Takeda. Sir you’ve put in an immense amount of work to make one the best childhoods I could have ever had, and whether it be with a software or hardware that you’ve provided over the years, it’s helped to shape my life in incredible ways so enjoy your retirement and I wish you the best. Alright guys, that’s it, we’re out of here. I hope you enjoyed the episode Feel free to vote on the next one in the “i” card to the upper right. But I’ll see you later, bye bye. *Outro music plays*

Why Anime Is BANNED In Art Schools (And Why That Makes Sense)

Why Anime Is BANNED In Art Schools (And Why That Makes Sense)


Hey, how’s it going everyone?This is The Anime Man Hands up if you’re watching this video right now and have ever attempted to draw anime art in your spare time? Okay, keep your hands up if you have ever or are attending art school or have ever shown your art teacher in school your anime art. I’m sure there are a lot of you who are keeping your hands up. And it’s really not all that surprising, especially if you’re a fan of anime which… You should be if you’re watching this video because otherwise. Why are you here? I’ll admit I also had that stage in my life where I watched a particular anime series or a few anime series and thought to myself, “Oh hell yeah, I can draw anime art. Yo I got this shit” and then gave up almost immediately because I realized very quickly that I have the hand-eye coordination of a snake …Snakes don’t have hands. so I’m coming into this particular discussion piece, not from the point of view of any kind of anime artists or artists at all, But rather a more self-proclaimed “Anime and Otaku Culture Nerd.” I’ve been seeing that there has been some rumors spreading about in the last couple of years in the anime and otaku community of people who attend art schools or have shown their anime art in art schools or t-to their art teachers in just regular schools and a lot of them ending in their art teachers actually discouraging them from drawing anime art. There are even some stories claiming of art students who are writing up their Portfolios and projects for after graduation, Whose art teachers have completely BANNED anime art from those kinds of projects. And there’s a sucker for any kind of anime fan art, my first response to this whole thing was, “Oh F*ck No. How f*cking dare you’ve bann anime art from any kind of ‘art school’, You racist FFF-F*CKS Anime is a totally legitimate form of art and artists should have the freedom to draw whatever the f*ck they want.” #freethewaifus! But then I stopped to think about it for a hot minute as to why there might be this potential banning of anime art from art classes and art schools. and now they thought about it. I’m concluding that… This whole banning of the anime art, kind of makes sense and as much as I and many others don’t want to admit it, I can’t really blame art teachers in the west for shunning anime art from classes and schools, so let’s explore why that might be the case. I don’t think you need to be any kind of a Picasso to understand this, but fundamentally anime art is anatomically Wack as F*ck! Take any example of any kind of basic anime art and you can see why. I mean we’ve got your obvious points like, the large eyes, the large head, the hairstyles that seem to defy the teachings of Newton in any possible way. And while this may be a good reason for the banning of anime art, you have to take into consideration that a lot of western artists that are known more as the “professional artists and art styles that you should look up to” Like Picasso’s cubist arts are, for example, is also not really sucking the dick of anatomical faithfulness any time soon, so why is stuff like Picasso’s cubism, okay? But anime art is not. Well I think the biggest problem is that unlike Picasso, anime art, in the west especially, is Very much still a niche. You can show any art teacher a Salvador Dali painting And they’ll probably be able to tell you Dali’s life story leading up to that particular art piece but if you gave them an art piece of Sayori during Nekopara, then they’ll probably just question your sexual fetishes before asking who made it. One thing you do have to understand is that artists like Picasso are known for multiple art styles, not just cubism, and that artists like Dali have a lot of meaning behind their paintings and a lot of anatomical structure behind their paintings whereas your fan art of me, for example, doesn’t exactly have any kind of meaning behind it or doesn’t exactly follow any kind of fundamental structure of anatomy in art. Not that I’m saying your fan art is unappreciated Don’t you ever fucking dare think that is the case. I love every single piece of fan art that you guys have ever fucking given me And if you stop drawing fan art, I will cry I love you all but then at this point. You might be yelling at your screen, “but Joey Anime as multiple art styles as well.” And you know what, you’re very right. I think one thing that makes anime really interesting and fun to look at is that it does have multiple art styles You have your basic, like this is anime, kind of art styles like high school DD and Bleach for example. To your more experimental and not so anime like styles like Ping Pong and Kaiba, but here’s a question for you. How many people who attend art classes or start drawing anime art, draw in the style of Ping Pong and Kaiba? I assume it’s not a whole lot. When people first start to draw anime art. It’s usually more of the mainstream this is anime style like High school DD and Bleach, because those kinds of anime are usually the first ones we are exposed to. So to your western art teacher who doesn’t know the first thing about anime having multiple art styles Your generic High School DD, Bleach type of art style is the only art style in anime And it’s not only one style But it is the one style that is anatomically incorrect has very little meaning and very little variation If you gave your art teacher anime art in the style of Panty and Stocking or the Aqua no Hana anime adaptation Then there is a possibility that your art teacher might not even blink an eye at your “anime art.” Look at artists like Murakami Takashi, for example He’s a japanese artist who successfully blended Japanese anime and Ukiyo-e styles and incorporated that with the more sophisticated and structured western style of paintings and sculptures, to create, what is ultimately a very Japanese oriented anime style kind of artwork but got him the western recognition and got him to have his own museums and art pieces which are known all over the world as a genuine proper “artist” but I think it’s not only about variation or meaning or style of anime art. I think it also has to do heavily with what art teachers and art schools are trying to teach you. Art teachers and art schools Fundamentally are trying to teach you to draw and not to draw a style. It’s about understanding the basis of what makes a drawing, the rules you need to know to improve your drawing, and understanding the fundamentals of what makes a particular art style work. And mind do this isn’t just limited to the west. Art teachers and art school in Japan also follow these sets of rules when teaching you how to draw because the understandings of the fundamentals of art is a universal thing. I’m sure it goes without saying but most mangaka that have made it big didn’t get good at what they did from drawing their Waifu’s every day. Artists can draw because they understand the fundamentals of the art of drawing, and I think it’s only when you know those rules that you can start to break them. Artists break these conventional rules to create these different styles. From Picasso’s Cubism to Dail’s Surrealism to Anime Waifu-ism. That’s not a real art genre, but, my God, I wish it was. Your art teacher most likely isn’t shunning your fan art of Kirito because they don’t understand or like anime it’s because drawing these pieces of anime art that is anatomically incorrect with little variation and little meaning before you’ve even understood the Fundamentals of drawing isn’t going to improve your art and I know there are probably some like actual anime artists who are saying right now, “Uh, I got good at drawing anime art, but I never attended art class or art schools” Then congratulations, I guess you’re just a fucking savant at anime art. Unfortunately not everyone can draw their waifu from the moment they exit their mother’s womb Some of us have to sit in an art class and draw perfect circles all day. Now at this point, I will come out and say right now that I do not accept the idea of banning anime art in portfolios, after say, you know, all your art classes are finished, or you are about to graduate art school. Of course when it comes to actual school projects that you have to do while you’re at school or during classes Then it does ultimately come down to the curriculum, and what the specifics are of that project But personal portfolios for your artist career should be exempt from any kind of exclusion of style That means you’re making a portfolio to show potential clients what you can draw then I think anime art is a completely viable option. You’ve been through art school, you’ve ingrained all of the fundamentals of how to get good at drawing into your brain, and you’ve broken those rules with that understanding in mind. Yes, anime may maybe niche but there is also a huge market for anime art, especially in the online world I mean sure your anime art isn’t going to end up on the wall of a museum anytime soon, but there are a lot of potential clients online who are waiting to commission your anime art. And look, fundamentally there might be some exceptions to this problem, like maybe your art teacher doesn’t like your anime art because they’re a racist prick or maybe you know an art teacher who is completely okay with you drawing anime art and if anything Encourages you to draw anime art and if that is the case then you should befriend them because they’re one dope motherfucker But I still do think that at the end of the day anime art is a legitimate form of art And it should be embraced more especially in the west put your anime art on sites like Deviant Art for people on the internet to praise and critique or join a Manga Club at your school if you really want to pursue that kind of style But while you’re at art school or art classes Just keep drawing those perfect circles over and over again because art schools and art teachers want you to be a better artist Not a better anime artist because any style of art starts from the basics and in order to be a better anime artist you need to first be a better artist. Well guys let me know what you think about this whole thing. Do you personally agree with this “banning” of anime art in art schools and art classes or are you against this whole idea, and if you’re an anime artist yourself or have gone into this situation of showing your art teacher or art class your anime art then give me your stories on it. Were you ever faced with this problem, were you okay with this problem, or was there some other type of story? I want you guys let me know all that kind of stuff in the comments below, and hey just to clarify once again I am not saying that your fan art of me or your anime art doesn’t Deserve to be praised and whatnot because it should; anime art is fucking awesome. The fan art you guys draw for me on my Twitter and Instagram is fucking awesome and if you do have any kind of fan art that you want to share me, then please share it with me because I will look at it regardless of whether I retweet it or comment on it or whatever I do see every single one, and I do appreciate every single one And that’s not just me if you have a different YouTuber that you absolutely love and you want to draw a fan are for them, then do it because we all fucking love it. But all I’m going to say is just keep drawing, just keep getting better, and don’t be afraid to explore your boundaries. And hey if you’re an anime artists out there then good luck man. I love the shit that you guys do. Anyways guys, thanks for watching. As well like and favorite if you guys enjoyed subscribe for more anime banter, and I’ll see you guys next video of whatever I made. Keep watching anime. Ja ne.

Teaching art or teaching to think like an artist? | Cindy Foley | TEDxColumbus

Teaching art or teaching to think like an artist? | Cindy Foley | TEDxColumbus


Translator: Jihan Chara
Reviewer: Denise RQ We are going to get started
with some kindergarten image-word match. I would like each of you to determine what is the word that matches
the image in number seven. Starting to come up with some ideas? Good. Get them in your head
because I want to share with you what my daughter Adeline chose. (Laughter) Adeline chose ‘art,’ and as her parent,
I thought that was awesome, but this is an incorrect answer
according to the testing guide. The correct answer is ‘mud,’
and I’m sure that’s what you all chose. Right, right? How can something
so nebulous be so concrete? Actually, I think this quiz
is a fitting analogy for the problem in art education today. Art education has been impacted by the standards and testing culture
like all other disciplines, and in a lot of ways, we’ve been focusing
on teaching things that are concrete. Things like elements of art,
art history, and foundational skills. In essence, we’re teaching things
that we can test and assess. But I believe art education needs to focus on developing learners
that think like artists. Learners who are creative, curious,
seek questions, develop ideas, and play, which means we need
to be much more intentional about how we communicate
art’s critical value and how we teach for creativity. So, creativity – let’s do
a little case making around this. Most of this you know. Creativity is being touted
by business leaders like the folks at IBM, by educational reformists, by economists, even folks as Dan Pink as the number one thing we need for student success,
economic growth, and general happiness. We also know the creativity scores
in this country are on the decline, that Torrance creativity test,
which has been administered for decades, has now shown, since the 1990s, a decline, especially in ages 6 to 12
in the United States. We also know due to Sir Kenneth
Robinson’s now famous TED Talk that schools are
fundamentally and foundationally challenged to cultivate creativity. But I’m going to share
with you some research that the Wallace Foundation did
with Harvard’s Project Zero in which they found the number one thing
quality art education can do is develop “the capacity to think creatively
and the capacity to make connections.” So then why is there such a disconnect between creativity and art education? I think there’s actually
a couple of reasons why. But we are going to focus on
communication and messaging. Those of us in the field
have been working to really move art education
out of a defensive place. We’ve been trying to make
a case for our own existence, and we’re trying to move it more
towards an offensive message especially around creativity. But we’re not there yet, and so, we’re going to place that
for another talk, at another time. Instead, I want to focus on a message I think is much more
problematic and pervasive – and I hate to put you on the spot, but I actually feel you are to blame. I mean, not you per se,
but you as a group of people who actually really support art education Let me give some context. As a parent, I often hear adults
saying things to children, as well as to other adults,
and to the educators, things like this, “Oh, my goodness! Look how well
you’ve drawn that horse! It’s so realistic! You’re so creative!” You’ve heard messages like that before? Here’s another one
I think I hear almost daily, “Oh, Cindy! I really support
art education. It is very important!
I mean, I’m not creative. I don’t have a creative bone in my body.
I can’t even draw a stick figure.” (Laughter) These messages are incredibly
problematic and the more … You may not think they are a big deal, but the more society pushes them out and continues to foster these cliche notions
of what is creativity, the harder it is
for those in the field, like me, to begin moving
towards teaching for creativity. Teaching for creativity.
What do I mean by that? I believe teaching for creativity is
embodying the habits the artists employ. Habits in particular, there are three that I think are essential to creativity. They are: one – comfort with ambiguity, two – idea generation,
and three – transdisciplinary research. We’re going to talk
about those in a moment, but first, we’re going to do
a little audience participation. I would like each of you
to use something on your person: paper, pencil, your program,
phone, glasses; it doesn’t matter. And I’d like you –
you’ll just get a couple of minutes – to actually create something
that represents the idea of metaphor. Go ahead. (indistinct chatter in the audience) Alright. Be honest. How many of you had a surge of panic
when I just asked you to do that? (Laughter) I want you to savor that sensation. You actually are off the hook, but I want you to savor
that sensation for a moment. What you just experienced is, I think,
the number one obstacle to creative work: that discomfort, and that discomfort
is ambiguity, it’s not-knowing. I actually learned this
from a group of teachers. We’d been working with them,
and they told us, “You know what? We find that it’s really difficult to engage our students in creative work,
in particular, open-ended projects. It just makes it really hard.” Ironically enough, later that afternoon,
we had that same group of teachers, and we gave them a challenge
similar to the one I just gave you. Interestingly enough, almost immediately, a couple of them announced
they needed to leave for the day. (Laughter) Another group needed
a break at that moment, and still, others stayed in the classroom but refused to participate
in the activity. What we realized is students struggle with ambiguity
because we all do. Artists, on the other hand, realize
that ambiguity is part of the process. They take it, they identify it,
and they tackle it head on. If artists are doing this,
can’t you imagine if art education was a place where we knew students could go
to prepare for lives of not knowing? I work at the Columbus Museum of Art,
and for years now, we provided the kind of art education
that our community requested. So for example, when we had an exhibition
of the work of Claude Monet, we taught about his history, we allowed folks to experiment
with his materials and his process, and then, we finally
would create lesson plans and allow others to do the same. In essence, what we were doing was generating content
and allowing folks to make mini-Monets. But then it dawned on us we were not actually engaging them
in what made Monet Monet. And that was the way he thought;
Monet’s ideas were revolutionary. He questioned the natural world,
the way we see, he questioned the politics of the time, and that’s what made
his work so exceptional. It was at this moment we realized we needed to be teaching
for idea generation. So I’m going to have you jump with me now
from one artist to another. (Laughter) The Lego movie gave us such a gift
when they presented the movie this summer. More or less, what they said was creativity is not the Lego kid
in the direction booklet but creativity is the bucket of Legos
and the potential for ideas within. Legos are just another material
like drawing materials to help us make ideas manifest. What I loved about this movie was the idea of the master builder or the person who has
the courage to have ideas. But it dawned on me, in much of education,
the master builders are the educators. They’re the ones who have ideas,
great lesson plans. But students are secondary
to that process. Students are often
more of the artist’s assistant, or sometimes, even just the factory worker
getting the project done. Visualize a classroom
full of master builders, a classroom full
of master builders at play. Yes, play. Play is essential. Play is a surefire way
to kickstart ideation. Artists play. They play in a number of ways. They either play with materials
until ideas begin to manifest or they play with ideas until they realize what media or materials
they need to bring that into reality. Imagine an art education
where educators were comfortable with the ambiguous classroom where student ideas
and interests lead the learning. So I need to be honest with you: nothing in my career,
my education, or my teaching has influenced my thinking
as much as being married to an artist. I am married to Sean Foley, and what I can tell you about artists
is that they’re voracious researchers. They will research anything –
bizarre things. And what I’ve learned is that they’ll do anything
that furthers their thinking. Let me give you an example. About ten years ago, Sean had this idea that if painting were dead
what if he were doctor Frankenstein? He immediately rereads Mary Shelley.
He rewatches all the classic horror films. He then devours books at the library on natural history, history
of medicine, anomalies of nature. He then starts purchasing
taxidermic animals. (Laughter) But then, he informs me
that we need to go to London. He must go to London in order to study
the museums of the pre-Enlightenment, and in particular,
the early operating theaters. So in essence, his research manifest, and Sean ends up making
monsters of his own, like this one. So what Sean was engaged in
is transdisciplinary research or research that serves curiosity. Imagine if the future of education
was not about discrete disciplines but rather was about disciplines
like math, art, and science being in service to ideas. What kind of spaces might we create
in order to foster that type of thinking? Could we create centers for creativity where we cultivate, champion,
and measure this type of thinking? I don’t want you for a minute
to stop championing art education, but I do want you to be thoughtful
about the chant. When we say we want creativity
in our schools, we often say, “Don’t kill the arts,” But today, I want that battle cry
to address art’s critical value, “Don’t kill the ideas.” I want my own children
to think like artists no matter what career path
they may choose. I believe art education is essential
for 21st century learning. And with your help, we can flip
the counterproductive messaging and allow our educators
to develop centers for creativity where ideas are king and curiosity reigns. Thank you. (Applause)

Digital Photography Scavenger Hunt – HOW TO

Digital Photography Scavenger Hunt – HOW TO


Here’s a digital photography game you can play anywhere. Find and capture the following five images. Number one: Forced perspective is an optical illusion to make an object appear farther away, closer, larger or smaller than it really is. Number two: Action! Capture an image of something while it’s in motion. It’s okay if your shot is blurry. That could be interesting! Number three: Faces in places. There are imaginary faces everywhere! Find and capture faces of your own. Number four: Find repeating patterns. You know, like the bricks on this house. Number five: Hey! Show off! What are you making? Terah’s making a well balanced breakfast out of paper. Right! Good job! Now, with your parent’s permission, share your photos on our Instagram and our Facebook page. Oh! Feel free to download our worksheet, so you can take it with you when you go hunting! Lastly, please subscribe and tell your friends! Thank you for watching ARTtv! [music]

Leon Botstein: Art Now (Aesthetics Across Music, Painting, Architecture, Movies, and More.)

Leon Botstein: Art Now (Aesthetics Across Music, Painting, Architecture, Movies, and More.)


Hi, my name is Leon Botstein. I’m president of Bard College and I’m a musician
and a historian of music. My subject today is the arts and art and what
is it and why should we study it. Why is it part of university curriculum? Why is it something that an undergraduate
student should worry about and spend time taking courses in? So the first thing is to sort of think about
what the word means. Art is a word we use all the time. It is in ordinary usage, applied to lots of
different things and people get worried about something, you know is it artistic, is it
art, what distinguishes art from anything else that you might encounter in the world
and probably the simplest way to say it is that art is something that transforms the
everyday. It transfigures the ordinary. So a good example and a very sort of clear
example is in the period of pop art, the artist Andy Warhol took a Campbell’s Soup can and
made a work of art out of something we looked at ordinarily on the shelf of a supermarket. Take a photograph. Now you can take a photograph with your cell
phone. You can look through it and snap someone’s
picture. The question is, is that art as opposed to
a great photographic portrait? Take for example the great American photographer
Edward Steichen. He did a portrait of Charlie Chaplin. You look at that portrait and you ask yourself
is that art or is it just a photograph of Charlie Chaplin. Well there is something different about it. There is something unexpected. There is something that isn’t quite in your
ordinary experience yet it is related to your ordinary experience. Another example comes also from the pop art
era and that has to do with comic books, so the great artist Roy Lichtenstein made big
canvases where you had the same kind of visual impact that a comic book had, people with
bubbles coming out of their mouths with things being said and things very much apropos of
what comic books talked about, love, loss, a kind of soap opera story. So art is connected to what we experience
every day, but it represents some kind of transformation of the everyday, something
that is not actually entirely real. It can’t be found by locating it. It requires human intervention. It is the fingerprint, if you will, of our
existence in the world that has its impact on things we transform through the use of our imagination. So a good example would be to say music, which
is perhaps one of the most easy aspects of art to talk about. Now music doesn’t exist really in nature. Birds sing and there is bird song and there
is sounds in nature, but the system of Indian or Chinese or Western music, how we divide
tones, how we organize them in the west by half steps and whole steps, sometimes with
microtones and we organize rhythm and we create a grammar of sound and expectation, so a song
like “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” is something that seems natural to us. We can identify when it starts and when it
ends and we have a pretty good idea of how it is organized. Now that is totally artificial. There is no “Row, Row, Row Your Boat”
song out in nature and there certainly isn’t anything as complicated as, in the Western
tradition, a Beethoven symphony or even an opera, which is very artificial in which people
are singing and talking and moving at the same time saying different things all within
a coherent fabric. This is completely fictive. It doesn’t have a real place in the world,
even when we try to be realistic. Go to a museum and you’ll look at a painting,
a genre painting or a historical painting, which depicts a scene that you think is really
quite realistic. Someone is fighting a battle. A person is looking out a window or you’re
looking at a landscape which you actually perhaps have seen yourself, but that frame
is very artificial and we allow ourselves to be caught up in the illusion of its realism. It isn’t really out there. It isn’t real. It’s somebody’s imagination of what is
real. The perfect example is TV, video and film
where we get caught up in a storyline that may take years and centuries. It seems real to us. The whole thing is only an hour and a half
long, but it has the illusion of realism and that is the artificial manipulation of our
sensibilities through the work of an artist. All the transformations I have described,
the creation of music or the creation of an artificial visual image are things that people
do regularly and things that don’t always qualify as art, so we can choose people who
designs boxes or packaging for products or people who even do fashion design, although
that is a contentious area and people who write jingles or commercial music or soundtracks
for TV shows. Now is that art? Now there is always a lot of debate particularly
among snobs about what is art, people who think they know what art is and they confuse
art with taste. It’s hard to talk about. We are not sure what constitutes art is simply
a matter of what I think is art or someone else thinks is art, but it’s quite clear
that there is a continuum. There are a lot of things that were not originally
thought of being art that actually strike us as artistic and we would defend it. There are many movie scores that really are
as good as something that someone wrote because he or she thought it was going to be art in
some kind of elevated sense. There are things in ordinary life that are
beautifully done that have an aesthetic capacity to persuade us that it is art. That is perfectly true of architecture, which
is always, in a way, useful. People live in buildings. We work in buildings. We take trains from buildings. We fly planes from buildings. We go into things that are designed, industrial
design and those things really are art. There was a period of time where people made
a very strict distinction between that which was useful and that which was not useful and
distinguished art as something that had no particular utility that was for its own sake
if you will. I’m not sure that is useful for us to consider,
but it is always the case that there is some aspiration, some insight, something that happens
in the transformation of the everyday through an artistic impulse that is entirely human
and therefore subjective. There is something that goes beyond the thoughtless. It goes beyond something that we would pass
by. It makes us stop and think about something
quite important in an entirely different way. It’s for that reason that already from the
Greeks the notion that art making was human was crucial. It was something like love that only mortals
could experience. Gods didn’t make art, but we made art about
the gods because our capacity was limited by our mortality, but yet our imagination,
which was distinctly human, which was our own impression of the world with very limited
knowledge and limited capacity. The way we escaped that limitation was through
an imaginary world which we could create the same way we escape our limitation of being
mortal by imagining ourselves to be in love and create a category we call love. Well here we **** a category of things we
call artistic or very often a word that is used with art, the beautiful, so we think
conventionally that art is about the beautiful and when we talk about beauty people get very
concerned about it because one person’s beauty is another person’s ugliness. There are people who think well you think
it is art, but it means nothing to me and then there is the notion that really great
art is often misunderstood because it reaches beyond the conventional judgment of most of
the people, so art often gets pegged as being something quite elitist. Most people don’t think it is art. So for example in abstract art when people
began to make paintings that were really seemed to be only one color or very simple shapes
or Jackson Pollock did things with swirls of color that people thought well I can do
that, that is like finger painting, my child can do that. Well there is something about a child’s
finger painting that may actually not qualify in our view as art, not because of the prejudice,
but because actually there is something different between a finger painting of a child and what
Jackson Pollock does, but the fact is that from the very first moment his paintings were
recognized by some group it is not true that all great art exceeds the capacity of the
larger public, although as you get more rarified and study art you begin to see more in what
is out there than you would see if you didn’t think more carefully about it. So let’s take the finger painting. One of the important things about what makes
a work of art is the power of the human imagination to predict something, although there have
been strong traditions of art that are random, people who believe in randomness or in happenstance
or in chance. Most of what we think is art is the result
of people thinking about doing something and being carried away by either some plan or
some intuition or some imagination, so the child’s finger painting is probably distinguishable
from Jackson Pollock by its structure, its composition, its intent, its design. Now that doesn’t mean that some people won’t
be fooled and that’s why I have always been in favor of museums that would have no labels
and no identification. It’s very easy to look at a painting and
say well that’s by Rembrandt or that is by Monet or that is by Clint and therefore
it is good. Now imagine if we had a museum without labels
or we had concerts without names or programs. People would only have to respond to what
they liked or they disliked, but that’s already far down the road of discriminating
things we like from the things we don’t like. It’s far away from the generic definition
of what is art, art, which is in music, in painting and photography and architecture,
in video and film mediums. Art is really the attempt to create through
time and in space a work that has—or a statement or an event that has some coherence that derives
from, is connected to everyday experience, but is really quite apart from it and works
back in our experience of it to that everyday experience. It creates a vocabulary of sensibility, a
vocabulary of interpretation, a vocabulary of meaning that in one sense is beyond that
of language. Very important about art is that it is not
restricted to language. There is art in language. We see that in poetry, which is a different
use of language, the use of language in many art forms visual, architectural and in music,
but much of art and much of the art that we care about responds to something other than
the linguistic. We talk about it in language, but our experience
of it is somehow around language. It bypasses language. So we’re concerned with art that transforms
our sense of space, our sense of proportion, our relationship to the world, which is artificially
constructed by the spaces in which we live and those are spaces designed by architects
or really artists. We also think of ourselves in terms of even
the way we dress and the way we sit and the way we walk or move in the world. In a conceptual space it is influenced by
the way we see and the way we see is influenced by things that we use as models in the shaping
of our own imagination and then our hearing, our sense of sound, our sense of meaning. Many philosophers have argued that the visual
and particularly musical reaches an individual in a different way, not through the medium
of language and therefore is not entirely rational. It’s not something that we can say is right
or wrong. When we say we’re moved by a work of art
or that we’re inspired by a work of art we often find it hard to put that in words. The power of music for example is best expressed
in the way music interacts with words, so take a great moment in the operatic literature,
in Mozart’s “Marriage of Figaro”. At the very end it is an opera about infidelity
and at the very end the Countess forgives her husband the Count for contemplating, if
not realizing infidelity. She realizes the loss of love, so as she forgives
the Count the music, which has no words to it, tells an inner story to the audience of
a sense of loss, a sense of distance from what she is actually saying that would be
impossible to communicate without music. The sense of nostalgia, of memory is so profoundly
evoked with music. Now that is an experience we can describe
in language as existing, but it’s very hard to induce only with a linguistic. The same is with the visual. If you go for example on the Hudson Valley
and you wait on a summer day to see the sunset in the west. To look at it and to be inspired by its natural
beauty we really have to think back that our view of that beauty has been deeply influenced
by the way artists have depicted it. In our common culture we have, whether we
like it or not, been used to, not in photographs, but painters, Frederick Church for example,
the Hudson River School that looked at nature and made nature beautiful to those of us who
are city dwellers for whom nature was no longer really accessible. We didn’t live in nature, so we imagined
a nature, a beautiful, glorified, kind, benign nature, not a nature of terrible thunderstorms
and hurricanes, but a nature that seemed to provide us an importance in the world, a sense
of sanctity, a sense of openness, a sense of hope, a sense of beauty uncorrupted by
human intervention. This illusion of nature is an artistic invention. It’s a product of our subjectivity. It is a way, a love of nature similar to the
love of the divine, both of which are enormous subjects of art making. A great deal of art has been produced to celebrate
the divine in some god sense and also the divine in some sense of nature. Now art is a human activity and in so far
as it is a human activity, which is quite universal. There are very few cultures that don’t have
something called art and there is also the effort to try to get the populous to appreciate
it because art often is not designed to be the most accessible or uniform kind of form
of communication, so it’s not a single message because art doesn’t exist without the user. It’s hard to know whether something exists
philosophically. One can become very concerned about well is
that tree out there really there if no one is looking at it. It’s safe to say then in the matter of art
the book doesn’t exist, the painting doesn’t exist, the movie doesn’t exist, the piece
of music doesn’t exist unless there is a listener, there is a reader, there is a viewer. Art is, in its core, a social activity. It’s an activity in which individuals seek
to communicate, which is why art can be viewed as dangerous by political regimes that don’t
like the expression of human intention or the making of art because it is designed to
reach somebody, so it is not a surprise that the one person recently imprisoned by the
Chinese now released, Ai Weiwei, was an artist. He wasn’t actually a political activist. Why was this artist dangerous? Why were the censors against art making, theater
and music in periods of tyranny in the early 19th century before 1848, in periods of extreme
tyranny under Stalin and Hitler? Why do these tyrannous regimes attempt to
control and manipulate the artistic community, painters, sculptures, architects, composers,
writers? The reason is because they somehow understood
that art is something that seeks a public and its impact on the public could be subversive
because it’s very hard to pinpoint. Its influence is enormous. In reading for example, a novel one of the
great ironic examples of that is Flaubert’s Madame Bovary where the main character Madame
Bovary imagines her life through bad novels, but many of us have found ways to understand
life or ourselves through our reaction to fiction, not through real factual narratives,
but through fiction and have imagined our relationship with the world and with others
and with our society through the listening of music. Much of art is public. Art hangs in museums. There are installations. There is public art and the most important
public art of all is architecture. What do buildings tell us about ourselves? If you look at a fabulous building, for example,
the Helsinki Railway Station by Eliel Saarinen, fabulous building, massive, showing the public
the entire nation, the modern Finland embodied by the train, so it is a massive train station
similar to many that is in Europe, but it has a slight difference. It speaks to its public by making it much
lower and flatter so the relationship of the individual to the massivity of the railway
station is not imposing. It is not one of tyranny. It is not one of superior power. It doesn’t celebrate industrial power. It doesn’t celebrate wealth and in fact
it is much more intimate despite its scale. Furthermore, through it there are decorative
elements which remind the user of an imaginary traditional Finland, of a Finland of the Kalevala,
of a mythic past, of a tradition of a nation that was distinct from the rest of Europe. So local pride, folklore, national identity
all get communicated through art making, things that are completely artificial. You don’t need to have that kind of railway
station just to put trains in place. It could be a much more neutral, if you will,
solution to how to build a railway station. The capital of the United States is an architectural
statement that reveals ideals about what the builders thought the American Republic was
going to be about and so art is a public endeavor often that takes place in public spaces. It is also a private endeavor. It informs how we organize our private space
and how we use it. In days when people were amateur musicians
and sang and played together that was a form of a conversation. People sat down to play a string quartet and
that was a conversation with four people that used no language, just music. People sang together in their parlors. People went to choruses in church or in secular
circumstances to sing together. So art is not only the enterprise of the individual
art maker or the individual person who seeks to transform his or her experience of the
everyday by something that is not real, but transformed by a human being called art, but
they also have to recognize that art is about the way we live our lives in a public circumstance. When one recognizes that art is not merely
an act of an individual who exceeds his or her boundaries of experience in ways we cannot
predict parenthetically it’s important to realize that art is never something that has
to exist. In science we have the notion that what we
discover is something that somehow is out there. Now that is totally and entirely true. The way we describe it, our conception of
nature and of the world and of the laws of nature affects how we understand it and use
it, but there is a correspondence theory. There is some evidence. We have to show that the way we describe it,
the theories that we have to describe it actually are true and there is some evidence. So there was a great deal of speculation and
relief when relativity was proven by astronomical observation, by sort of **** experimental
evidence. Now in art what is created has no reason to
exist. It wasn’t out there before a human being
made it, which is why art is so significant to the individual because it is a reminder
both for the maker of the art and the person who engages with the art of his or her uniqueness
in the world. We would like to think, which is true, that
each of us has a fingerprint that is unique and a DNA sequence that is unique, which is
why we can be identified if we commit a crime, but they the same token the making of art
is a reflection of that uniqueness which has no predictive content. When you hear a piece of music, a new piece
of music written by a composer or you see a work of art at an installation, performance
art, a movie, any photography that one sees one realizes this is the imagination of a
single individual whose existence could not have been foretold. So there is a kind of uniqueness. That uniqueness has the parallel in the viewer. Not artwork is complete unless it has someone
who receives it. When there is no one in the museum the real
purpose of art dies. Those works come alive through the presence
of a viewer. A piece of music exists only if it is played
and heard and therefore requires human intervention. The important thing about that is that art
is one way, particularly in our current society to fight the sense of being superfluous. If one had to ask in contemporary life what
is the most important aspect of art to the individual is the recognition that in a very
large mass society in which most of the things we do are governed by efficiency, we can make
things with robots, we actually produce food immensely efficiently and with the promise
of biotechnology and information science it’s likely that those efficiencies will only increase. So there are a lot of people in the world. What are we here for? We once thought the primary reason for our
existence was labor, work. We were here because we had to. We had to till the soil. We had to protect ourselves from external
danger, rain, snow, weather. We had to take care of the necessities of
life and by so doing we had to do something useful and that useful thing could be rewarded,
rewarded either in money, which was a much later system or in actually goods, which would
feed us and our children.But that notion of work and labor is increasingly at risk. While we would like to see all of our society
very well employed one could positive a future where we are not needed, where there is an
easy pass for every function. You don’t need a toll collector any more. You don’t need an elevator operator. You don’t need a manufacturing person. You don’t need an artisan. So what are we here for? Well we’re probably here for the things
that are not useful. We are here for the things that have no utility,
that have no purpose, that are simply about our life and that essential sense of our purpose
being what we can do that may have no practical utility, that sense of the sacred character
of our capacity to create. If one believes the Abrahamic tale that we
were made in God’s image what does that mean? It means that God was a creator. He used language to create. Well we also use language to create, but we
also have the capacity for creation, for imagination. If God imagined the world we imagine things
and the things that we imagine often fall into the category of art, things that don’t
exist, things we put together, things we completely rely on our fantasy, our humor, our sense
of joy, our sense of possibility and our sense of the thing that wouldn’t ordinarily occur
if we just lived our lives in some predictive way, in some imitative way, which is why art
can be dangerous because it doesn’t follow rules. It rarely follows rules, but the important
thing about art both in its making and its absorption, its engagement is we reinvent
ourselves. We invent ourselves in our relationship to
listening to music, characters in the Enforcers novels for example. He was a great music lover. When they listened to Beethoven or even in
George Elliott. In many circumstances people who find their
lives transformed by looking at a beautiful building or a work of art or even a movie
or young people who will swear by a series of popular songs that seem to be very meaningful
to them. That identification with the imaginary which
helps us define ourselves in some unique way, the way we put it altogether, the mosaic of
our own tastes those things allow us to give ourselves purpose where we could be very depressed
by a sense of uselessness and boredom. The most terrifying thing is the loss of life
and the sense of purpose by boredom and that creates envy and hostility to others. We envy the person who seems to be useful
and needed. We’re looking for a safe place where we
can feel ourselves important and significant, which is why many of us choose to join religious
communities or other communities where through some community identification we give ourselves
purpose, but art allows us as individuals to have a purpose as we make it, participate
in it, consume it if you will, engage with it and it reminds us of not our capacity to
create art, but to recognize it and follow someone else’s imagination along with him
or with her. Now the social utility of art, the fact that
it’s public, the fact that it’s pretty universal in the sense that most societies
creates some kind of system of it, the social utility has been the subject of enormous controversy. There are people who think precisely because
art is imaginary in some way, it isn’t real and it isn’t useful in some way, is a kind
of mirage that distorts our sense of value. Famously Plato had his doubts about poetry
and about certain kinds of art making and there is a long tradition of suspicion that
art first of all is a conceit among a very small group of human beings who try to make
themselves superior through a kind of Ponzi scheme of values that they all inhabit and
they exclude other people from. It’s a Ponzi scheme because it really has
no value at the end of the day. This notion of art is particularly prevalent
in democratic societies, which is why for example in the United States there is really
no public subsidy of the arts because people will say: “Look you think it is art. I don’t think it is art and these artists
are not really useful. Why should we support them and art is really
a matter of taste, so it’s no different from clothes buying. If classical music is so important it should
pay for itself and people who like it should buy it. If people like that painting on the wall and
they want to pay five million dollars for it I’m just as happy with a ten cent poster
I can buy down the street. Who is going to tell me that Normal Rockwell,
the famous illustrator is somehow inferior as an artist to some sort of strange thing
that is on someone’s wall in South Hampton who believes her or himself to be a real connoisseur
and collector and paid four million dollars for something I wouldn’t give ten cents
for?” So in a democratic society the majority wins,
which means what we might think is art perfectly reasonably is Hollywood makes money or Broadway
on the off chance it makes money and many of the noncommercial arts are considered it’s
a conceit of a minority. It is one’s own private religion and that
in mass society, in mass democracy there is no agreement about what is art and there is
not real much agreement whether art is necessary in a society. Now that’s totally seemingly persuasive
and actually is hypocritical because the government builds buildings so it chooses architects,
makes an absolute statement in what kind of architecture it chooses, but beyond that the
nation in its military has orchestras and bands. It recognizes that art is part of the fabric
of a community. It has always been part of the fabric of what
we consider patriotism, the songs we sing, our national anthem. It’s not so easy to say whether there no
art and there is also not so easy to say that it’s only those things that make money because
in fact all true things are not popular. Evolution is not popular. It may be true, but it isn’t popular and
there are many facts which are not pleasant but are true and hard to understand. The earth is not flat. We all operate as if it is. Now it’s very complicated to explain to
someone that it is round, but that fact that that is true and it is only understood by
a minority doesn’t make it wrong. Now the real debate in the arts is are there
criteria for art that could be persuasive in a democratic society to induce a society
to support it? Is there some objective way of saying well
a Beethoven symphony, a Wagner opera, a Debussy nocturne those are superior to something else,
that certain buildings, certain painters, certain sculptures are understood as critically
superior to things that are of the same type, but not as good? Is there a hierarchy of goodness? Is there some truth value to our judgments
about art? Is it reasonable to say well that just isn’t
art or is not very good art or bad art? If we could make those discriminations then
we might create a hierarchy of value where then we could justify society supporting it. In monarchies and aristocratic societies arts
were supported by patrons and the patrons happened to be the State in the case of kings
and queens and emperors and in certain eras, particularly communist era the Party and the
State had a very clear idea of what was art that was good for the State. Fascists had the same idea. Both Hitler and Stalin were art lovers and
they were music lovers. They had very, very specific tastes. In Stalin’s case he hounded Shostakovich
twice in his career, in the 30s and the 40s for writing music that wasn’t right, that
wasn’t really towards what art should do in the community. Now those were not necessarily aesthetic criteria. They were political criteria if you can separate
the two for a moment. They were about what made people feel part
of a working class communist proletarian nation. What kind of music should that sound like? What kind of painting should that be? Let’s call it socialist realism. In fascism it was a clear idea of how to portray
to Aryan purity and the Aryan race and Nordic superiority and music like Hamena Buhlana
[ph], a very famous piece that was designed to give people a sense of membership and solidarity
that manipulated people’s emotions so that it was consistent with the objectives of the
State, but that’s not about the truth value. That is about a regime’s belief in how art
actually can function to help that regime. So to return to the question particularly
for the United States in a democratic society we don’t support the art because we can’t
agree as to what would be art. We can agree what makes a profit, so if you
want to do art you can pay for it. Everyone is happy. People can go to it. But why should we subsidize opera companies,
museums, artists, performance spaces, independent filmmakers and photographers? Why do that? Why not leave it simply to the marketplace? And one way to solve that problem would be
to say well as in science they can be kind of peer review, an objective sense of what
is good, what is bad and if we could discriminate, if we could agree then we could say well these
people deserve support, these people don’t. Now this is a thorny question and there are
no fixed answers, but the tradition of arguing about it over many centuries has given us
some clue of how to think about this question. Clearly the more you think about each separate
art form, movies, films, buildings, music, painting, sculpture, performance art you develop
sensibilities, criteria. There was a great example for example in the
case of the composer Mozart. He had a pupil, Thomas Atwood who became a
court composer in England during the reign of Victoria. He was a fine musician, but not a great talent,
perfectly fine craftsman and wrote a fair amount of music, none of which has survived,
but very competent. Now his music is art music. It’s fine. It’s good. It’s interesting. It is historically interesting because every
age has its own artistic currents and it is very interesting to understand the past. Art is a terrific instrument for getting under
the skin so to speak of a past era. Now Thomas Atwood studied with Mozart. Now Mozart was not much of a teacher. He did it only for the money and the strange
thing about Thomas Atwood is that it’s the one complete record because he was English
and very meticulous he kept his lessons with Mozart. It’s the only record we have of Mozart teaching. We don’t have any real records of Beethoven
teaching. We have people telling us sort of what he
did, but he was not a systematic teacher. In Mozart he gave Atwood lessons and exercises
and there is a great example of a minuet dance in which he gave Atwood a baseline and asked
him to fill it out. You have one line. You had to fill it out and give it melody,
so he gave him a baseline, a kind of foundation in which to write the minuet, which is a dance
in three meter and the fascinating thing is when Mozart was correcting it he made slight
changes and if you play Atwood’s exercise that he gave back to Mozart and Mozart’s
just to fill the time, just think about it, editing and changing of it you see the difference
between the ordinary and the great and blindfold and audience who has listened to a lot of
18th century minuets will identify the Mozart one right away. So there are many such examples where actually
works of art and music catch an imagination or seem to appeal to some criteria of craftsmanship,
perhaps even beauty, imagination, novelty, surprise. One of the things about art is that it breaks
your expectations unlike a train ride where you would be shocked if there were a sudden
stop or if suddenly it turned upside down and kept moving or as in all those Harry Potter
films you could levitate and go into an imaginary place with some wand. Well art is like that to the human experience. It sets up expectations and then changes them. You think you’re going down one road. You go to another. You think something is going to happen regularly
and then it just stops happening regularly. You think well it is going to look like this
and doesn’t. It makes you look at the world around you
in a different way. Well the unexpected comes in varying degrees
of sophistication and so in every art form there are criteria that have been developed
that are both historical and go beyond historical periods. Where we can discriminate from the more persuasive,
the less persuasive to some degree of agreement and then it deviates because the judgment
of history isn’t always right. We rediscover artists that we never thought
much of and bring them back. A good example would be for example, the Austrian
painter Gustov Clint who in the 50s was not an important figure, but by the year 2000
was a very important figure even though he had died in 1918. The same, there was a great Hungarian painter
Munkácsy, greatest painter, hugely patronized by Americans and by Europeans, a forgotten
figure now, but in his lifetime highly touted. The most expensive canvases to be sold before
1900 were by the Swiss German painter Arnold Bocklin. After that his importance almost vanished. He now is experiencing a revival. So tastes change and judgments change and
you cannot always rely on the so-called verdict of history because there are many political
and other factors that go into a person’s success or failure, but there are areas of
discussion where one can look at a novel, a poem, a painting, a building, a movie and
say this is a great movie and that is why and many of those things are separate from
the content of the movie itself or the painting or nominally the piece of music. These are things we call formal and those
are criteria of construction, the use of the materials, the use of space and time. They are criteria of the way conventions of
storytelling or construction are used by the individual artist, so there are ways we can
discriminate. At the very end much of it is subjective,
but there are many, many areas where great human achievements do require some more sophistication
in the way we read, the way we look and the way we listen. It can’t all be naïve. At first blush a Mahler symphony doesn’t
seem comprehensible. **** actually sustain one’s attention over
75 minutes of just sound, but then as one sort of listens to it and goes back and listens
to a Beethoven symphony and a Heiden symphony and a Mozart symphony and a Mendelssohn symphony,
even a Sibelius symphony, a contemporary you then get an idea of what the possibilities
are. The first movie you see well you’ve never
seen another movie. You see a lot of movies, you begin to discriminate,
not only by the narrative or the subject matter, but by something about the form of the movie,
the way movies are made or can be made or might be made, the same with photographs. Eventually you can look at your own photograph
that you took of your friend or your parents or a sibling with your camera in your cell
phone and realize it isn’t quite the same as a portrait by Irving Penn or by Diane Arbus. There is something about what they did with
the same basic medium that shows you that there is something you might learn, you might
think about, you might be able to do it yourself. The question that we face increasingly is
to what extent in a democratic society or any society, particularly in what we might
call open or free societies should we encourage the development of the aesthetic sensibilities
of our citizens? To what extent should art be encouraged as
part of what we foster in the conduct of both private and public life? Is art a constructive constituent activity,
art making, art viewing, art buying is the artistic conversation if you will, an important
part of what we would like to see in our society? Is it consistent with values such as freedom
and justice? Now these are once again topics that have
a long history of philosophical and political debate. It’s important to say that in un-free societies,
in societies where there has been an enormous amount of censorship and repression art has
usually been an avenue of dissent that is the place of last resort. One’s speech, pamphleteering, public, political
activity was banned and restricted. The last refuge of freedom ended up being
the arts, poetry, painting, particularly the arts that were not representational. There are a group of arts that are close or
closer to nature. They might be painting, photography, film,
which trade on the illusion of realism and fiction, prose fiction and then there are
those that are less tied to nature seemingly that is poetry, which doesn’t really use
language in the ordinary sense and then there is music clearly, which seems entirely abstract,
the most abstract perhaps of the arts and those become the most resistant to effective
censorship and therefore, art can be identified with courage and with breaking the habit to
conform, especially if conformity is associated with tyranny. We simply go about our business while some
people are harmed, killed, oppressed, exterminated and we are beaten into submission and the
resistance that submission can often be the arts. By the same token, arts can serve the State
and they can be used to justify tyranny. Sergei Prokofiev, the Russian composer who
returned to live under Stalin wrote a cantata for Stalin’s birthday called “Zdravitsa”
for his health whose text is unimaginable praising Stalin for every good thing even
the rising of the sun and the health of children. Now this fawning to one of the most evil people
in recorded history doesn’t make an advertisement for the virtue of the arts per se. Interesting about the arts of course is that
while they may even be created to serve a particular political purpose they are also
susceptible to being reinvented. One of the best examples is again from music
is the “9th Symphony” of Beethoven, which has a final movement whose text is by the
German poet Schiller and it is nominally about human brotherhood and so-called the “Ode
to Joy”, but it was performed on a regular basis by the Nazi’s to celebrate Hitler’s
birthday and to celebrate the heroes of the 1941 attack on Russia and it was also used
to celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall, two completely opposite political purposes
using the same music. It resists appropriation partly because music
has never been useful and therefore, to be taken into a purpose that is useful since
it is useless by definition it never quite fits. It doesn’t fit as a constituent element
in somebody’s scheme entirely persuasively, but the question in a free society or one
where highly fluid in terms of what we individuals can do, especially a consumer society where
we in a way like to think of our freedom mostly as freedom of movement, where we can go and
what we can do using money as a metaphor of movement, so there was a great American artist
Barbara Kruger who had a painting with sort of a spoof on the Cartesian phrase “I think
therefore, I am”. Instead she had, “I shop therefore, I am”,
in other words, the idea that our self identity is as consumers. Is art a useful instrument of criticism, constructive
criticism to the conceits of our society? Now that is a hard thing because much of art
in the United States in our society is patronized by very wealthy individuals, so it is odd
to see very wealthy individuals collect or support art that has huge amounts of social
criticism, so people living in big houses and mansions buy art that somehow utilizes
the suffering of others or tries to point out injustice, social injustice. There is something slightly hypocritical about
these uses of art and artists who in visual arts make a lot of money trading on a kind
of sympathy of the very wealthy and powerful for the plight of the poor and underserved,
but really do nothing about it. People go to a play that shows the suffering
of an Afro-American man and they feel ennobled by having wept in the theater at the sight
of the suffering portrayed on the stage and they think they have done something to advance
that cause. There is not a lot of evidence that that is
true, not a lot of evidence that except for making myself feel more noble because my sympathies
were in an artificial context onstage or in a movie with a protagonist who is somehow
disadvantaged while I was very comfortable and advantaged in some way that that emotional
identification through art is constructive. The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau
argued that that actually is the very opposite, that all art does is allow us to be more complacent
with injustice. Art prettifies in some aesthetic way all the
evils of human society. Art is really the worst servants of the State
because they dress up all that is bad in the world in a way that makes it palatable and
in fact the conceit of my being superior by being an artist allows me literally to pull
the shades in my window as I see the injustice in the street. I allows me to exempt myself from a sense
of social responsibility because I’m superior and there comes a whole conceit of the artist,
the Bohemian, the person who doesn’t play by the rules, who thinks she or he is superior
because they are artists and therefore, they are exempt from having to do what we all have
to do, which is somehow contribute to the world around us and make the world better
in some constructive way. So it’s not clear that just generically
art is constructive, that art is always about freedom or always about individuality, it’s
always on the right side, not clearly so and that the values that it puts forward are not
always ones which we would find totally defensible, but the important thing is to think about
the question as an activity and as a repository of human achievement. Is it something that needs to be fought for? And at the core of that question is, is there
a relationship between what art does and the good, morally good, ethically good? Is there a connection as the 18th century
philosopher who would have liked to think was the case between the good and the beautiful? Now the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy really
said beauty isn’t the issue and in fact, beauty is the problem. Art shouldn’t be about beauty. Art really should be about community and about
goodness and the function of art is precisely to use the imagination to remind us that we
are all the same, the same as children of God, in his case a Christian God and a Christian
world, but the fact is that he was suspicious of individuality, although he was—in the
end of his career, although he was himself supremely an individual in the individualistic
sense and he was very suspicious of art short of some moral ethical purpose. Teaching of morality was kind of an instrument
of religion and he was very suspicious and he was in a long line of thinkers who held
art in suspicion because it separated some human beings from others. It was against the notion that we’re all
created equal. We’re all the same people. Now I happen to think the art medium is very
powerful, but requires an answer. I’m not sure they have the answer. Art has some relationship to what is good
if one thinks about that. It also has some relation to what might be
true. Art isn’t completely arbitrary because it
comes out of the human imagination and becomes something that we then need to respond to. There are things about it which seem to be
susceptible to creating a conversation among human beings that advances the cause of what
is good and what might be true. I’ll give you an example. In the performing arts the great thing about
the performing arts is that there is no object. There is no residue. A painting or a photograph or a movie can
be reproduced. It never really gets lost. Now the original might get lost, but there
are pictures of it and if you preserve it, it can last forever. So we can go to museums and look at artworks
that were made thousands of years ago. We can see things that we now consider to
be art, although they were made to be useful because art doesn’t have to be useless,
a piece of pottery, a jug, especially from the ancient world, in the Mediterranean, these
are great artworks. The transformation of the everyday with which
we started this lecture is really inherent in even the way we design what we live with. The decorative arts are among the most important
arts that we can study. What we eat off, what we sit on, what we sleep
in, those are really objects of huge creative design and imagination. So utility doesn’t disqualify a work of
art, but the important thing is that where the truth and goodness comes in is that in
the performing arts it is only there when it is performed and then in the memory of
the people who have performed and listened. So the performing arts cannot be standardized. We now live at the end of the age of recording. The great thing about the internet is that
it has destroyed high fidelity recording. People who used to buy records and listen
to them now we can listen to these records, but the MP3 file or the digital file that
we now use doesn’t sound particularly good, but it’s sufficient for us when we’re
running or we’re sitting around, but we realize when we go to a real live concert
whatever form of music it is there is a kind of visceral acoustic sensuality and we realize
something that was always true, that the work of music or the work of theater is in its
presence, seeing that actor up there, seeing how she speaks, seeing her perspire, seeing
her act and every night is different. The performance exists not on tape. It exists only in the viewer’s reading of
that performance and no two viewers’ reading of that performance is alike, therefore, the
arts have a fundamental function in redeeming the sanctity of every single human being and
since we believe that the sanctity of every single human is actually a true belief and
we think it’s the right belief that my recognition whether I’m onstage or I’m in the audience
that in this specific time and this specific place in some village, in some city, outdoors,
indoors, day or night that musical performance, that theatrical performance, that form of
performance art, that concert was a moment in time that can never be recaptured since
time moves in one direction and that it becomes a constituent element of my memory. The sense of a commonality of that human experience
is quite significant because it transcends the most ordinary experience and fear of birth
and death, the fear of hunger and the fear of pain. While we might think now that that would be
sufficient to make us feel common with other human beings the more sophisticated our society
becomes, the more literate we become, the more instruments of differentiation we accumulate
the more important things like art are to recognize our interdependence and our equality. So I would argue that an aesthetic sensibility
deepens the sanctity of life and in so far as you deepen the sanctity of life you create
some potential of resistance against violence and cruelty and against tyranny. Now that is very optimistic and very religious
of me if you will and it’s not something that I can defend entirely by evidence. A good historian would demolish my argument
by saying you know all the Nazis were music lovers, the communist elite were art lovers,
every second two-bit dictator has been some kind of art collector and even amateur artist,
but I would say to that that doesn’t disprove the possibility. It does prove that making of art is the reflection
of an exceptional amount of ambition and courage. People who are artists are more likely than
not people with more of a drive than is probably healthy. Most artists are in that sense slightly deviant. The same people are always in the audience. They are not the people who made the pictures
in the museum. They’re the people who go to the museum
and I have greater respect for the audience than I have for my fellow artists in terms
of sanity and perhaps even human kindness, but the activity itself and the recognition
that we’re capable of it has some kind of uncomfortable potential not yet realized relationship
to what we might think is both true and good. Now the 18th century philosophers were not
off the mark. Our capacity to create something that is not
useful, that is only understood by mortals, that is only within the human experience and
that is beyond the provable and everyday, that is unpredictable that is the highest
praise we can give for being human, therefore, the historical residue in all cultures in
history of that impetus and that impulse seems worthy of study and it is deeply encouraging
to our sense of our own lives to look at the works of the imagination in all their forms,
whether it be the visual, the spacial, the decorative, the useful, the auditory or even
the physical in terms of dance and movement. It would never occur to me to look at a classical
ballet or a modern dance and see how space, time and the human body can be organized in
ways which are beyond and above our experience and so looking at the history of art and art
making and then looking at what we in our time would do as artists to put ourselves
in the imagination of the artist is I think very good use of a student’s time. My recommendation for students would be not
to be passive, not to take only art history or music history or theater history or dance
history, but actually to do it. The most important thing about art is the
capacity of each human being to make it, so if you’re interested in music don’t just
study it. Do it, sing, play. If you’re interested in movement do dance
and movement. If you’re interested in the visual arts
make visual art. If you’re interested in performance art,
dot it. If you want to make movies, make movies. Take photographs, but in a more sophisticated
and more disciplined way than with your iPhone and cell phone. It is the cultivation of the ability to organize
the world in this way which will help you in other ways. The hidden secret of the arts is that they
have collateral utility, so for example, a student who learns how to abstract an image
in a drawing class, take a figure that is seated and just do the exercise. Draw that figure, but make sure the figure’s
boundaries touch all four sides of the page. A very hard assignment, but the analytical
capacity to manipulate one’s sight and one’s capacity for abstraction is hugely powerful
as a skill in life. The ability to write a canon or a song, the
ability to play an instrument, to sing, to dance, these are disciplines of body and mind
which have unexpected utility in whatever one wishes to do. It was said and I think plausibly so that
in the organization of his ideas and in the presentation of his ideas Einstein in the
early part of his career was deeply influenced by his musical sensibilities. He was a mediocre violinist, not a very good
one. The school records we have are not particularly
complimentary and he really never played very well and his tastes were very limited, but
he really loved the classical tradition, which was really Heiden, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert
and he liked really early and mid Beethoven, not the more experimental late Beethoven,
but it could be argued that his notion of beauty and elegance in scientific explanation
had a lot to do with a sense of proportion, clarity, transparency and logic that was enhanced
by his musical sensibilities. People often speak about the Mozart effect
where young children become more effective as learners because they have been trained
in music and there is some evidence that that is the case. I don’t know if it’s the case or not,
but even if it is not true it is worth selling as if it were because it doesn’t do any
harm. There is no evidence that becoming musical
damages your thinking capacity. The ability to draw and to paint, to sculpt,
to use the mediums of the film and the photograph and the computer too, all these instrumentalities
to create an imaginary world is a very important discipline and therefore, I would recommend
against just studying it as a consumer. That leads to sort of false hierarchies and
snobberies and just becoming a sophisticated consumer Is no different from being Imelda
Marcos collecting shoes and that’s not particularly noble, but I do think the making of art and
the experience of trying your hand at it is the best route to appreciating the experience
of art and the experience of music and all the forms of art and allows you also to fill
your day in moments where there is nothing useful for you to do in an activity that reminds
you how special you are and how independent you might actually be of the terrifying uniformities
which govern our lives. So I thank you for your time and patience. There are many opportunities for each of you
to study the arts, both inside the university and outside. The great thing about the arts is they are
in every city, in every town. There are things from drawing classes to dancing
classes, to music lessons you can take. Your opportunity to study the arts is not
limited to the university. However, the university has resources in it,
particularly in areas that are not so easy to access such as architecture and that I
would suggest that universities are also places where there are museums and there are tremendous
holdings in institutions in everything from theater to music and it would be a tragedy
to go through a university life without a deep engagement with the arts. It’s one of the few things in a university
that in student’s experience that has a lasting impact on the conduct of adult life
long after one graduates. So I encourage you and I thank you for your
time and for your interest.

photo editing in photoshop | double role | HD

photo editing in photoshop | double role | HD


select and copy photo feather move scale and adjust photo erase existing portions import next photo scale and adjust photo erase sxisting parts select shirt porstion using hue saturation change shirt colour finishing works after light room editing gradient please subscribe

Family Guy – Meg’s Modeling Photo Shoot

Family Guy – Meg’s Modeling Photo Shoot


Alright Meg, while we take these, we can either play “Freeze Frame” or “She Works Hard for the Money” Which would you prefer? Can we play both? Sure! [“She Works Hard for the Money” and “Freeze Frame” play] Well, that was a stupid idea.