Final film

John Berger - Ways of Seeing

This whole essay about women in art is so important but I just photocopied the most relevant part for my project. This idea that a woman's identity is split into the surveyor and the surveyed is just so perfectly explained. It connects to the practice of habitual body monitoring as women are constantly seeing themselves from an outsider's perspective. This is so damaging because it makes women think that their worth is determined by others', mainly male, opinion of themselves. 

"Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another." This idea is at the very core of my project that as women we need to mend that relationship with our bodies, we are not two separate entities but inextricably connected, how we treat our bodies has a huge impact on who we are. Just because this essay makes so much sense doesn't mean that this is how it should stay, all women need to be aware of this and pull away from this. 

Women have become 'a sight' is society in which they are continually under scrutiny by men but also by other women. This patriarchal society has made an environment where women see each other as competition for men's attention and therefore can be very cruel to one another, criticising their appearance. Therefore women are manipulated into not seeing the bigger problem, and rallying together to establish the equality of the sexes. It is such a huge problem to solve because as Berger points out it is so ingrained in our culture, that is has become a part of every women's identity. 

It is interesting that John Berger also talks about women living in 'limited space' which is very similar to Lily Myers' poem 'Shrinking Women.' This focus on reducing your body mass as a woman, influences your ambitions, personality and confidence. Our society makes women feel like they do not deserve to fill up space but need to accommodate for men. This will only start to change when girls are taught to see their bodies as the apparatus to live their lives and not as something to be constantly kept in check. However this cannot just come from the parents but from society as a whole to establish equality.

Alice HJ

These illustrations have a really interesting aesthetic because their style and colour scheme is cute but actually the drawings are quite horrific. This creates a really nice contradiction to the cute pudgy female character to the horrible things that are happening to her. I think this communicates really well the inner turmoils that women feel even though on the exterior they seem happy.

This one is the most horrific, where the character is literally a boil which is being squeezed out by a manicured hand. The imagery is scary but the message is clear, how supposed flaws are eradicated but actually in doing this you are removing very important parts of your self. The small character seems scared trying to push herself back in, trying to remain. It is important that the hand is a female's and seemingly benevolent because the agents that exacerbate our body image problems are beautiful images of photoshopped women. I think Alice chooses to depict this part of the narrative because it is unclear whether she actually does squeeze the boil. This is important as it draws important connections to women pinching fatter parts of their body and not necessarily changing themselves but hating themselves. 

This illustration is equally harrowing but I think it perfectly depicts that feeling of emptiness which seems to creep in when a girl becomes an adult and aware of her body and how others look at it too. The character is shown to be pulling out her insides which again could be visualise that self destructive tendancy which women have in order to have some control over their bodies. It is interesting that the artist shows tress growing from her innards and I think this shows an element of hope. From her ruined insides, new shoots are growing which can bloom into something else. Life is a constant battle of reinvention and growth, and maybe the emptiness you feel now is just your body making space for something new. 

Dove 'beauty' patch

Prepare yourself for a startling revelation…..you are naturally beautiful. I bet you would have never worked that out without your friend, dove here pointing that out in this painfully condescending advert. Sarcasm aside (I''l try) it really is disappointing just how condescending this is. The message they are trying to communicate is that you do not realise how beautiful you are but this message gets lost with this weird concept of a beauty patch. I mean who would be stupid enough to believe that you can buy a patch that enhances beauty? The advert just clings to the stereotype of an insecure woman desperate for anything to make her more attractive. It is also a casting issue, to make this more authentic and believable they could have casted "unconventionally" beautiful women but all the actresses were pretty good looking. Again only giving screen time to one ideal of beauty, hardly body positive. Also their shock horror that the beauty patch was fake was embarrassingly forced and unbelievable. There's just this acceptance in all these adverts that all women have to  hate their bodies and that this is the status quo. These advertisers seem to think it is unbelievable that any woman can be happy with her body, which just grates with most women who are genuinely happy. We are surrounded by companies making money out of our insecurities yet appearing to be our friends like Special K, but this dove advert isn't even clever enough to mask their body shaming stereotypes of women. 

The parody version is by far better and shows the general irritation at these companies and their adverts:

hashtag true beauty

where's our nobel peace prize or whatever??

Special K - More than just a number

Television seems to be awash with adverts calling for body positivity and this is just one of them by Special K, making women feel better about jean sizes by replacing numbers with compliments in order to fit jeans. This would have been a beautiful social experiment boosting women's body positivity if if hadn't been created by the brand that has advertised using the tag line 'Drop a size in 2 weeks.'

This was a harmful campaign to women's body image insecurities and encouraged a very unhealthy weight loss programme of losing weight quickly by eating 2 bowls of cereal instead of 2 meals. However after years of playing on and making money from women feeling insecure about their bodies, they are now trying to make money about body positivity. It is this history that annoys me and I think the advert rings fake and overplayed. The women are reacting like it is some great revelation that their bodies are actually nice. Unsurprisingly none of the women in the advert could be over a size 12, but of course Special K wouldn't want to ruin the beautiful aesthetic of their advert would they? But because all the actresses are slim, it just seems so fake, of course everyone has insecurities no matter how skinny but I'm sure the result would not have been quite so empowering if a group of size 32 women had walked in. The most frustrating thing is that women are being manipulated and dictated about when they can hate their bodies and when they should like them. The tone of the advert angers me because Special K are trying to appear like they are helping women but are actually a huge part of the problem. It is annoying because the idea that you are more than a number is important and something that I have been playing with in my poetry but Special K have managed to warp this message to sell their brand. I know none of this is surprising as they are advertising a brand but we need to realise their immense power over our subconscious body image insecurities. We need to recognise that these adverts are not selling body positivity but a product which they are trying to communicate will give you the body you can be positive about.

Laura Marling - Little Love Caster

Yes I am, yes I am a master.
I had you, bad man.
Little love, little love caster
Palm of my hand.

I wish that I had, I wish that I had've told you then
Where my kindness ends.

I will take you home, I will take you home and then
Our lovespell will end

You are new to me
You are new to me
And I can't seem to say
"I'd like you to stay"

Yes I am, yes I am a master
I had you, bad man
Little love, little love caster

They might know you best, they might know you best and love you most
But I would breathe you in
I would breathe you in and be your ghost.

I saw a lady dance yesterday
She was easily swayed
I cannot be tossed and turned in this way
I'm not your tiny dancer
I can't seem to say,
"I'd like you to stay."

I saw a lady dance yesterday, 
She is easily swayed.
I cannot be tossed and turned in this way.
I'm no one's tiny dancer.

And I can't seem to say,
"I'd like you to stay."
I can't seem to say,
"I'd like you to stay."

Laura Marling is a huge inspiration to me, I wish I could be more like her. She is so sure of herself and her self worth and completely brazen in the face of men trying to take advantage. She is 'the master hunter' and 'eagle' so is no victim of our society but uses her bad experiences to learn from: 'thank you naivety for failing my again.' She is so strong willed and independent but then beautifully romantic 'how did I sleep at night with you far from my side?' Mostly I love her because she does not let herself be manipulated by men and I think it is this song which illustrates this best. 'I'm not your tiny dancer' is a declaration that she will not be pulled around by any man. It is a great metaphor because in dancing it is the men who lead the women and so she is defying that convention. In the refrain she broadens her message 'I'm no one's tiny dancer' this is just so refreshing because she is not just speaking to one spurned lover but to all men, that she will not be manipulated. By using 'I cannot be tossed' instead of 'will not' it emphasises how it is not a choice, it is impossible to do this to her, she refuses to be acted on and is adamant that she will be her own dancer. At the core of this song she is refusing to be an object and to be lead by a man. 

I thought of this song the other day when I was rewriting the line in my poem, 'plaything of the patriarchy.' I was thinking at one time of visualising this with a girl on a puppet string and that reminded me of the imagery in this song. 

yes i can quote laura marling lyrics like that

Michelle K

You know that dinner party question? If you could have anyone at a dinner party who would you invite? Well Michelle K would definitely be somewhere on the list along with Laura Marling.
She has no published book only a tumblr blog in which she posts her work, which seems to be a very cathartic experience for her and she states she has little interest in publishing her work. Her work resonates very clearly with myself at the moment but I thought this short poem is just perfect. It is her honesty with herself that creates such astounding lines that give such an impact. It is so true even Laura Marling concurs, 'every girl falling in love with the first man that she sees,' women are ready to give love to others and sacrifice parts of themselves for others but cannot accept themselves. This poem really emphasises that idea that women are brought up expected to attract men and marry but we are never taught to love ourselves. We are so ready to fall in love and be loved because we have never loved ourselves and so need to feel accepted. However somewhere in growing up you realise that you must love yourself to be happy. Placing 'myself' on it's own line just emphasises this separation of love from the self. A woman's relationship with her body is complicated in our society but it shouldn't be, we should love it and care for it. This is another of my favourites which I think we can all learn from, to treat your body like a child means that you will be kind to yourself and mend that broken relationship between you and your body.

"I treat myself like I would my daughter. I brush her hair, wash her laundry, tuck her in goodnight. Most importantly, I feed her. I do not punish her. I do not berate her, leave tears staining her face. I do not leave her alone. I know she deserves more.
I know I deserve more."

Snickers Advert *shakes head and cries*

Throughout this whole advert I was so happy, it was brilliant seeing how women were pleasantly surprised by the builders shouts:

"Do you wanna hear a flithy word? Gender Bias

I'd like to show you… The respect you deserve

I appreciate your appearance is just one aspect of who you are

You know what I'd like to see… a society in which the objectification of women makes way for gender neutral interaction, free from assumptions and expectations"

They were doing so well by playing with the usual lines that we all recognise but changing them to show the builders as being respectful. I thought the advert was trying to show that by eating snickers builders are improved to act like decent human beings because they are not hungry. But then they ended with this:

So let me get this right, men being respectful and decent is part of the problem of being hungry, once this hunger is sated, men can return to normalcy, being sexist objectifiers. With this tagline, they completely derail any positive message and support rape culture. Why would they do this? Snickers is sold to the male market but surely even this campaign would turn off men, because by buying the product after this advert, is basically admitting as a man you identify with being a sexual harasser. It completely sends out the wrong message because it does not only accept that sexual harassment is normal but actively promotes it. The advert pokes fun at sexual harassment and does not take it seriously. It is a damaging advert which propagates the idea that women are here for men's entertainment and pleasure, a myth that needs no more encouragement, already made rampant by the porn industry. This is a very disappointing advert which not only angers women but also should anger any decent men.

Elliot the Bull - Colourblind

Oh yeah wow has to be one of my favourite design companies that I have researched because of the really unique characters they create and animate from wooden bulls to wooly urban octopus. This film they created for Elliot and the Bull's music video 'Colourblind' and has a really interesting narrative. We see the birth of a small wooden bull who has the power to create; to draw trees and platforms from the ground with the flick of his wrist. He is initially surprised with his ability and after trying it out he expands his ambitions and his world grows around him. I think this is very much a story about creativity, about how when you first start out you don't know what you can achieve but through continual work you can create whole works of your imagination. You really feel like the creators of this film love this character, as they imbue him with this childish wonder and naivety, through little tilts of his head like this (shown below) when he doesn't understand something. I think this character is the personification of everybody's creative hearts that look and make new exciting things. 

However it is this sweet character's inquisitiveness that brings his doom. By touching a black square a bigger bull is created, who has the opposite power of destruction. I think it is interesting how this new character is animated because he does not seem malevolent or that he is enjoying destruction, he seems weary with his sloped shoulders and heavy slow steps. I think this reluctance is supposed to communicate the inevitability of destruction, how whatever you build, it can always be torn down. Maybe a warning to artists, that nothing is immortal, just like their creators, creations can be destroyed. With this in mind it is interesting that the creator bull looks straight into the destroyers eyes when he himself is about to be destroyed. He looks resigned to his fate, again the same inevitability of his ending before being reduced to a pile of triangles.

 I think this film discusses the conflict between creation and destruction, and their interdependence with each other. Sometimes things need to be destroyed before new ideas can bloom. Or maybe they examining how the destruction of art can be art in itself, can there be the same power of communication in destruction that there is in creation? The ending is ambiguous and unhopeful, the larger bull has nothing left to destroy and so is surrounded by a dark abyss and so looks out gloomily with his bright eyes. To me the ending suggests that destruction is not communicative or beautiful only empty, it can only lead to reducing ideas and creativity, and so everyone suffers. 

PES

I don't think any animation student's blog would be complete without looking at a PES animation, and I thought I would look at his latest creation. Unsurprisingly it is fabulously efficient in communicating it's message but in an utterly flamboyant and unexpected way. PES has created the cliched romantic hotel room with a do not disturb sign, chocolates, champagne, low lighting and the folded towels and then utterly destroys the ambience in order to show that this type of hotel is outdated. PES shows this destruction by animating the towel swans to enact their mating ritual which takes up the majority of the advert. However when they finally meet beak to beak, forming a heart with their necks they are suddenly swallowed by a huge shark. The advert is for a new citizen M hotel in Times Square who pride themselves on 'affordable luxury' and so the advert states that all these romantic frivolities are a waste of time, why float like a swan when you can leap like a shark right into the centre of New York. I think PES could also be trying to make a larger point about modern romance, because swans always mate for life so by choosing these as the animal towels I think he saying that monogamy is also a thing of the past. The blood pools that rise up are interesting as well, because they are literally staining the sheets with satin material, I think this trying to show that over the top luxury is just as much as a nuisance as stained sheets, encouraging people to make life easier for themselves and stay at their hotels.

I think this is one of his most ambitious animations so far in terms of playing with camera angles and focus. The reflection in the painting is just beautiful but really gives the animation a three dimensionality which makes it seem more realistic. The choice of painting further contextualises the swans by placing them almost in their dream world of water. I think PES is really clever because he creates these animated worlds that seem so rounded and full, he does this by thinking a lot about the integration of sound to make the movement make sense, for example he animates the bed with the sound of rippling water, we see a bed but hear a lake, so he places us in this strange dual world that is somewhere between the two. 

http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/kesselskramer-pes-swan-song

Jenny Saville

I have been a fan of Jenny Saville ever since seeing her work in the Modern Art Oxford in which her awe-inspiring canvas' were on display. While I was doing my scanning I remembered these paintings of large women lying on top of sheets of glass created. I think Saville is truly unique in how she looks at and studies the female form, she does not sexualise or criticise but truly celebrates the power of the female form. The sheer size of her canvas' makes your neck ache looking up at these huge expansive stomachs and thighs. This makes the form portrayed on the canvas extremely intimidating and embues it with a real sense of power. We are bombarded with perfect photoshopped figure which become boring in their unattainability and plasticness. In direct response, Saville's work is heavy, fleshy almost arranged like piles of meat. The directness of the poses and the size of them makes them completely unapologetic, our society shuns these women and Saville sticks her middle finger up at this and spreads their lovely folds in thick bold strokes of paint. I think she is brave, especially as it is herself pressed against the glass, but she is also giving a voice to the hidden women, women who are made to feel less feminine and attractive because they do not conform to our narrow ideals of beauty. Saville states "I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're big and disgusting, who imagine their thighs go on forever…" She is trying to visualise that self hate that we all deal with, looking at your body and pulling and pinching with disgust. I think she manages to convey this self loathing so well from the sickly colour scheme to the weight of her strokes.

Simon Schama discusses this "Jenny Saville’s monumental paintings wallow in the glory of expansiveness. Jenny Saville is a real painter’s painter. She constructs painting with the weighty heft of sculpture. Her exaggerated nudes point up, with an agonizing frankness, the disparity between the way women are perceived and the way that they feel about their bodies. One of the most striking aspects of Jenny Saville’s work is the sheer physicality of it. Jenny Saville paints skin with all the subtlety of a Swedish massage; violent, painful, bruising, bone crunching." I think this is the best comparison to her style, each stroke seems strong with purpose and meaning, which make the overall effect uncomfortable to look at because every stroke questions your own issues with body image.

Lets move to Belgium (or maybe not?!?)

Rik Torfs, rector of the University of Leuven, and Jogchum Vrielink, coordinator of the Centre for Discrimination Law at the University of Leuven, pass along a guest post — quoted below — about a new Belgian law that provides (Vrielink’s translation):


Penalization of Sexism

For the purposes of this Act, the concept of sexism will be understood to mean any gesture or act that, in the circumstances of Article 444 of the Penal Code,* is evidently intended to express contempt for a person because of his gender, or that regards them as inferior, or reduces them to their sexual dimension, and which has the effect of violating someone’s dignity.

Anyone found guilty of [such conduct] will be punished with a prison sentence of one month to one year, and a fine …, or one of these penalties alone….

* The relevant part of Article 444 Belgian Penal Code refers to the following circumstances/contexts in which the speech/conduct is required to take place:

“Either in public meetings or places;

Or in the presence of several people, in a place that is not public but accessible to a number of people who are entitled to meet or visit there;

Or in any place in the presence of the offended person and in front of witnesses;


Or through documents, printed or otherwise, illustrations or symbols that have been displayed, distributed, sold, offered for sale, or publicly exhibited;

Or finally by documents that have not been made public but which have been sent or communicated to several people.”

Vrielink reports that the law will indeed cover not just face-to-face insults, but also things said about people in print or in other forms of mass communications. Thus, I infer, it would be a crime to publish newspaper articles or blog posts that say a politician, journalist, criminal, or whoever else is inferior because of his or her gender, or intentionally show contempt for the person because of his or her gender, or “reduce them to their sexual dimension,” and which has the effect of violating someone’s dignity.

Moreover, this might apply not just to statements about particular people, but also to statements about men or women generally — e.g., that men or women are biologically (or even just as a matter of current cultural reality) inferior to the other sex in some ways — or about particular subgroups of men or women. Vrielink writes (paragraph break added):


[T]he government is now claiming that the bill does not intend to ban such abstract, impersonal expressions. However, the text is highly ambiguous in this regard, and moreover the problem is that traditionally, in Belgian criminal law, if speech is meant to be illegal only if it targets specific individuals, the legislator makes it into a type of crime that can only be prosecuted in case there is a complaint by the individual victim that was targeted (this is the case for stalking; insults; and slander, for instance). Here, the government has explicitly refused to do this (despite requests to do so by the opposition).

More importantly, what we see with similarly worded criminal provisions is that Belgian courts tend to apply these to ‘generic’ comments about entire groups as well, as long as there potentially is a ‘person’ that might feel insulted, demeaned, etc. by such speech (which, of course, will virtually always be the case), even if he or she is not at all personally targeted by that speech.

This strikes me as a very bad idea, whether limited to public commentary about a particular person or applied to cover commentary about an entire sex, as well. (One-to-one insults are a more complicated matter; I’ve argued before that certain more viewpoint-neutral restrictions on unwanted one-to-one speech should be constitutional even under American law. But this law is not at all limited to such one-to-one insults.)

In any event, here’s the Torfs & Vrielink guest post, setting forth the problem in their own words:


Belgium Bans Sexism: The Return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum

Soon, it could be a criminal matter to call someone a ‘sexist’ in Belgium. Even if someone may in fact be one. Why, you ask? Because the country’s political majority is determined to enact a new law. In what is believed to be the first legislation of its type, anywhere, the concept of sexism will be rendered punishable.

A logical side effect of making sexism illegal is that the simple act of accusingsomeone of being sexist, may amount to criminal defamation. Under Belgian law, as in many other legal systems, it is an offense to accuse someone of having committed crimes that they were not actually convicted for. Law is often a double-edged sword.

In addition to this, the bill is superfluous and it poses major risks to free speech.

Superfluous and vague

But first things first: what got the legislative ball rolling was a documentary called Femme de la Rue by (then) film student Sofie Peeters, focusing on the problem of sexual harassment in Brussels. The film, shot in part with hidden cameras, provided a shocking account of everyday sexism and sexual intimidation in the streets of the Belgian capital: continuous cat-calls and wolf-whistles, alternated with jeers of ‘whore!’ (pute), ‘slut!’ (salope) and ‘how much?!’

Peeters’ film understandably struck a sensitive chord, triggering widespread public debate. Several politicians vowed to act on the issue. The current bill should be seen against this background.

However, while no one disputes that sexist street harassment must be dealt with effectively, the existing legal means already offer the Belgian authorities the opportunity to do so. The prohibitions on insults, stalking, harassment, and public nuisance can all be employed to tackle this issue. In other words, the problem is not the legislation per se, but a failure to enforce it.

Investing in enforcement is costly though. Therefore, politicians, faced with public uproar, are more likely to seek a headlines-worthy ‘Miracle Law’, with the promise it alone can and will eradicate the problem once and for all.

Regrettably, the only thing the current bill will eradicate is free speech. Its text is drafted so vaguely that it makes the interpretative options of oracles appear limited by comparison.

The bill defines ‘sexism’ as any gesture or action “intended to express contempt” regarding someone because of their sex, or “to regard a person as inferior”, or to “reduce someone to his or her sexual dimension”. Additionally, a “violation of someone’s dignity” is required.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that this definition has “the advantage of including a range of facts that are not covered by pre-existing criminal provisions”. That is undoubtedly the case: the censoring capabilities of the proposed law are unprecedented.

Pan-sexism

To begin with, several religions will come within the crosshairs of the ban. Do many faiths not deny gender equality in the name of patriarchal authority and divine revelation?

The law also has the potential to decimate the shelves of bookstores and libraries: we are heading for a new Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Countless books could give rise to prosecution, and we need not only think of usual suspects like E.L. James and Stephenie Meyer. Virtually every romantic airport novel is essentially made up of sexist stereotypes.

And what about rappers whose lyrics routinely refer to women as ‘bitches’, and whose video-clips feature scantily clad women that are “reduced to their sexual dimension”? (Be sure, in any case, to remove Serge Gainsbourg from your party playlist before any of your friends has you reported.)

On the other side of the debate, it is important to point out that feminist action groups would be forbidden to depict men in an unfavorable, ‘reductionist’, light as well. Combined with the aforementioned fact that they will be prohibited from calling men ‘sexists’, their new motto will have to be ‘just sit there and look pretty’; backed up with the threat of criminal prosecution.

Arbitrary and discriminatory

Proponents will of course counter that it will not be as bad as this in practice, and that the bill was not designed to these ends. But that is precisely the problem: the current bill does render it possible to prosecute virtually anyone, whenever someone feels like it. Therefore, it will at the very least result in arbitrary rule and an unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty.

Matters of criminal law require legislators to define prohibitions as precisely as possible in order to both permit citizens to regulate their conduct with certainty, and to protect them from the abuse of state power. To say that the bill leaves something to be desired in this department is as much of an understatement as saying that Genghis Khan was involved in some minor mischief.

It is also striking that there is no similar protection in Belgian law for any other characteristic or ‘ism’. Even racism is not in itself punishable as a concept. Only specific manifestations of it are prohibited, such as incitement to racial hatred and violence. An identical provision already exists for sex and gender though.

As such, the new law will introduce a form of preferential protection against sexist speech only. Aside from this being discriminatory, this situation is unlikely to last for very long. No doubt, other groups will soon demand that their protection be raised to the same level.

The problem is that Belgian discrimination law covers no less than twenty criteria, effectively ruling out the ‘flight forward’ as an option. Or rather, in that case it would be much more practical if the government were simply to provide us with a short list of what we can still say to each other….

I got very excited about this when I saw this in the news and started packing but once I researched it more I was pretty disappointed. The legislation starts out well particularly with the part against reducing people to their sexual parts. In terms of sexual objectification this is great, because they are really taking it seriously about how damaging it can be to self worth. I think it is pretty great that being sexist can land you in prison in theory in Belgium. I also think it is pretty amazing that all this was bought into fruition by a documentary made by a film student because it really shows the power of visual media for bringing about change. It also shows how just like the harassment paste ups by Tatyana Fazlalizadeh, men do not like seeing the reality of sexism everyday and this is great if it inspires change. 

However the consensus of this new law is that it is too vague and ambiguous, resulting in either too little change or too much. Too little in terms that it will be hard to pin people down under it's vague terms or will greatly eradicate free speech. Only time will tell but I feel it will be something that will hit the headlines and then fade into oblivion while the politicians have paid lip service to the public outrage. This is the first law of it's kind and so it is important because it shows that sexual objectification is finally being taking seriously and being discussed more and more.  Maybe Belgium doesn't have the answer but at least they are asking the question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/21/belgium-bans-a-wide-range-of-sexist-speech/

Plumb - Caleb Wood

This is the product of Caleb Wood being asked to create an animation for Prove Gallery in Duluth, Minnesota. However instead of creating a short animated film, Caleb drew this 'stream of consciousness' animation straight on to the studio walls. I think this shows Wood's sense of humour, as an animator he gives the viewers a still image, it is the viewer that has to animate it by moving downwards. By doing this he is uniquely involving the viewer in the creation of the animation, I think he may be trying to explore the relationship between artist and viewer, without an audience to interpret the work, art would cease to have meaning. Although they share this mutual need for one another, so often is work misinterpreted, an artist will produce work impassioned with one idea but a viewer may interpret it completely differently. This contradiction in the relationship between artist and viewer is interesting and beautiful because it leads to expanding ideas and new thoughts. I think this idea communicates well through the audience being an integral part of the artistic process, it allows them to have ultimate control; they could start anywhere they liked or they could 'watch' it backwards. Including the viewers in this way also leads to more expansion of the drawn ideas and freer interpretation.

Caleb Wood describes it as a 'continuous vertical freehand digression' and the word 'digression' interests me the most. The idea that something is coming away from the original meaning, the lines and shapes morph and pull away from each other but interestingly it starts and ends with the same shape, two crossed lines. But between those two same shapes, it changes through a multitude of variations; fish, feathers, monsters, hearts, smileys, bird. The transformations seem random and are only connected by their continual falling movement. Watching the film is mesmerising but also quite disorientating because if you stare for too long you feel like your falling with the shape. This feeling makes me think of dreams where you are falling which can be scary but also feel liberating. This dreamlike feeling is further developed with the transformations, the character has this magic quality of changing forms just like in dreams where fantastical changes and impossibilities are accepted easily. When we are awake we think too realistically which sometimes stumps creative development, but in dreams nothing feels implausible. I think Wood is trying to explore this idea by showing how much variation can be created between two crosses when we trust in our innate inhibited creativity.

http://www.booooooom.com/2014/03/13/plumb-caleb-wood/

His tumblr is pretty cool too:

http://calebdwood.tumblr.com

Hikaru Cho - My Body My Rights

This work by Hikaru Cho is part of an Amnesty International Campaign called 'My Body, My Rights,' which is a really interesting campaign encouraging people to know their rights and take back control over their body. This is very coincidental that this is basically hat my project is about! The artist creates all effects using makeup and face paint and they are really incredible.

In this one the woman is cracking an egg like doll face to reveal herself underneath. I think the artist is trying to show how woman are often seen as objects, who can be passed around and are uncapable of acting themselves and like dolls, can only be acted upon. This idea can be seen in many different strengths through all societies, from extremes such as rape and forced marriages, to the other end of the spectrum of sexual objectification of the female form. All of these things are part of the same imposed social order that places women below men with less control over their bodies. As a campaign I think this image is effective as the cracked pieces are striking because they are realistic. It also works well because the doll skin colour looks creepily plastic compared to her real tone below, and this must make people think about the effect of wearing make up has on women. Everyday using a substance to cover all the parts of you that society (a male dominated society) has deemed unbeautiful. 

I think this is my favourite though as I think it reads really well as it is such a simple idea. A woman stands holding a key to the lock on her body, simply showing a woman should be the only one to control her body. The placement of the lock is important as it is over where a baby would lie in the gestation period, therefore calling for prochoice in the abortion debate. However it could be more widely interpreted that the whole of a woman's body is hers to reveal herself or not, but it is her choice. 

The right for contraception for women is another important issue, as women ultimately bear the consequences of unprotected sex and it should be her choice as to whether she has a child or not. Cho has represented this basic right by showing the pill as an integral part of her being. Contraceptives should be a natural part of every woman's life if that is her choice. The illusion of the cut is so expertly done, it really is hard to discern her arm.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/hikaru-cho-paints-models-for-amnesty-internationals-my-body-my-rights-campaign-9173594.html

Lammily - The New Barbie?

The Lammily is a new doll on the market which is based on the average body proportions of a 19 year old woman and is sold with the buy line, 'Average is Beautiful.'

Just in that one sentence there are a hundred things that annoy me. First just the name annoys me, Nickolay Lamm, Lammily is a terrible name, I know you want to single handedly change girls perceptions of beauty but it is sickening how forcibly you shoehorned your name into it's frontrunner. Next is the 'Average is Beautiful' as if there actually is an average body type, I am not even talking about weight, but even between races there is such a variety in shape and size and skin colour. THERE IS NO AVERAGE. You cannot categorise people like that, so saying that fit, tall, caucasion, white girl is average is very damaging. Lamm does plan to expand to creating Lammily's of different ethnicities but the line's idea of average further damages girls perception of beauty. The thing that annoys me the most is the video in which Lamm talks about his creation, it just irks me that another man is defining what is and what is not beautiful for women. Surely a greater use of time and money would not be making realistic dolls to fit every shape and size but teaching women and men that a woman should define her own standards of beauty. Often girls are more familiar with their barbies than with their own bodies, we are brought up waiting to be told we are beautiful, but we should grow up declaring that.

Don't get me wrong, I am pleased that there is some attempt to crush the Barbie Empire as I do think Barbie does skew a girl's perception of beauty indelibly. However at least Barbie doesn't pretend, it unashamedly defies realistic body proportions and over sexualises. 

So I don't really know how I feel about this overall, I think if any more dolls are going to be created I want it to be woman at the design helm. 

http://time.com/12786/the-new-barbie-meet-the-doll-with-an-average-womans-proportions/

https://www.lammily.com/average-is-beautiful

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/07/4873034/barbie-isnt-normal-but-neither.html

Anna Ginsburg aka my current favourite animator

This film After Moby's combination of stop motion animation and live footage is really interesting, sometimes using live footage like stop motion, reversing and cutting frames. This creates a really interesting effect where it seems nearly impossible to see where the two techniques meet and therefore what is real and what was created. The film is quite abstract showing two characters, however the film does not present them as characters of action, but explores who they are through makeup, costume and lighting. The film is about representing who they are through imagery not through scripted action. This is a really cool idea, the actors become more like illustrations, they cannot explain themselves, only the creator has the power the move and manipulate them to reveal themselves. I like this as it makes the viewer work harder and leads to more interpretation. For example one character is very much of the dark and enclosed, and the other light in every way; dressed in a billowy dress in a expansive hall. One seemingly confined, the other free, I think she is representing in the inner and outer self, both move together and interact, shown by the black lips painted in the same way and flickering between the two, but one is looking inward, the other out.

As well as animating the expanding and diminishing black paint, the girls white collar is also moved between frames. This is a brilliant idea as it makes the cloak seem like a living part of her and thus helps to further show who this character is. The white cloak, could represent her purity or that lightness of spirit shown in the delicate way she handles the butterfly in the end.

This editing is really inspiring, as she uses stop motion animation but blends it together with previous frames to make it look like layered film footage. I think this further shows that this character is hard to define and intangible. It also further blurs the lines between reality and stop motion 'magic' to create this surreal world.

I really love this sequence that is trying to represent how it feels to live with depression. The imagery is fabulous, of this brain dripping into a black pool which eventually sucks in the rest of the body. The blue is very well chosen, blue always have connotations with sadness, but this particular shade makes me think of deep space and deep sea, furthering this idea of being dragged into an abyss. The illustration around the head is really interesting as well, the blue swirls and storms but is always contained by a clean blue line. This reads really clearly that you can feel so much inside and just because it doesn't show on the outside, doesn't mean that you are not struggling with something real.

This one just makes me smile, so I thought I would share it

http://www.annaginsburg.co.uk/index.html

Bombay Bicycle Club- Carry Me Music Video directed by Ste Thompson, Drew Robinson & James Swindwells

When I started editing individual frames by hand, I remembered this music video from Bombay Bicycle Club. It is a really interesting video as it seems like stop motion with photographs as it has that beautiful flickering effect. The directors really have had fun with this method cutting and reversing frames, making the actors pull about like puppets on her string. The music video has a really professional and polished finish and I think this is due to the well thought out colour scheme, all drawn edits are in white and this stands out well and compliments the aqua background. Even though the illustrators change throughout the video there is a coherency due to this colour scheme. This is something I need to plan and think about in my film.

I love how the actors are used as components of the drawing and not separate parts, therefore the illustrations react beautifully in synchronicity with the actors. This spider web is a beautiful example of this. This video also shows how each frame does not have to be very intricate, most of the illustrations are very simple but it is how they move which give them the incredible effect.

It may sound obvious but this music video is very responsive to the music, the drums are a big part of this song and this is emphasised by the much more liberated mark making in these frames. 

This part is one of my favourite parts and is expertly cut, these almost touching hands flash on screen alternatively on each frame. They are so close yet are on completely separate frames, it is a wonderful example of how by playing with frame rate you can bring together disparate elements and create a connection, as if bringing two actors together who are in different worlds. 

Something I am really interested in is reducing forms down to the simplest of lines and therefore adore this still. The lines are so elegant and move so beautifully, I would argue you could remove the actors from beneath, I think their shadows detract from the character of the lines.

This still is fabulous because it looks like the illustration is casting light on the actress. It is almost like Gustav Klimt has drawn a moon around her head, but it also looks like a halo. I really love how animator has drawn all these contexts together meaning his illustrations around her head reveres her and presents her as something special. This just shows the importance of good storyboarding, obviously before filming the directors had a very clear idea about the frames and their illustrations.

The variety of the illustrators really adds to the character of the film, it is captivating how it moves from extensive free illustration to the most delicate enclosing line. I think this frame is beautiful, the man in an almost foetal position and this light plant like line grows and over him as if forming a little cave. It is a very intimate moment which is further contributed to by the spotlight creating dark edges of the frame, therefore the man is not only enclosed by the stem but also the light. It is really conjures up this feeling of safety and tranquility.

I am coming to the conclusion that this is one of the creations that I wish I had created. These simple lines stemming from his fingers around her body just illustrate the ideas of support and encompassing love so simply. It is a dramatic still but it is made more intimate by these lines which do not detract from the artistry of the pose, but compliment.

Why use this 9 window screen effect? What does it achieve? I think it exaggerates the flickering effect of stop motion, the actor flashes like a strobe light and becomes a visual effect. I think it is a really interesting idea manipulating the imagery of an actor into a pattern or animated sequence like you would a piece of clay, and removing the focus from the person.

This illustration is really effective as well, the lines radiating from her fingers visualising that feeling a connection spreading and seeping into him. The illustrations form this great connection between the anatomy of a human and the intangible emotions by visualising both together.

You can actually 'animate' the video yourself, by dragging left or right you can move the actors in different directions : http://www.carryme.tv

This is a really good marketing idea to get people involved in the video and it is something that I have not seen before. 

Beyonce the Feminist?

With the release of Beyonce's new album featuring samples of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED talk on Feminism, Beyonce was hailed as an empowered feminist of the music industry. But is this actually true? Can you be a feminist but still wear hot pants on stage? Has motherhood influenced this change?

I believe that you can be a feminist and still wear sexually provocative clothes, but it must be about empowering herself as a sexual being and not becoming a sexy object. This is a very difficult line to tread which I think Beyonce tight rope walks very well most the time. It is the media which blur this distinction often reducing her to her outfit and body by describing her as sexy and focusing their coverage on her appearance not her talent. But just because this is the state of things does not mean that Beyonce should cover up, I think encouraging women to cover up to stop sexual objectification is just as damaging. We need to change this social order not bend to survive in it.

 The Telegraph suggested that it was Beyonce's new role as a mother that has bought out this new found feminism in her. Indeed if I had a daughter I would be terrified about the damaging effects of this society and what it could develop into in 20 years. I think this is an interesting idea that now sexual objectification becomes personal because it is not just herself she needs to protect. I think this makes people think about what sort of society they would want their daughters to grow up into. How would they want their daughters treated? 

However whether Beyonce is a feminist is still undecided to me. This is Flawless:

I'm bout that H, town coming coming down

I'm coming down, drippin' candy on the ground

H, H, Town, Town, I'm coming down

Coming, coming down, dripping candy on the ground

[Verse 1: Beyonce]

I know when you were little girls

You dreamt of being in my world

Don't forget it, don't forget it

Respect that, bow down bitches (Crown!)

I took some time to live my life

But don't think I'm just his little wife

Don't get it twisted, get it twisted

This my shit, bow down bitches

Bow down bitches, bow bow down bitches (Crown)

Bow down bitches, bow bow down bitches (Crown)

H Town bishes

H, H Town vicious

I'm so crown crown, bow down bitches

I'm out that H, town, coming coming down

I'm coming down, drippin' candy on the ground

H, H town town

I'm coming down

Coming, coming down

Drippin' candy on the ground

[Verse 2: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie]

We teach girls to shrink themselves

To make themselves smaller

We say to girls

"You can have ambition

But not too much

You should aim to be successful

But not too successful

Otherwise you will threaten the man"

Because I am female

I am expected to aspire to marriage

I am expected to make my life choices

Always keeping in mind that

Marriage is the most important

Now marriage can be a source of

Joy and love and mutual support

But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage

And we don't teach boys the same?

We raise girls to each other as competitors

Not for jobs or for accomplishments

Which I think can be a good thing

But for the attention of men

We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings

In the way that boys are

Feminist: the person who believes in the social

Political, and economic equality of the sexes

[Verse 3: Beyonce]

You wake up, flawless

Post up, flawless

Ride round in it, flawless

Flossin on that, flawless

This diamond, flawless

My diamond, flawless

This rock, flawless

My rock, flawless

I woke up like this

I woke up like this

We flawless, ladies tell 'em

I woke up like this

I woke up like this

We flawless, ladies tell 'em

Say I, look so good tonight

God damn, God damn

Say I, look so good tonight

God damn, God damn, God damn

Momma taught me good home training

My Daddy taught me how to love my haters

My sister taught me I should speak my mind

My man made me feel so God damn fine

[Verse 4: Beyonce]

You wake up, flawless

Post up, flawless

Ride round in it, flawless

Flossin on that, flawless

This diamond, flawless

My diamond, flawless

This rock, flawless

My rock, flawless

I woke up like this

I woke up like this

We flawless, ladies tell 'em

I woke up like this

I woke up like this

We flawless, ladies tell 'em

Say I, look so good tonight

God damn, God damn

Say I, look so good tonight

God damn, God damn, God damn

I'm Flawless

From these lyrics I'm a bit dubious, 'bow down bitches' grates quite a bit. Are we supposed to be bowing down to her or to the patriarchy? I'm not quite sure, regardless surely an 'empowering feminist lyric' should be more about 'standing up bitches.' Bitch is a word that I find quite problematic too, there is the argument that by using it she is taking control and redefining it but I argue that it is a derogatory term that is too widespread already, I believe it is beyond redefining. If Beyonce is using it to refer to women, then surely it makes it alright for men to use it against us still? This idea that you are always flawless and perfect is good for body positivity but as this is the main argument for female empowerment it offends as she is furthering the idea that a woman's appearance is paramount. Overall I am not convinced that Beyonce should be celebrated as a feminist because as much as I love her, she still furthers the social order of female objectification.

http://www.thenewagenda.net/2013/02/20/hyper-sexualizing-women-leads-to-self-objectification-more-destructive-and-prevalent-than-society-admits/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10520025/Beyonce-the-feminist-how-motherhood-made-the-pop-queen-come-out.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ellie-slee/beyonce-feminist-drunk-in-love-lyrics_b_4676557.html