1. According to O'Reilly (page 6), style is something that comes out of a project - a "byproduct of one's ideals" rather than an ingredient that goes into it. He explains that style is something we do unconsciously. It is something that seems "natural and obvious" to the artist rather than being something that creates an identity or causes one's work to stand out. O'Reilly denotes this 'misconception' as surface style. As he further analyzes surface style, he seems to convey negativity towards it as if he discourages its use saying; those who use surface style are obsessed with their own industry and are set on keeping their style from being ripped off. He claims originality is not achieved by surface style, instead, it has to work "from the ground up." Yet he specifically uses aliased pixels, flat mixed with normal perspective, and animation in twos, etc...these all seem to be aesthetics that would make his work stand out. Or maybe they just appeared natural to O'Reilly. Would this be considered style, surface style, or both? With O'Reilly's vague interpretation of style, it is hard for me to understand exactly what it is. Without a clear definition, how does one connect style to originality? What is originality and how is it achieved "from the ground up?"
2. In creating believability in animation, O'Reilly examines the rules governing the sense of reality. "Reality can be anything you want it to be. " In fact, it doesn't have to be realistic at all. But it must be consistent in order to work, just as a "lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." If something in a world seems out of place, the believability disappears - it feels wrong. Have you seen a movie where something felt out of place? If you took a look at O'Reilly's short film, Please Say Something, was there anything you saw that didn't quite make sense aesthetically? When you come across this problem in your own work, how do you go about fixing it?
No comments:
Post a Comment