Masstransiscope

While doing some research about the zoetrope, looking for sources of inspiration for my capstone idea, I came across this neat little piece by Bill Brand, dubbed the Masstransiscope. Made in Brooklyn, New York in September 1980, Brand used the same principles behind the zoetrope to create a 228-frame animation that is viewable only by passengers riding past it while on the subway. I recommend taking a look at the website for yourself.

I found the piece very clever, and got me thinking about how else an animation can be presented. Could there be another way for me to publicly display an animation using the zoetrope (or other analog optical toy) as the basis of it? I don't have access to a subway system, or anything resembling one, in the middle of Maine, so what other alternatives might be available for me? Vehicles would be too dangerous, as distracting the drivers is always a bad idea--I would not like to be responsible for causing a dozen accidents on the highway.

I suppose I don't have much else to say, except that it's just more ideas for me to ponder over.

Where I currently stand...

I guess now is as good of a time as any to upload images of my claracter for the 3-d animation I'm working on. He is loosely modeled after Indiana Jones. Loosely. It is a slow process, and I estimate that I've spent around 100 hours working on him (much of that time was spent researching, as I am still learning the ins and outs of Maya). There is still quite a bit more work that he needs... the biggest one being that I need to finish up his rigging (that's why his full-body pose is like that). I've got his skeleton set up, and it's attached to the skin, but now I need to go back through and paint his skin weights for each of his joints so that they move properly. If you're wondering what the heck that means, go ahead and look it up somewhere... just thinking about it gives me nightmares.

Thankfully, I've finished setting up his facial animation, so at least that part is all set. The last five renders are just me playing around with his face. Don't laugh too much. (I apparently also forgot to smooth out his teeth before rendering, so they look very square. They look much better after being smoothed out. Trust me). The last image was inspired by capstone.

Critique on my character so far? Like it? Hate it? Want to give me money?

Animation brainstorming, again.

So I've been thinking some more about what I could do with my animation for a capstone project. Okay, actually I've been thinking a lot about it. My brain is thoroughly stormed. Anyways, I have been thinking about doing my animation normally, without any thrills, chills, and spills of new media thrown into the fray, but instead considering how it could be presented, new media-style.

My current idea involves using a zoetrope to view and/or manipulate the finished 3-d animation. For those of you who don't know what a zoetrope is (and are too lazy to click on the link I gave), it's essentially a wheel that contains about a dozen or so slits cut out of it, and inside this wheel is a series of images (usually on a strip of paper), and spinning the wheel while looking through the slits creates an animation out of the series of images. Yeah, you're probably familiar with those things, but just never realized they had a name. Invented in the early 1800s, they were the predecessors of modern film. They have many drawbacks, however, one of the largest being that the animation seen is limited to about 1 seconds long, and can only loop the images. So it might be more appropriate to think of it as the predecessor of annoying animated .gifs instead.

Anyways, back to my project. I actually have two different manifestations of generally the same idea in my head right now--one being the "easy" way, and one being the "harder, but of course better" way. I'll explain the better way in this post. I'm thinking about setting up the zoetrope so that a projection of my animation can only be viewed while looking through the zoetrope. The viewer would need to spin the zoetrope in order for the animation to play (the faster you spin the wheel, the faster the animation--and sound accompanying it--is played), and since it's being projected into the zoetrope, and is not on a strip of paper, the animation can be played through in its entirety, regardless of length. It'll be hard because, well, I don't know how I would do it. Would it even be possible, or practical, to have the animation projected into the zoetrope?

I may as well mention the "easy" way too. It's essentially identical to the above approach, except instead of it being viewed inside the zoetrope, it would probably just be viewed on a regular monitor. The viewer would still have the ability to spin the wheel, manipulating the speed of playback. The downfall with this idea, for me, is that it lacks the punch that would be achieved if the viewer had to look at it through the zoetrope. It is essentially one of the earliest forms of animation meeting one of the newest forms, all in one piece. Old collides with new. Wham! Did you feel that punch? I sure did.

I would love to hear feedback about this idea. In the meantime, I'll continue storming my brain, or braining my storm, or whatever.

Henry Jenkins' New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Henry Jenkins' "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"? For this entry, describe the principle that your project fits best and the one it fits worst. How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Jenkins' definition, and why?

Like Manovich's definition, Jenkins' definition of New Media features multiple different principles. However, none of Jenkins' principles are the same as Manovich's. Oh, and there are eight of them this time--to qualify as "new media", it must be: innovative, convergent, everyday, appropriative, networked, global, generational, and unequal. Out of the three New Media big-wigs, Jenkins does the best at tearing apart at my animation idea, so I suppose I'll start with the principle that fits the worst with my idea. I believe "generational" might be the worst, but I think the principle itself is an odd term--yes, I do realize that cultural norms have been changing so fast that our parents are vastly culturally different from us, and new media is partially to blame for it, but that doesn't seem to describe new media itself as much as new media's consequences, so it might be best for me to ignore that term and pick a different one to call my worst: innovative. I'm not sure if creation of a storyline for an animation by the masses (as opposed from one or two individuals) is innovative or not, but I know that a 3-D animation itself isn't. There have been 3-D animations being made for a few decades now, and even though artists are getting better working with this new method, it's mostly not "new" nowadays. My best of Jenkins' principles is "networked", which the premise of the storyline creation process relies on; the network allows anybody from anywhere in the world to assist in creating the story.

Do I agree with Jenkins' definition? Again, as it turns out, the answer is yes and no. Mostly no. I've already mentioned earlier how I felt that "generational" doesn't exactly belong in the definition as I see it. But ignoring that, I also don't agree too much with innovative, as I don't believe that something needs to be totally unique for it to fall under new media. To me, new media is an art. Innovation does occur in art from time to time (take Jackson Pollock's style of art, for instance), but it's far from required for the piece to be successful. Most of the other principles I do agree with on varying levels, but I feel like Jenkins' article isn't trying to define the term New Media so much as it's trying to define the effects of New Media on our culture (which fits better with the title of the article, Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape). I am curious if anyone else felt this way about this article, or if I am just being naive.

Lev Manovich's New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Lev Manovich's "What Is New Media?" For this entry, describe the principle that your project fits best and the one it fits worst. How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Manovich's definition, and why?

Manovich's definition, even more so than Crosbie's, favors a 3-D computer-generated animation as New Media. In fact, the hardest part about Part A of this assignment might be finding which principle fits the worst, as they all fit to some degree. Manovich defined New Media as following five principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. For a computer animation, I believe the strongest principle it fits under is numerical representation--essentially, that a new media object can be defined mathematically, and that the object is subject to algorithmic manipulation. On a computer, 3-D shapes are created through highly complex mathematical formulas (usually in the form of polygons or NURBS), and animating said shapes requires hefty formula manipulation. The 3-D modeling and animation program Maya handles all these formulas internally, so the artist doesn't require a masters degree in mathematics in order to create a sphere, but the math is still present. Even after the animation is finished, mathematics are present in simply being able to watch the finished product (whether on a computer or with the aid of a DVD player). So which principle does this fit the worst? This is a tough one, but I think "automation" barely wins the title. Automation deals mostly with artificial intelligence and letting the computer automatically generate objects. The animation relies heavily on automatically generating objects (I can create a perfect sphere simply by pressing one button, instead of trying to carefully shape polygons and vertices by hand), but artificial intelligence, even though surprisingly present, plays a relatively small role in comparison.

So, Part B. Do I agree with this definition? Again, like Crosbie's definition, yes and no. Manovich's definition restricts some aspects that I feel qualify as "new media" too much, while at the same time opening it up too wide for objects I don't believe are "new media". Using his definition as a framework, I can explain how a normal .jpeg image is new media--not as easily as I could explain an animation, however, but many of the basics are present: it comprises of mathematical formulas, is structured (different pixels making up one image), can be created and altered automatically (such as with filters in Photoshop), can exist in many versions, and is machine-readable. I could explain it further if I felt like it, but I am pressed for time. So if a simple .jpeg image can easily fit into Manovich's definition, then a series of multiple .jpeg images being rapidly played in succession (ie., a film or animation) also fits the bill.

Vin Crosbie's New Media Definition

I'm going to try to develop my animation idea further by reading how three of the big heads of New Media define the term "New Media" (of course, it's different for each of them). Hopefully after I've read each of their definitions and have compared what they wrote to what I've been thinking about doing, I might be able to add to my idea (or come up with something better). My first post is in regards to Vin Crosbie's definition.

a. How does your capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Vin Crosbie's "What Is New Media?" How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Crosbie's definition, and why?

Vin Crosbie described the three communications media as "one-to-one" (Interpersonal Media), "one-to-many" (Mass Media), and "many-to-many". The last one is the newest, therefore "New Media". It's pretty difficult for me to measure up how a 3-D computer-generated animation fits Crosbie's proposed definition, as he thoroughly pointed out that there is a clear distinction between "medium" and "vehicle" (ie., the world wide web is not a medium, but a vehicle used in conjunction to the medium). There is only one "new medium", in terms of communications media, and everything else that manifests within it is simply a vehicle. The personalized website is a vehicle, and so are computer games. If those two are considered by Crosbie to fall under "new media", then an animation that has been created using the computer also fits the bill. In fact, not much altering would be required in order to make my project fit his definition better; I could place my finished animation online (perhaps on a personalized website?), and include a "Play" button at the start so that the viewer had control over when the animation begins to play, and already it's chock full o' New Media.

Now for part B of the assignment, I have to say I only partially agree with his definition. Many of his examples do fit my opinion about "new media", but I also think that new media is not solely confined to technology. Granted, his article was written in 1998--almost a decade ago--and many things have changed since then, so I can't hold it against the man. One thing that I felt needed more elaboration in his article was one of his examples: "Some computer games, such as Myst, are New Medium vehicles". What qualifies "some" computer games as New Medium vehicles, and others not? And his example doesn't clarify it any--what makes Myst any more "new media" than, say, Zork? The only major difference in gameplay is Myst uses sounds and images instead of text (The original Zork was released in 1979, compared to Myst's 1993--fourteen years later--so the gameplay itself isn't exactly "new"). Perhaps if Crosbie gave us an example of a computer game that was not new media, including an explanation for his choice, then perhaps I could better agree with his definition.

Clustering #3

Clustering #2

. Anyone who comes to the website can alter the sand box in any way, and it'll affect the appearance of the sand box on everyone's browser. Billy can write his name in the sand, and Susie can watch the sand being altered on her own computer from the other side of the continent. Some things you could do in the sandbox would be:

• Writing or drawing in it;
• Building sand castles and moats;
• Digging up items, and burying other items;
• Destroying other people's sand creations;
• Fill in your own idea here

Sadly, I would not know how to allow you to throw actual sand at people's eyes over the internet. If I did, I would probably be a millionaire.

Clustering #1

• What if, instead of only a few select people, everyone was given admin rights? Anyone who joined the "game" would have the ability to create, modify, and destroy anything--rooms, monsters, items, gold, even other players (in the case of "destroy"). Would chaos rule the game world, led by those who simply thrive in the sheer destruction of other players and/or their precious creations, or would order miraculously unfold (perhaps out of sheer fear that, if you delete someone's account or creations, that they might retaliate against you and your work). Or would something unexpected happen? From my perspective (being the creator), would it be wise if I limited the admin powers so that they couldn't destroy others' accounts, or let there be no boundaries except those imposed by the players themselves? More importantly, how would I set up the system so that people can even edit this game world? I guess I'll ignore the technical questions for now, and just stick with conceptual.
• Most MUDs that are out there basically feature a world where you can collect currency and items, and allow you to fight other players or NPCs (non-player characters). The themes may differ vastly between them (fantasy, sci-fi, modern... there are even some rated-X adult-oriented ones as well, but I will not discuss those), but the overall structure is mostly the same. What other possibilities could be explored? How about a game that is based on not killing, but perhaps making peace? How would such a game work? Or what about a game where the roles are reversed--you play as a "monster", having to fight off those annoying "player characters" who keep invading your home and killing you and your friends just so they can loot your treasure?

I would love to hear your opinion on any of these ideas. In the meantime, I'll continue brainstorming other potential capstone ideas. Oh, and that cluster chart I mentioned earlier is right below. I used bubbl.us to create it. Quite a nice and fun little tool, if I do say so myself.