In Cheesemonkeys, the author mainly
talks about four different formal matters, left to right, top to bottom, big
and small, in front of and in back of. Big and small, in front of and in back
of those two contents attract me most. Big and small can make people confused
with objects and people are usually surprised after they find out the result. The
bird and plane example in the article interest me and leaves more space for
readers to imagine. When we watch the seemingly bird from the whole poster,
yes, it looks like a bird; however, after we zoom in and look again, it’s a plane
or it’s not. Big and small can make people generate various opinions and ideas because
different people think differently. Also, in front of and in back of is another
intriguing part. Various options to determine locations of A and B can generate
multiple dimensions, like second, third and even fourth dimensions. If we can
reach the fourth dimensions, it can explain more situations that the third
dimensions can’t tell.
Left and right, top and bottom can
be applied in territory defense. In the article, the author points out that the
army is able to calculate which directions the enemy will invade as long as
they know the enemy will invade them in advance. “They are coming in from the
left. Always, always, always, always. ” How people know the enemy invades from
left not right? Why they are sure the enemy landing on the top not bottom? In
addition, in my opinion, left and right and determine the hierarchy or
importance just according to positions of characters on the stage. The appealing
position is supposed to be in the middle instead of left or right.
In "the heresy of zone defense", I like the description of basketball shot at the beginning of the article. How the basketball play through different players, and the amazing shot Erving made finally. Erving’s shot is vivid in my mind when I read the article and I can feel I am watching the game at that time. In addition, the example of Jackson Pollock greatly relates the basketball to the art. Basketball is intriguing game. It needs rules proposed by Naismith and coaches in basketball team, which also have relationship with education and basketball programs. “We recognize that the rules that once elevated us into joy now govern us,” I totally agree this opinion. People can watch basketball games with much joy because rules make games avoid disorder. Also, people should obey rules. They both are related and separated.
In "the heresy of zone defense", I like the description of basketball shot at the beginning of the article. How the basketball play through different players, and the amazing shot Erving made finally. Erving’s shot is vivid in my mind when I read the article and I can feel I am watching the game at that time. In addition, the example of Jackson Pollock greatly relates the basketball to the art. Basketball is intriguing game. It needs rules proposed by Naismith and coaches in basketball team, which also have relationship with education and basketball programs. “We recognize that the rules that once elevated us into joy now govern us,” I totally agree this opinion. People can watch basketball games with much joy because rules make games avoid disorder. Also, people should obey rules. They both are related and separated.
“And even though basketball is not a fine art”, I disagree this opinion. Playing basketball reflects changes of body and motional actions. A basketball game is like a visual painting in our eyes. “While fine art, which began this century as a much-beloved public spectacle, has ended up where basketball began”, fine arts still has connections with basketball and daily lives. It doesn’t disappear with the appearance of the basketball.
I don’t like the beginning of the
article. The title of the article is “Why is man smiling”, but at the beginning
of the article, it talks more unrelated topics, like infinite circles, dinosaur
research and milk thoughts. I can’t catch any ideas about face, which makes me
confused. “the character now looked too real”, actually, although the animation
technology develops better, it doesn’t bring just benefits without
disadvantages. Although animation technology can make vivid character, it is
still worthwhile to use real actors. Too developed animation technology may
bring unpleasant and unimagined oppositely outcomes.
“Our job is merely to fool the
audience. Once you believe it, we’re done”, this idea evokes my curiosity. How
could they fool the audience without 100 percent reality. I like the comparison
of face expressions between coaching an actor and the character animators make.
I also enjoy the story about the Hollywood lighting director and I like the way
the author uses this story to introduce the second method of animation. Examples
of nonhuman characters, Shrek and Stuart Little make me more familiar with
facial animation technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment