With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

**********************************************************************

Hello, Gang!  Once again, I'd like to share some of my musings, previously posted over on facebook.  Please feel free to express your opinions and thoughts.

- With Spielberg's "THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN," it would seem that they've finally cracked the code with digitally-animated human characters. These CG creations no longer appear like creepy computerized cadavers, which has been true in previous efforts ("FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN," "THE POLAR EXPRESS," etc.). Tintin and company look amazingly real. Yes, it is impressive to the level of astonishment.  But...

It becomes a question of why?  What's the point of getting so realistic in what is essentially a cartoon?  I think there are diminishing returns, since there are so many more things a storyteller can get away with in a cartoonish cartoon than can be done in a realistic one. There is a greater suspension of disbelief extended by the audience.  There are scenes in TINTIN that do not play nearly as well as they might have if they were whimsically cartoony, and this inevitably limits the experience.  Once the audience becomes inured, once the spectacle no longer amazes, then all that is left is the story and the characters, which had better be engaging.  With this extreme realism, it's really an achievement that inevitably amounts, at its base, to a stunt. "Look what we can do now with computers!!!"   Great, but-- what else ya got?

TANGENT ALERT!!!
- I feel that this same principle applies to illustration.  Sure, lots of folks are greatly impressed by the pencil drawing that fools them into believing the image must actually be a photograph.  On the face of it, it is indeed a marvel.  But while it's certainly a marvel of craftsmanship, I can't help feeling that it is lacking in true creativity.  Unless the illustration is done from a sitting model, a genuine drawing from life, all the clever craft of the illustrator involves the meticulous copying of all the values, tones, composition, and texture of what has already been solved by a camera.  Really, what is the point?  It's little more than a stunt.  Hey!  Look how closely I can copy a photograph!  

Long ago, when artists sketched or painted a person's portrait, the realistic aspect of these was better appreciated, and that appreciation was better justified.  And even then, if the artist managed to introduce something abstract, an impression all his/her own, the portrait was equally spectacular, if not moreso.  But once the camera was invented, this sort of realistic portraiture became obsolete, and redundant without some unique element added by the artist.  Great illustrators like Norman Rockwell used the camera as a device of expediency (much like the computer is used today).  However, the photos Rockwell took served primarily as a guide, and he invariably plussed the poses and expressions of his models as he progressed to the painting stage.

Anyway...  I don't intend for this observation to be a diatribe against any fellow Deviants here.  I've seen some fantastic talent, and some phenomenal skill.  I've experimented with ultra-realistic portraiture myself.  But in my days as a STAR TREK cover artist for comics, I often felt lousy if I didn't manage to bring something more to the illustration than what was culled from photographic reference.  And even then, I wasn't translating the photo reference as a direct "note-for-note" simulation since it was hard line art.   And yet, all of my experience lends some validity.  I know whereof I speak.  Hahaha!  I just think that the truest creativity is achieved when an artist imbues the work with a greater part of him or herself than that which is supplied to the art by a device (whether this device is a camera, or a computer).  But that's just me.

By the way, "THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN" was a lackluster film in the end, despite the digital magic.  Lesson?  Story, and character! Story, and character!  Story, and character!

_________________________________________________________________________

- "PROMETHEUS."  I really hope it turns out to be an awesome movie experience. So much anticipation. Great to have Ridley back in sci-fi. One minor irritation based on the trailers is the typical capitulation found in most prequels: They fear to commit to the design and the tech. If a new story is supposed to predate the old, then design things so that the events and era of the prequel do not appear more advanced than that of the other film. Filmmakers and marketing execs always cop out on this, as if they are afraid to risk an audience's approval over a story's logistical integrity.

While I understand their strategy, I'd still prefer a prequel that actually LOOKS like a prequel, for a change.  I mean, since the invention of "prequels," have we really ever had one that convincingly looked as if IT was the film that came before?  Same with prequel television series ("ENTERPRISE").

I love the use of the classic Giger designs in "PROMETHEUS."  And I love how it seems they've expounded on the machinery in the Derelict spacecraft.  I got chills from the glimpse of the "Space Jockey" rising up out of the deck.    

I hope it's a good movie!!!

Cheers!   And, stay creative, my friends!