www.karimrashid.com
Above is a source for part of Karim Rashid's "Karimanifesto". He lists 10 points, part of a creative manifesto, by which he lives his professional life.
Never say: "I could have done that" because you didn't
This is the point that stands out the most to me. There is never any use in dwelling on failures, or on other people's successes. If someone got to a great idea before you, accept it and move on. Perhaps even use it as motivation to focus your energy more precisely next time.
It's hard for me to draw many substantial correlations between Karim's manifesto and his creative work, because of how abstract most of it is. He seems to focus on mixing form and function into workable, sellable products, which I can admire. Certainly his spirituality informs his art, as does all of ours. Whether or not you place much emphasis on spiritual pursuits, one's spirituality (or lack thereof) is an important part of one's life. To completely separate your creativity from your spirituality would take a conscious effort, one that Karim obviously doesn't bother with.
To conclude my blog, I present my own creative manifesto of 10 points. Thanks for reading.
1 - Focus on now, not later
2 - Embrace your strengths
3 - Embrace your weaknesses
4 - Don't be afraid to give control to someone else
5 - Think about yourself first and your audience second
6 - Create things you would want to buy for yourself
7 - Think outside of your industry's accepted boundaries
8 - Connecting with other people is the most valuable thing you can do. Do all that you can to be a "people person"
9 - Love money, but don't be obsessed with it
10 - Need success, but don't be obsessed with it
Friday, March 11, 2011
Freak Factor
http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/45.02.FreakFactor
Above is a link to David Rendall's "Freak Factor". It's an article arguing that our weaknesses, rather than being "fixed", should be embraced and seen as a natural compliment to our strengths. David makes several good points in the article, and I'd like to go into more detail with three of them.
2. What's My Problem?
Here, Mr. Rendall lists several of his own perceived weaknesses. It's a long list, and it serves to set up the next section, where he describes how he became successful in spite of his weaknesses. The key, according to him, isn't to overcome weakness, but to discover that his apparent flaws were simply clues to his strengths. For example, his profession as a professor allows him to harness his hyperactivity and his need for attention, both of which are his main "weaknesses". I agree that trying too hard to "fix" weakness can be unfulfilling and, more often than not, boring. There's a reason it's our weakness. We're naturally inclined to avoid it.
I think I often focus too much on fixing things that don't really need to be fixed. For example, I've often tried through brute force repetition to learn the art of drawing realistically. I just can't. I've tried, and I've made progress, but I've never really enjoyed doing it. I think perhaps I like the idea of being able to draw well more that the skill itself. What I do enjoy drawing are abstract figures, characters with more style than realism. It's a way to avoid realism, and I enjoy it more too.
4. Forget it. Don't Try to Fix Your Weakness
Doing things we're weak at is painful. It stinks. People who aren't good at math don't like doing math. So why bother doing them? There's a perceived need for all of our flaws to be "fixed" but, as David argues, perhaps that isn't the case at all. He argues trying to fix weaknesses is painful, slow, distracting, and it doesn't work. There are plenty of opportunities out there that will harness the full power of your strengths while simultaneously avoiding your weaknesses. We all have limitations, but so what? It may be easier to collaborate with others whose strengths compliment yours than to try and learn everything yourself.
I think the collaboration point is a very good one. There are countless people out there who need your skills, and whose skills you need too. Being able to collaborate and work well with others is an indispensable skill for creative types., and really, it saves you from doing a lot of boring and painful work. Things you might despise doing may very well be someone else's forte, and vice versa. Use this to your advantage.
6. Focus: You Can't do Both
This is, I think, the most important point in the entire article. Multitasking certainly has a place in the creative process, but you can't and shouldn't try to simultaneously fix your weaknesses and improve your strengths. It spreads your creative output thin and limits your potential. Ditch the "fixing weaknesses" part entirely, and just focus on what you do well. It'll make you happier, increase your output, and give you more to work with. David uses KMart's demise as an example of a company trying to do both (low prices AND higher quality merchandise) and failing. Because they weren't the best at anything, KMart lost it's customers and went bankrupt.
Focusing on strengths is something I could do much better. I think I try too often to improve my areas of relative weakness, when I should be focusing on my strengths.
Above is a link to David Rendall's "Freak Factor". It's an article arguing that our weaknesses, rather than being "fixed", should be embraced and seen as a natural compliment to our strengths. David makes several good points in the article, and I'd like to go into more detail with three of them.
2. What's My Problem?
Here, Mr. Rendall lists several of his own perceived weaknesses. It's a long list, and it serves to set up the next section, where he describes how he became successful in spite of his weaknesses. The key, according to him, isn't to overcome weakness, but to discover that his apparent flaws were simply clues to his strengths. For example, his profession as a professor allows him to harness his hyperactivity and his need for attention, both of which are his main "weaknesses". I agree that trying too hard to "fix" weakness can be unfulfilling and, more often than not, boring. There's a reason it's our weakness. We're naturally inclined to avoid it.
I think I often focus too much on fixing things that don't really need to be fixed. For example, I've often tried through brute force repetition to learn the art of drawing realistically. I just can't. I've tried, and I've made progress, but I've never really enjoyed doing it. I think perhaps I like the idea of being able to draw well more that the skill itself. What I do enjoy drawing are abstract figures, characters with more style than realism. It's a way to avoid realism, and I enjoy it more too.
4. Forget it. Don't Try to Fix Your Weakness
Doing things we're weak at is painful. It stinks. People who aren't good at math don't like doing math. So why bother doing them? There's a perceived need for all of our flaws to be "fixed" but, as David argues, perhaps that isn't the case at all. He argues trying to fix weaknesses is painful, slow, distracting, and it doesn't work. There are plenty of opportunities out there that will harness the full power of your strengths while simultaneously avoiding your weaknesses. We all have limitations, but so what? It may be easier to collaborate with others whose strengths compliment yours than to try and learn everything yourself.
I think the collaboration point is a very good one. There are countless people out there who need your skills, and whose skills you need too. Being able to collaborate and work well with others is an indispensable skill for creative types., and really, it saves you from doing a lot of boring and painful work. Things you might despise doing may very well be someone else's forte, and vice versa. Use this to your advantage.
6. Focus: You Can't do Both
This is, I think, the most important point in the entire article. Multitasking certainly has a place in the creative process, but you can't and shouldn't try to simultaneously fix your weaknesses and improve your strengths. It spreads your creative output thin and limits your potential. Ditch the "fixing weaknesses" part entirely, and just focus on what you do well. It'll make you happier, increase your output, and give you more to work with. David uses KMart's demise as an example of a company trying to do both (low prices AND higher quality merchandise) and failing. Because they weren't the best at anything, KMart lost it's customers and went bankrupt.
Focusing on strengths is something I could do much better. I think I try too often to improve my areas of relative weakness, when I should be focusing on my strengths.
Reflection on Gaming Presentation
Our gaming presentation went pretty well I think, but of course, not everything we wanted to convey could be done in our limited lab time.
1) The control mechanism wasn't really explained in enough detail for the audience to understand it completely. Because the controls are such an integral part to this game, that's a problem. Basically, the game uses the actual movements of the player to decide how the on-screen character will move. If the player crouches, their character will crouch. If the player jumps, their character will jump. If the player mimics throwing a grenade, their character will throw a grenade. Running is the only major action not represented in this way; obviously, it would be impossible for a player to run any substantial distance in front of their television, so the running is handled via a joystick on the controller.
2) The importance of realism couldn't be stressed enough during the presentation. Everything, from the controls to the graphics to the heads-up display, are centered around realism. The controller you hold is shaped like a real gun. You control the character through real-life actions. The graphics are photorealistic. The entire game is designed for you to feel like you are in an actual warzone. Guided perception elements are highlighted through realistic dialogue or natural lighting, as opposed to artificial arrows or sounds.
I think goals are the hardest concept to get across in a short presentation. The goals of a game - what a player must accomplish in order to "win" - aren't always explicit. Many times, what a player must do is hidden within the subtext of a game. Explaining such a goal would either be tedious and longwinded, or it would spoil a special moment of the game that the player should experience for themselves. Explaining goals as an outside entity often ruins the "magic" of what makes a good game special.
1) The control mechanism wasn't really explained in enough detail for the audience to understand it completely. Because the controls are such an integral part to this game, that's a problem. Basically, the game uses the actual movements of the player to decide how the on-screen character will move. If the player crouches, their character will crouch. If the player jumps, their character will jump. If the player mimics throwing a grenade, their character will throw a grenade. Running is the only major action not represented in this way; obviously, it would be impossible for a player to run any substantial distance in front of their television, so the running is handled via a joystick on the controller.
2) The importance of realism couldn't be stressed enough during the presentation. Everything, from the controls to the graphics to the heads-up display, are centered around realism. The controller you hold is shaped like a real gun. You control the character through real-life actions. The graphics are photorealistic. The entire game is designed for you to feel like you are in an actual warzone. Guided perception elements are highlighted through realistic dialogue or natural lighting, as opposed to artificial arrows or sounds.
I think goals are the hardest concept to get across in a short presentation. The goals of a game - what a player must accomplish in order to "win" - aren't always explicit. Many times, what a player must do is hidden within the subtext of a game. Explaining such a goal would either be tedious and longwinded, or it would spoil a special moment of the game that the player should experience for themselves. Explaining goals as an outside entity often ruins the "magic" of what makes a good game special.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Hero/Villan Assignment
Our hero, Minute Man:
Schoolteacher by day, private-eye by night, Minute Man is an ex-business partner of the two villains. He is concerned about Hi-Hat's custom hallucinogen, "Swank", and the effect it is having on his student's health (Hi-Hat is poisoning the student's milk supply, so as to get them addicted at a young age). Minute Man is a brilliant inventor, having created for himself a watch that can temporarily slow down time. Here is his animation, demonstrating his time-stopping abilities:
One of our villains, Hi-Hat:
This American Life: Superpowers
If I could have a superpower, I would choose the power of speed.
It seems like a cool but reasonable superpower, one that I could get some use out of but that wouldn't be needlessly complicated. I've always liked running as an exercise; this seems like a logical extension of that. To able to move very quickly, in effect, is like being able to slow down time, in that everyone would be moving in "slow motion" around you.
If I had this power, certainly I'd use it to sleep in as long as physically possible. I could sleep till 3:09, wake up, and make it to class by 3:10 using my super speed. Assuming my powers translated to other actions besides simply running, I could complete all of my chores/homework in virtually no time, which would certainly be nice. And of course, I'd be unstoppable in almost every sport. Soccer? No chance. Basketball? Forget about it. I would be the best there ever was, and - assuming I was allowed to play competitively in the first place - I would mist likely shatter all speed-based records and maintain them until the end of time. That would be pretty cool.
As far as the Flash specifically, I dig his power, but I'm not a fan of the costume. It seems like he's drawing attention to himself with his garish spandex uniform, which may be the point, considering he's a hero. I personally would prefer to remain normal-looking, and only use my powers for everyday situations. I wouldn't want the pressure or responsibility that comes with being a famous superhero. It almost seems like that would suck the fun out of the whole thing.
Two Video Jokes
We chose two very different approaches to our joke. The first video uses stuffed animals as the only characters, which gives the video a very interesting feel. For example, movement is obviously limited. This meant we had to frame the shots in such a way as to convey movement/intention without explicitly showing it, although we did end up physically moving the stuffed animals in several instances to show they were sentient (as opposed to simply being characters in a child's playtime). Shape also played a large role in the video's overall look; the different stuffed animals have distinct personalities in large part because of their distinct outlines, which helps give the video a "real" feel.
The different shapes of the stuffed animals also lend the video some contrast and affinity. Contrast between the individual stuffed animals gives each of them a unique personality, and helps establish that they are separate characters. That they are all stuffed animals also gives them an affinity that helps to establish a setting. Along with the bedroom background/child's handwriting, their affinity as stuffed animals firmly establishes a child's bedroom/imaginative setting.
The second video, using actual actors, relies more on space. The size of the room was manipulated using camera shots, so that it appeared larger than it actually was. The interviewees were filmed from an angle that made them appear closer together, for a cramped, nervous look, while the actual interviews were more formally arranged. This use of space helped give the video a more interesting feel.
The use of space mentioned above also gave the video tension and release. The one-after-another nature of the interviews gives a sense of foreboding; the viewer knows something is coming, but they are unsure exactly when it will happen. This also adds to the payoff once the punchline does eventually come. In this case, the punchline acts as the delivery method for the release.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)