mickeysee

= = = Mickey C | Econ Major | Spring 2017 =

About Me:
That's a really great photo of me from Pride, one of three collectible 'decent pictures of Mickey' My name is Michael, but when I was younger, I somehow picked up the nickname 'Mickey,' and just stuck with it. I like biking, trampolines, rain, peppermint, bad movies, organization, chiptune, bargains on things no one else wants, lady luck, inside jokes, Velcro, and doing pretty much anything with my awful friends.

Computer Experience:
I know just enough about PCs to convince people who know very little that I'm an expert, but I've only used OSX when absolutely necessary, but I'm a fast learner so I'm not too worried. I dabbled in Java programming during one or two summers, but didn't apply myself and just stuck to the basics so I didn't retain much. I hope to redeem myself in the Java programming class I'm taking this semester.

Art Experience:
Aside from scribbling with crayons in elementary school, I never had any strong experience with art on paper. In the digital world however, art has been a hobby of mine since middle school. I couldn't afford anything Adobe had to offer at the time so I used GIMP, and basically taught myself to draw with it. Nothing I made was earth shattering, but I had a bit of fun. In high school that skill mostly turned to making funny pictures with my friends' faces, a hobby I continue to annoy them with today. In the last year, I managed to get my hands on the Adobe CS5 suite, and unfortunately the skills I learned in GIMP did not translate over well to Photoshop. With the help of some video tutorials, I learned the ins and outs of Premiere (mostly basic stuff), and really enjoyed it. I've also used Audible to record audio, but I basically know how to push the big red button and sit back. I also sew.

Artistic Interests:
I wouldn't say I have any specific artistic interests, I can find something interesting in just about anything. I like Escher, Haring, and Basquiat I guess, but any other artist I'm fascinated by is usually forgotten by the time I get home to look up more of their work.

__ **Week One Homework: //Bounded By Law// Reaction** __ I thought this was an interesting comic, and it very effectively reviewed the basics of copyright law, as well as providing helpful examples. I’m no stranger to fair use, there’s been a lot of controversy with several creators on YouTube over the past few years about copyright law. A trend popped up about a year ago, where channels would ‘react’ to videos, essentially just putting the video in its entirety in the bottom of the screen while they sat and watched it. There were several issues with this, primarily that the channel was virtually reuploading the original video, allowing audiences to come and watch it on their channel without giving money to the original creators. Secondly, the people reacting to these videos weren’t really adding their own commentary or critique, just facial expressions or an occasional ‘wow,’ and would often leave in parts of the video where they weren’t talking at all. These reaction channels differ from people that do legitimate reviews, or creators like The Fine Bros (who have their own copyright scandals, but follow free use). When a channel like Movies with Mikey, for instance, makes a video about a movie, they use short clips from the film with their scripted commentary over it. Whenever there’s a clip from the movie longer than a few seconds with full audio, it is used to illustrate an idea or highlight an example. The creator makes a point about the film and how it relates to the industry or the world or trade, etc., and almost every clip they use in the video is towards that goal. Channels who generate legitimate content through reaction are careful to add their own take as well, and not to use the whole video. The Fine Bros get kids, teens, elders, and other YouTubers to sit down and watch a video. Then, they cut together the actual reactions to the video, keeping the genuine commentary. Finally, they ask the participants questions about the video at the end. Unlike the problematic reaction videos discussed at the beginning, these don’t show the original videos in their entirety, and make sure to add something substantive to the conversation. Obviously, the genre of ‘thoughts on other people’s creations’ is a legally contentious one, but with fair use there are some guidelines for creators that make it easier to follow.

As for my thoughts on the issue, I’ve never had something I’ve made reproduced without my permission, so my opinion isn’t necessarily the most informed. I understand the need for protection, I think the comic did a good job of outlining that world, and while it would make creating somewhat easier, it would disincentivize it, knowing anyone could steal and reproduce your work without fear of legislative backlash. Without the promise of some financial return, artists might not consider the endeavor worth it, even if they could use anyone else’s content for free. On the other extreme, content cannot be generated without something to base it on, and most filmmakers simply could not afford to obtain the rights necessary to create. I think the ability to use a fraction of a copyrighted work without getting rights or permission is imperative to keep transaction costs low in the creation of new media. But balancing this with the protection of copyholders rights is difficult. I think currently the balance is weighted more heavily toward the conservative protection of these rights, with a 70 year waiting period after the death of the author, and I’ve seen it personally stifle some creators, who’ve had to go through litigation for uploading a video with short clips in it.

__**Exercise 1: Presence/Absence**__ Times Square in the style of Matt Siber (hopefully this hasn't been done already) Removed the purple skittles Used content aware fill to remove the 7 countries on the ban list and then smoothed the edges Removed anyone wearing red, pink, or orange Should be fairly obvious

Cinemagraph:

//How does AR fit in the widespread aspiration towards realism?// Over time, there would appear to be a tendency for the average consumer to desire a more realistic image. This naturally accompanies a progression in technology, as electronics improve, they give way to higher and higher resolutions. In the past decade or two we’ve gradually moved from 240p all the way to 5K 60fps. YouTube videos, film, advertisements, video games, and everything in between have all gotten closer and closer to the appearance of reality, so it’s reasonable that AR would follow suit and progress towards reality. But this across the board advancement towards crystal visual clarity may not be as homogenous as it seems. There are plenty of modern video games that intentionally copy a pixelated style to replicate a retro look. Despite how antiquated this style may seem when compared to the newest Call of Duty’s cutting edge graphics, these 8 or 16 -bit games have a unique charm that can’t be imitated by the highest resolution. VVVVVV is a highly stylized simple platformer that many would speak more favorably about than Titanfall 2. The same is true of film and television, many artists use lower quality image despite technology being available to increase this resolution. The TV show Always Sunny in Philadelphia used a 4:3 aspect ratio for several seasons after 16:9 was available because it better captured the hard, grunge nature of its characters. Twitter can hold images up to 1280 x 1080 but some of the most popular images that circulate are 480 x 240 memes that are intentionally low quality for the purpose of humor. The same goes for all types of media, and AR is no exception. There may be a general desire for the sharpest, most realistic image technology can offer but that is not always the case. Creators will choose to display their art however best expresses the feelings they attempt to convey. Assuming that technology will eventually reach a point where AR will look as close to reality as it possibly can, there is no doubt that many artists will use this to create a fully immersive experience, just as there will no doubt be plenty of consumers that will look for the most realistic experience. Crisp 3D models rendered at perfect resolution on crystal clear monitor that flawlessly tracks its trigger image would appeal to most people, but there will naturally be a counter culture that creates intentionally low quality AR images to make a statement about the desire for a perfect reality. And still other creators that aren’t satisfied with how the cutting edge technology portrays their art will choose to express themselves in their own way. AR, like VR, may trend more specifically towards realism than something like a Twitter image because of the nature of the medium, but that trend is by no means homogenous. Not all creators intend to make a perfect model and seamlessly blend it into reality. Many artists can make a statement without building an augmented reality imperceptibly different than the reality we live in. To answer your question, Hanna, I think AR will trend towards perfect realism, but like all other mediums, this trend is not uniform.
 * Augmented Reality Response **


 * NGA AR Project **

Apologies for the horrible compression I just didn't want to use like 5MB
Final My final project was a scavenger hunt of sorts around Gelman. Viewers were given a call number that lead them to a book, the book's cover triggered a video or a gif, then a short poem would be displayed to give context for the next book, whose call number then appeared. There were 5 books, 5 poems, 5 call numbers, and it was all cyclical. I think it would have been better to do it start to finish in a more chronological fashion, but I didn't want 12 people tromping through the library at once, so I figured splitting it up was the best bet. Given more time, I would further explore the ideas and make the animations on the book covers more seamless, especially for the fruit, the jeans, and the accordion to better integrate these somewhat jarring images into the physical space.

Accordion - Max is mad, good reason too/ His instrument he must pursue/ a hunt with clues of 22/ we shipped that bitch to Katmandu (This was accompanied by audio of a man screaming in place of the accordion)

Acid - Hyrdochloric or acetic/ this shit matches your aesthetic/ nobody is apathetic/ overboard now you're frenetic

Aliens - They're out there, if you look around/ their UFO has run aground/ there's no doubt that they'll be found/ but probably not on the third grade playground The x-files theme was played over this, with the eyes glowing in time with the first note.

Fruit - Apple, lemon, lime, and pear/ expecting sweet, no sugar to share/ true love caught me unaware/ that, or it's disguised despair

Jeans - Didn't like the feel of jeans/ at least not til your early teens/ got rid of em all by all means/ guess theres no denim in your genes Rainbow Polka-dots were run over the white polka dots on the cover, before the animation of the jeans was played over it.

After each animation played, the following congratulations screen was played before the next poem and call number came up  I thought this was an interesting comic, and it very effectively reviewed the basics of copyright law, as well as providing helpful examples. I’m no stranger to fair use, there’s been a lot of controversy with several creators on YouTube over the past few years about copyright law. A trend popped up about a year ago, where channels would ‘react’ to videos, essentially just putting the video in its entirety in the bottom of the screen while they sat and watched it. There were several issues with this, primarily that the channel was virtually reuploading the original video, allowing audiences to come and watch it on their channel without giving money to the original creators. Secondly, the people reacting to these videos weren’t really adding their own commentary or critique, just facial expressions or an occasional ‘wow,’ and would often leave in parts of the video where they weren’t talking at all. These reaction channels differ from people that do legitimate reviews, or creators like The Fine Bros (who have their own copyright scandals, but follow free use). When a channel like Movies with Mikey, for instance, makes a video about a movie, they use short clips from the film with their scripted commentary over it. Whenever there’s a clip from the movie longer than a few seconds with full audio, it is used to illustrate an idea or highlight an example. The creator makes a point about the film and how it relates to the industry or the world or trade, etc., and almost every clip they use in the video is towards that goal. Channels who generate legitimate content through reaction are careful to add their own take as well, and not to use the whole video. The Fine Bros get kids, teens, elders, and other YouTubers to sit down and watch a video. Then, they cut together the actual reactions to the video, keeping the genuine commentary. Finally, they ask the participants questions about the video at the end. Unlike the problematic reaction videos discussed at the beginning, these don’t show the original videos in their entirety, and make sure to add something substantive to the conversation. Obviously, the genre of ‘thoughts on other people’s creations’ is a legally contentious one, but with fair use there are some guidelines for creators that make it easier to follow. As for my thoughts on the issue, I’ve never had something I’ve made reproduced without my permission, so my opinion isn’t necessarily the most informed. I understand the need for protection, I think the comic did a good job of outlining that world, and while it would make creating somewhat easier, it would disincentivize it, knowing anyone could steal and reproduce your work without fear of legislative backlash. Without the promise of some financial return, artists might not consider the endeavor worth it, even if they could use anyone else’s content for free. On the other extreme, content cannot be generated without something to base it on, and most filmmakers simply could not afford to obtain the rights necessary to create. I think the ability to use a fraction of a copyrighted work without getting rights or permission is imperative to keep transaction costs low in the creation of new media. But balancing this with the protection of copyholders rights is difficult. I think currently the balance is weighted more heavily toward the conservative protection of these rights, with a 70 year waiting period after the death of the author, and I’ve seen it personally stifle some creators, who’ve had to go through litigation for uploading a video with short clips in it.