Is there anything better than tea and art with a good friend? The image above is a poster I'm working on for a friend. Hopefully, it will turn out nice. Still waiting to borrow a set of Prisma Color markers. Mmm...
With the exceptions of a few stains, my wall is a sickly white. So I posted some art. Colors make me happy.
Thought I'd write a quick review to get in shape for this mid-term paper thing...
For my paper, I've decided to analyze one of my absolute faves: Spike Jonze's heart-breaking robot romance I'm Here.
Set in contemporary L.A., (with the existence of random robots) I'm Here centers around your typical bashful-librarian, Sheldon (Andrew Garfield) who falls in love with another robot, Annie (Sienna Guillory). Their romance is altogether beautiful, awkward, poignant and strange, but starts to take a dark turn when Annie's clumsiness costs Sheldon an arm. Literally. To help Annie with her frequent accidents and injuries, Sheldon continually gives parts of himself to her until he has nothing left.
With melancholy overtones reminiscent of Where the Wild Things Are, I'm Here seems to assert the essence of love's very real, and very tragic demands. The untainted truth at the core of this film inherently paints an accurate picture of true love and self-sacrifice. It is stories like this that help us wrap our minds around the kind of love that God has for us. Through image and metaphor we understand these elemental truths.
And speaking of images, this film has some pretty great visuals. The sun-stroked and soft-focused cinematography illuminate an atmospheric and dreamy world, that is somehow both mundane and magical. The animation and effects give life to some of the most believable characters you'll ever see on screen. Jonze has the uncanny ability to craft characters that are familiar, but not stereotypical.
Anyways, I recommend that everyone check out this film. The end might leave you in tears; either from sadness, or laughter, or being disturbed. Or maybe all of three.
So I've noticed that the concept of "changing people through the media" has been a topic of frequent discussion over the past few days. This interests me. Slightly. Like anything else, you can overanalyze and obsess over this one aspect and still miss the main point. So can media have an effect an audience? Probably. You have to keep in mind that American culture is consumed with media, so it's only natural for it to have some kind of impact. Furthermore, the kind of media that a person consumes reflects their personality and distinct tastes. In a way, I see it as a connection that bounces back and forth. So why does this matter?
Because the impact of media is never neutral; it either blesses by telling the truth, or curses by distorting it. Again, we're back to this whole "good witness' thing. As creators of media, we have the responsibility to create content that is wholesome and edifying. However, I think there comes a point when you have to let go, and actually engage your medium of choice, rather than speculating about it. If you have to have a clear meaning and motivation behind your work, it will never get made. I love the way Co Hoedeman put it, "I like to make things move."
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Take your art and run with it. Your philosophy on cause/effect should guide your work, not dictate it. The thing that makes Hoedeman's work so magical is his sense of freedom and creativity. So whether or not our work makes a change, we should create to the best of our abilities and live our lives to make a difference.