Space Jazz, a Sonic Sci-Fi Opera by L. Ron Hubbard, Featuring Chick Corea (1983)

The Church of Sci­en­tol­ogy has a num­ber of fas­ci­nat­ing­ly dis­tinc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics, includ­ing but not lim­it­ed to its foun­da­tion by a sci­ence-fic­tion nov­el­ist. That nov­el­ist, a cer­tain L. Ron Hub­bard, launched his reli­gion in the Amer­i­ca of the 1950s, a pros­per­ous place in a Space Age decade when all things sci­ence-fic­tion­al enjoyed a per­haps unprece­dent­ed pop­u­lar­i­ty. Anoth­er big main­stream sci-fi wave would wash over the coun­try in the late 1970s and ear­ly 80s, when, as Nathan Rabin puts it at Slate, “than­ks to the pop­u­lar­i­ty of E.T., Close Encoun­ters of the Third Kind, and the Star Wars and Star Trek fran­chis­es, space was the place and sci­ence fic­tion was the hottest genre around. Sci­en­tol­ogy want­ed in, so an ambi­tious plan was hatched: Hubbard’s epic 1982 Bat­tle­field Earth nov­el, to be fol­lowed by Space Jazz,” an album con­tain­ing a “son­ic space opera” based on the nov­el. At the top of post, you can hear the track “Earth, My Beau­ti­ful Home,” one of the pro­jec­t’s few un-bom­bas­tic num­bers, and one per­formed by a gen­uine­ly more-than-cred­i­ble jazz pianist, Chick Corea

The Church of Sci­en­tol­ogy counts Corea as a mem­ber, as it then did anoth­er of Space Jazz’s guest play­ers, bassist (and Core­a’s Return to For­ev­er band­mate) Stan­ley Clarke. This puts the album into the unusu­al class of works both writ­ten and per­formed by Sci­en­tol­o­gists, a group which also includes Bat­tle­field Earth’s much lat­er, John Tra­vol­ta-star­ring cin­e­mat­ic adap­ta­tion, now known as one of the most notable flops in film his­to­ry. Rabin, in his arti­cle, also cov­ers sev­er­al oth­er albums cred­it­ed to Hub­bard, includ­ing 1986’s posthu­mous Mis­sion Earth, record­ed by mul­ti-instru­men­tal­ist/­Scien­tol­o­gist Edgar Win­ter, which he calls the only one “that could con­ceiv­ably be played on the radio with­out prompt­ing con­fused cries of, ‘Why?’ and ‘What?’ and ‘Is this even music?’ ” Some say sci­ence fic­tion has under­gone anoth­er boom in recent years, but alas, we still await the great Sci­en­to­log­i­cal con­cept album of the 21st cen­tu­ry.

via Slate

Relat­ed Con­tent:

When William S. Bur­roughs Joined Sci­en­tol­ogy (and His 1971 Book Denounc­ing It)

Isaac Asi­mov Recalls the Gold­en Age of Sci­ence Fic­tion (1937–1950)

Stan­ley Kubrick’s Daugh­ter Shares Pho­tos of Her­self Grow­ing Up on Her Father’s Film Sets

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Vi Hart Explains & Defends Net Neutrality in a New Doodle-Filled Video

Vi Hart is back at it again. Hart has a knack for demys­ti­fy­ing com­plex con­cepts with her visu­al­ly-rich math­e­mat­i­cal videos. She has pre­vi­ous­ly tack­led Stravin­sky and Schoenberg’s 12-Tone Com­po­si­tions and the Space-Time Con­tin­u­um. This week, she’s tak­ing on the con­cept of Net Neu­tral­i­ty. The FCC will soon con­sid­er whether it wants to end the era of net neu­tral­i­ty and the open web — some­thing that could have far-reach­ing con­se­quences for you. The web keeps get­ting more and more cor­po­ra­tized (even by com­pa­nies that claim to sup­port net neu­tral­i­ty). And by killing net neu­tral­i­ty, the FCC can offi­cial­ly ensure that big cor­po­ra­tions run the show.

In the video above, Hart explains the con­cept of net neu­tral­i­ty and why it’s impor­tant to defend. On her blog, she also includes a lot of addi­tion­al resources — includ­ing more videos that explain net neu­tral­i­ty, plus infor­ma­tion on how you can tell your polit­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tives to keep the web open.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Hear the Voice of Arthur Conan Doyle After His Death

ConanDoyleSpiritVoice

We’ve pre­vi­ous­ly doc­u­ment­ed the strange case of Arthur Conan Doyle’s fer­vent Spir­i­tu­al­ism, which Mark Strauss of io9 apt­ly describes as “hard to rec­on­cile [with] the man who cre­at­ed the lit­er­ary embod­i­ment of empir­i­cal think­ing,” Sher­lock Holmes. Conan Doyle was so eager to believe in the exis­tence of fairies and what he called “psy­chic mat­ters” that he was fre­quent­ly tak­en in by hoax­es. But the physi­cian and novelist’s seem­ing­ly odd views obtained wide­ly among his con­tem­po­raries who sought con­fir­ma­tion of the after­life and com­mu­nion with their dead rel­a­tives, mil­lions of whom were lost in the Civ­il War, then World War I.

Spir­i­tu­al­ism pro­vid­ed a com­fort to the bereaved, as well as ample oppor­tu­ni­ty for grifters and char­la­tans. And yet, Strauss points out, the rise of Spir­i­tu­al­ism in the 19th cen­tu­ry may also have been due to the ris­ing influ­ence of sci­ence in pop­u­lar cul­ture, as more and more peo­ple sought exper­i­men­tal evi­dence for their super­nat­ur­al beliefs. Conan Doyle wrote twen­ty books on the sub­ject, includ­ing the two-vol­ume 1924 His­to­ry of Spir­i­tu­al­ism. In a speech he gave in May of 1930, just before his death, he explained the appeal. Hear the audio above and read a tran­scrip­tion below:

Peo­ple ask, what do you get from spir­i­tu­al­ism? The first thing you get is that it absolute­ly removes all fear of death. Sec­ond­ly, it bridges death for those dear ones whom we may lose. We need have no fear that we are call­ing them back, for all that we do is to make such con­di­tions as expe­ri­ence has taught us, will enable them to come if they wish. And the ini­tia­tive lies always with them.

Two months lat­er at a séance attend­ed by thou­sands at the Roy­al Albert Hall, a medi­um claimed to have com­mu­ni­cat­ed with the Sher­lock Holmes author. And four years after that, anoth­er medi­um, Noah Zerdin, held a séance attend­ed by hun­dreds, and Conan Doyle is said to have been one of 44 who spoke from the beyond. This time, the event was record­ed, on 26 acetate disks, which were only dis­cov­ered 67 years lat­er in 2001 by Zerdin’s son, who donat­ed them to the British Library. The 1934 record­ings fea­tured in a 2002 BBC radio doc­u­men­tary called What Grandad Did in the Dark.

Just above, you can hear the sup­posed voice of Arthur Conan Doyle speak­ing from the spir­it world. The audio is seri­ous­ly spooky, but I’m not inclined to believe that it’s any­thing more than a hoax, although the tech­nol­o­gy of the time would make manip­u­la­tion of the direct record­ings dif­fi­cult. So-called “spir­it voic­es” in record­ings such as this are known as EVP (“elec­tron­ic voice phe­nom­e­non”), and there are many such exam­ples of the genre at the British Library, includ­ing a batch of 60 tapes made by a Dr. Kon­stan­tin Rau­dive, “who believed that the dead could com­mu­ni­cate with the liv­ing through the medi­um of radio waves.”

A post on the British Library site com­ments that “the record­ed evi­dence is not espe­cial­ly con­vinc­ing, being short com­ments or frag­ments that with­out the accom­pa­ny­ing spo­ken ‘trans­la­tion’ would prob­a­bly not strike the lis­ten­er as hav­ing any mean­ing­ful con­tent.” The Conan Doyle audio seems a lit­tle more coher­ent, though it’s dif­fi­cult to make out exact­ly what the voice says. Com­pare the two sam­ples and draw your own con­clu­sions. Or bet­ter yet, con­sid­er what Sher­lock Holmes would make of this alleged “evi­dence.”

You can find Sher­lock Holmes texts in our col­lec­tions: 600 Free eBooks for iPad, Kin­dle & Oth­er Devices and 550 Free Audio Books: Down­load Great Books for Free.

via io9

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Arthur Conan Doyle & The Cot­tin­g­ley Fairies: How Two Young Girls Fooled Sher­lock Holmes’ Cre­ator

Arthur Conan Doyle Dis­cuss­es Sher­lock Holmes and Psy­chics in a Rare Filmed Inter­view (1927)

Arthur Conan Doyle Fills Out the Ques­tion­naire Made Famous By Mar­cel Proust (1899)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness.

Watch Gumbasia the Jazzy Stop Motion Film That Gave Birth to Gumby (1955)

Like many in the Hon­ey­comb Kids gen­er­a­tion, I did­n’t prop­er­ly appre­ci­ate chil­dren’s tele­vi­sion icon Gum­by until Eddie Mur­phy par­o­died him on Sat­ur­day Night Live. This sparked a revival. Watch­ing Gum­by episodes in the com­pa­ny of oth­er mer­ry young adults reframed my pre­vi­ous­ly held view of him as a rel­ic from a time when TV was bor­ing. Turns out that Gum­by and his equine side­kick Pokey were actu­al­ly pret­ty fun­ny, weird-in-a-good-way, and far more soul­ful than the wit­less flat ani­ma­tion jam­ming the air­waves of my 70s child­hood.

Then, in 2006, the Muse­um of the Mov­ing Image had an exhib­it devot­ed to the work of Art Clokey, father of Gum­by.

I decid­ed to take the kids, gam­bling that they might respond to Gum­by as I did now, not the way I did when I was their age. Their screen time was pret­ty lim­it­ed back then, and as a result, they’d avid­ly watch just about any­thing.

The first video we encoun­tered was Gum­ba­sia, the exper­i­men­tal, char­ac­ter-free, stop motion riff above that Clokey made as a stu­dent at USC. It was pro­duced in 1953 and released in 1955.

Not exact­ly what I’d been prim­ing the chil­dren to expect on the sub­way ride over.

“That’s Gum­by?” they cried in dis­may. “That cube?”

No. But those mor­ph­ing cubes and squig­gles did give birth to an empire, after pro­duc­er and pres­i­dent of the Motion Pic­ture Pro­duc­ers Asso­ci­a­tion, Sam Engel, offered to bankroll a pilot, declar­ing Gum­ba­sia the most excit­ing film he’d ever seen in his life. Clokey was teach­ing Eng­lish at the Har­vard Mil­i­tary Acad­e­my. Engel’s sole wish was to improve the qual­i­ty of chil­dren’s tele­vi­sion pro­gram­ming. He asked Clokey if he could “make lit­tle clay fig­ures out of that clay and ani­mate them.”

Clokey did just that, with Engel bankrolling the pilot, “Gum­by on the Moon.” The pro­duc­er was so pleased with the result, he refused to take a cut when Gum­by was giv­en a sev­en year con­tract at NBC.

Imag­ine a Cin­derel­la sto­ry like that hap­pen­ing today!

If this small morsel of Gum­by his­to­ry leaves you crav­ing more, book your flight for the inau­gur­al Gum­by Fest in Glen­do­ra, Cal­i­for­nia, where Gum­by grew to matu­ri­ty in “an unas­sum­ing indus­tri­al build­ing.”

You can find Gum­ba­sia in the Ani­ma­tion sec­tion of our col­lec­tion of 675 Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Big Bang Big Boom: Graf­fi­ti Stop-Motion Ani­ma­tion Cre­ative­ly Depicts the Evo­lu­tion of Life

Watch “Bot­tle,” an Award-Win­ning Stop Motion Ani­mat­ed Tale of Transocean­ic Cor­re­spon­dence

Hard­er Than It Looks: How to Make a Great Stop Motion Ani­ma­tion

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is the author of sev­en books, and cre­ator of the award win­ning East Vil­lage Inky zine. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

An Introduction to 100 Important Paintings with Videos Created by Smarthistory

If you have an inter­est in how the inter­net has widened the very con­cept of edu­ca­tion, you may well know about Google’s Art Project, a dig­i­tal wealth of free visu­al art infor­ma­tion and view­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties we’ve fea­tured before. And you more than like­ly know about Khan Acad­e­my, the high­est-pro­file pro­duc­er of edu­ca­tion­al videos on the inter­net. Now, from the com­bined pow­er of their learn­ing resources comes this col­lec­tion of video intro­duc­tions to over 100 impor­tant paint­ings. Rang­ing from between two to nine min­utes and cov­er­ing works of art cre­at­ed in eras from 575 B.C.E to the Sec­ond World War, these brief but intel­lec­tu­al­ly dense and visu­al­ly rich lessons bear the label of Smarthis­to­ry, “a mul­ti­me­dia web-book about art and art his­to­ry” that merged with Khan Acad­e­my in 2011.

In the video at the top of the post, Smarthis­to­ry intro­duces us to Bot­ti­cel­li’s 1486 Tbe Birth of Venus, “one of the most icon­ic images in the his­to­ry of West­ern art” — its con­tent, its con­text, and its inspi­ra­tion. The Birth of Venus might seem like one of those images that needs no intro­duc­tion, but as all the infor­ma­tion revealed in the video reminds us, most of us, if not art his­to­ri­ans our­selves, could at least use a refresh­er.

Just above, we have Vin­cent van Gogh’s 1889 The Bed­room, a paint­ing that, in the words of the artist him­self, “ought to rest the brain — or rather, the imag­i­na­tion.” Though we all know the name of this par­tic­u­lar post-Impres­sion­ist, we may not have seen this par­tic­u­lar can­vas of his before, a fact Smarthis­to­ry’s experts Beth Har­ris and Steven Zuck­er take into account when they explain to us how they them­selves think about it. “What you’re talk­ing about is the root of abstrac­tion itself,” says Zuck­er. “It’s not that this is rep­re­sen­ta­tive; it’s that the for­mal qual­i­ties of paint­ing itself can have their own expe­ri­en­tial aspect.” And they speak just as insight­ful­ly on the paint­ings we encounter, in one form or anoth­er, every so often in our dai­ly lives. Edward Hop­per’s 1942 Nighthawks, for instance, a repli­ca of which I saw on the side of one cof­fee mug I used every day for years, gets dis­cussed below as “an expres­sion of wartime alien­ation” that deliv­ers “an imme­di­ate impli­ca­tion that we are alone”  that “makes us look for some sign of life, but we don’t see any­thing.” Smarthis­to­ry’s videos man­age to reveal a great deal of emo­tion­al, tech­ni­cal, and his­tor­i­cal knowl­edge on these and many oth­er paint­ings in a frac­tion of the time it takes a stu­dent to cross cam­pus for their art his­to­ry lec­ture — let alone to sit through its entire slideshow. You can see all 100 videos in the col­lec­tion here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Google Puts Over 57,000 Works of Art on the Web

The British Library Puts 1,000,000 Images into the Pub­lic Domain, Mak­ing Them Free to Reuse & Remix

The Rijksmu­se­um Puts 125,000 Dutch Mas­ter­pieces Online, and Lets You Remix Its Art

The Get­ty Puts 4600 Art Images Into the Pub­lic Domain (and There’s More to Come)

Free: The Met­ro­pol­i­tan Muse­um of Art and the Guggen­heim Offer 474 Free Art Books Online

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Disney’s 12 Timeless Principles of Animation

Ani­ma­tion is essen­tial­ly an opti­cal illu­sion- a series of still pho­tographs that cre­ate the impres­sion of move­ment. Though Win­sor McCay pio­neered ways of mak­ing draw­ings move, Walt Disney’s Nine Old Men were the ones who per­fect­ed it. While mak­ing Snow White and the Sev­en Dwarfs, not to men­tion count­less shorts in the 1930s, this team of ani­ma­tors devel­oped 12 basic prin­ci­ples that exag­ger­at­ed the laws of physics to best bring these images to life.

The prin­ci­ples came to define Disney’s look and became part of the lan­guage of ani­ma­tors every­where. Every time you see Wiley E. Coyote’s eyes bulge to the size of water­mel­ons at the sight of a falling boul­der, Olaf the Snow­man from Frozen stretch dur­ing a sud­den stop, or Tig­ger crouch­ing down before a pounce, you can thank these prin­ci­ples.

Frank Thomas and Ollie John­son, two of the nine old men, pub­lished the prin­ci­ples in their book Dis­ney Ani­ma­tion: Illu­sion of Life. Jason Kot­tke has post­ed a real­ly groovy (ani­mat­ed, of course) video illus­trat­ing the 12 Prin­ci­ples. Check it out above. And if you need fur­ther review watch this oth­er ani­mat­ed video. The prin­ci­ples, them­selves, appear below.

1. SQUASH AND STRETCH

This action gives the illu­sion of weight and vol­ume to a char­ac­ter as it moves. Also squash and stretch is use­ful in ani­mat­ing dia­logue and doing facial expres­sions. How extreme the use of squash and stretch is, depends on what is required in ani­mat­ing the scene. Usu­al­ly it’s broad­er in a short style of pic­ture and sub­tler in a fea­ture. It is used in all forms of char­ac­ter ani­ma­tion from a bounc­ing ball to the body weight of a per­son walk­ing. This is the most impor­tant ele­ment you will be required to mas­ter and will be used often.

2. ANTICIPATION

This move­ment pre­pares the audi­ence for a major action the char­ac­ter is about to per­form, such as, start­ing to run, jump or change expres­sion. A dancer does not just leap off the floor. A back­wards motion occurs before the for­ward action is exe­cut­ed. The back­ward motion is the antic­i­pa­tion. A com­ic effect can be done by not using antic­i­pa­tion after a series of gags that used antic­i­pa­tion. Almost all real action has major or minor antic­i­pa­tion such as a pitcher’s wind-up or a golfers’ back swing. Fea­ture ani­ma­tion is often less broad than short ani­ma­tion unless a scene requires it to devel­op a char­ac­ters per­son­al­i­ty.

3. STAGING

A pose or action should clear­ly com­mu­ni­cate to the audi­ence the atti­tude, mood, reac­tion or idea of the char­ac­ter as it relates to the sto­ry and con­ti­nu­ity of the sto­ry line. The effec­tive use of long, medi­um, or close up shots, as well as cam­era angles also helps in telling the sto­ry. There is a lim­it­ed amount of time in a film, so each sequence, scene and frame of film must relate to the over­all sto­ry. Do not con­fuse the audi­ence with too many actions at once. Use one action clear­ly stat­ed to get the idea across, unless you are ani­mat­ing a scene that is to depict clut­ter and con­fu­sion. Stag­ing directs the audi­ence’s atten­tion to the sto­ry or idea being told. Care must be tak­en in back­ground design so it isn’t obscur­ing the ani­ma­tion or com­pet­ing with it due to excess detail behind the ani­ma­tion. Back­ground and ani­ma­tion should work togeth­er as a pic­to­r­i­al unit in a scene.

4. STRAIGHT AHEAD AND POSE TO POSE ANIMATION

Straight ahead ani­ma­tion starts at the first draw­ing and works draw­ing to draw­ing to the end of a scene. You can lose size, vol­ume, and pro­por­tions with this method, but it does have spon­tane­ity and fresh­ness. Fast, wild action scenes are done this way. Pose to Pose is more planned out and chart­ed with key draw­ings done at inter­vals through­out the scene. Size, vol­umes, and pro­por­tions are con­trolled bet­ter this way, as is the action. The lead ani­ma­tor will turn chart­ing and keys over to his assis­tant. An assis­tant can be bet­ter used with this method so that the ani­ma­tor does­n’t have to draw every draw­ing in a scene. An ani­ma­tor can do more scenes this way and con­cen­trate on the plan­ning of the ani­ma­tion. Many scenes use a bit of both meth­ods of ani­ma­tion.

5. FOLLOW THROUGH AND OVERLAPPING ACTION

When the main body of the char­ac­ter stops all oth­er parts con­tin­ue to catch up to the main mass of the char­ac­ter, such as arms, long hair, cloth­ing, coat tails or a dress, flop­py ears or a long tail (these fol­low the path of action). Noth­ing stops all at once. This is fol­low through. Over­lap­ping action is when the char­ac­ter changes direc­tion while his clothes or hair con­tin­ues for­ward. The char­ac­ter is going in a new direc­tion, to be fol­lowed, a num­ber of frames lat­er, by his clothes in the new direc­tion. “DRAG,” in ani­ma­tion, for exam­ple, would be when Goofy starts to run, but his head, ears, upper body, and clothes do not keep up with his legs. In fea­tures, this type of action is done more sub­tly. Exam­ple: When Snow White starts to dance, her dress does not begin to move with her imme­di­ate­ly but catch­es up a few frames lat­er. Long hair and ani­mal tail will also be han­dled in the same man­ner. Tim­ing becomes crit­i­cal to the effec­tive­ness of drag and the over­lap­ping action.

6. SLOW-OUT AND SLOW-IN

As action starts, we have more draw­ings near the start­ing pose, one or two in the mid­dle, and more draw­ings near the next pose. Few­er draw­ings make the action faster and more draw­ings make the action slow­er. Slow-ins and slow-outs soft­en the action, mak­ing it more life-like. For a gag action, we may omit some slow-out or slow-ins for shock appeal or the sur­prise ele­ment. This will give more snap to the scene.

7. ARCS

All actions, with few excep­tions (such as the ani­ma­tion of a mechan­i­cal device), fol­low an arc or slight­ly cir­cu­lar path. This is espe­cial­ly true of the human fig­ure and the action of ani­mals. Arcs give ani­ma­tion a more nat­ur­al action and bet­ter flow. Think of nat­ur­al move­ments in the terms of a pen­du­lum swing­ing. All arm move­ment, head turns and even eye move­ments are exe­cut­ed on an arcs.

8. SECONDARY ACTION

This action adds to and enrich­es the main action and adds more dimen­sion to the char­ac­ter ani­ma­tion, sup­ple­ment­ing and/or re-enforc­ing the main action. Exam­ple: A char­ac­ter is angri­ly walk­ing toward anoth­er char­ac­ter. The walk is force­ful, aggres­sive, and for­ward lean­ing. The leg action is just short of a stomp­ing walk. The sec­ondary action is a few strong ges­tures of the arms work­ing with the walk. Also, the pos­si­bil­i­ty of dia­logue being deliv­ered at the same time with tilts and turns of the head to accen­tu­ate the walk and dia­logue, but not so much as to dis­tract from the walk action. All of these actions should work togeth­er in sup­port of one anoth­er. Think of the walk as the pri­ma­ry action and arm swings, head bounce and all oth­er actions of the body as sec­ondary or sup­port­ing action.

9. TIMING

Exper­tise in tim­ing comes best with expe­ri­ence and per­son­al exper­i­men­ta­tion, using the tri­al and error method in refin­ing tech­nique. The basics are: more draw­ings between pos­es slow and smooth the action. Few­er draw­ings make the action faster and crisper. A vari­ety of slow and fast tim­ing with­in a scene adds tex­ture and inter­est to the move­ment. Most ani­ma­tion is done on twos (one draw­ing pho­tographed on two frames of film) or on ones (one draw­ing pho­tographed on each frame of film). Twos are used most of the time, and ones are used dur­ing cam­era moves such as trucks, pans and occa­sion­al­ly for sub­tle and quick dia­logue ani­ma­tion. Also, there is tim­ing in the act­ing of a char­ac­ter to estab­lish mood, emo­tion, and reac­tion to anoth­er char­ac­ter or to a sit­u­a­tion. Study­ing move­ment of actors and per­form­ers on stage and in films is use­ful when ani­mat­ing human or ani­mal char­ac­ters. This frame by frame exam­i­na­tion of film footage will aid you in under­stand­ing tim­ing for ani­ma­tion. This is a great way to learn from the oth­ers.

10. EXAGGERATION

Exag­ger­a­tion is not extreme dis­tor­tion of a draw­ing or extreme­ly broad, vio­lent action all the time. Its like a car­i­ca­ture of facial fea­tures, expres­sions, pos­es, atti­tudes and actions. Action traced from live action film can be accu­rate, but stiff and mechan­i­cal. In fea­ture ani­ma­tion, a char­ac­ter must move more broad­ly to look nat­ur­al. The same is true of facial expres­sions, but the action should not be as broad as in a short car­toon style. Exag­ger­a­tion in a walk or an eye move­ment or even a head turn will give your film more appeal. Use good taste and com­mon sense to keep from becom­ing too the­atri­cal and exces­sive­ly ani­mat­ed.

11. SOLID DRAWING

The basic prin­ci­ples of draw­ing form, weight, vol­ume solid­i­ty and the illu­sion of three dimen­sion apply to ani­ma­tion as it does to aca­d­e­m­ic draw­ing. The way you draw car­toons, you draw in the clas­si­cal sense, using pen­cil sketch­es and draw­ings for repro­duc­tion of life. You trans­form these into col­or and move­ment giv­ing the char­ac­ters the illu­sion of three-and four-dimen­sion­al life. Three dimen­sion­al is move­ment in space. The fourth dimen­sion is move­ment in time.

12. APPEAL

A live per­former has charis­ma. An ani­mat­ed char­ac­ter has appeal. Appeal­ing ani­ma­tion does not mean just being cute and cud­dly. All char­ac­ters have to have appeal whether they are hero­ic, vil­lain­ous, com­ic or cute. Appeal, as you will use it, includes an easy to read design, clear draw­ing, and per­son­al­i­ty devel­op­ment that will cap­ture and involve the audi­ence’s inter­est. Ear­ly car­toons were basi­cal­ly a series of gags strung togeth­er on a main theme. Over the years, the artists have learned that to pro­duce a fea­ture there was a need for sto­ry con­ti­nu­ity, char­ac­ter devel­op­ment and a high­er qual­i­ty of art­work through­out the entire pro­duc­tion. Like all forms of sto­ry telling, the fea­ture has to appeal to the mind as well as to the eye.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How Walt Dis­ney Car­toons Are Made

Don­ald Duck Wants You to Pay Your Tax­es (1943)

Walt Dis­ney Presents the Super Car­toon Cam­era (1957)

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow.

Do Rappers Have a Bigger Vocabulary Than Shakespeare?: A Data Scientist Maps Out the Answer

UniqueWordsinRap

Each year brings us a new list of words that, once hip or sub­cul­tur­al, sig­nal their admis­sion into the main­stream by enter­ing the pages—print or online—of the Oxford Eng­lish Dic­tio­nary or Mer­ri­am Web­ster’s. Many of those come from the world of hip hop. The form is a ver­i­ta­ble lab­o­ra­to­ry of lin­guis­tic inno­va­tion, spawn­ing dozens of region-spe­cif­ic argots that mutate and evolve beyond the capac­i­ty of hip lex­i­cog­ra­phers to doc­u­ment. One data sci­en­tist, Matt Daniels, has made an inter­est­ing attempt, how­ev­er, in a project he calls “The Largest Vocab­u­lary in Hip Hop.” Pro­ceed­ing from the premise that cer­tain rap­pers might match or best Shake­speare for the title of “largest vocab­u­lary ever,” Daniels used a method­ol­o­gy called “token analy­sis” to ana­lyze the lyri­cal con­tent of “the most famous artists in hip hop.” He relied on Rap Genius tran­scrip­tions, which are only cur­rent to 2012, to pro­duce a sam­ple size of 35,000 words (the equiv­a­lent of 3–5 stu­dio albums).

Top­ping the list by far with a total of 7,392 unique words used is rap­per Aesop Rock, whom, Daniels admits, is some­what obscure by com­par­i­son with Jay Z or Snoop Dog. More well-known artists like Wu Tang Clan, The Roots, and Out­kast also rank high­ly, but what Daniels dis­cov­ered is that many of the rap­pers near the top of the scale are under­ground or obscure artists who don’t sell mil­lions of records. And occu­py­ing the low­er end are some top-sell­ing artists and house­hold names like Lil Wayne, Kanye West, and Snoop Dog (DMX is dead last at #85). King of the hill Jay‑Z, whose 2013 album Magna Carta…Holy Grail sold half a mil­lion copies in its first week, ranks some­where in the mid­dle, and Daniels quotes from the mega-sell­ing rapper’s “Moment of Clar­i­ty” from his Black Album in which he plain­ly admits that he’ll write mid­dle­brow lyrics for mil­lion dol­lar sales fig­ures, say­ing “I dumb­ed down for my audi­ence to dou­ble my dol­lars” (one won­ders how many lis­ten­ers per­ceived the slight).

Daniels admits in an NPR inter­view that this is “not a seri­ous aca­d­e­m­ic study” but a project he under­took for the fun of it. And a great many of the “unique words” count­ed in each rapper’s totals are slang coinages or vari­ants like “pimps, pimp, pimp­ing, and pimpin,” each of which counts sep­a­rate­ly. Even so, writes Daniels on the project’s site, “it’s still direc­tion­al­ly inter­est­ing,” as well as soci­o­log­i­cal­ly. And of course, lit­er­ary writ­ers have been con­tribut­ing made-up words to the gen­er­al lex­i­con for cen­turies. See Daniels’ site for an inter­ac­tive visu­al­iza­tion (screen shot above) of the rank­ings of all 85 rap­pers sur­veyed.

If you’re won­der­ing who has a big­ger vocab­u­lary — Shake­speare or rap­pers — here’s the quick answer in pure­ly numer­i­cal terms. In his sam­ple size of 35,000 words per artist, Daniels deter­mined that Aesop Rock used 7,392 unique words (and Wu-Tang Clan, 5,895) against Shake­speare’s 5,000 unique words. And there you have it.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Jay‑Z: The Evo­lu­tion of My Style

The Great­ness of Charles Dar­win Explained with Rap Music

The Art of Data Visu­al­iza­tion: How to Tell Com­plex Sto­ries Through Smart Design

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness.

Support “Green Reads,” a Program That Finances Libraries by Distributing Used Books in Eco-Friendly Vending Machines

green reads

Green Reads has launched a crowd fund­ing cam­paign on IndieGogo to build 15 eco-friend­ly, used book vend­ing machines. Invent­ed by Dana Clarke, the machines require no elec­tric­i­ty and they’ll allow libraries, char­i­ties, and book retail­ers a way to sell used books and cre­ate a sus­tain­able source of rev­enue. Green Reads is look­ing to raise $75,000 ($5000 per machine) by May 19. Once oper­a­tional, the machines will be donat­ed (not sold) to libraries and char­i­ties. You can get a lot more infor­ma­tion and con­tribute to this wor­thy cam­paign right here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

550 Free Audio Books: Down­load Great Books for Free

600 Free eBooks for iPad, Kin­dle & Oth­er Devices

170 Free Text­books: A Meta Col­lec­tion

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.