I just finished reading a book called Story by Robert McKee. It was quite an insightful book (though I have many criticisms of it which I will go into later). In the following passage, McKee describes the creation of an original character:

Like Dr. Frankenstien, we build characters out of parts found. A writer takes the analytical mind of his sister and peices it together with the comic wit of his friend, adds to that the cunning cruelty of a cat and the blind persistence of King Lear. We borrow bits and peices of humanity, raw chunks of imagination and observation wherever they’re found, assemble them into dimensions of contrafiction, tehn round them into creatures we call characters. (McKee, 386)

The way I described originality as integration of existing ideas (in an earlier post) is analogous to how McKee describes character creation as the integration of ideas in existing characters.

The implication of integrative thinking is twofold. It means that we can research and observe to create “original” products. However, it also means that our products are only as strong as the wealth of ideas at our disposal. We cannot hope to be “original” (in the integrative sense) if we do not explore, study and read a wide breadth of material. And I don’t just mean other forms of art, I mean all sorts of disciplines.

But how do we find time to study all sorts of disciplines? I read another book recently that was a collection of essays from the philosopher Lord Isaiah Berlin called The Power of Ideas. In an essay on general education, Berlin writes about studying in a way to maximize breadth without completely sacrificing depth and specialization. He writes that instead of simply trying to absorb material from other disciplines (like making a chemist memorize poetry, or making an artist list out famous physicists) we should focus on the methodologies of different disciplines.

Simply put, we should at the least know how various disciplines go about answering questions- and what questions they are most interested in answering. Economics, for example, is largely a question of allocation- they assume that resources are scarce and try to figure out the best way to distribute them fairly. Capitalism is born from the pursuit of this question. Capitalism also assumes that people generally make rational decision, and that more choice and more consumption is good. Psychologists and sociologists often have completely different assumption about human beings- that we are governed by irrational emotions, and that we are molded by society. Many political scientists assume humans are corrupted by power, hence a major question in political science is how to best distribute power.

My point is, that there is a vast reservoir of ideas out there, and our creativity will be severely limited if we live only within the assumptions and methodologies of our own particular specialization.

-Tom

If you are an art student, you probably have experienced the “critique”. When the other kids go take tests or write papers, art students drag themselves to a room with their projects and blather. Sometimes the blather is productive, many times the blather is just blather. And it is very hard to contain “critiques” into some sort of format. In my experience, art critiques have ranged from an art teacher orating alone for 3 hours to a bunch of apathetic students straining their vocabulary with feedback like “I don’t like the color”.

Most of the students probably do not care to be at the critique, and many of the professors are not very prepared or engaged either. Many critiques are painfully silent. Students start giving small comments simply out of pity for the professor’s futile efforts to stimulate the class. “So what do you guys think? Come on guys, I’m grading you on your participation!”

But there are larger problems than apathy. I often found that even when the class was very lively, and everyone seemed to be edging to get their say- the critique still felt frustratingly unhelpful. The professor would be sooo happy, but I did not feel like I was learning much. Even my own comments seemed to fall flat, no matter how exciting they were in my head.

What can we do about this? Who is to blame- the students or the teacher? Here is where you might rightly call me out on a false dichotomy. Both the students and the teachers are at fault. In the remainder of this post I’ll list out what students and professors can do to improve art critiques.

ART CRITIQUES

1) Accountibility: As a student, make sure you have reasons/goals behind your artistic choices. Reasoning is vital because you assert control of your project. Ideally, you open the door for people to critique based your reasoning- rather than stuff they just don’t like. I’ll illustrate in a mock conversation:

Student: I don’t like the nose

Artist: I chose to put the nose that way so it would lead your eyes to the vase

Student: Oh! well maybe you could move the vase a bit to the left and you won’t have to put the nose at such an awkward angle.

Sometimes finding reasoning is hard because our choices are often based on intuition. As a professor, try to show the student what methodology their intuition is based on. One of the most valuable things for an artist to learn, is why they make certain choices. Do not allow students to say “I just threw it on cuz it looked cool.” Well it might look cool because it follows the rule of thirds.

Showing students the “meta” generalities/principles behind their choices will allow them to take criticism and apply it to all of their future projects. Criticism that is too specific will only teach them what to do in that one instance. As a student, just ask “why? what principle are you referring to?” when you get a criticism. Look at the difference in utility between these two criticisms:

Unprepared Professor: Move the clouds up and the painting of the bird will look better. (now the student knows only how to fix this one specific problem that is unlikely to ever happen again.)

Prepared Professor: By moving the clouds up, you will be creating more appealing balance in image. Because large light colored masses closer to the center can balance out small dark objects further from the center. (Now the student know the larger principle that is guiding your criticism, you can go on to explain how lights and darks affect weight in an image)

2) Critical Engagement: Ultimately, a critique will go nowhere if no-one says anything- or if everyone is just patting each other on the back. Here is where being a teacher is tough. How do you get the students to be engaged? Well, I think there is a pretty simple solution, but the students will not like it. Call on random students to speak. One of my best professors was one who would just pull out the role sheet and asked a random student a question. EVERYONE WAS TOO TERRIFIED TO COME UNPREPARED. Make a critique stressful and uncomfortable- that is the best way I know to get students to prepare. Make the critique an exam- tell the students to demonstrate knowledge of class material when they speak in the critique. The students may not like a professor that does this, but learning is not a comfortable process- a professor should not have the delusion that students will love him/her.

As a student, a good way to promote critical engagement is to ask questions. Write a list of questions down before you go to the crit, if you have time. By focusing the subject matter, people will be much more likely to say something- and it will show the professor that you are thinking about your work.

3) Integration: Even if the students are all engaged the critique may not be very productive. A productive critique is one with definite strings of argument. Many times, students merely say what is on their mind, and the critique functions similarly to a “whack-a-mole” game. Students just pipe in with comments, not necessarily linked to the previous comment. Often times, students will noun-grab when they are in a critique- they will speak using the same word/words as the previous person, but there will be little else in common.

Student 1: Maybe you could help balance the image with some red reflecting in the corner.

Student 2: The object in the corner seems out of place, maybe move it left to help the composition.

Now Student 1 will feel frustrated because his/her feedback was pretty much ignored. Professors make this worse by adding “interesting comment!” after anyone says anything- which makes students feel completely ignored. So how can we avoid scattered “whack-a-mole” critiques? Haha, here’s another mini-list:

a) If you are a professor make the students always connect what they are saying to what the last person said. Hell, make them reiterate the previous comment if they have to. Alone, such an integrative exercise is a great skill to have anyway. Eventually the student will assume they are expected to maintain a thread of dialog when they speak.
b) As a professor and as a student, make sure YOU are connecting to what the last person said. And if you do not understand what they said, ask them to clarify. It will show them you are listening- and make them feel more responsibility and importance.
c) If you really want to stretch yourself as a professor- try having the students integrate their feedback with what professional artists have said and done (from research/readings I assume has been included in the coursework). This will help ground the conversation, and take it away from being random opinions.

I hope this post is helpful, again I am always learning so feel free to criticize or ask for clarification (or to ask me to stop making lists). Most of this information is from my experience in non-art classes. I have not tried it all out yet in an art class, so take from it what appeals to you.

-Tom

A commenter on my previous post asked me this:

Hey, so how have you and other interns found this subtext animating?
This is certainly an area of animation that is hard to teach, and the learning of it usually comes down to the individuals talent. I know people who can learn the basics and principles very well, but dont have the born with talent to progress onto great character performance through acting.

I think the larger question that might be at play here is how to be “original”or “unique” with your acting choices- or anything else you do. Well there is certainly no definite answer here… professionals are generally very vague in this area as well. I don’t know how many times I’ve just been told to “be more original”. I usually nod… then 2 hours later I’m wondering what the hell that means.

I lived in the constant fear that my “originality” might suddenly leave me, and every project I would feel terrible until the moment I finally thought of something. I had one basic assumption: Originality was the creation of new ideas in my head using no outside ideas. I had read this in art books and books on writing. “Sit in a room with nothing in it and think!” It wasn’t until I started studying how to write arguments and papers that I completely changed my idea of originality.

Originality is attained by integration, NOT by creation from nothing.

What do I mean by this? When I wrote papers in school I quickly realized I couldn’t think of a good thesis that wasn’t already explored. So I started taking other papers and mixing them together. For instance, I wrote a paper about making video games using methods from argument structure.

How does this apply to my post on subtext? Well, it is a way to think about your acting choices. Instead of trying to come up with completely new gestures from nothing, think about gestures you know and mix them together. You might take an iconic gesture like shaking your fist when you are angry. I see this ALL THE TIME. So here is my thought progression:

Step 1) What is my character’s personality? If she is shy, the fist shake might be very small and barely noticeable. How does she hold herself? If she is broad and large, her whole body may go into the fist shake.

Step 2) What is my character feeling? (Well in this example she is angry, but what kind of anger?) What context is she in? Is she in public, alone? She might be trying to hide her anger, or maybe she wants everyone to know. Maybe she is angry and disappointed- her fist might go limp after a few shakes. What just happened?

Step 3) What is my character thinking? Once you have the context write the actual thoughts. “I can’t believe he forgot my birthday” is very different from “I would kill you if I could”. And show the thoughts through body language rather than through vocalization. The birthday example: the fist shake might be purposeful and short. The murderous example: the fist shake might be more involuntary and sustained.

Step 4) What is my character doing? Once you have all these elements in your fist shake, combine it with the environment. Is your character washing dishes? Conducting an orchestra? Writing a letter? If you can, make the gestures are affected and affecting the physical context of the scene. A character washing dishes might shake their fist as they pick up a sponge.

At the end of all of this, you hopefully won’t have a very recognizable iconic “fist shake”. Ideally, you’ll have a new movement much more unique to your character. At Pixar I have not been told to be more original: there is a slightly better maxim “be more specific“.

Here is a very appropriate clip a friend of mine showed me from a French film called Moleire.

Again, this is more of a rough way to frame the word “original” in our minds. I’m sure there are many ways to come up with ideas, this is something that seems to work for me.

-Tom

So I’ve been at Pixar for about 6 weeks, and there is one main point that just keeps getting slammed on me over and over again.

SHOW YOUR CHARACTER’S THOUGHT PROCESS WITH THE BODY LANGUAGE

Typically, animators will animate “to the dialog” -> the motion will be pretty, the arcs will be wonderful, the polish will be exquisite, but the acting just sucks. The body language is redundant and generic. Animators will take the wonderful language capabilities of the body and say the same thing that the dialog says. It’s redundant… really redundant… redundant… very redundant… completely redundant… boring, huh?

So how do you escape that? Well, this is something I’m always learning as well, but here are a few notes I’ve gathered: Think about the personality, feelings and thoughts of your character.

Personality: what is your character generally like? how does she hold herself? is she an introvert or extrovert? Personality will dictate your initial posing of the character, and how the feelings and thoughts are framed.
Feeling: what is your character like right now? what is the context of the scene? Feeling is layered onto the personality, an introvert who currently feels outgoing will look very different then someone outgoing who is feeling outgoing.
Thoughts: What is your character thinking? Thoughts are shaped by the personality, feeling and context. Thoughts are the last internal process. For instance, when you touch something hot, your body reacts first, then you think “SHIT, THAT IS HOT!” and it isn’t until after you think that you speak.

So, the actual spoken words are the final part of the process. The body says much more than words. And if you use the body to say different things than the words, you really start to hit empathy and entertainment with your animation. Imagine the entertainment in a scene where the body language says “SHIT, THAT IS HOT!” and the spoken line is “hehe, nice day isn’t it?”

Unfortunately, animators seem too caught up in the actual movement to think about the performance. Ultimately the performance is the key to animation- because as hard as it is to move characters believably, the average person won’t give a shit. The audience came to see a performance, they shouldn’t notice your character’s fluid wrist overlap and buttery movement.

Here is a music video in which Ben Stiller acts with no subtext (on purpose). It is sad, but his mock performance is strikingly similar to how many animators approach dialog.

Ben Stiller’s section is from roughly 1:08 to 2:15.

Questions? Anything need clarification?
I’ll find some good examples of showing thought process in my next post!

-Tom

HERE is a link to purchase or preview the book.

I’ve worked on this book for a long time, and I’m particularly proud of it. One of the wonderful things about making a picture book is the ability to get a whole story out there with a manageable work load.

Some spreads:

-Tom

So I am running a bit late with getting my picture book on sale. I’ve printed two copies and I’m still adjusting a few things. So I’ll have it up for sale soon- hopefully within two weeks.

On the left is the cover design. Contrary to what you may think, the cover is probably a fairly good way to judge a picture book.

-Tom

I’ve been accepted as a summer animation intern at Pixar! It starts on June 9th and goes to August 29th. I will be sure to keep everyone updated with how that goes. Here is the reel I sent to Pixar:

download reel 6mb

I’ve also finished writing and illustrating a children’s book called “Why do Creeples Creep?”. Later this week I will post previews and a link to buy a copy.

-Tom

I wanted to try something different, so I animated this one in After Effects, and then added the faces with Flash. I couldn’t completely get rid of the swimmy-ness of the face, but I enjoyed the overall experience.

-Tom

Here are the 7 illustrations that are anticipated to be published in the 9th edition of “Asking the Right Questions” by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley. (click any of the images to enlarge)

Correlation is not Causation-

Trying to “win”: the wrong attitude toward argument-

Dichotomous Thinking-

Two methods of Critical Thinking-

Multiplicity of Causes-

Socratic Teaching-

Flaws of Personal Observation-

-Tom

Pliability of Personal Observation:

[click to enlarge]