Follow the link below to see my portfolio which scored me a $40,000.00 scholarship for artistic acheavement at MCAD (Minneapolis College of Art and Design).
--My Portfolio.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Videography
For my full video profile you may visit the following pages...
http://www.youtube.com/user/optikmedia -- This is where my serious film work goes, I don't put tests or other experiments on this page.
http://vimeo.com/optikmedia -- This is where I post my old creations, tests, and anything I do that I feel I learned from, expect nothing on here to be perfect.
http://www.youtube.com/user/iwalkmycatonsaturday -- This is where I put silly videos; however, they still maintain a high production value, and they are good practice.
www.johntannervideography.com -- A sample of all my work, and the place you can contact me where I will answer.
http://www.youtube.com/user/optikmedia -- This is where my serious film work goes, I don't put tests or other experiments on this page.
http://vimeo.com/optikmedia -- This is where I post my old creations, tests, and anything I do that I feel I learned from, expect nothing on here to be perfect.
http://www.youtube.com/user/iwalkmycatonsaturday -- This is where I put silly videos; however, they still maintain a high production value, and they are good practice.
www.johntannervideography.com -- A sample of all my work, and the place you can contact me where I will answer.
Photography
I have been working with a lot of photography lately, and decided some of you might be interested in some samples of my photos.
Commissioned work for a local artist named Desmond Williams.
I took this yesterday during the storm, panorama photo.
Class project, the assignment was to take a picture of a door.
Another taken during the storm.
Class assignment, my mother grading papers.
For more of my photography you can visit my website (johntannervideography.com) for updates, and other work done by me, thanks for reading.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Flash is a huge "bleh".
I tested flash CS4 today, thinking of doing an animation about a boat at sea. Might make it long, or short, depending on how much spare time I have. I noticed that Flash has a weird interface when it comes to actions and commands for your shapes, it's almost like code, very HTML like. I tried overlaying some pictures over another and I came across some difficulties with blending layers together, I'm going to look into it a bit more, and see if I can get the animation up soon.
I also got my music video, "Dust and Stars" in a competition, and it's screening this Saturday. Hope it turns out well, we might even win something, which would be nice seeing as that whole video only took a few days to edit, 6 hours to shoot, and a few days mixing and mastering the song.
Thanks for reading.
John Tanner
I also got my music video, "Dust and Stars" in a competition, and it's screening this Saturday. Hope it turns out well, we might even win something, which would be nice seeing as that whole video only took a few days to edit, 6 hours to shoot, and a few days mixing and mastering the song.
Thanks for reading.
John Tanner
Friday, January 27, 2012
In defense of Jordan Clark, and addressing "unoriginal artwork".
Alright, so I was sitting in class today, critiquing all of the classes 3-D work. We pondered everyone else's work as usual, until it came around to my friend Jordan; this is when it gets interesting.
As it turns out he decided to do a concentration (or series of works connected through a common theme) on popular Internet Memes, which are drawings that originate on popular image forums, usually mocking popular icons, or just thought up and catch on (ex. troll face, forever alone). Well, in short they where not well received, the teacher and a few students argued that "it is not a strong enough series because it is not an original idea". So we are faced with the question, when it comes to art, of any form, does the original idea matter so much as to destroy and mangle a well executed piece? I will outline all the reasons why, that is complete bullshit.
Lets start with the big picture... Art.
As quoted from the Webster dictionary and many popular online references (Dictionary.com, wikipeida.com, etc.)
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, or intellect."
So right off the bat, nothing about an original idea, the very definition of art has nothing to do with the idea in an of itself, but the execution and how well you represent ANY IDEA, being original or not. For example, and I hate to bring up such a cliche argument, but Shakespeare, one of the most famous, renowned, and influential writers in the history of writing, stole almost all of his work! However, I ask you, who can argue that he was not a powerful writer? Who can argue that he is not an astounding artist who has changed the literary world forever? Who can argue that just because it's not original means that it cannot be brilliant? I will answer this, no one. In fact Shakespeare stole about 90% of all of his ideas from other writers, and simply out of executing ideas better than everyone else, he made some of the most beautiful plays in the history of theatre.
Alright, now that I have established that you can take an unoriginal idea and turn it into brilliance, I will explain why it is acceptable.
Way back, long ago, in the caves of the world there existed men, and those men decided to draw pictures all over the walls of things they saw, and things they experienced, they where called cave men. Alright, from all the way back then, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago, until now, you can still believe that an original idea exists? I am sorry to tell you that no such originality exists, but, for arguments sake, let's say it did, so what? And original idea won't matter if you don't execute it properly, in fact, the idea itself doesn't matter at all if you have the chops to execute it brilliantly. For example, Romeo and Juliet, the most famous and world renowned play ever performed was the product of 100 guys writing the same story, then someone came along who did it better than every single one of them. The idea itself at that time was cliche, and yet, here we are 200, 300 years later still admiring it's brilliance. Do you think that the idea had anything to do with that? No, it was the execution, plain and simple.
Now that I have that out of the way, I will address the second argument, "well the images are copyrighted, they won't accept that".
Okay let me start off with one fact that could win this automatically, MEME FACES ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED, in fact my teacher even said "Everything on the Internet is copyrighted", well I just proved her wrong because no pictures I've taken, videos I've made, blogs I've written, are copyrighted at all. Saying everything on the Internet is copyrighted, is like saying every car has an alarm. I can actually prove this with over 10 sources, Google "are meme faces copyrighted?" and you'll get ten links that say no.
Alright, moving along, "stealing and idea or image from someone else is very uncreative".
Seriously? Okay, really the ignorance of the statement rendered me speechless. I have a fact for you, listen closely, did you know that everyone who does a shape concentration DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL IDEA. I mean really, they're technically stealing from the cavemen, and you're harassing someone for not having an original idea when they take a 2D work, and turn it into a 3D sculpture. That'd be like if I took the drawing from a pre-schooler and it had a red house on it, and I built a red house that was marveled upon, it was a beautiful piece of architecture, would you come at me saying that it wasn't brilliant because I copied the idea from someone? I mean it wasn't original, right? Well first, ONE IS 2D AND ONE IS 3D. And second, even if an image is copyrighted, it is your right as a human being to express similar ideas differently and be able to do it without getting harassed. If someone draws a dog, and someone paints a dog, they are both different. If you sculpt a face, and you draw a face, it's different. If you sculpt a meme face, and draw a meme face, IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Being creative does not mean making new ideas, it means taking old ones and bringing a fresh, personal, and intriguing take to them, which Jordan did.
And last, but not least, "But it's going to a panel of judges, and this is an AP class, it needs to be original as possible."
You really think you are going to have an idea SO ORIGINAL, that it will stand out to those judges regardless of how well they're executed? I'd rather take a cliche idea and bring a fresh view to it, than try to explain a brand new idea that has to be so far fetched and complicated to even be considered original anymore, and hope that they get your "new idea".
And exactly, it's an AP class, don't you think you deserve the right, as a mature, budding artist, to be able to express yourself freely? If you start controlling what he does based on those flimsy arguments above you are going to turn someones art, into loathed schoolwork. So I have a question for you, why would you punish someone for their view on an idea? Because that's what you're doing, having a different take on an idea is not unoriginal or uncreative, it is what makes art such a powerful expression. You never see a debate on T.V where two people argue different points, and one shouts to the other "YOU'RE SO UNCREATIVE, GET YOUR OWN TOPIC!".
All I'm saying is, cut him some slack, and let him express himself freely.
Thanks for reading.
John Tanner
As it turns out he decided to do a concentration (or series of works connected through a common theme) on popular Internet Memes, which are drawings that originate on popular image forums, usually mocking popular icons, or just thought up and catch on (ex. troll face, forever alone). Well, in short they where not well received, the teacher and a few students argued that "it is not a strong enough series because it is not an original idea". So we are faced with the question, when it comes to art, of any form, does the original idea matter so much as to destroy and mangle a well executed piece? I will outline all the reasons why, that is complete bullshit.
Lets start with the big picture... Art.
As quoted from the Webster dictionary and many popular online references (Dictionary.com, wikipeida.com, etc.)
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, or intellect."
So right off the bat, nothing about an original idea, the very definition of art has nothing to do with the idea in an of itself, but the execution and how well you represent ANY IDEA, being original or not. For example, and I hate to bring up such a cliche argument, but Shakespeare, one of the most famous, renowned, and influential writers in the history of writing, stole almost all of his work! However, I ask you, who can argue that he was not a powerful writer? Who can argue that he is not an astounding artist who has changed the literary world forever? Who can argue that just because it's not original means that it cannot be brilliant? I will answer this, no one. In fact Shakespeare stole about 90% of all of his ideas from other writers, and simply out of executing ideas better than everyone else, he made some of the most beautiful plays in the history of theatre.
Alright, now that I have established that you can take an unoriginal idea and turn it into brilliance, I will explain why it is acceptable.
Way back, long ago, in the caves of the world there existed men, and those men decided to draw pictures all over the walls of things they saw, and things they experienced, they where called cave men. Alright, from all the way back then, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago, until now, you can still believe that an original idea exists? I am sorry to tell you that no such originality exists, but, for arguments sake, let's say it did, so what? And original idea won't matter if you don't execute it properly, in fact, the idea itself doesn't matter at all if you have the chops to execute it brilliantly. For example, Romeo and Juliet, the most famous and world renowned play ever performed was the product of 100 guys writing the same story, then someone came along who did it better than every single one of them. The idea itself at that time was cliche, and yet, here we are 200, 300 years later still admiring it's brilliance. Do you think that the idea had anything to do with that? No, it was the execution, plain and simple.
Now that I have that out of the way, I will address the second argument, "well the images are copyrighted, they won't accept that".
Okay let me start off with one fact that could win this automatically, MEME FACES ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED, in fact my teacher even said "Everything on the Internet is copyrighted", well I just proved her wrong because no pictures I've taken, videos I've made, blogs I've written, are copyrighted at all. Saying everything on the Internet is copyrighted, is like saying every car has an alarm. I can actually prove this with over 10 sources, Google "are meme faces copyrighted?" and you'll get ten links that say no.
Alright, moving along, "stealing and idea or image from someone else is very uncreative".
Seriously? Okay, really the ignorance of the statement rendered me speechless. I have a fact for you, listen closely, did you know that everyone who does a shape concentration DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL IDEA. I mean really, they're technically stealing from the cavemen, and you're harassing someone for not having an original idea when they take a 2D work, and turn it into a 3D sculpture. That'd be like if I took the drawing from a pre-schooler and it had a red house on it, and I built a red house that was marveled upon, it was a beautiful piece of architecture, would you come at me saying that it wasn't brilliant because I copied the idea from someone? I mean it wasn't original, right? Well first, ONE IS 2D AND ONE IS 3D. And second, even if an image is copyrighted, it is your right as a human being to express similar ideas differently and be able to do it without getting harassed. If someone draws a dog, and someone paints a dog, they are both different. If you sculpt a face, and you draw a face, it's different. If you sculpt a meme face, and draw a meme face, IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Being creative does not mean making new ideas, it means taking old ones and bringing a fresh, personal, and intriguing take to them, which Jordan did.
And last, but not least, "But it's going to a panel of judges, and this is an AP class, it needs to be original as possible."
You really think you are going to have an idea SO ORIGINAL, that it will stand out to those judges regardless of how well they're executed? I'd rather take a cliche idea and bring a fresh view to it, than try to explain a brand new idea that has to be so far fetched and complicated to even be considered original anymore, and hope that they get your "new idea".
And exactly, it's an AP class, don't you think you deserve the right, as a mature, budding artist, to be able to express yourself freely? If you start controlling what he does based on those flimsy arguments above you are going to turn someones art, into loathed schoolwork. So I have a question for you, why would you punish someone for their view on an idea? Because that's what you're doing, having a different take on an idea is not unoriginal or uncreative, it is what makes art such a powerful expression. You never see a debate on T.V where two people argue different points, and one shouts to the other "YOU'RE SO UNCREATIVE, GET YOUR OWN TOPIC!".
All I'm saying is, cut him some slack, and let him express himself freely.
Thanks for reading.
John Tanner
Friday, January 20, 2012
My DIFF film.
I'm working on my DIFF film (Andremedes) for another week to get the right compression for my DVD. Then I will star brainstorming ideas for a new film.
-John Tanner
-John Tanner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)