The second time around, I had a better idea of what I was supposed to be doing. After vetting my emotions & the potential designs I drew on the sample sheet, I made edits and started making the actual strips. I realised the cream paper was too flimsy so I re-did existing strips onto that. I also explored adding illustrations onto the sheets instead of just ink/monoprinting. I finally more or less had the basic idea for what to do, and managed to make about 8-10 strips for the final showcase.
my 18 emotions:
1. neutral –
a. not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
b. having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.
– i relate to this the most because i’m always in a constant state of neutrality. i’m neither genuinely happy nor sad, but always in the middle. it’s a lot less emo than it sounds. f
–
2. angry –
all inspiration images are from google.
–
Initially I posted that I was going to be using a toothbrush to flick paint and my black-soled Converse to step on the paper. Clearly I forgot to bring an extra toothbrush (and I still used mine) so I used a scotch-brite instead. SPOILER ALERT: it didn’t work as well as the brush would have. Plus I wore white-soled shoes to school out of habit so I had to stick with using my mailbox key to make the other patterns.
I was playing Russian roulette because I was wearing a white shirt while working with black ink. Surprisingly enough, I didn’t get ink everywhere. (but the same can’t be said for Tisya)
It started out quite cathartic, just painting the base with a black paint using the roller. After rolling and rolling for about two minutes, I tried to use the key to do some…keying. I scratched some random marks here and there just to test it out. Little did I know that my layer of black base wasn’t (and never was) thick enough, so the roller ended up embossing the surface texture of the base pad onto the print. Granted, the pattern was interesting, but it didn’t look the way I wanted it to. At least I got a hang of using the roller.
I repeated the process with the scotch-brite and by then it was clear that these items weren’t impactful(?) enough to leave a strong impression that would manifest itself in the print. So I decided to take the others’ lead and try using the hay-string-rattan-roll. Needless to say, it came out a lot better than the first two prints. Clearly rolling over the material was a better idea.
After that I tried again, but this time I drowned the key in white paint and put it in the middle of the square to be rolled. It was okay, but it looked like a shapeless blob in the middle. So finally I resorted to using the end of the key to drip paint onto the board so as to create a paint-trail sort of thing. Ended up dropping 2 huge blobs and when pressed it kind of ruined the whole thing.
Lessons learnt:
i. to be careful with what I wear
ii. to make sure the object I use will not end up looking unidentifiable
iii. to roll the paint thicker before starting the prints
iv. to bring more rollable objects / objects that can make stronger, more significant markings
–
p.s. I’m missing an A4 white-paper print so if you see one with a thumbprint, it’s mine (so help me take it please and thanks!)
p.p.s we should suggest to the school to have a backing for the racks, if not the prints are going to keep falling behind the rack – which gets real old real fast, don’t you agree?
I originally showed the 4 models to the teacher last week, so the first two (which were “approved”) aren’t the same as the ones I originally made bc they’ve been adjusted based on the comments given. The last two “rejected” models are as they were when I presented them.
MODEL #1
This model underwent the most changes out of the 4 (mainly just the SO), because I was still deciding between this between this and model #2.
this model is similar to the one the teacher made by altering anna’s “piercing” model. the axes for the dominant and sub-dominant are the same, yet the alignment doesn’t look so boring (according to the teacher). the length of the SD is about 1/3rd of the length of the D. the SO is also between 1/2 and 1/3rd the width of the D.
from the side, too, i feel that there is a clear distinction between what is the D/SD/SO.
(out of focus because of the camera but i tried to make it as clear as possible)
originally, the SD was a slightly wider and much thinner slice of foam (which i will be including in the main documentation post) and so from this angle, it wasn’t clear which was the SD and which was the SO. after replacing it with a thicker piece, it’s now much clearer which is which.
In the first edition, the front and side views posed no issues. However, from the front, it was obvious that the SO was as wide as the D and so it needed to be trimmed down to prevent confusion.
Unlike the first one, this second edition no longer has the problem of having the SO’s width be the same as the D. The length of the SO is also 1/3 of the SD’s. But now, the thickness of the SO is almost identical to the SD. So, it had to be even further edited.
While #3 was the most aesthetically pleasing and the discrepancies were the least obvious, it still wasn’t satisfactory, which is why I decided to use the 2nd model instead.
–
MODEL #2
SD and SO are at the 1/3 markers (based on length of D). SO is placed on the horizontal 1/3 marker also (based on width of the D). Roughly 1/3 of the SD is wedged into the D.
doesn’t seem like it, but SO is only about 2/3 the width of the SD, they’re not the same size.
1/3 of the width of the SD was cut off because the original made it unclear which was the D and SD.
–
MODEL #3
The original plan was to make the SO significantly smaller than the other parts so as to avoid distraction from the SD while maintaining the overall shape and placements – but it would be made noticeable by the material used (for the material application part). I also wanted to make use of “piercing” for a change from the other two that made use of wedging.
However this model was scrapped as piercing proved impossible with an SO of that size. I tried making the SO bigger but that ended up distorting all the ratios (1:3 proportions) as well as mixing up which was the SD and SO.
–
Overall, I’ve learnt how difficult it actually is to create an object that maintains both a consistent D/SD/SO while concurrently adhering to the thirds rule + 1/3 < x < 1/2 equation. I have also discovered the reasoning behind using differing axes for the different elements of the object. Plus, the difference it makes when the D, SD and SO follow the ratio as compared to it being measured anyhow really does make a huge difference in the orderliness. And the SO, while comparatively the most “insignificant”, can still be the most eye-catching. However, I still have yet to understand why symmetry should be avoided (because in my opinion symmetry can also be aesthetically pleasing) but this activity has opened my mind to considering and using more asymmetrical designs.
okay so i’m not so sure whether what idea i was trying to say made sense or was visualisable but my idea branched out from this video that our photography teacher showed us back in MJC.
an ad campaign by canon australia – “THE LAB: DECOY – A portrait session with a twist”
this is a bit different from my idea in the sense that the persona each photographer was trying to capture differed between them, whereas for my idea ideally we will be photographing the exact same subject – just from our own respective perspectives. but the idea is there, and clearer than my explanation heh.
i’ll elaborate more of what i’m trying to achieve later – i haven’t finished my 3d models whOOPS.
When I get home, I’m grabbing my toothbrush and a pair of shoes to use as my mark-making tools.
Toothbrush to flick paint at the paper,
and the shoes to step all over the paper.
Really SHOW that emotion.
Welcome to Open Source Studio. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!