The “move” that stands out the most to me is introducing the type of brush/tool that the artist is using/going to use. In the Bob Ross videos is much more necessary because his videos are tutorials (purpose) so the viewer needs to know what brushes are being used. Even in the Family Guy “recreation” they state the brush he is using; obviously, this is something that is noticeable if it is being reinterpreted even as a joke. In the Disney video, they also introduce the tools that the artist are using, but in a way different from Bob Ross. The purpose of showing the different tools is to show the differences in the artists, which was the point of the video.
Another “move” that is seen is an explanation of the technique the artist is using. This “move” has similar reasoning behind why it is used to that of the tools. The difference being though is that after the explanation of what they are doing there is a “why” they are doing it. They could easily have just said something along the lines of “use the side of the brush for denser shading” and have people repeated it, but instead there is a justification for it. By explaining why this technique is ideal for the image that they are painting the viewer gets a better understanding and in the case of Ross, the viewer can begin to learn for themselves.
The descriptions provided on what each artist is painting vary depending on the purpose of the painting. Ross’ explanation are more planned and descriptive because that is his “job” whereas the artist, while painting the tree leisurely, described more of the process of how they saw the tree and how they were going to represent it, there was less direct instruction but rather tips and tricks to guide the viewer on what to look for when they are painting.
Towards the end of the Disney video I had a clear distinction between which trees I liked and which I did not, my favorite being the “portrait of the trunk”. It was not only the style of painting that I enjoyed the most it was the reasoning behind it that was appealing. His choice in making the painting almost an “exact” representation of what he was viewing made me enjoy the piece. I am not a creative or “abstract” thinker so the painting of the tree as architecture really put me off because I do not see things like that, I see things pretty much for as they are (like the portrait of the tree trunk). The descriptions behind how the artists see the tree adds to the outcome of the actual painting. In the beginning, when they first started working it gave the viewer an idea of what to expect, even though I do not like the abstract tree that much I was still anticipating what the final outcome was going to be while watching the process unfold.
I felt like my paper turned out better than expected. I was happy with how my paragraphs flowed, I felt like my ideas were cohesive and consistent which made it easy to connect the paragraphs. I am still having issues including book sources. I went back to find places that I could use resources but I liked the way my paper was and didn't want to jeopardize including quotes just to meet the requirement of having them. It could be contradictory because the quotes could have supported my paper but I just have a difficult time locating where to put the quotes in the paper without making the paper muddy.
The most helpful comment I had yesterday was elaborating on certain “moves” Because I know our class knows what “IMRAD” is does not mean other academic audiences know what it is. I have to find a balance of knowing when my audiences knows
the material I am referencing versus when I need to introduce and explain. All the feedback I got yesterday helped in some way or another, some of the comments that were made me think about what I was trying to say and explain it better but some comments were more stylistic and things my reviewer would like to see but not necessarily something I would like to include in my own work so I was making compromises with myself but also holding my ground in certain pieces of my work.
Hannah, I like the differences you point out among Bob Ross’s videos and the Disney video. I never considered the fact that the two types of videos had two different purposes. Bob Ross’s videos were tutorials, which is why he took more time to show how he does things and repeats words to engrain them in the artist’s head. He’s very detail-oriented. Whereas the Disney video just wanted to demonstrate variety among artist’s painting techniques. They didn’t spend much time telling us how to do something. I like that you established how they don’t only tell you how to do something but why it’s important to do it that way, what it does for the painting.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you identified the Bob Ross youtube video as a tutorial, that totally slipped my mind when I was trying to describe it myself especially since he went slow enough/engaged the viewer in order to make it a tutorial which was a lot different from how the Disney animators did things. I also like the way you identified the purpose of the paintings drawn the disney drawers.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I liked how you went into depth about the description of the tools in use, and why the painters described the tools and how to use them, especially in the Bob Ross tutorials. Why did you like the portrait of the trunk? what qualities stood out to you and what moves did this artist make to give it the aspect of realism? I agree that the architectural take on the tree was weird. I didnt like it as much.
ReplyDelete