Seeing the whole

The little seen photography of Stanley Kubrick before his famous filmmaking career. Kubrick was always an excellent photographer and his way of seeing the whole was a key foundation to the compositional beauty and gravity of his movies.

“…if one would solve the everyday problems of existence, whatever they may be, one must first see the wider issues and then come to the detail. After all, the great painter, the great poet is one who sees the whole — who sees all the heavens, the blue skies, the radiant sunset, the tree, the fleeting bird—all at one glance…then he begins to paint, to write, to sculpt; he works it out in detail. — Krishnamurti

Seeing the big picture seems so difficult. Why is that?

I suspect it’s the dominance of our approach to life, which is becoming ever more mechanical and detailed oriented. We are so left-brain dominant. We seem prone to turn our attention to small, busy abstractions. We automatically think they’re somehow more real, more informative and thus far more important than anything else in comparison. Furthermore, details, even triavialities, have a certain urgency about them, make it doubly hard to turn away. Unfortunately, this gets us into tremendous trouble. This is especially so when we use our pin-point acuity at the wrong time.

Timing is everything. We must know when to think and when to do.

Like a bird that’s going about its daily activities, we need to see big and see small. Most prey animals do both at the same time; they keep one eye out for predators (the big picture environment) while it keeps the other eye fixed on the worm in the ground (the small detail). Unfortunately, we humans are unable to operate under this kind of arrangement. Like most predators, our eyes aim stereoscopically to target our prey. Our goals are specific and thus the details before us are both demanding for accuracy and urgency (our target might escape!). And driven by our desire/greed (i.e. getting the worm), we psychologically forget the larger game.

“I make my work emerge naturally… with no apparent effort but thought out at length and worked out from within.” — Joan Miro

The artist does this when he gets so obsessed with the minutiae of specificity — challenging technicalities that reveal themselves in the strain of the moment — that he messes up the main idea. He’s so caught in the busyness of doing and fixing that he doesn’t even realize that the reason he’s struggly so mightily (later on) is because he’s built his work on a bad foundation. He twists and turns, changing this detail and that, even altering the original core essence of his work. Even professionals fall prey to this terrible habit. It’s easy to forget but skill alone is not enough to ensure success.

We must work always from big picture to small, from the ground up and from the inside out.

When we mess with our workflow — the proper procedural approach to creation — we mess up the work. It’s inevitable. Big studios do this; beginning/advancing production on a project before ironing out story issues or even questioning whether they actually have a good idea in the first place. The individual animator does this; fixing and polishing his shot that has terrible acting and design choices. In both cases, they are working to finish something that’s actually never really even begun. Afterall, re-adjusting and polishing garbage can never transform it from being what it is, garbage!

“Speed is irrelevant if you are going in the wrong direction.” — Mahatma Gandhi

Stop when you realize things are going in the wrong direction.

Too many people, not just artists, just continue onwards despite knowing that they’re going the wrong way. It’s sad but true; habits are hard to break. Call it pride, call it stupidity, but this is almost default behaviour with most people. We repeat the same actions expecting different results. How can this not drive us to bitterness and mad dissappointment?

The solution is simple even if it is hard. (Hint: if it’s too easy and convenient, it’s probably wrong)

The long approach is almost always the right approach. It’s also the simplest. Always spend adequate time to think, explore and plan. Then do the work. Work in order. Review and adjust accordingly, each time checking if you’re on track with the grand design of things. I often remind my own students: First compose the music, then play the music. Design the building before you build it. Learn to see how you actually think and work.

“Consciousness illuminates itself by paying attention to it.” — Albert Camus

Problem Posing

“The Artist is no other than he who unlearns what he has learned, in order to know himself.” — E. E. Cummings, Poet

Today, I’m going to demonstrate a pose from a recent high profile animated film (which will remain unnamed) that is problematic. Normally I would not do this publicly. I do not want to embarass or criticize the animator — that is not my intent nor do we know the circumstances the shot was performed under. Every animator makes mistakes and has experienced being told to make choices he/she would otherwise not make; real stories often remain unknown. Therefore, to save everyone from trouble, I’ve decided to trace over the pose — in a very rudimentary manner — and flipped the image so that it is no longer recognizable.

Why do this? Because I wish to challenge the notion that alot of feature animation today is of the highest quality and often deemed as superior than say old 2D animation because it’s more realistic (especially when we take away all the CGI bells and whistles). Furthermore, continued heavy reliance on self-shot video reference reveals graphic choices that I feel a truly creative and skilled artist would not make if he/she didn’t see something they can copy (reference does this to artists). I want to show that the technology is irrelevant and it’s the quality of the craft that counts. Note that I’m not particularly cherry picking a bad frame — this was clearly a Key Pose from the scene — but I also found the acting choices as well as other poses throughout the shot somewhat problematic. But that is not the subject of today’s analysis.

Here is the pose in question:

Original trace over of actual screen pose.

The pose as stated earlier is one that’s at a held area of focus (i.e. it’s a moving hold). As you can see, without the glorious details (eye candy of 3D modeling/lighting/textures) that computer graphics can provide, that the neither the shapes or direction of the pose are interesting. And without the facial information or dialogue it’s also somewhat vague as to what’s actually happening or what’s being communicated.

Diagram A:

Diagram A

In this image, we can see that the line of action (LOA) of the character is poor and rather stiff. It is generally stronger to align the front LOA of the chest, neck and head whenever possible. Furthermore, adding a twist to the upper half of the pose might create greater torque and interest in the direction of the character’s action/intent. This is shown on the right drawing as a possible alternative (should the acting permit that such a choice).

Diagram B:

Diagram B

In this image, we can see that there’s far too much symmetry going on. Both portions of the hair volume and the arms make near perfect triangles, as does the overall pose. This makes for poor design and general flatn design. The quick drawing made on the right shows what an asymmetrical choice might look like — something a bit more lively and appealing. Remember both positive and negatives shapes are very imporant as to how something reads. If you want something to feel and look natural, symmetry is a no go.

Diagram C:

Diagram C

Here, we can see that the flatness is further exasperated by the compositional choice. The top and bottom frame are far too close to signicant points of interest (head and arms). Also the alignment of the shoulders and elbows fall on the horizontal grid of the picture ruining the the sense of 3D space and form in the character. Note how the screen R hand/lower arm is literally tangental to the base of the screen.

Diagram D:

Diagram D

In this last image, I’m directing your attention to the flow of lines. This is a drawing/design skill that’s often lacking among 3D artists. Sometimes when working with dimensional forms like CGI models, we forget to see lines. In the above case, flow of the exterior lines of the hair align too perfectly with the sides fo the body which turns the pose into a flat unified symbol. Such a shape might be ideal for logo or toy designs but is generally not favourable to animated action. The same problem occurs with the shoulders/arms. Another issue is the placement of the lower R-arm and hand which overlap each other without demonstrating depth. When lines don’t make interesting changes, they not only hurt appeal but can misinform/confuse.