Life in Pixels

haud ignota loquor

  • Originality v Hollywood: Dawn of Mediocrity?

    A curious phenomenon is occurring in the centre of society’s entertainment universe. Perhaps it’s a sense of potential failure casting a net of fear around what was once a creative powerhouse. Perhaps it’s a descent into mediocrity as our collective society has embraced a sense of complaisance, where banality passes for acceptable quality. Whatever it is, there can be no denying it: Hollywood appears to be running out of fresh ideas.

    Instead, we’re being treated to the wonders of rehashed entertainment. I’m reminded of a sentence Nick Offerman’s character, Deputy Chief Hardy, says in 21 Jump Street (ironically, a reboot of a popular television series)

    “We’re reviving a canceled undercover police program from the ’80s and revamping it for modern times. You see the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit from the past and expect us all not to notice.”

    I feel like this is exactly what an executive-led creative industry is doing. I can almost picture the suits in their corner offices somewhere in Los Angeles, cigar in hand, smug grin on their faces, signing-off another reboot, knowing that our pop-obsessive society will eat this all up and fatten the studio’s bottom line. How stupid do they really think we are?

    There will come a point, hopefully soon, when cinema audiences will tire with this. When we will finally open our eyes to the fact that it’s the same movie, with the actors-du-jour fitted snugly in to a predictable plot.

    Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m just as excited about the new Star Wars as the next fan. Likewise, I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store with Avengers: Age of Ultron. I’m an (obsessive?) follower of their Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series, and an ardent watcher of both Arrow and The Flash, two of DC’s darling television spin-offs. These are all properties based off existing source material, whether it’s comic books or one of the most famous cinematic franchises of all time.

    However, I feel that there are talented writers out there with exciting, fresh stories yearning to be unleashed from their paper bounds and brought forth onto the reflective-silver screens of our cineplexes. These stories are being marginalized when studio execs opt to “play it safe” with rehashes of recently-completed rehashes (I’m looking at you, Spider-Man), with bloated adaptations of beloved source material (The Hobbit) or the hope of capitalizing on unexpected, explosive success. In the case of this last example, I’m of course referring to the recent news that Lionsgate, boon of the young adult dystopian fiction adaptation fad, is considering continuing the Hunger Games stories beyond the book. As a fan of the series and its cast and wonderful director, I sincerely hope this will not materialize. Whilst it would be great to see more of the world that Katniss inhabits, and the fact that the last book left much to be desired in terms of an ending, the stories should just be left alone. Hollywood needs to learn about a story’s limits. They need to learn how to let go.

    At the end of the day, we as cinemagoers make the final decision. We have a choice about what we want to watch. That’s the great thing about cinema: we live in an era when there are so many possibilities; were spoiled for choice, essentially. We can choose whether we feel like watching an inventive story like Birdman, or rekindle some nostalgic feels with a viewing of a Godzilla (or Ghostbusters or Robocop or Terminator) reboot. The thing I truly wish for, through, is for original stories to receive the same level of care and treatment that these existing, beloved properties are currently getting.

  • 2015 in Cinema

    2015 films

    Every year I make a list of films I’m looking forward to. Being a cinephile, I make an effort to seek out not only those movies that I know will be surefire hits (I’m looking at you, Avengers 2), but also those dark horses (Chappie, perhaps?).

    2015 looks like our best year in film yet. It’s got one of the most anticipated films of the past decade (Star Wars Episode VII), the gritty setup for Marvel Phase III with Avengers 2, and a host of reboots that I can’t wait to get into the cinema and watch.

    Without further ado, here’s my pick of films to look out for this year.

    (Films marked with an asterisk are my must-see items of the year).

    • Mortdecai (Jan 23)
    • Jupiter Ascending (Feb 6)
    • Kingsman: The Secret Service (Feb 13)
    • *Chappie (Mar 8)
    • The Gunman (Mar 13)
    • Furious 7 (Apr 3)
    • *Avengers: Age of Ultron (May 1)
    • Mad Max: Fury Road (May 15)
    • Tomorrowland (May 22)
    • *Jurassic World (Jun 12)
    • Inside Out (Jun 19)
    • Ted 2 (Jun 26)
    • Terminator Genisys (Jul 1)
    • Minions (Jul 10)
    • *Ant-Man (Jul 17)
    • Pan (Jul 24)
    • Pixels (Jul 24)
    • Hitman: Agent 47 (Aug 28)
    • Everest (Sep 18)
    • Victor Frankenstein (Oct 2)
    • St. James Place (Oct 16)
    • *Spectre (Nov 6)
    • *The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (Nov 20)
    • The Good Dinosaur (Nov 25)
    • The Martian (Nov 25)
    • Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (Dec 18)
    • Mission: Impossible 5 (Dec 25)

    A lot of exciting films coming out this year, but a few notable mentions regarding this year’s selection: this is the first year that Pixar Animation Studios will be releasing two films in one year. Perhaps this will make up for last year’s lack of a single film from Emeryville, CA. I do hope they regain their classic touch, something I feel they’ve lost in recent releases.

    Star Wars will be the biggest movie of this year. Yes, even bigger than Marvel’s “Avengers” sequel. That’s because there’s so much riding on this movie, such anticipation, and most of all: the great mysteries surrounding this release are sure to compel fans new and old to this franchise to check out what director J.J. Abrams has in store.

    Then there’s Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, which will release sometime later this year (no official date yet). This revenge western set around the Civil War is another film I’m really excited about.

    I will once again post my thoughts on some of the films above once I’ve seen them, and this year I will also write a few posts a month on cinema, the technical aspects of the industry and my thoughts on some of these upcoming releases, in anticipation of watching them.

  • Equipment Doesn’t Define Creativity

    There’s this wonderful saying that perfectly captures my thoughts on this topic. Essentially, what I believe, after going through three years of intensive design instruction in my undergraduate architecture degree, and throughout my various design-oriented ventures for personal work and for SKKSA, is that equipment does not dictate creativity. Indeed, it’s not what you use, but how you use it. This is where the magic happens; this is the act of art, where the depth of the creative act becomes apparent at the hand of the craftsman.

    So before I delve deeper into this topic, here’s the gist of this idea: you wouldn’t compliment a chef’s kitchen utensils if you enjoyed his meal; you would commend his skills at bringing forth a delightful gastronomic experience. Similarly, one shouldn’t say “wow, that’s a great photo. You must have an amazing camera.” Because, like the chef and his delicious meal, a beautiful photograph is the creative proof of the photographer’s skillset: of understanding light, composition, technical dexterity and that unique aspect of the creative process that transcends mere product and renders a piece “art” – judgement and intuition.

    One could have the most expensive creative equipment at their disposal, but without the knowledge of how to drive these tools, without intuition and passion and a deeper, rooted understanding of the art form – whether it’s a literary work, a piece of art, a photograph or the design of a building – the resultant work would be mundane, lacking a sense of meaning and connectedness to humanity, to society, and thus considered a positive contribution to the world.

    All too often, in our consumeristic mindset, driven by the fast-paced nature of technology, society and an ever-increasing pressure to constantly produce for insatiable, all-consuming minds, we forget the magic that can arise when we transcend focus on equipment and rather consider the actual act of creativity. The act of creation, of making something out of nothing, is a rather sacred thing. To render something from the mind into reality is a cornerstone of mankind’s evolution, of our ascent from mere hunter-gatherers purely concerned with survival, into creators and thinkers with the potential to build entire cities and venture forth into the stars.

    So these platform debates and mock-wars over which brand or product, or tool is better, are rather meaningless in the grander scheme. Whether you’re Windows or Mac, analogue or digital, it’s the way you use what you have to create that determines your prowess. In the end, not many will care how you created it; it’s the end product that matters to the large portion of society. But it’s up to us, as the creators, to imbue in our work meaning, and a rootedness to culture, society, history – to the precedents that provide richness and add dimension – because these are the elements that will ensure longevity in the final product. These, and not what was used to create them, will immortalise our names and ensure our creations add value to our fellow humans.

  • Celestial Jukebox in the Sky: The Life and Death of iPod

    My iPod Classic

    The first Apple device I owned was an iPod. Specifically, the iPod with Video (fifth generation, 60GB). It’s dead now; its hard drive failed some years ago and prompted my “upgrade” to an iPod Classic. It’s the shiny evolution of the device that changed the trajectory of Apple’s fortunes. The quirky click-wheeled ‘pod launched the company on a hyperdrive trip of success that has eventually led to last month’s announcement of Apple Watch, the latest darling to enter a strong lineage of beautiful industrial design from this Cupertino behemoth.

    iPod is effectively dead right now. Its death occurred on June 29, 2007 when Steve Jobs announced iPhone, a “revolutionary” device touted as a “wireless communicator, Internet device and windscreen iPod – all in one.” iPhone, and the modern smartphone revolution it inspired, led to smaller device storage capacities and thus the emergence of streaming: instead of keeping music onboard, music could be – had to be – streamed from this mystical thing called the cloud. No longer are we compelled to maintain ginormous music libraries on iTunes, no longer do we have to carry our entire collection in our pockets: now, we can have the entire world’s music library beamed to us wherever we are (provided there’s network). The future is here, folks. This is the stuff writ in science fiction lore for decades: life in the connected network.

    But here’s the thing: iPod was personal. iPod reflected who you were – because music is intrinsically personal, emotional, something that appeals to us all on the most base level. iPod was a tiny mirror of your personality. But with this shift to the cloud, the rise of iPhone and streaming services like SoundCloud, Spotify, Rdio and iTunes Radio, maintaining large libraries is a chore. The very purpose of iPod for the mass market is obsolete. I guess all technology has a shelf life – a fairly short shelf life at that – and it’s impressive that the iPod Classic remained in Apple’s lineup for so long. Its last refresh was in 2009, a mere consolidation of storage capacity to 160GB (that’s the iteration of iPod that I still own).

    When Tim Cook announced 1 Infinite Loop’s new creation, Apple quietly pulled the iPod Classic from its lineup. This is a logical move for the company; earlier this year Cook even said in a quarterly earnings call that the iPod business was declining rapidly. Hell, even their accessories category is doing better than the iPod business. And the shift to streaming has caught Apple fumbling to maintain their dominance in the music industry – an industry it helped reinvent over a decade ago with this very device. Apple’s acquisition of Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre’s Beats Electronics is indicative of their yearning to pull themselves back into the game. iTunes sales are growing disproportionately to the sales of streaming subscriptions from rival services. The message from the consumer couldn’t be clearer: people don’t want to own music anymore. Small storage capacities on beloved smartphones – space that is hotly contested by a multitude of media, from apps to videos to music – justifies the raison d’être for streaming services. Streaming music means more space on devices for more apps. And add to that the notion that you can listen to a catalog far greater than the capacity of your device, and the idea of owning an iPod Classic seems unreasonable.

    This shift is reminiscent of the music industry’s transition from vinyl to tapes, the Walkman to the Discman and CDs, to MP3s and the iPod. An industry susceptible to change, at the mercy of the never-ceasing flow of technological invention will always face the challenge of maintaining its emotional connection to the human spirit – emotion is at the core of music, after all. And emotion is what many designers of music services and technologies try to imbue in their creations, creations that by their very nature are ephemeral.

    iPod changed the game. It reflected who you were through something intangible: music. It did the impossible. It created magic. In a way, devoid of myriad features, the infinite possibilities of a canvas-like multitouch interface and a massive app store – devoid even of any network connections – iPod was the most magical device Apple created. It forged invisible yet strong connections between people through music. And its death, its yielding to a far more exciting, intense era of technological possibility, signals also the death of this singularly beautiful experience: the idea of the focussed technological device, the product that does one thing, but does it insanely great.

    So, where to now? What is to become of the iPod line with the death of its last great ancestor, its direct line to the original iPod? Apple still has one more event left for this year, its October event that was historically dubbed the “music event” – the one that was reserved for announcing new iPods and a new version of iTunes. In recent years that has been replaced with iterative updates to the Mac line, and new iPads. The only iPod getting any love is the Touch – and rightly so. It is the only iPod that bridges the origin line (iPod) with the newer kids on the block (iPhone and iPad) through iOS. I don’t think iPod as a brand is dead. A new iPod Classic with a solid-state drive and support for high-fidelity music files has been talked about a lot on Apple forums. But only by diehard audiophiles, because that is exactly to whom this kind of device would appeal. It’s a highly-focussed segment of a small marketshare, and hardly anything that a behemoth like Apple, already deep in existing and well-performing product lines and ventures into entirely new industries (high fashion with Apple Watch) would even bat an eye at. It is for this reason – a pragmatic one, coldly looking at the statistics of market share – that I think iPod Classic is dead; iPod nano, shuffle and touch will continue on to ride out the ever-diminishing sales of a brand that brought a struggling company back from near-extinction, as Apple focusses on pushing people onto iPhones and the iOS ecosystem.

    Tony Fadell, “father of the iPod”, put it succinctly when he said in a recent interview with Fast.Co Design:

    “It was inevitable something would take its place. You know, in 2003 or 2004, we started asking ourselves what would kill the iPod […] And even back then, at Apple, we knew it was streaming. We called it the ‘celestial jukebox in the sky.’ And we have that now: music in the cloud.”

    Like many people, I love music. It’s an incredibly important part of my life. iPod was – no, is – still a fundamental part of my personal tech setup. I am sad to see the Classic go, and have (begrudgingly) come to accept that, logically, there cannot be another Classic; that’s not the direction that the world is moving in. But I hope that the experience, the magic that Apple created with iPod, remains coursing through its DNA as it shifts focus from a consumer electronics company into a lifestyle one.

  • F.lux makes your computer’s screen a sight for sore eyes

    flux-icon-smI wish I’d found out about F.lux sooner. After using this little app for just a week now, it’s already transformed the way I work with my Mac during long-haul overnight sessions with looming deadlines.

    Being an architecture student, I’m well-versed in the All Nighter. This phenomenon means staring at an LCD screen for hours on end, a concept that would send any optometrist into a fit. But it’s a necessary evil, something we need to do in order to get through a mountain of work.

    F.lux makes this ordeal bearable.

    I was compelled to download the utility after reading about it on the Sweet Setup. What F.lux does is simple, but incredibly effective. It’s based off intense research, and whilst its method is yet to be scientifically proven, I’ve personally found that it has made my staring at the screen late into the night far easier than before.

    F.lux basically adjusts your computer’s display in accordance with the ambient lighting conditions. You’ve just got to enter your location, and it will do the rest. As the sun begins to set, your screen will gradually begin to tint to an orange-reddish hue. This means that as you get deeper into the night, you won’t have to stare into the obnoxious blue glow of the standard computer screen. Of course, this isn’t conducive to any graphic-related work where colour accuracy is of importance. But F.lux has a series of options allowing customisation, so you can, for instance, disable it for an hour, or for a specific app (like Illustrator or Photoshop). From the app’s description:

    “f.lux makes your computer screen look like the room you’re in, all the time. […] Tell f.lux what kind of lighting you have, and where you live. Then forget about it. f.lux will do the rest, automatically.”

    F.lux goes on to claim that it can even help you sleep better. According to the developer: “We know that night-time exposure to blue light keeps people up late. We believe that f.lux adjusts colors in a way that greatly reduces the stimulating effects of blue light at night.”

    Whilst I haven’t noticed changes in my sleeping pattern (all nighters for days here), I have found that using my Mac at night is now a lot easier.

    F.lux is available to download for Windows, OS X and Linux for free. You can even get it for Android, and jailbroken iOS. Your eyes will thank you.