Comments for Anarchyjim

Comment on Chief Executive Anarchist on Colorburned.com. by Colorburned

Colorburned — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:55:22 +0000

Thanks for the kind words Debbie! I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you over the last several months. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you guys out in the future.

http://twitter.com/Colorburned

Comment on Nick Cattermole: Music, monkeys & monks. by Petal

Petal — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:26:50 +0000

Yes, the ToonIt effect really brings out the colour in the picture of the monk walking. It also seems to frame every detail to the point where everything in the picture becomes an interesting character.
Debbie is right, it’s a pleasure to watch the seemingly mezmarised eyes of the monkey, which you don’t get from the original.
Good catch Love!

Comment on Nick Cattermole: Music, monkeys & monks. by Suzanne Cann

Suzanne Cann — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:04:01 +0000

Great photos that my step son has taken. Let’s see more of his work.

Comment on Silverlight & other streams. by mjb

mjb — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:16:22 +0000

This got posted on the Smashing Apps website this last Saturday:
15 Excellent And Useful Microsoft Silverlight Tutorials & Resources

Comment on Obama’s poster uses stolen photo by anarchyjim

anarchyjim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:47:39 +0000

I guess part of my issue with this has to do with intention. Most painters and artists use reference materials. I don’t really have an issue with that. Nor am I claiming that Mr. Fairey added nothing to the process. He certainly did. However, he refused to even acknowledge the photograph or that he had referenced anything… as if it was inconsequential. Comparing the photograph and the painting indicates the photograph played a huge role. By Fairey’s lack of graciousness in not acknowledging that he used a reference, I consider it theft. His intention was to lead you to believe that the painting was strictly ‘his vision’. Clearly this was not so. Mash-ups and other ‘inspired art’ is fine and is still art, but don’t dis the artists that created the work you’re using in your mash-up. Respect the art and artists that you’re using and give them due credit.

Comment on 4-Hour Workweek via Wired.com by anarchistbabe

anarchistbabe — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:19:10 +0000

Marcia, that’s a great solution. It’s funny that you mention this tip, because over the weekend I was considering buying an oversized paper calendar, hanging it on my office wall, and using that calendar purely to track tasks. Now I really will do that. Thanks!

-debbie

Comment on 4-Hour Workweek via Wired.com by Marcia Jones

Marcia Jones — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:18:06 +0000

I am a mother, freelancer, full time student, and full time employee, so I know the importance of managing time. (Hence the 1 a.m. post!) How do I keep myself on track? I don’t know that I’m actually on track, but I’m definitely trying! I just bought a whiteboard and I wrote down the days of the week horizontally across the board. Under each day, I write down what is due and what is happening. That way I can look at the entire week and attempt to plan accordingly.

Comment on Obama’s poster uses stolen photo by thummper

thummper — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:18:53 +0000

WOW, I have a bit of a problem with a few statements here.
-”Now I realize not EVERY area in the photo lines up exactly with the posterized photos… but it’s pretty amazing to see how much work didn’t go into this”
consider that the work which goes into taking a picture could be boiled down to clicking a button, and the camera does the rest. To apply the above statement to this would likely raise quite a lot of objections by you relating to lighting, framing, etc. To sum up, the art isnt in the pushing of the button, the art is in the decisions which go into the production before and after clicking the button. Not all of these decisions are cut and dry, or easily defined, especially to someone not involved in photography themselves.

Likewise, what this article, as the wallstreet journal one, is basically doing is boiling down the creation process to a “button click” photoshop filter, ignoring all the artistic decisions, such as colors, reference material (pin that one, ill come back to it), stroke or no, fill style, line and curve placement, balance, font, etc.

There are plenty of tutorials on ways to get a similar effect through a series of photoshop effects and with minimal design knowledge (ie ), however consider there are TONS of tutorials on how to get / create a great photo with just a couple camera tricks and limited photographic knowledge. While some of the examples created using a tutorial like the one mentioned will look good, many, including the example listed, look TERRIBLE, unbalanced, with poor color use, and poor divisions (because they are, for the most part, automated). again, compare this to photography. I am a horrible photographer, but I take a LOT of pictures. I have a few that are great, mainly an odds game, but a real photographer doesnt rely on odds, (at least not mainly) but goes in knowing the ramifications of all the decisions and finesses a great photo out of a situation. The same can be said of the method above.

Now, to revisit out “pinned” statement above, choice of reference material. I own my likeness. if you take a great picture of me are you “stealing” my likeness? Most photos dont even mention the subjects of the pictures. if you diminish the photographic process to a button click than yes, you are stealing my likeness, and in the beginning of photography, as with painting and computers, this was the view held by most people. If you, instead, consider the process of constructing a photo as an artistic process than no, you can claim ownership of the photograph as your artistic work. The same applies to the poster, and in fact to computer generated work in general. So, I would claim that:
-the likeness belongs to Obama
-the photo belongs to the photographer as it is the product of his artistic work and expertise
-the poster belongs to Mr. Farley as it is the product of this artistic work and expertise

I would encourage you to consider that in the beginning of public acceptance and understanding of any artistic medium (consider renaissance painting, photography, computer generated) The artist was simply seen as “copying” the source of his work, and simply playing a documentary roll. It was not until the public considered the artistic efforts which can go into production that they considered some of the productions via the specific medium to be “art”.

Also consider that photography is perhaps the worst offender of actual theft being played off as original artwork. Im sure, being a ethical photographer, that if you were to, say, take a picture of the Mona Lisa for a publication you would credit Da Vinci, not yourself, right?

Comment on Just pay the pro already…sheesh. by Colorburned

Colorburned — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:12:47 +0000

Well said Debbie! Just about every designer that I know has run into this problem at some point.

http://twitter.com/Colorburned

Comment on Obama’s poster uses stolen photo by anarchyjim

anarchyjim — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:46:31 +0000

First off, the image is not public domain. Just because you can find it on the internet does not mean it’s public domain. It’s a copyrighted image. Which was used exactly as is with different coloring. Is that sufficiently making an image your own such that you don’t have to at least acknowledge the photographer? I don’t think so.

If it was your photograph that someone had made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of… how much surer would you be about where copyright begins and ends?