This will probably be the most ironic article you will ever read.
Me, giving others advice on how to bullshit your way through writing a comedy article on something you know absolutely nothing about. It's like your ugly friend giving you tips on how to keep creepy guys from hitting on you. "Thanks for the help, sista. I'll just hang out with you."
Like I said, the most ironic article ever.
Because I'm usually the ugly friend.
Anyways, allow me to walk you through this atrocity.
Step One: Pick a Topic
The point of this article is to help you write an article you know nothing about, so let's assume by now that you've exhausted all of your pointless knowledge on articles you've already written; including that ever-popular one that lists all of the reasons why Wheatley is awesome in Portal 2.
My advice for choosing an unfamiliar topic, is to choose one that you think will generate a fair amount of traffic. It's pointless to work on an article for longer than you normally would if no one's going to read it. Chances are no one will read it anyway, but why subtract from zero when you can just as easily add. Also, choose something that you can think of a few puns for. No one will respect you for puns, but if it's all you have... Well, if you're having fun, that's all that counts. *grin*
Step Two: Do Some Research
Yes, research. Don't expect to just start writing and all of this info will just "flow". This isn't 2196, there is no Google-brain interface you can download crap to just by thinking about it. I will still teach you how to "bullshit" an article, but you must know the basics on your topic before you start or your readers (even the stupid ones) will see right through you.
Just do a quick skim through Wikipedia and the like. Seriously, if you're already so far into this project that you're reading my ridiculous (and likely completely unhelpful) guide, you can spend a few more moments skimming one more webpage. Put down that burrito. Good stuff. Now we're getting somewhere. While you're at it do a few sit-ups, you could use them. Self-improvement. Think about it.
Step Three: Get Into It
Here's the most important part. Get into the mind of someone who is really into your topic. If you're already a writer of sorts, you should already know how to do this. Although it is easier to "write what you know", you can't always do that. If I did that, all I would have is several short stories about navigational frustration, using proper grammar, burning grilled cheese sandwiches, and the benefits of talking to one's self.
My point is, if you're writing about Barbara Streisand in her "Memories" era, you should get into the mindset of a 55 year old gay man. Think like your subject matter experts. Be the article. Once you do this, you're set. Set like a vet on a jet using a Gillette after you get a pet that's wet and you forget your debt and fret. Like poetry, that. Let the bullshitting begin.
Step Four: Write Good
Yeah.
Writing comedy is very difficult. Writing comedy about something foreign is even more so. For every one line someone chuckles at, there are ninety thousand others that people smirk and think "I see what they were going for there. I'm sure it was funny in their head, but it just didn't really translate. I think they need to focus their energies on something more like that last line about confusing the hand soap and the hand lotion. That was slightly humourous." Well, or something along those lines. One person's funny is another person's confused eyebrow raise.
If I could give one tip for writing comedy, it would be this. Be very specific. I wish I could give you a new example, but that is a recipe for disappointment. However, I will refer you to a sentence from earlier. I wrote a sentence that referred to the character of Wheatley from the video game Portal 2. Now I didn't have to mention that fictional example of an article, but using a specific instance of something (real or not) is much more effective than saying "Yeah, you've written stuff before. It was about stuff you knew information about. Try something else." I know absolutely nothing about Portal 2, or any video games for that matter. Case in point.
If you aren't sure you can be funny. Just switch your intent. Write a serious article. Perhaps you will impart some of your actual wisdom upon people with your killer intelligence and talent for communication.
Like me.
Oh, who am I kidding...
Maybe I should just tell a dick joke.
I don't know any.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Art Photography: A Guide for Aesthetic Conceptualists
Sometimes when taking pictures, I'll get a single photo that catches the light just right or frames the subject in an interesting perspective and I'll say to myself, "Golly, that's quite a sublime still photograph. It could perhaps represent something deeper than what I had originally intended but need to explore further in the photo-editing phase." As much as that might be underpants-twistingly silly, I still thoroughly enjoy those one-in-one-hundred-and-twelve photographs that really stand out as "artsy".
However, after I get all giddy about a picture, I realize that "art" is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the "artist" but the term "artist" is also in the eye of the beholder, so now I feel like I'm trapped in a Russian nesting doll situation of personal labels, but that's beside the point). Somehow, art has become one of those things that has been popularized as "something that everyone can do" (which I whole-heartedly disagree with, but that's something I'll tackle another day, preferably while drinking and sucking on Costco-sized Pixie stix). I'm not sure who gets to decide what qualifies as art, so we've kind of just been running on an honours system, haven't we? There's a picture of a sad child with a hole in its T-shirt. Art. There's a picture of a bug taken with a macro lens. Art. There's a picture of a man holding an up-side-down burning cross wearing only a clown wig over his junk. Art. There's a exhibition of 99 photographs of soap-on-a-rope. Art. Who gets to freaking decide?
What made my photo "art"? Was it? I thought it was kind of interesting to look at. I took it with my nice camera. But just because I liked it, doesn't mean anybody else would. What if no one else liked it? Does that mean I can't consider it art any more? Then I had to sit down because I could feel the vein in my neck throbbing and the balls of my feet were going numb. This was way too much anxiety for a photograph I took of my dog looking contemplative (not easy, by the way; she's like the Groucho Marx of the animal kingdom).
Someone once said, "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." As a Canon owner, I completely agree. I joke, but the essential message is true. You also need an eye. A good eye, and one that can see beyond the lens and the mechanics of light, lens, click. I'm not saying I have this, but I enjoy photography and I would like to keep it as soap-on-a-rope free as I possibly can. If we work together, I believe we can achieve this.
Here are some basic categories of what has come to be known as "art" photography. This won't be a instructional guide but an informative or suggestive guide. A photographer's eye cannot be taught, so I'll just give you the goods on the styles and you can decide which one you "see", if any at all. Good lord... The pretentious part of me is winking and smoking a large Cuban cigar at that last sentence, while the down-to-earth part of me wants to jump off of a plateau into a pile of mutant scorpions.
Nature
This is a very basic category; plants, animals, landscapes, etc. Anyone can take a nature photograph. I think the point to taking "art" nature photographs is to find something unique that gives the viewer a new perspective on that particular form of nature. Standing on a road and taking a picture of a mountain does not take any skill whatsoever. Showing nature in a new "light", if you'll pardon the photography pun, is something that takes practice. Nature photography can be considered either very easy (I mean it's right there, just put down your X-Box controller and go outside, find a leaf and click), or very challenging (everything near me is so boring, I'd need to drive four hours into the mountains or fly to Timbuktu to get any interesting nature). I think you can turn anything boring into something interesting through the lens of a camera, you just need determination, patience, and talent. The talent might be more difficult to conjure up though, but that's where the patience comes in (and a little bit of magic in some cases).
Example of a good nature art photograph. I did not take this.
Example of a bad nature art photograph. I took this. I think the rock looks like a face.
Portrait
As much as I enjoy portrait photography, I've found that there really isn't any middle ground to their quality. They either look like really bad High School graduation photos taken of some kid with a lip twitch and painful constipation, or they look like they could be in Vanity Fair. Anything else doesn't qualify as portrait photography (yes, people that take their own self-portraits for their Facebook profiles, I'm talking to you). OK, I suppose photos that are taken as headshots can be somewhat considered portrait art, but that's walking a very fine line (and usually depends on the attractiveness of the subject, it's the painful truth). My advice for portrait photography is to find someone attractive, just use one bright key light and shine it on their face from the side, do their hair all edgy-like, pop some strange coloured contact lenses on them, and shoot it in sepia. That, or find your own creative style. Either way will work.
Example of a good portrait art photograph. I'm starting to feel very insecure.
Example of a bad portrait art photograph. This is me. I call this one "Don't mess with me, because I'm in medium contrast grainy black & white."
Fashion
Fashion photography can be very fun as there are no limits to the creativity that exists in fashion. You just need to find someone who owns or even designs some interesting articles of clothing. If you don't, don't fret! Slap some sunglasses on your model and then it doesn't matter what they're wearing. Just have your subject lean against a building and you're set. If you happen to have a higher budget, then you should go all out. Make sure your final design includes plenty of shiny clear plastic, asymmetrical lines, jagged edges, half-zipped zippers, holes placed in borderline pornographic areas, and some kind of biodegradable materials like bread, soil, or animal tears. Once you have an extraordinary outfit, the photograph almost takes itself. The more effort you put into the clothing, the less effort goes into the photography and vice versa. Simple math.
Example of a good fashion art photograph. The weight of the hat broke her ankle.
Example of a bad fashion art photograph. Another one of mine. It may not be perfect, but it has what the critics like to call "badassery". Model credit: Micah Henry (I'm sure he doesn't mind...)
Still Life
Taking photos of random inanimate objects can be kind of boring. That's why this subject requires a particularly creative mind in order to find the beauty, the originality, or the strangeness in everyday life. Use your wildest imagination. Shoot the underside of a coffee table. Shoot a rainbow in black and white. Shoot your shoes so they look like they're chasing eachother. Be dangerous! Go crazy! Stack things that don't normally get stacked together!
Example of a good still life art photograph. Who still uses a Walkman? Exactly!
Example of a bad still life art photograph. This is my mom's lighthouse lamp. I'm not sure what you were expecting out of this caption. It's a lighthouse lamp.
Abstract/Surreal
This is my favourite. Not only because it's where you find the most utterly f***ed up photographs ever, but also because the whole "genre" is a lie. There really is no way to categorize this type of art, so they cram it all under "abstract" or "surreal". That's what makes it so awesome. A red wine stain shaped like heart on a coffee stain shaped like a skull on a white carpet? Abstract! Several paring knives stuck into a tomato with "the man" written on the side of it? Surreal! Sure, some people need to be reminded of what these terms actually mean, but who are we to argue with their art-making ways? Anyway, go nuts. Just make sure you have an intent, or people will call you out on your lack of talent. Or they won't. This isn't very good advice, is it?
Example of a good abstract/surreal art photograph. That looks uncomfortable.
Example of a bad abstract/surreal art photograph. I like to tell people that this was supposed to turn out this way, but in actuality, I just accidentally left the shutter open too long.
I think it says something about my talent that all of the "bad" examples of art photography in this guide were taken by me, and none of the good ones. I'll work on that. To conclude, I suggest just taking as many photos as you can. Some of them won't suck. Take those good-ish ones and give them clever titles like "Water as an Existential Loophole" or "My Consciousness in Fava Beans" or "Deliberation!". Then print them and frame them. You're as good as gold. Maybe not gold, but at least a nickel-chromium alloy.
However, after I get all giddy about a picture, I realize that "art" is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the "artist" but the term "artist" is also in the eye of the beholder, so now I feel like I'm trapped in a Russian nesting doll situation of personal labels, but that's beside the point). Somehow, art has become one of those things that has been popularized as "something that everyone can do" (which I whole-heartedly disagree with, but that's something I'll tackle another day, preferably while drinking and sucking on Costco-sized Pixie stix). I'm not sure who gets to decide what qualifies as art, so we've kind of just been running on an honours system, haven't we? There's a picture of a sad child with a hole in its T-shirt. Art. There's a picture of a bug taken with a macro lens. Art. There's a picture of a man holding an up-side-down burning cross wearing only a clown wig over his junk. Art. There's a exhibition of 99 photographs of soap-on-a-rope. Art. Who gets to freaking decide?
What made my photo "art"? Was it? I thought it was kind of interesting to look at. I took it with my nice camera. But just because I liked it, doesn't mean anybody else would. What if no one else liked it? Does that mean I can't consider it art any more? Then I had to sit down because I could feel the vein in my neck throbbing and the balls of my feet were going numb. This was way too much anxiety for a photograph I took of my dog looking contemplative (not easy, by the way; she's like the Groucho Marx of the animal kingdom).
Someone once said, "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." As a Canon owner, I completely agree. I joke, but the essential message is true. You also need an eye. A good eye, and one that can see beyond the lens and the mechanics of light, lens, click. I'm not saying I have this, but I enjoy photography and I would like to keep it as soap-on-a-rope free as I possibly can. If we work together, I believe we can achieve this.
Here are some basic categories of what has come to be known as "art" photography. This won't be a instructional guide but an informative or suggestive guide. A photographer's eye cannot be taught, so I'll just give you the goods on the styles and you can decide which one you "see", if any at all. Good lord... The pretentious part of me is winking and smoking a large Cuban cigar at that last sentence, while the down-to-earth part of me wants to jump off of a plateau into a pile of mutant scorpions.
Nature
This is a very basic category; plants, animals, landscapes, etc. Anyone can take a nature photograph. I think the point to taking "art" nature photographs is to find something unique that gives the viewer a new perspective on that particular form of nature. Standing on a road and taking a picture of a mountain does not take any skill whatsoever. Showing nature in a new "light", if you'll pardon the photography pun, is something that takes practice. Nature photography can be considered either very easy (I mean it's right there, just put down your X-Box controller and go outside, find a leaf and click), or very challenging (everything near me is so boring, I'd need to drive four hours into the mountains or fly to Timbuktu to get any interesting nature). I think you can turn anything boring into something interesting through the lens of a camera, you just need determination, patience, and talent. The talent might be more difficult to conjure up though, but that's where the patience comes in (and a little bit of magic in some cases).
Example of a good nature art photograph. I did not take this.Example of a bad nature art photograph. I took this. I think the rock looks like a face.Portrait
As much as I enjoy portrait photography, I've found that there really isn't any middle ground to their quality. They either look like really bad High School graduation photos taken of some kid with a lip twitch and painful constipation, or they look like they could be in Vanity Fair. Anything else doesn't qualify as portrait photography (yes, people that take their own self-portraits for their Facebook profiles, I'm talking to you). OK, I suppose photos that are taken as headshots can be somewhat considered portrait art, but that's walking a very fine line (and usually depends on the attractiveness of the subject, it's the painful truth). My advice for portrait photography is to find someone attractive, just use one bright key light and shine it on their face from the side, do their hair all edgy-like, pop some strange coloured contact lenses on them, and shoot it in sepia. That, or find your own creative style. Either way will work.
Example of a good portrait art photograph. I'm starting to feel very insecure.Example of a bad portrait art photograph. This is me. I call this one "Don't mess with me, because I'm in medium contrast grainy black & white."Fashion
Fashion photography can be very fun as there are no limits to the creativity that exists in fashion. You just need to find someone who owns or even designs some interesting articles of clothing. If you don't, don't fret! Slap some sunglasses on your model and then it doesn't matter what they're wearing. Just have your subject lean against a building and you're set. If you happen to have a higher budget, then you should go all out. Make sure your final design includes plenty of shiny clear plastic, asymmetrical lines, jagged edges, half-zipped zippers, holes placed in borderline pornographic areas, and some kind of biodegradable materials like bread, soil, or animal tears. Once you have an extraordinary outfit, the photograph almost takes itself. The more effort you put into the clothing, the less effort goes into the photography and vice versa. Simple math.
Example of a good fashion art photograph. The weight of the hat broke her ankle.Example of a bad fashion art photograph. Another one of mine. It may not be perfect, but it has what the critics like to call "badassery". Model credit: Micah Henry (I'm sure he doesn't mind...)Still Life
Taking photos of random inanimate objects can be kind of boring. That's why this subject requires a particularly creative mind in order to find the beauty, the originality, or the strangeness in everyday life. Use your wildest imagination. Shoot the underside of a coffee table. Shoot a rainbow in black and white. Shoot your shoes so they look like they're chasing eachother. Be dangerous! Go crazy! Stack things that don't normally get stacked together!
Example of a good still life art photograph. Who still uses a Walkman? Exactly!Example of a bad still life art photograph. This is my mom's lighthouse lamp. I'm not sure what you were expecting out of this caption. It's a lighthouse lamp.Abstract/Surreal
This is my favourite. Not only because it's where you find the most utterly f***ed up photographs ever, but also because the whole "genre" is a lie. There really is no way to categorize this type of art, so they cram it all under "abstract" or "surreal". That's what makes it so awesome. A red wine stain shaped like heart on a coffee stain shaped like a skull on a white carpet? Abstract! Several paring knives stuck into a tomato with "the man" written on the side of it? Surreal! Sure, some people need to be reminded of what these terms actually mean, but who are we to argue with their art-making ways? Anyway, go nuts. Just make sure you have an intent, or people will call you out on your lack of talent. Or they won't. This isn't very good advice, is it?
Example of a good abstract/surreal art photograph. That looks uncomfortable.Example of a bad abstract/surreal art photograph. I like to tell people that this was supposed to turn out this way, but in actuality, I just accidentally left the shutter open too long.I think it says something about my talent that all of the "bad" examples of art photography in this guide were taken by me, and none of the good ones. I'll work on that. To conclude, I suggest just taking as many photos as you can. Some of them won't suck. Take those good-ish ones and give them clever titles like "Water as an Existential Loophole" or "My Consciousness in Fava Beans" or "Deliberation!". Then print them and frame them. You're as good as gold. Maybe not gold, but at least a nickel-chromium alloy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)