Suspended

I felt a profound sadness when I chanced upon this scene. I'll spare you the kitschy metaphors. The image on its own suffices as explanation.

Lugaw eaters beware...

...this is not the place for you.

When Will That Be So Here?

Cruising the design and creatives industry sites, I chanced upon this interesting survey that shows the average salary for a design professional or more lengthily called the Coroflot 2006 Design Salary Report or the Clorofot Global Aesthetic-Practice Estimate.

Out of a total of 2979 respondents from 64 countries, our beloved Philippines contributed 3 responses - a STAGGERING 0.1% contribution to a worldwide industry.

Wow... How much we value our designers and creative workers!

Somehow, this has to change soon....

For now, if you're interested how our other design brethren in different countries fared, here's the survey.

Eye and Brain Candy* # 1

(*in reference to previous post 1/11/2007)

There are action flicks and there are action flicks.

There are graphic novels and there are Frank Miller's.



I know little of the guy's work and quite frankly (pun unintended), I don't think I'd go as far as being a die-hard fan. But when this guy's works (Sin City, for one)get translated to the big screen, I can only drop my jaw in awe of the visual spectacle that lies before me.

For a good 90 minutes or so, you are beholden to images that are both gory and glorious, macabre and majestic, bloody but beautiful. (My apologies if I got too carried away with alliterations.)

Some would say that it's a purely machismo flick and that the absence of a real plot speaks of the purely commercial intentions of the film's makers. I say, "Screw plots and intentions. The action and visuals rock and that's good enough for me!" and this comes from a person who's idea of a Friday night is to curl up at home and watch "When Harry Met Sally" for the nth time. (go figure...)

So apart from the decapitations and the disembowelment, why do I think this film rocks? Let me see if I can count the ways:

Reason # 1. Visuals

Reason # 2. Visuals

Reason # 3. Visuals

I think it's uber cool for them to use heavy treatment on the footage particularly in adapating strong palattes as themes to the scenes: gold, crimson and azure (that's yellow, red and blue for the chromatically-challenged). Of course it's nowhere near Jiang Yimou's "Hero" but who's complaining? Certainly not me.

In general, slow motion is a tired technique for action flicks. There is no action film in the entire history of motion pictures where there isn't at least one slow motion scene. 300 is no exception. I've been telling my friends that if you take all the slow motion scenes in 300 and ran them at normal speed, the movie's total running time would probably be shortened by about 40 percent.

But despite the several slow-mo scenes, it didn't feel tired and contrived at all. And here's my theory as to why: Graphic novels (comics - to the uninitiated) work on the basis of putting one still image after the other. The movie adaptation of 300 perhaps tried to be as true to its origination by preserving an image for as still as it can, thus the slow-mo scenes.

I suppose HD cinematography made this treatment not only possible, but economical as well. I can only imagine just how much film stock would be needed just so you could keep the same image resolution and maintain the rate of the slow motion. My guess is, they'd have to shoot those slow-mo scenes at (at least!) 168-190 fps (frames per second) whereas the normal motion rate for film is 24fps. That's a lotta film.... (miles and miles of it....)

Reason # 4. The soundtrack rocks - literally.
Call it overkill, indulgent, whatever you want. But another reason why I think this film rocks is because of its soundtrack. After all, what better way to say KICK ASS than having heavy metal incorporated into the film's music score? I thus tip my hat off to Tyler Bates (of Dawn of the Dead fame).

Reason # 5. "There's a reason why it's called classical."
The movie and the comic that it was based on draw their roots to classic literature. Strictly speaking, classical refers to anything related to the ancient Greeks and Romans (especially their art, architecture, and literature). Another definition of classical is of having lasting significance or worth. Case in point is the simple yet classic example of freedom's defiance against tyranny.

Yes, it may sound trite to some. But deep down, that story is an archetype built into every human being. And works that reflect and echo such themes (whether written by Homer or Frank Miller) will always touch people at some level.

So there you go... this is as far as I go short of gushing about it. In summary, all I can say is that my brain's sacharine and junk-food cravings have been satiated.

At least for now....

A Day Job Snippet

Like I said before in the previous quote, I am 1/4 of a creatives consultancy company.

By this I mean that there are 3 other partners into this venture who I collaborate with to serve our clients who consult with us regarding their... umm.... creativity concerns?

Part of the job is fostering and nurturing creativity within our community of freelance talents and friends. Which is why this article came to be. This is a first of (what I fear to be) several write-ups on the subject.

Read on if you wish. Comments can be added at the end of the post.

What You Thought You Knew About Creativity

When you hear the word “creativity”, what sort of images come to mind?

An artist standing in front of an easel working on the canvas?
A composer slaving over a piano etching notes onto a music sheet?
A writer scribbling down words that seem to flow effortlessly into poetry?

An entrepreneur planning for his next business venture?
Does this speak creativity?
Traditionally, maybe not.

But as you probably may already know, creativity is something that is not exclusive to the stereotypes of the arts. Creativity belongs in just about any endeavor, whether in something as abstract as art, or in something as hard-tacked as business.

While several people may already know this, only a few are aware of creativity myths - myths that perpetuate a cycle that stifle creativity, rather than cultivate it.

A study conducted by Professor Teresa Amabile of the Harvard Business School took about 12,000 daily journal entries from nearly 250 people tasked with creative projects. These respondents came from 7 companies of different industries such as consumer products, chemicals and technology.

Based on the respondents’ journals that detail their experiences and feelings about the projects they are involved in, Professor Amabile discovered that certain assumptions about creativity are untrue. Instead of fostering creativity, these misconceptions caused counter-productive results for the company.

Creativity Myth # 1: There are “creative” types and “non-creative” types.
Research and studies into creativity show that everyone is capable of degrees of creativity. “Creative types” are said to belong to fields like Marketing and R&D but less so in Operations.

However, even those who have a knack for less “creative-related” jobs are still capable of bringing in fresh ideas. In fact, they may even contribute a totally creative solution from seeing things from a different perspective.

Anyone can be creative because all it takes is: experience (which includes knowledge and technical skills); talent; the capacity to persevere even in dry spells of creativity; and most importantly, motivation or finding significance in the work that one does.

Creativity Myth # 2: Money motivates creativity.
In the study, many respondents reacting to the question: “To what extent are you motivated by rewards?” found the query irrelevant to the quality of work that they do. In fact, the ones who were focused on monetary rewards were often found to do very little creative work or produce creative results.

More creative results were found in people who cared about their work and how they can be better at what they do. These are the types who feel deeply engaged to their work and feel responsible for making significant strides in their projects.

Creativity Myth # 3: Creative juices get flowing when pressured for time.
While people may think that beating the clock causes them to think more creatively, the opposite is actually truer. Those working under time pressure experience not only decreased creative output on the day itself, but also in the following days – something sort of like a hangover from being under time pressure.

The reason for this is because time pressure prevents a deep engagement with the problem. The person is too bent on making the deadline that he is distracted from key elements of the task set before him, which could have led to a more productive and effective result.

Creativity Myth # 4: Competition brings out the best results.
While that may be true in some respects, when it comes to creativity, Prof. Amabile found that the idea of competing with another person or team serves only to distract, rather than cultivate creativity in much the same way as time pressure does.

The most creative results are found to be produced in an atmosphere of collaboration, where people are free to share ideas. On the other hand, when the need to garner recognition or to prove the competing party is inferior, information is withheld which in turn prevents creative results.

By debunking these myths, the Harvard study shows that people are at their best and most creative when they are motivated by the work that they do and how they do it. Fostering such an atmosphere cultivates true creativity which can yield results and outcomes that know no bounds.