I just finished reading a book called Story by Robert McKee. It was quite an insightful book (though I have many criticisms of it which I will go into later). In the following passage, McKee describes the creation of an original character:

Like Dr. Frankenstien, we build characters out of parts found. A writer takes the analytical mind of his sister and peices it together with the comic wit of his friend, adds to that the cunning cruelty of a cat and the blind persistence of King Lear. We borrow bits and peices of humanity, raw chunks of imagination and observation wherever they’re found, assemble them into dimensions of contrafiction, then round them into creatures we call characters. (McKee, 386)

The way I described originality as integration of existing ideas (in an earlier post) is analogous to how McKee describes character creation as the integration of ideas in existing characters.

The implication of integrative thinking is twofold. It means that we can research and observe to create “original” products. However, it also means that our products are only as strong as the wealth of ideas at our disposal. We cannot hope to be “original” (in the integrative sense) if we do not explore, study and read a wide breadth of material. And I don’t just mean other forms of art, I mean all sorts of disciplines.

But how do we find time to study all sorts of disciplines? I read another book recently that was a collection of essays from the philosopher Lord Isaiah Berlin called The Power of Ideas. In an essay on general education, Berlin writes about studying in a way to maximize breadth without completely sacrificing depth and specialization. He writes that instead of simply trying to absorb material from other disciplines (like making a chemist memorize poetry, or making an artist list out famous physicists) we should focus on the methodologies of different disciplines.

Simply put, we should at the least know how various disciplines go about answering questions- and what questions they are most interested in answering. Economics, for example, is largely a question of allocation- they assume that resources are scarce and try to figure out the best way to distribute them fairly. Capitalism is born from the pursuit of this question. Capitalism also assumes that people generally make rational decision, and that more choice and more consumption is good. Psychologists and sociologists often have completely different assumption about human beings- that we are governed by irrational emotions, and that we are molded by society. Many political scientists assume humans are corrupted by power, hence a major question in political science is how to best distribute power.

My point is, that there is a vast reservoir of ideas out there, and our creativity will be severely limited if we live only within the assumptions and methodologies of our own particular specialization.

-Tom

In the coming semester I will be working on a series of illustrations/cartoons possibly appearing in the next version of a book called Asking the Right Questions. It is quite an interesting book- written by one of my professors: Dr. M. Neil Browne.

The following sketches are based on subject matter within the book.

1) Sponge Learning vs. Panning for Gold Learning

2) Teaching with Questions

3) Critical Thinking Etiquette

4) Attitude toward debate: Winning Vs. Furthering Understanding

5) Descriptive Arguments and Prescriptive Arguments

What are your impressions? Feel free to give me any feedback, ideas/changes etc…
-Tom

I’m working on another poster for Dr. Browne. (see my first one here) It is based on an analogy about a Hedgehog and a Fox by Sir Isaiah Berlin (who, incidentally, also is the progenitor of one of my favorite ideas, the idea of “positive liberty” and “negative liberty”)*.

The hedgehog and fox analogy is fairly simply: Berlin’s fox is a creature who knows something about an expansive range of subject matter- a generalist. Alternatively, the Berlinian hedgehog knows a great deal about one specific thing- a specialist.

So in trying to create an image to represent this idea, I made several doodles of hedgehogs and foxes… but I ended up with the following two characters. I’m not sure if I’ll use them, but they’ve been fun to make.

Here they are:

Agent Hedgehog sees extremely far through a tiny narrow scope.
Agent Fox cannot see as far, but is resourceful in any environment.

Any suggestions?

-Tom

* The distinction of “positive liberty” and “negative liberty” is rarely made in the U.S.- But I find it tremendously important. Essentially, it binds liberty (or freedom) with means.
In other words, being free doesn’t amount to much unless you also have the tools to accomplish what you wish. Many phrase the distinction like this:

Negative Freedom is Freedom From
Positive Freedom is Freedom To

Example: We have the Negative Freedom to go to Hawaii on vacation. There is no law preventing us from flying to Hawaii.

If we had the Positive Freedom to go to Hawaii, the government (or someone) would provide us with airfare, plan the trip, get hotels, etc..

For instance, public education is a Positive Freedom. Not only are there no laws preventing education- there is a school in every area, and it is free of charge.

Now, there is certainly a gradient present here. This is not a case of “either/or”. Pos/Neg liberty exists on a scale.

This post is spurred by a recent post about Czech Animator Jiri Trnka on Animation-treasures 2 by Hans Bacher (Where I graciously made a mess of the comments board :-/). In any case- as some of you may or may not know, I am from the Czech Republic. Not only that, but I am hoping to return sometime (from my current home in Ohio) to attend graduate school in animation. Czech Rep. has a very rich history in animation and art, and I thought I’d post something today about one of my favorite illustrators.

The man’s name is Petr Sis (Peh-tur Seess)- in english he is “Peter”- and he is a children’s book author (among many other things). Born in 1949, Sis lived through some of the less favorably remembered times of Czechoslovakia (mainly Soviet occupation), but he managed to lead quite an extraordinary life (and still does). Sis’ work ranges from awarded films to major book illustrations and Sis has appeared in several major publications. (Read more about Petr here)

Anyway, I just wanted to share some images from his books, which I always found quite captivating:

I find Sis’ graphical style quite magical. It certainly has something to do with growing up with his books- but I think Petr’s work is well worth some examination.

Until next time,

-Tom

I’d like to devote one post to J. Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith was Havard professor in econ. During his lifetime he was a tremendously influential economist and wrote a multitude of books. He was famous for poking and prying at the classical economics thought. From his quotes he appears to have been ruthlessly satirical (or just plain ruthless) about various things he found absurd:

Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects.

I came across a similar idea last year when reading “The European Dream” by Jeremy Rifkin. Rifkin discussed the application of the GNP and how it was not necessarily a measure of the “good” of a society. Rifkin made his point by claiming that the GNP goes up due to any economic activity; Activity that might otherwise reflect poorly on a society- such as building thousands of prisons.

Essentially we are looking at the assumption that more money/consumption = happiness/goodness

Galbraith challenged econ assumptions, and probably ran into problems that generated the following quotes:

Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that. I’m deeply suspicious of somebody who says, “I’m in favor of privatization,” or, “I’m deeply in favor of public ownership.” I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case

There’s a certain part of the contented majority who love anybody who is worth a billion dollars.

Kenneth Galbraith, however, insisted that uncomfortable questions be asked despite the difficulty with which people change their mind- despite the dichotomies of people’s thought or the particular disposition of the majority:

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.

People are the common denominator of progress. So… no improvement is possible with unimproved people, and advance is certain when people are liberated and educated. It would be wrong to dismiss the importance of roads, railroads, power plants, mills, and the other familiar furniture of economic development. … But we are coming to realize … that there is a certain sterility in economic monuments that stand alone in a sea of illiteracy. Conquest of illiteracy comes first.

Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Galbraith also had a very scathing ironic humor to many of his sayings, this next quote (in a humorous twist on a familiar Socratic quote) appears to refer to the certitude with which economists flaunt their knowledge:

One of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you do not know.

And finally, I’d like to end with a quote that I found sums up the whole theme of the current “market system” :

By all but the pathologically romantic, it is now recognized that this is not the age of the small man.

I’m fortunate enough to be taking an amazing course in Economics with Dr. M. N. Browne (author of- among countless other publications- Asking the Right Questions). I’ve been scribbling notes furiously in class, but I thought I’d put them up here as well so I can reference them more easily in the future.

I want to clarify that I have not studied Economics extensively, and I am simply putting forth my current comprehension of what was said in my class.

As I have come to understand, Economics assumes that the following is a generalization of human nature:

Humans are

1. Myopic (make decisions based on immediate benefits- do not see into the long term)
2. Egoistic / selfish
3. Insecure / in search of external acceptance
4. Affiliative / desire to associate themselves to a group (which can be used to combat egoism)
5. Inert / lazy without stimulus or incentive
6. Rational/ Cold and Calculating
7. Aquisitive (People want STUFF- and everything is stuff)

Apparently, the above generalizations are held tight and sacred by Economists… Whether they are true or not is temporarily beside the point. To understand how Economists think, the description of human nature listed above must be accepted (or at least humored).

With the Economics view of human nature in mind, the following describes the world as seen by Econ:

1) There are Limits-

• SCARCITY * is the gap between human wants and finite resources. (It is important to note here that Economists believe human wants NEVER SUBSIDE- the thirst for STUFF is unquenchable; and without this assumption the field of Economics would make no sense).
• Because there is Scarcity, there is always a cost to an action (Trade-offs).

2) Conflict is inevitable-

• Because there is Scarcity AND because human wants are endless, there will be clashes of interest and inequality. Economics is said to be a “dismal discipline” because it is the study of finding who we will say “NO” to.

3) Economics becomes a study of Conflict Resolution-

• Overwhelmingly, Economists point to THE MARKET to solve these conflicts.
• Political Power is another means utilized to resolve Econ conflicts.

Here is an illustration of conflict, political power, scarcity and human wants in action (all in 8 seconds):

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bkhtgjt_VYc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

*The term Scarcity, as used in Economics, can never refer to something specific (ie: You cannot say “There is a scarcity of good boots”). Scarcity refers only to the abstract limit to all things.

To be continued…

Last year I came across quite a gem of a little book in one of my classes. The book is called Stories of Mr. Keuner and is written by the German author Bertolt Brecht. Over the course of his life (1898-1956), Brecht wrote numerous plays- many of which are very well known (Joan of Arc, Don Juan). If you haven’t read any of his plays you may want want to take a peek, but it is Stories of Mr. Keuner that has particularly caught my attention for this post.

Stories of Mr. Keuner is not a play like the majority of Brecht’s work, but a collection of short stories. I am a particularly fond of short stories myself because of their tendency to communicate some idea in a very quick, direct and creative manner (much like the goal of an animated short film). The result of a good short story, for me, is usually a very memorable and potent vessel of the presented idea. Brecht’s short stories are a very good example of concise and catchy communication in practice. The book takes the form of written accounts about a fictitious man named “Mr. Keuner” (who is referred to as “Mr. K”). Here is one of them:

“Meeting again

A man who had not seen Mr. K. for a long time greeted him with the words: ‘You haven’t changed a bit.’ ‘Oh!’ said Mr. K. and turned pale.”

The idea presented here is, as I interpret it, the necessity to undergo growth and change. Brecht’s stories are quite short, ranging from a sentence to maybe a page or two. Some are clearer than others, but overall I find the stories very pointed and very tidy. And there is something to be said of having a nice short story to illustrate an idea you like. Knowing short stories certainly does not replace studying, but it makes for very useful conversational and argumentative bumper stickers.

Here are a few more of my favorite Brecht short stories:

“An aristocratic stance

Mr. Keuner said: ‘I, too, once adopted an aristocratic stance (you know: erect, upright, and proud, head thrown back). I was standing in rising water at the time. I adopted this posture when it rose to my chin.’ “

“The question of whether there is a God

A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: ‘I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.’ “

“The indispensable civil servant

Mr. K. heard a civil servant, who had held his post for quite a long time, praised as being indispensable, since he was such a good civil servant. ‘Why is he indispensable?’ asked Mr. K. in annoyance. ‘The department would grind to a halt without him,’ said his eulogists. ‘How can he be a good civil servant if the department would grind to a halt without him?’ said Mr. K. ‘He’s had time enough to organize his department to make himself dispensable. What is he really engaged in? I’ll tell you: blackmail!’ “

**This next one should be emblazoned upon the desktop of any computer used to make a short film:

“Organization

Mr. K. once said: ‘The thinking man does not use one light too many, one piece of bread too many, one idea too many.’ “

Pick up the book if you like these, there are tons of little stories in it.
-Tom