Overall I am satisfied with my work, especially when I look back at last years work and see how my skills have evolved. Personal growth and creative development is more important to me as it shows I can learn, overcome issues, develop my skills etc.
There are some areas I think I could have achieved better - ‘‘ Each idea must be conceptually clear and should be communicated in a graphically clear way. This means a limited colour palette, and avoiding unnecessary visual details, such as 3D lighting, shadows, or gradients. ‘‘
I do think I met this requirement, but my backgrounds may be complex and can often disguise the palette. Whilst the brief says to avoid 3D lighting and gradients, I was advised to do more work and experimentation with the fractal noise and nebula effects as they looked visually pleasing despite their complexity not being great for limited colour palettes and 2D lighting.
I also got some feedback saying that I should stop thinking about rules and limiting myself when it came to trying to make the different animation styles link together. I could either use the different visual styles clashing to my advantage or try and combine the two styles to blur the line between these clashing styles. After all, most the limits and rules are made up and I was limiting myself by heading to standards that didn’t exist.
This has lead to my work having similar visual styles. To try and make the colour palettes more obvious, I tried to make the nebula/fractal backgrounds have similar palettes to the main animation. For example with the tree an the human baby growing, I had green and brown for the main colour so I tried to keep the fractal background as Earthy tones.
I feel like I have met the basic requirements of the brief but I believe I could have done better and met higher requirements. Overall most my works seem too similar too each other. I originally wanted a clash of styles of 2d flat graphics and the realistic looking work, maybe some 3D. But due to personal fears and time constraints I decided render times may be a problem so I avoided 3D modelling and instead tried to create realism in after effects.
‘‘ This is an opportunity to develop your design voice and experiment, and each film should be seen as a moving piece of visual design, rather than a short narrative animation. ‘‘
I also believe I got too worked up in trying to portray the metaphor and expand upon my works idea that I fell into the trap of trying to form a cohesive narrative. This lead me to retract from the point of the assignment somewhat. Each animation stand alone works as a piece of motion design without narrative, but together they form a narrative because I have pieced them together in that order to form a narrative. I did not animate any of these with a story in mind. I wanted to just slowly have each animation portray more corruption from humanity. I only made one animation of corrupt humanity (pollution) and I believe it is the weakest of the 5 in visual appearance, closely followed by the ice shattering animation, as the effects looks cheesy.
I think my 2 strongest animations were the ‘write on’ vines baby animation followed by the realistic planet.
In terms of visual style, the 2D flat graphics stand out but I tried to blend them with the realism. Sometimes it is more subtle and other times it is not. However, I used this to my advantage as the 2D assets I used to be representative of Humanity not working well for the planet. 2D and 3D clash, as does humanity and mother nature.
In conclusion, I did not set out to create a narrative but I could construct a narrative out of the placement and order of my animations, so from there on I tweaked and edited them to help support the narrative and add extra animated details (such as the particle physics to represent a rocket, and the flat graphics to represent humanity standing out and being wrong for the planet).
jbbartram-illu
blakekathryn
2087
origamiaround
vaporwave
andulkaphoto