The 80th Annual Academy Awards

Oh, the Oscars. I cannot miss the oscars. They seem to like to show it live even in the UK, which means it was on our screens between 12 and 5am on sunday morning. Who's idea was that? It is all very well having the live experience, but no one would stay up to watch that (well, I wouldn't). So I recorded it of course. I watched it in segments throughout this week which is why I'm a little late in making comments on it. The Oscars is a bit of an emotional thing to watch. It's beautiful seeing someone rewarded with such a prestigious award for their debut, whatever it may have been. Imagine working so hard on something and then getting the best kind of recognition for it, especially if it's your first.

Anyway, I don't have much to protest about in terms of who won what award, partly because I still haven't seen most of the big winners of the night (even though I claim to love film so much. I really do, I promise). I was delighted to see that one film I did see - The Savages - got a couple of nominations. It was especially lovely to see this, for until then, I thought I was the only one that had heard of this film (never mind seen it), so I was starting to wonder if it even existed. This now leads me to the only true disappointment of the night. Laura Linney (from The Savages) was nominated for best actress in a leading role. But Marion Cotillard got the award for La Vie En Rose. That does look like a wonderful film, and by the looks of things, Cotillard had to undergo a huge transformation everytime she got into character, but I was still disappointed. Linney deffinately deserved that award just as much as her. She has gone unrecognised for so long. It's not like she hasn't done her share. As well as being in The Truman Show, she even did a one-off ITV drama with Julie Walters and that ginger boy from Harry Potter who can't act very well.

This now leads us to Cate Blanchett, who was also nominated for best actress in leading role. Of course I was hoping for Linney to pick up the award, but expected Blanchett to get it for her role in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Then if she didn't get that (which she didn't) I assumed she would win the award for best supporting actress for her role as Bob Dylan (yes I know, when casting a film about the life of Bob Dyaln, Cate Blanchett wouldn't be the first person I think of either...)in I'm Not There . But, alas, she didn't get that either (never mind, she has an Oscar already). The other favourite was Saoirse Ronan for Atonement. Again I was wrong. It was Tilda Swinton (for her role in Michael Clayton) who picked up the award. Not at all surprisngly - she is fantastic. The academy (god bless them) must have had a pretty tough job this year.

One thing that did come as somewhat of a surprise was Diablo Cody (who wrote Juno) winning the award for best original screenplay. I got the impression that Juno wasn't the kind of film with a particularly strong script. Perhaps it was the heart-touching storyline that brought it to the Oscars (of course I'm just guessing. Or as certain objectors my put it - talking out of my arse). Again I think The Savages fully deserved that award as well. I can only say that since it's the only film I've seen that's been nominated...

Some minor disappointments were that there were people I like who weren't there/nominated for anything. For instance, where the hell was Meryl Streep? And I wish Nicole Kidman was nominated for something, but it wasn't possible since the two films she was in last year were quite unimpressive (The Invastion - what the hell was that?). Tom Hanks is another example. Charlie Wilson's War was a lovely film but deffinately not Oscar-worthy. Although Philip Seymour Hoffman did get a nomination for his supporting role. It was clear he wouldn't get it, though.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm giving my opinions on all of this, for most of them are uninformed. Why should you care? It is just important that everyone realises how much I love film. Quite a lot.

JUICY FILLING: A Few Interesting Things That You Might Find Interesting

I have nothing to say about art, music or film today so I will squirt you with random facts instead...


NOAH'S ARC

It is commonly known that there were two of every animal sent into Noah's Arc. INCORRECT. Now, the story of Noah's Arc could be completely untrue because it was written in the bible... and no one likes to believe what's written in there anymore. But there are of course a select few who do, for some reason. Let us just pretend that we are those people for a few minutes. The bible is of course the only source we have that tells us exactly what happened with Noah's Arc. God did not in fact order him to gather two of every animal. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was in fact seven of every clean animal and the the usual two of every unclean animal. I don't know how you would determine which animals are clean and which are unclean, but those were God's orders. I think this proves that barely anyone actually reads the bible anymore, otherwise, we would have known that.


HOW YOU CAN USE A BLACK COCK TO CATCH THIEVES

Of course when I say cock, I mean a rooster. It's a bird. Don't get excited. Right, yesterday I heard an interesting story about the man who invented the decimal point. Yes, that's right... essentially he invented a dot. Anyway, John Napier was his name, and he had a black cock (rooster) as a pet. He also invented those important things known as logarithms that only mathematicians and physicists use. Not for us creative types. So, as you can imagine, Napier grew to become a rather wealthy fellow. When you are wealthy, you tend to have nice expensive things. You also tend to have servants, some of which like to steal your nice expensive things. Unfortunately, this did happen to Napier. Far too regularly, as it happens, for he had to get is cock involved. He decided to order his servants to sit in a dark room and stroke his cock for a few minutes (please remember I'm talking about a bird). He would say that his rooster could tell when he was being stroked by the hand of a thief. What he in fact did, was cover the bird in soot. The guilty servant would pretend to have stroked the rooster, in fear that he might actually be able to tell the difference between the stroke of an innocent man and his own. This way, all Napier had to do was pick out the servant who had clean hands, and that would be his man. Very clever... but only if the servants are stupid enough to believe that the rooster is magic.


CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS

Was a bit of a stupid man, if you think about it. It is i a common mis-conception that everyone all the way back then thought the earth was flat. It has never actually been recorded in history that people ever thought that way. Most of europe already knew the world was round. Christopher Columbus, however, thought it was pear-shaped. Then he went off to discover India and found America instead. Which is why we use the phrase "Native American Indians" or "Red Indians" (which is pretty offensive). They are just Native Americans... nothing to do with being Indian. Columbus wasn't that smart. Why the hell would the earth be shaped like a pear?


THE ROMANS AND THEIR HATRED OF CHRISTIANS

Another common mis-conception is that the Romans threw Christians (or people of general annoyance) into a room full of lions. Neither did anyone have to fight a lion in the Coliseum. This was another thing that was never actually recorded in history. It feels like the whole idea of being thrown to the lions came from a story-teller or something. That is all.

ARTIST: Bettina Von Zwehl

Goodness me, I really love Bettina Von Zwehl's work. She came to talk at my university last term. Since then, she has influenced my work quite a bit (I haven't shown any of that specific work on here yet, though). The aim of her work is to photograph her subjects when they are in no way thinking about their personal appearance. Well, this is deffinately the case in 'Untitled One', 'Untitled Three' and 'Alina'. In 'Untitled One' she photographed her subjects within 30 seconds of them waking up. They were told to wear certain clothes, and they slept in Zwehl's bed for the night, so she could quickly bring them in front of the screen where they were to be photographed. In 'Untitled Three' the subjects had to exert themselves physically for a certain amount of time, and then laid face up on the floor to be photographed. In 'Alina', Zwehl had her subjects sit with their arms folded, in a dark room, listening to a specially chosen peice of music which lasted about ten mintues. She then photographed them using flash, which was quick enough so their reaction to it wasn't seen in the final image. The interesting thing about 'Alina' (or perhaps not so interesting) is that half of the women are music students, and half aren't. Initially, she wanted to see if she there would be any contrast between the portraits of people who have been musically trained and those who haven't. There isn't really any contrast, so perhaps these are slightly unsuccessful. However it is clear in the images how the sitters are deeply immersed in the music. As for 'Untitled Two', I can't quite remember what the situation is there, but they are interesting. I think the subjects just sat in the dark for a while or something... can't remember.

Her 'Anatomy Of Control' work I also find ingriguing. Von Zwehl usually finds her subjects by walking around the streets and picking people who look like they would benifit the work. So, in this case she asked the permission of parents so she could photograph their children. The childern were left alone with the camera (behind a curtain), and a table if they wanted to sit. They were given a cable release so they could take their portrait themselves. Von Zwehl then paired images together according to how the child was posing. The results are very interesting. Some are so playful and ambiguous. I don't know how getting children to take their own portraits managed to work out so well (not because they are children, but it's that the idea is so delightfully simple, and the results are... not).

Bettina Von Zwehl's work is highly inspiring to me. A lot of her images hold a certain quietness, and others can be almost daunting. Most of her works have deffinately been successful in visually describing the event occuring, and at the same time, still leave a lot of room for questions. Very nice.


On a completely un-related matter, I present to you my latest graphic. It is sexy. Tssss. Like most of my best ideas, this image just came to me while I was going about my daily business. When that happens, I must expel the image and then thrust it upon the world. I think this is highly descriptive of her character. You can do nothing but agree. AGREE!

This Is Loud

I have made a new graphic piece. Please gaze upon it as if it were you're unborn child. Now, I don't claim to be a graphic genius - I know this piece here isn't exactly amazingly original and innovative. We have deffinately seen things much like this before, but I did it anyway. I guess I just wanted to see if I could. It turned out exactly how I wanted it to, so I am very pleased, which is why I'm posting it. A group of forum buddies and I are doing a little competition by where we have to design album covers and such. So I made it look very album cover... ish. Hence the speakers and my singing idol, etc. Anyway, I hope I have given a twinkle of visual enjoyment to a very very small percentage of the population.

MIGHT I ADD: Yesterday, I went to see the Vanity Fair Portraits exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. Normally, I wouldn't be seen in this gallery. For one thing, it's a fucking rip-off. An exhibition costs £8 WITH a student discount. How pathetic. For another, it's the kind of gallery that people go to when they are on a 'Family Outing'. It's full of old people and screaming children. Also, the exhibitions there aren't my kind of thing (the Photographic Portrait Prize being an exception - it was amazing). However, despite all this, I felt I just had to go to see the Vanity Fair portraits. For the following reasons: High-fashion fascinates me, I love portraiture, and being obsessed with film, to see extremely talented actors and the like depicted in such aesthetically interesting ways is an over-whelming joy for me. If you live in London I highly recommend going to see this exhibition. If you want to see the photographic portrait prize, you are too late I'm afraid...

I have a feeling that I'll be buying an issue of Vanity Fair some time soon.

MUSIC: Basquiat Strings

I discovered the Basquiat Strings a few months ago after reading the film and music section in The Guardian newspaper. How astounded I was. Just looking at their photograph made me want to run out and buy their music (and I would actually have to buy it - they aren't the type of music people upload to bittorrent or whatever). I mean just look at them - how fucking cool do they look?? Anyway, I bought their album off itunes, and it was as good as I expected. Never have I heard music like this. It is a delicious mixture between contemporary classical string quintet music and jazz. I love classical music, and love jazz (but I don't listen to enough of it), so these people are perfect for me. This is probably some of the most original music I've heard - not just within their genre (whatever that may be) - but I mean out of EVERY type of music I've heard. They were nominated for a mercury prize, but alas someone more popular like The Arctic Monkeys or The Winehouse got it instead. Hence I must raise awareness! Please give their music a try even if you don't listen to classical/jazz. You might still like it. It is very entertaining. If you go on their myspace, I suggest listening to their track entitled 'Junk', for it gives you the best impression of what they are like.

Don't be fooled, in that photo you may see five people clutching on to their instruments as if without them they would seem weak and insignificant, but Basquiat Strings are in fact made up of six people. The sixth person being the most important. His name is Ben Davis, and he is in fact the one who arranges all their music. This, to me, does make a lot more sense than five people gathering around everyday to write music collaboratively. They are all, in fact, classically trained performers (apprently quite famous, but I wasn't familiar with any of them until now. It depends what circles you run in I suppose), which means it isn't really in their nature to compose music with other people. Composing classical music usually happens alone (I should know, I compose music myself). So, much of the credit should go to Ben Davis. He is a genius. I'm amazed that someone could write such music. I attempted to mimic his style but I could not (either because he is a true original or I'm just not very good).

HAIL THE BASQUIAT STRINGS


(Don't worry if you have no idea how to pronounce 'Basquiat'. I'm not even sure it's a real word. Or it could be French. Same thing)

Derren Brown

Mr Brown is like a little golden nugget I find on the floor and put in my pocket to carry around all day. He is adorable. The fact that he can read your mind and do other entertaining mental tricks has nothing to do with why I find him so appealing. All my friends have assumed that in terms of men, my field of vision is completely limited to black ones. Well, as it happens, I also have a thing for extremely smart, confident men who are very good at what they do. And have a great passion for it. I have a similar obsession with Gordon Ramsey; He isn't exactly what I'd call physically attractive (to me), but he's so passionate about cooking (and I don't even care much about cooking), and is very much 'a man's man'. This I find very attractive. Derren Brown isn't really a 'man's man', but still has the same effect. It may also partly be because he's always wearing a suit. I love men in suits. And if it's a black man in a suit then... yeah... watch out.

Back to Mr Brown: Other than the way he carries himself and his general attitude towards his work, I am also very impressed with what he actually does. He once convinced a group of business people to commit armed robbery without them even knowing. Fascinating. You wouldn't think that planting different seeminlgy unrelated ideas or triggers in someones head would lead them to do such a thing. Especially if it had been disguised as a string of excercises meant to build a more confident manager or executive or whatever the hell these buisiness people were. Anyway, at the end of this particular show, Mr Brown got each buisiness person to meet him at separate times, in the same place. It was set up so a van that was meant to be picking up money from the bank of England was parked on the exact street they had to walk down to meet him. It was timed so the (sorry I don't know the proper name) money-carrying guy would be putting a two huge secure cases of money into the van as the buisness person came around the corner. Three out of the four people got out their toy gun (given to them at the fake seminar Derren had held days before as a tool for building confidence - complete bullshit, of course), told the man to get on the ground, and made off with the money. The last person walked past the van, eyeing it in temptation. It was obvious he really wanted to steal the money, but didn't have a guts. Quite amazing. I salute Derren Brown [as I carry him around in my pocket].

Photography: A Random Array of Images

I thought I'd share some of my work, past and present. Let us begin with this piece of work I did on my parents. As you can see, I got them both to stand in the dark holding a light in front of their face. Living with my parents can be a crippling annoyance, and sometimes they do seem like two faceless units that want only to control my life. At the same time, they are indeed guiding me down my path, and did get me where I am today. This is why I wanted their faces to be covered with a light specifically. I never followed through with this idea, partly because I didn't know where to go next, and working with my parents is... not enjoyable. That's not just because they are MY parents... anyone would get at least a bit annoyed if their subject said "Right, I'm getting tired now..." within 30 seconds of standing there. Stupid mother... cough. Anyway, I am quite pleased with how these images turned out. They are not impossible to get your head around, or so abiguous that you begin to ask, "Why should I care about these images?", which happens a bit too often with my work. I feel that quite often I am asked questions about my work that I am unable to answer, hence I deem that work unsuccessful. This is not the case here. These images came directly from me, so I know exactly how to answer any questions about it. If I make work based around subject matter which everyone knows different things about, I get uneasy because it can be more easily questioned or challenged. Although I try to ignore that feeling and do it anyway to see what happens...


Next is a selection of images from a body of work I did for the first project set for us at University. What I did was buy a pack of those little plastic army men, and set them up in a minature war scene. The terrain they are using is in fact the insides of my old computer. This work is meant to question the whole idea of war, and mock it, since it is in fact such a ridiculous idea. One of the most basic and obvious laws that all countries [attempt to] enforce is "Do not kill people", yet the apparently greatest nations in the world solve their problems (well, I use the word 'solve' very loosely) by doing just that... killing each other. So, I used toy soldiers to trivialise war. The computer parts were meant to be symbolic of modern day, but looking back, I don't see that there is much point in including them anymore. I think it was meant to sort of slightly point towards the fact that we have a very pointless war going on right in front of us as we speak. So what we see here is war in contemporary times. I'm still not sure how effective this work is. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.








These are actually the most recent images I've taken. They aren't part of a university project or anything, I just did them for fun. I thought I'd make a body of work lit only by the TV. I don't much know how to properly build on this idea, but I might get something later. So far I've just been taking long exposures of myself watching it. The two I've shown here are from the second attempt. The first time, the shutter button kept coming up (I was holding it down with tape), meaning the exposure was too short and they were too dark. I managed to hold down the shutter button more effectively this time. I did exposures of about 5 minutes. The shutter still got released without me doing it (using bulb setting can be annoying), but I found this was about the right amount of time. I think the bottom image is a bit too long. I like the bright electric-blue of the top image, which is contrasted nicely with the yellow of the door. So far all I see in these images is the fact that they are pleasing to the eye. I think if i try to persue this idea further, I could get something more. Incidentally, AFTER I started this idea, my dad told me about an article he read which spoke about a photographic exhibition which included images that were made using only the light of a television. Take that, everyone.


Laslty, (I was going to add a couple more before this one, but I'm getting tired) an image I took nearly a year ago now, which can easily be seen as a reference to Cartier Bresson's 'Decisive Moment'. At the time, I wasn't at all familiar with Cartier Bresson, but now I see this photograph is actually a good example of The Decisive Moment. A way to explain it would be a specific moment in time which holds two things: the point where the subjects within the frame have reached their aesthetic peak, and the point in the event that is happening has reached the [for lack of a better word] moment that best describes the event. I hope that makes sense... I might edit that sentance when I'm less tired. Anyway, I believe this image is a nice example of that. Though you can see how this image captured the moment when the event was at its aethsetic peak, the event itself is not very interesting. It's just two guys talking, and then agreeing on something (hence the touching hands), while one says nothing, and another has his hood up in a strange fashion because he was bored. I still love this image though.

FILM: Magnolia

Magnolia, which I got confused with other film 'Steal Magnolias', and watched that instead a few months ago. I wondered what all the hype was because all I saw was a kind of predictable and dated 90s film with Julia Roberts doing a bad southern accent (you'd think an American actress would have no trouble doing one of the American accents).

Thankfully, last night, I watched Magnolia. How amazed I was. It was so rich with talented actors, I could barely contain my glee. The people I enjoyed watching the most were Julianne Moore (she's good at playing crazy and stressed), Philip Seymour Hoffman (always good at everything), Tom C. Reilly (he can also play anything) and Tom Cruise was good as well. He's always good at playing dickheads, perhaps because he is one. People should lay off him, actually. He is not without his charm. And no one said he had to be a nice person, just a good actor. That he is.

Anyway, this is a fantastic film. If you haven't seen it yet, you must make it one of your life goals. I was confused by the time that certain scenes were meant to be in, but I still managed to enjoy it. This was one of those films where there are many characters, all seemingly having nothing to do with each other, but as the story progresses, you find they are all connected in some way. It's not so subtle that it's annoying, and it's not shoved in your face in a stupidly patronising manner either. The only other film that I can think of that has also achieved this is 'The Hours' starring Nicole Kidman (I absolutely love her), Meryl Streep (I absolutely love her, too) and Julianne Moore again. Moore is a bit of an enigma. Some roles she plays fantastically - like how she did in Magnolia, innit bruv - but others not so much. I learnt that she actually hates rehersing. She'd rather learn her lines, run through scenes a couple of times, and then start performing straight away in front of the camera, sort of half improvising her reactions off other characters etc. Kidman, however, who I've found to be flawless in every part she plays, reherses her parts to death. I don't know if rehersal is anything to do with it, or whether Nicole Kidman is just... better. I don't know. I never studied drama. Everything I say comes from being obsessed with film.

Back on track.... um... Magnolia is a really good film. I don't know how to properly express my love for this film without giving away oodles of storyline. What I can say is this: try not to watch it late at night like I did, because it isn't a brain-mush film, there is a certain element of focus required to properly enjoy it. But there is also a lot of drug use, sex and violence, so late at night is the only appropriate time to show it on TV. In this day and age there are plenty of other ways to watch film though... you know what I mean.

I Hate Tesco

TESCO! The most evil of British supermarkets (except maybe asda who are affiliated with Wal-Mart). Tesco will do anything to get you in one of their stores...

"We take vouchers from OTHER supermarkets!"

"You can do you're car insurance in the same place that you buy your milk!"

"Our food tastes really good and was brought to the shelf in the most humane way possible!" (whatever).

And now... as if all that rubbish wasn't enough...

"Come to Tesco to write your will! Only £9.99!"

Oh... my... katulu. How disgusting of them. Who would want to go to tesco to write their will?! I thought you could write your will on a beer mat if you wanted, as long as it gets noterised (which doesn't cost that much, does it?). ANYWAY, point still remains; You are in the process of deciding how much of your money goes to charity, how much to children/grand children, and what are you going to leave to your life partner before they can join you in the after life. Where, I ask, is the appropriate place to make such decisions? NOT FUCKING TESCO

I was just riding my ridgeback...

(a ridgeback is a bike), and I heard this middle-aged couple talking. The woman said, "He doesn't seem at all gay. He's had plenty of girlfriends but none of them seem to work out...". Hahaha, she sounds like a clueless mother from a sitcom or something. Anyway... on to my main point...


AN INTERESTING THING ABOUT CACTI

I had a tutorial yesterday, and one of the third-year students was talking about his work. What he's doing sort of mocks all those hardcore enviromentalists who are obsessed with keeping things green. Part of his project will include fake science journals that investigate cruelty to plants (as opposed to cruelty to animals). Instead of comparing a battery chicken farm with a free-range chicken farm, he will be looking at... I dunno... good crop farmers and bad crop farmers.
During his research, he actually discovered a man who ran an experiment to see if plants really do have feelings of any kind. He took a cactus, and put it in a lab, keeping the conditions perfect for the cactus to thrive. Eventually, the cactus lost its thorns, for the was nothing to protect itself against. The man would treat it well and talk to it as if it were human. The cactus was content. Then, one dark day, the scientists' cat managed to get into the lab. Fearing for its life, the cactus began growing thorns again. For the few days after this unfortunate incident, the scientist re-assured the cactus that everything was alright, and the new thorns began to drop off again. Soon the cactus grew little cactus babies around it. The babies were already thornless, for the world they were growing up in was indeed a safe one.

I don't know if this proves anything about whether plants have feelings, but cacti seem to know when danger is afoot...

FILM: Secretary

I just watched this rather fantastic film on film4. Never have I repeated the phrase "That was weird" so many times during the space of one film. And then of course, towards the end of the film, we see maggie gyllenhall running to her true love in a wedding dress. What do I think then? CHLICHE! WHAT A FOOKIN CLICHE! But it's okay, the film as a whole was very very good. I liked it. But, yet again, we get to a part where she kept repeating the words, "I love you" which did make me ask, "Did this just turn in to a romantic comedy?". But again, it's fine. There are too many scenes that include self-harm and masturbation to make this film become impared by some cliche'd romantic moments. Maggie Gyllenhall truly is a great actress... I admire her greatly. Although - I think - I am yet to see her in a role that is not in some way promiscuous. Let me see... in Donnie Darko, she didn't exactly have a large part, but in the famous a-jet-engine-just-fell-into-my-room scene, she sneaks back home late, you assume after a night of passion. Then, there is Mona Lisa Smile. That film is obviously very light and fluffy in comparison to these others, but her character was the most, shall we say, 'loose' out of all the girls in the group. And then of course Sherry Baby, where she's basically a nymphomaniac... no need for further explanation if you've seen that film. So yeah, I'm sure those aren't all the films she's been in, but those are the ones I've seen.

So... secretary... good film. James Spader has a very soothing voice. I've never actually seen a film like it. I'm sure there are plenty more, though.

Good Night All.

Portia De Rossi. What A Cool Name

Well hello there boys and girls. I was just watching a really old episode of the fantastically surreal and witty show, Ally McBeal. Then there was a break for the usual bunch of over-baring adverts, so I changed the channel to an equally over-baring music channel. I did my usual flicking, and found on TMF was a show called 'Hollywood's Hottest Couples' or whatever the devil it was. I am quite often vaguely ammused by these programmes, not because of the content, but because of what those barely-credible talking heads say about all the mindless celebrities. Anyway, they were talking about Ellen Degeneres (no idea how to spell her name) and the lady who she was going out with, called Portia. I thought to myself, "I say, isn't that the name of one of the actresses in Ally McBeal, the show I just happened to be watching?". Upon closer inspection, I found it was in fact the very same person. How surprised I was to learn that she is gay. Or is she bisexual? Or a good actress? Or... not an immature lesbian who can't stand the thought of kissing a man? She's probably more famous in America, so maybe an American can answer that string of questions for me.

In conclusion: I like how actors are good at... pretending to be something they are not. In essence, isn't that what the acting game is all about? Oh yes, very much so. It is also quite loverly that sexuality is not a factor when being cast for a role (or is it?). Perhaps it depends on the situation. I say, if you are flamboyantly gay, but a good actor, you should have no problem playing someone straight. Duh.

FIRST THINGS FIRST: look at some of my graphics

Right then... yes... well. I think to begin I'll show a few of the latest graphics I have made, for I will be posting a graphic here every time I make one in the future. Usually when I've just completed one, I become very proud of myself and show it off anywhere I can.

Okay, this is my most recent piece. If you actually look in my Photobucket gallery you will see that the subject of this piece is featured heavily throughout. Mutya Buena (who knows if you've heard of her in the states) is my idol, so [too many of] my graphics are based around her. This one is purely for the aesthetic, however. I kinda got this idea from an erotic graphic design book called "All Allure". Basically, her skin has an outline and everything else is filled. Blah blah blah... the point is, it looks sexy and amazing, and it was so simple to do. Usually when graphics come out this good, they took absolutely forever to do. This is not the case here. Oh how wonderful. Please gaze at it in amazement as I have been doing for the past few days.




NEEEXT. We are going back before christmas now. I actually made this as a christmas present for a friend (he likes his weed. Or... pot, as you Americans call it). It is... a smoke machine. A-ha-ha... what a funny pun. As you can see, the little machine looks rather high, and looks as if he is wasting quite a bit of money, for it is pouring uncontrolably out of his back-side. This is indeed a sort of attack on todays youth, and how wasteful and irresponsible we can be, but also - without seeming too hypocrytical - I am mocking myself. I too like a bit of weed... but I've never actually spent my own money on it. (I think I would if I knew who to buy from... cough).


Well... while we're on the subject of weed, here is a lady... smoking weed. Uh, there is actually a point to this piece - I'm not completely obsessed with doing graphics related to weed. First of all, the woman is actually Amelle Berrabah, who is part of UK pop group the sugababes. A few weeks ago, I learnt that one of my best friends is now living with the guy who used to sell Amelle her weed when she lived in her home town. I found this rather amusing. I told other sugababes fans. While some too found it amusing, others were offended and disgusted. Call me stupid, but I did not realise that the majority of the sugababes fanbase grew up in an isolated plastic bubble completely cut-off from the REAL WORLD. SHE WAS A FUCKING TEENAGER FOR GODS SAKE... 90% OF TEENAGERS HAVE AT LEAST TRIED WEED. So... yeah... their reactions pissed me off enough to make this piece. It was hard to find the right photo, but this one was perfect. In the original photograph she is in fact signing some artwork, and just happened to turn her eye up to the camera which is why I suppose she isn't smiling. I replaced her pen with a nice little joint that she is stubbing out. And I believe her perfectly careless, almost angry, expression works so well here because it tells others that she doesn't care about this very tiny, minute, insignificant... thing about her past, and others shouldn't either. So there.


Right, I did this piece more or less straight after the last one. At this point, I had become a bit obsessed with doing graphical pieces about weed. This one is entitled "Weed Heads". Now, I was actually going to include something like this in the last piece (sitting on the table next to her or something) but that would have been far too cramped and pointless. It works really well as a piece on its own. Now really, its just a bit of fun, and wasn't meant to be that serious that I'd post it on here and write some fat description. But I'm showing this because I've never achieved something that looked quite so professional. Perhaps you disagree.


Lastly, I felt I should show this piece to get rid of the grassy after-taste. This is possibly one of the best pieces I have ever done. It has to be. It's a desktop wallpaper I made especially for myself... and I do not change my desktop wallpaper every week like most people do. I've had my own computer for about 5 years now, and since then I have changed my desktop wallpaper twice. First it was the golden petals, then a graphic that someone made me before I was any good at making my own graphics. And now (at a time where my graphic skills have greatly improved and had surpassed the quality of my previous wallpaper about a year ago) I have this one. The dominant colour is yellow, as it has been in my two previous wallpapers, but the content of course is very different. It actually looks quite mad when you think about it. There, on a strange black hill, stands my idol, cheerfully thinking "the cracks are in the dawn" (to this day I don't know what that means... it was a phrase that popped into my head). In front of her she sees her own giant, masked face; suspended, as if it were some kind of spectre. (please note she did not have a cloth around her mouth in the source photograph. I put that in to add further mystery, and so I could add the tiny label with her true first name on it). The hill then cuts off at an alarming angle causing her inspiring glow to fall upon the many, seemingly discarded dolls of herself. I suppose the huge pile of dolls is a reference to the fact that she is an original, and cannot be 'duplicated'. If you were to do so, it would be an immediate failure, worthy only of being thrown away. There you have it.

Phew, that took a long time. You have my thanks and gratitude if you even read one paragraph of this post. A-thank you.

The Importance of Sleep [i will go to bed as soon as ive written this]

Yes, sleep is very important. Without it, we become over-tired, and when you are over-tired... you cannot sleep. That's right... ironically you need sleep in order to get more sleep afterwards. This may indeed seem painfully obvious and uninteresting, but that's another thing about lack of sleep. You become slow-witted and... and... not as smart as you were before. I am in such a state at the moment. which is why this post is not particularly entertaining, and will be re-read tomorrow with disdain. Did I even spell that right? Anyway, doesn't matter... I really should go to sleep. I leave you with something quite interesting about... sleep, again:

It is a common mis-conception that we need at least 8 hours of sleep every night. The minimum is in fact 4 hours, quite surprisingly. The maximum is 7. You may think you would never be able to function with this amount of sleep, but you can. It's more about the quality of sleep you get - not quantity.

GOOD NIGHT

WILL THIS BE THE FIRST OF MANY...

i dont know. for now, this site is stressing me out. changes you make do not take effect. why should i stay? it took me forever to get this font the correct size, for instance. even why i use the html editor, it doesn't do as i say. DO AS I SAY, DAMMIT

ANOTHER TEST

Blah blah blah... interesting content. etc.

PLEASE LET THIS IMAGE WORK:



there, thats nice...

Test

this is my first post... don't mind it.

Test Image: