Response to the Kidd, Hickey and Weschler articles

       Something that I found useful in the Kidd article was that it shows you that you don't have to use many standards in art. For instance, normally the more important thing goes on the left, but in art it doesn't have to. If you are creating a piece of art work with different images or drawings within the same piece there are no standards as to where the most important picture goes. The artwork as a whole is important. In fact, I believe it is more important to place the more extravagant side of your piece on the right since most people may read or look at it from the left. That way the viewer will see the better part last.
       Something I didn't really like about the Kidd article was that it was a little confusing. Some parts I didn't understand as well. When the author said that the enemy was always coming from the left I didn't necessarily agree. I guess I just don't understand his thought process on this. I was able to see connections to art in the article but I don't believe I completely understood what the author was talking about.
      Something I found useful in the Hickey article was that we can define our own art and what is acceptable. Rules are always changing and Hickey shows that we can define what is acceptable as we go along. We don't think of every possibility until it happens so you will never have every rule set in play. I believe that art does not have any rules. Many things can be considered as art so it is hard to limit yourself when working on a project. You will never know until you try something if it will work out or not.
       Something I did not like about the Hickey article was that I don't really think I got the full connection with art as there was. When he says that "art wins" I don't fully understand what he is talking about. I don't really think of basketball as art. Also, I don't understand how rule changes make basketball art unless I am just missing the point completely which is always a possibility.
       In the Weschler article I found that the complexity of the face in animation is engaging. When you think of a face, something you see everyday and many of, you don't think about how much detail there is and how much expression it has the potential of. Weschler talks about how animators have a hard time creating faces and expressions. This makes sense but it is something I have never thought about before. An actor/actress and move their face any way they need to according to the motion they need to portray but creating an emotion from scratch is hard to do since the animation cannot do it itself.
      One thing I didn't really like in the Weschler article was the milk analogy. I had a hard time following along with that and I don't think I fully understood it. I feel that he could have just explained what was going on without referring to the milk. I took milk as being the lighting of the face and the glow that it has, which could be wrong but thats what I got out of it. In that case I guess the skim milk would be a duller lighting, I really am not sure.