Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Out of contrast = out of context

It has come to my attention that some of my designs that I send out to clients aren't received as how they're supposed to be. I send a client a rather dark picture, utilizing gray shades and subtle details against dark backgrounds (ex. my blog's main header graphic/banner). However, because THEIR MONITOR IS LIKE, 10 YEARS OLD, it all just looks BLACK.

Fuck.

But it's funny, because when I tell them to just print it out with a good printer (kinkos), THEN they see the subtleties that their shitty CRT monitor couldn't pick up.

Let this be a lesson:
Out of contrast = out of context
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, June 20, 2008

Burnt Fists!

New poster concept for another boxing event. The guy said "Boxing in Burbank". I told him that's too vague. I gave it a new title; he likes it.



Shoutout to the homie (and future middleweight champ) Ian Mauleon for modeling! And thanks for letting me light your gloves on fire while you hold it in place! ^o^
Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Transcending Humanity...

To make sense of this, first become aquainted by these tidbits of trivia:

Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

and

Ignostic: the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

==============================

Now to bring it all together:
Based on Clarke's third law, there is the idea that a higher-being and a deity are indistinguishable. Perfect example: Jellyfish are very basic life forms; they swim and eat, and nothing else. They have no brains, no eyes, no ears, no nose, and no tongues. Thus, they can not see, hear, smell nor taste, all of which we humans, a higher life form, can do. If jellyfish COULD think, then all these extra senses that we possess would NEVER be fathomable by their minds, because such senses, to them, can not exist in their reality. In fact, anything beyond them and their logical thinking would be nothing short of magic. Can you imagine describing sight to the blind? Audio to the deaf? And as for trying to explain the internet to a jellyfish... forget about it!

So what about a life form higher than humans? Us humans, the all selfish species? We try to explain everything within our own means of reality, yet for all we know, we're just a blind jellyfish floating in the cosmic ocean. If there is a "god", then is god a deity of powers and infinite complexity, or is god just a higher life form? And if infinite expansion theory still plays a role, then is our god but a jellyfish to another life form higher than it?

What do you label something that transcends humanity?
Share/Save/Bookmark