#annoying bc i've been using them since like. 2011

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

with memrise winding down their community courses and becoming less viable to use for custom vocab lists, does anyone have any recs for vocab learning/practice apps that allow you to input your own vocab (not just learning from pre-existing lists)?

in particular, an app that will let me input lists from csv files/spreadsheets since that's what i'm extracting my custom memrise lists into

ideally with a low level of gamification -- streaks, points etc. not so much that it overwhelms the language learning side (cf. duolingo), just enough to motivate me to use it consistently

ability to save lists to offline to practise without an internet connection a bonus but not 100% essential. minimal ads/cheap ad-free paid tier preferred.

[mithliya]

People need to stop sending you all of these mean comments in your asks. It's pathetic, and lets the whole world know just how butthurt and fragile they are. No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to read your blog. If they don't like your opinions, they can just unfollow/block you. Having said all of that, I am both curious and genuinely concerned for you and your mental health, so I've got to know: why don't you just turn your asks off? Do you have some reason for not doing so? Or have you just never thought about it? 🤔

nah i thought about it (bear in mind ive been on tumblr since like 2011/2012) but i like getting asks, despite the handful of people who use my ask box to be annoying to me. most ppl are very sweet and i get asked questions about my experiences & life & things im interested in, ppl bring awareness to some important issues in my ask box as well, or send suggestions, etc. and most of it is on anon and many are scared to go off anon, or view my blog and interact w me a lot but don’t have a tumblr blog so they can’t go off anon. so i don’t wanna lose that cause i do enjoy it. the annoying ppl can be annoying at times, but generally speaking they don’t bother me enough for me to turn asks off. if someone harasses me on anon enough, esp if it’s boring and endless, i just end up blocking. doesn’t always work tho bc some of them don’t understand boundaries and will just use VPNs to come at me further, or they go to gossip blogs and often will invent the wildest rumours about me.

[dizzymoods]

1. For a long time now I've been seeing a problem with the advancement of digital image manipulation technology. I've seen a trend that as the tools which allow filmmakers to make digital adjustments to their images become more powerful and accessible, the reliance on these tools has increased to the detriment of the quality of the image.

2. In the days where the photochemical process allowed much more limited control over the graduation of hues, much more of the work of producing the final image happened on set. The quality of the frame was more directly determined by the quality of the light which was reflecting off of the subject.

3. Light is the crux of the image making process. You can't have a good image without good light full stop. It doesn't matter what you do after the image is captured, if the light you captured doesn't work, it can't be made to work by any means.

4. As these technologies have progressed I've seen such a dramatic drop in creativity in the way that light is utilized. I can't help but think that some part of this is due to a shifting attitude in the way that the image making process is conceptualized because of these technologies. Especially when I see things like the incredible popularity of Patreon grifters selling access to their corny LUTs.

5, People are eating that shit up. It seems like its playing into the homogenization of culture. Like it's a homogenization of the visual language of media which is being catalyzed in part by the accessibility of incredibly powerful tools that aren't strictly necessary to the image making process in the hands of an entire generation uncreative hacks who have risen to popularity through means other than the merit of their work.

I think the key to what you’re responding to is what you call the homogenization of visual language in media. I think the problem isn’t the technology per se but the industry that incentivized the use of  the technology to maintain the carbon copy standard of the Hollywood look while also being used to save on money/time onset. && the developers who equally became incentivized to make the technology easier to be used in such a way by the industry & prosumers as well. That’s where I locate this problem. There’s a kind of echo chamber where the images that gets you hired fit into this rigid easily replicate-able formula and the technology makes it easier to make said images.  I see this reverberate outside of technology and into the arena of corporate production and aesthetics. Which of course loops us back to the homogenization of visual language.

I see this homogenization in the work of DPs who started in the late 90s/early 00s. I’m thinking about Matty Libatique in particular who started out doing unique visuals in  Pi and Requiem for a Dream. Even though I don’t particularly like the look of these movies they did have personality.  It’s hard not to notice how on trend, flat, and boring Matty’s recent movies have been.

& I use Matty bc he moves between Big Studio pictures (Venom, A Star Is Born, Birds of Prey) and boutique indie films (Chiraq, Mother!, Native Son). & part of this echo chamber is that the technology is now relatively accessible and cheap and can produce a quality that rivals Hollywood. So now there isn’t much of a visual distinction between a $100mil film and a $10mil film in terms of image quality outside of maybe vfx.

Indie films aren’t an alternative to the Hollywood look anymore. They are now either boutique bootlegs (a24 or Annapurna) or generic knockoffs.  The indie scene is a kind of testing ground for new directors and DPs: can you follow the Hollywood formula on a limited budget? That’s why today’s indie wunderkinds get scooped up into Hollywood bc they can achieve these boring corporate approved looks on a budget. Vastly different from say PTA  or Malik Sayeed in the 90s.

This mimesis is at the heart of film education too. & I say film education bc you find it not only in institutional training (film school/residencies) but also on film sets interning and in the most easily accessible online resources (youtube, forums, patreon grifters, books, etc). All film education follows the model of Recognition and Recreation. Recognize the elements of this image/look and reproduce it as best you can. Film education produces technicians not masters of craft. There is no artist development. You have to sneak your pov into this small rigid mold. 

And this echo chamber discourages seeking out history and alternatives bc they are either obsolete or not profitable. Ppl think photographing black skin is a relatively new development when photographers like Van Der Zee were doing in the 1920s. & what Van Der Zee was doing in his photography in the 20s is wildly more technically difficult than dragging an effect onto a photo or applying a filter. The New Black Vanguard photographers are particularly annoying about claiming to be the “first” to do something even though they’re consciously (but badly)  copying 70s-90s fashion photography that was circulating on tumblr (usually by Rashida & Bri) ca. 2011-2014

I’m not mad at these insta photographers or these other visual artists who might not be talented but are adept at social media/sliding the HSL scale. Its the media and tech industries manufacturing the ability to do so and the manufactured need to work this way. Now that so many ppl can do this and the tech is demystified it makes it easier to replace workers. As a photographer/DP you aren’t bringing a unique eye to the project like Vadim Yusov or Jack Cardiff. You’re bringing the ability complete the task quickly and cheaply.

Something that I don’t ever see talked about wrt the homogenization of visual culture is how around 2007 Fincher & Soderbergh started saying the dreaded digital look will be as good and eventually better than celluloid. & with the RED One and Arri Alexa it became an achievable reality. So now instead of a meaningful difference in the visual palette between celluloid and digital we now have what essentially amounts to celluloid and imitation celluloid.

i do think there is value in this post manipulation technology. I just think that it needs to embrace it’s artifice. So much of this digitally  produced corporate look has some tether to reality/physics. I try to imagine how Dziga Vertov or Seijun Suzuki would have used it. I think it would’ve been exciting We got a glimpse of how Obayashi was using it.

While I agree that the visual degradation of the image is annoying and worrisome. I think more importantly is the end to which images are used. What is the meaning or purpose of this image? There’s also a degredation and flattening of meaning in these images as well. I think #RepresentationMatters is a big reason for this. Everything is now selling us capitalist aspirational images of women presidents and black board members. They really don’t mean much more than those “Anything is possible” posters with the balloons on them in first grade classrooms.

Since going to HU I’ve been increasingly less interested in placing value in the graphic quality of an image but rather its meaning/purpose. The Dario Calmese/Viola Davis cover kinda sealed that deal lol. But I do agree w the sentiment here. I don’t think there’s a point to working in a visual medium if everything you’re making looks the same.

Shameless self plug of an online grifter: I’m planning on covering cinematography more generally but this specifically is central to that topic in September’s episode of Niggas Eatin.

TL:DR: the technology is more of a symptom of the absolute disease that is hollywood’s corporate slog of images than the actual problem.