An Accurate Logo Parody on BP's Oil Spill Disaster

RE:  Blog Entry #6 - Logo Parodies that Speak the Truth  (Mary Ward Communications)

The following is a parody of BP's original logo design which I find best reflects the 2010 oil spill.  This design is what I am basing the following answers on.

This logo parody was an entry for a competition
to see who could design a logo which reflected BP's
actions towards their controversial oil spill. The
artist's name was unlisted on the entry page.
To see the original image on the entry page, click here.

Describe the logo using the language of the Elements and Principles of Design.

I find this logo is very effective when using the elements space, texture, unity and direction.  When it came to space, I found this design effective because I didn't find any space that went to waste or had me questioning why it wasn't used to its full ability.  As far as texture went, I found this design had many interesting textures that, together, looked very appealing.  I found this design had a nice sense of unity because all the textures and aspects it had all effectively portrayed BP's oil spill problem and how it was affecting the rest of the world.  Lastly, I found this design had a good sense of direction because it easily guided my eyes from the top of the logo (BP's monogram) to the main design (BP's flower logo with the oil dripping onto a skull that represented the Earth) to the witty caption at the bottom of the logo.

Describe the symbols used in the logo.  Why did the graphic artist use such imagery?

The symbols used in this logo were BP's original flower logo, an oil dripping and a skull which I found represented the Earth since it had the Earth's surface on the cranium of the skull.  I think the graphic artist chose to use BP's original flower logo with the oil dripping to make it obvious that this design was portraying what the artist felt about BP's oil spill problem.  I also think the artist chose to have the oil dripping out of the flower itself to really show that it was BP's fault that there was a major oil spillage.  I think the artist chose to use a skull with the Earth's physical surface covering just the top of its cranium because it showed that the artist felt the oil dripping into the Earth was going to negatively affect the Earth and that it would lead to the deaths of many, like the animals living in the habitat.

At the bottom of the entire logo, the artist also put in the caption "Spill changing lives" (except the "p" in "spill" was originally a "t", making the original word "still").  I think the artist chose to use this caption because it cleverly identifies how the oil spill was and still is changing the lives of those living in the habitats that the spill affected.

What does this logo say of BP's corporate identity?

This logo says that BP's corporate identity fails to live up to its new design and logo.  BP's original flower logo was supposed to symbolize how the company was turning more environmentally friendly and their new motto "Beyond Petroleum" was supposed to depict how the company was going to deliver more advanced products to transition into a lower carbon future.  This parody portrays how BP is really going against their goals since they've allowed a major oil spill to damage many habitats, which to me isn't at all environmentally friendly or helping a transition into a lower carbon future.

Click here to go to the artist's website.

To end this post, here's another logo parody that I found on Google, which I found also effectively portrayed BP's oil spill disaster.  This logo took a completely different approach and used oil splats and an upset face on BP's flower to show how the oil spill negatively affected the environment.

Digital Actors

RE:  Blog Entry #5 - Digital Actors  (Mary Ward Communications)

With all the new the new technologies and advances being discovered today, not only do scientists benefit from this, animators and others in the movie industry may benefit from this too! A great example of these technologies' abilities is seen in the movie "Avatar", which has been getting a lot of debate over whether the animated characters should get recognition when it comes to acting awards.

This is a picture of Kevin Flynn from the
latest installment of Tron, Tron:  Legacy.
If you couldn't tell, this is not even a real
man!  This character is a CGI (Computer
Generated Image) of Jeff Bridges.  With
this type of accuracy and technology,
could it actually be possible for actors to

become  obsolete?  I would hope not!

Is this acting or animation?

I feel that the movie "Avatar" is a great example of incorporating traditional acting with the new advances in special effects and animation.  I find that calling it one or the other wouldn't be quite fair to neither the actors or the animators because all participants worked very hard to achieve the amazing quality that is in the movie.  Everyone should be recognized for their participation and effort.


Do you think that animated characters should be eligible for acting awards?
Acting awards should be eligible for characters who have actors portraying and acting them out. That being said, I feel that animated characters could be eligible for acting awards.  This all depends on how the animated character was portrayed.  If, unlike "Avatar", the animated character was completely based on computer animations and the actor's voice, without the actor's physical acting, I don't think these characters could be eligible for acting awards.  This is because I feel it takes a lot more than voice acting for one's character to be eligible for an acting award.  For animated characters that are the result of both an actor's physical acting and computer animations, I feel that these characters could be eligible for an acting award.  This is because, not only does this character have the voice acting of an actor, it also has the physical acting of an actor, which (in my opinion) makes the character worthy of an award.


Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete?  Why or why not?
With all the innovations and technology that we have today, I think there is a possibility that human actors will become obsolete.  Even though all these advances are very high end, cutting edge and therefore expensive, it would probably be much easier to spend the money and development on this technology over the actors and actresses with very similar salaries.  Also, since this technology is now able to mirror human actions and generate familiar or similar faces, it's completely possible for animators to generate a new but virtual celebrity that would appeal to many fans.
Even though I predict this could happen though, I still prefer my human actors and actresses.  This is because some people, like me, prefer to physically see familiar faces, and always generating new ones with computer animations could cause consumers and fans to lose that familiarity - even if the generated face resembles a favourite actor or actress.  And personally, I prefer to see real actors acting in my movies.

-x-x-x-x-x-

NOTE TO MY TEACHERS:

This entry is based upon on the information taken from the article "Do the 'Avatar' Actor's Deserve Recognition?"

-Jercy

Winter Break

... I did not update my blog this entire winter break.


Oh dear.