I'll start with a portrait artist who I have never heard of before, and I assume is from quite a few years back!

J.A.D. Ingres

In his prelim sketches for clients he would always spend hours on the face, getting the face perfect. Then he would use really loose lines for all the other aspects of the image. According to my illus tutor,  its because they would sell the portrait on facial recognition - very obvious notion now I think of it! 
I just wish I could draw like this without it taking hours and hours!

 Matisse

Okay, so I'll admit now, I don't like Matisse, but we've got a task doing positive and negative cutouts (I assume inspired by Matisse) so I'm trying to learn to at least like him. 

David Hockney

In honesty I can't remember what Hockney images she showed us, and I only used this one seeing as I am referencing their use of line - I can't say I find him memorable as he is someone else I am not too hot on but I have to admit he is a fantastic artist, just not to my liking!

Paul Cox

Okay so I only discovered this guy yesterday in lecture. My notes say 'Paul Cox - MOVEMENT, Brush pen, realism, NO straight lines' obviously I didn't have much to say about him then but I underlined his name and gave him a big red star, haha. 
I love the fact there are NO straight lines. My tutor today said something about him using his elbow as a pivot for the drawings, and that makes a lot of sense, as that would restrict the use of straight lines. I don't know a lot about Paul Cox, and haven't seen much of his work, so he's a must on my look up list.

Tomer Hanuka

Someone who I had seen before lecture yesterday! Came across him in Juxtapoz magazine (My bible) and fell in love. I can't tell you exactly all the things I love about Hanuka's work but I think he's mindblowing. His line work is supurb. His colour choices are exceptional - just look him up and see for yourself just how wonderful this guy is!

Gerald Scarfe

Didn't know his name? Knew the work though right?! Loved his work for AGES! Scarfe is fantastic. Very recognisable style, epspecially after Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall stuff. I just love the craziness of his characters. And I don't know why but the first time I ever saw the Squid in Spongebob Squarepants I thought of Gerald Scarfe! 

Ralph Steadman

What can I say, I LOVE inks!

Frank Miller

You'll probably know him for Sin City. I love the fact that his work is just pure black and white and he doesn't need anything else to define. You just know what is happening!

Myke Bakich

The master of sketching? Well who knows, but I love all of the sketches I have seen so far. His faces are really intriging!

Stanley Donwood

Does a lot of Radiohead covers I believe. Only discovered him in lecture but I really love the use of lines to create shading here! Plus his colours are really cool in this piece. 

HR Giger

LOVE HIM! You might know of his work because he create the Alien in Alien! That beautifully grotesque thing with the fantastically constructed head! I have one of his books and its so gorgeous. 
I love the mic stand he made for Korn! 

Alex Pardee

Again - grotesque! Love him!

Angenommen, Anfang des 8. Jahrhunderts hätte ein Außerirdischer auf der Erde notlanden müssen, sein Bordcomputer hätte dem fremden Besucher mitgeteilt, auf welchem Planeten, und wo genau dort er sich gerade befinde, wer dort leben würde (Wikinger nämlich), und mit welcher Sprache man sich verständige. Und weiter angenommen, mittels einer extraterrestrischen Technologie sei ihm die Beherrschung des Altnordischen in Sekundenbruchteilen ins Hirn gebeamt worden (oder was Aliens stattdessen zum Denken nutzen), welches wäre wohl sein erstes Wort gewesen? - Richtig. „Fuck“ natürlich. Denn zivilisatorisch haushoch überlegene Fremde (mit Raumschiffen), die auf ein Land voller Barbaren (mit Segelschiffen) treffen, müssen im Herzen einfach Amerikaner sein. Der Mann, der hier vom Himmel gefallen ist, spricht demzufolge auch fortan mit echtem Yankee-Akzent, während die Intonation der Nordmänner (und –frauen) vor allem nach Vereinigtem Königreich klingt. Der Zuschauer kann sich also glücklich schätzen, dass hier nicht Mel Gibson auf dem Regiestuhl gesessen hat, sondern jemand, dem es mehr um eine reizvolle Geschichte als um sprachhistorische Genauigkeit zu tun war. Aber wie könnte es sinnvoller Weise auch anders sein in einer nordischen Heldensage zwischen „Beowulf“ und „E.T.“, einem Film wie „Outlander“, der „Pathfinder“, „Predator“ und ein bisschen „Planet der Affen“ zugleich ist? Wer derart Eigenwilliges also allzu ernst nimmt, ist garantiert am falschen Platz. Unterschätzen darf man diese wilde Genremutation deshalb aber noch lange nicht. Denn dafür sind die Eisen, die Sternenkinder und Erdlinge hier gemeinsam schmieden, einfach viel zu heiß.

Tatsächlich soll es die Geschichte von Beowulf gewesen sein, die Filmemacher Howard McCain ursprünglich auf den Nägeln gebrannt hatte. Ende der 90er, so erzählt er bei Gelegenheit, hätten er und sein Co-Autor David Blackman sich daran versucht, die klassische Heldensage mit ein bisschen Science-Fiction aufzupeppen und so in ihrem ersten Drehbuchentwurf die Hauptfigur wie ihre Nemesis, das schauerliche Monster Grendel, einfach zu Besuchern von einem fremden Planeten erklärt. Erst in einer späteren Fassung seien die Namen der Sagengestalten verschwunden und aus verkaufstechnischen Gründen gänzlich neuen fiktiven Charakteren gewichen – gehört doch das wenig konsistente Gedicht um den tapferen Krieger zum Kanon der allgemein verhassten Standardlektüre an US-Schulen und ließ so, aus Sicht einiger Berater des Filmemachers, nicht gerade auf großen Zuspruch bei einem jüngeren Publikum zählen. Ganz anders sahen das übrigens etwa zur gleichen Zeit Roger Avary und Neil Gaiman, die damals praktisch parallel über ihrer eigenen Version des Stoffes brüteten, welche dann – ebenfalls erst zwei Jahrzehnte später – ihren Niederschlag in Robert Zemeckis´ digitaler Motion-Capture-Fassung von 2007 fand (die immerhin Angelina Jolie mit Ganzkörper-Goldschicht und Drachenschwanz zu bieten hatte).

McCains und Blackmans Skript machte eine Weile lang die Runde, lag zwischenzeitlich bei Renny Harlin auf dem Tisch, der an einer Adaption interessiert war, verkaufen ließ es sich jedoch nicht. Jetzt bereits unter dem Titel „Outlander“ unterwegs (übrigens nicht zu verwechseln mit der Romanserie von Diana Gabaldon), scheiterte schließlich auch ein erster Versuch, das Buch mit unabhängiger Finanzierung selbständig auf die Leinwand zu bringen. Barrie M. Osborne, Produzent von Peter Jacksons Tolkien-Trilogie, hatte der Stoff gefallen, und so waren schnell Neuseeland als Location auserkoren und die Leistungen von Weta Workshops eingekauft. Es sollte anders kommen, und am Ende floss das nötige Geld für die Verfilmung, jetzt unter dem Dach der Weinstein Company, einmal mehr aus deutschen Medienfonds (und das ausgerechnet aus dem einschlägigen VIP 4). Dies im Hinterkopf würde niemand mit allzu großen Erwartungen an eine Produktion herangehen, die nicht nur nach klassischem B-Film klingt, sondern auch in Teilen tatsächlich so realisiert wurde (die Kostüme der Wikinger entstammen durchweg dem Restefundus des kanadisch-islandischen Vorgängers „Beowulf & Grendel“ von 2005). Umso überraschender fällt das Ergebnis aus.

Die Geschichte ist ebenso absurd wie einfach. Nach seinem ungewollten Zwischenstopp auf dem Planeten Erde wird der äußerlich in nichts vom Menschen unterschiedene Besucher aus einer fernen Galaxie von Wikingern aufgegriffen, gefangen genommen, bald aber schon wieder freigesetzt, als sich herausstellt, dass Kriegervolk und Sternenreisender einen gemeinsamen Feind haben. Für die Nordmänner ist es ein Drache, doch der außerirdische Besucher weiß um die wahre Herkunft der bedrohlichen Kreatur, denn auch sie stammt von einem anderen Planeten und ist wohl heimlich in seinem Raumschiff mitgereist. Wie auch immer, das tapfere Volk der Wikinger und Kainan, der Außerirdische (der so weit aus dem Norden stammt wie kein anderer vor ihm), kämpfen von nun an Seite an Seite. Doch mit dem Alien aus dem All ist nicht zu spaßen, denn statt bloßes Monster zu sein, steht hinter seinen Motiven mehr als man zunächst vermuten mag, und so sind die Opfer auf beiden Seiten schmerzhaft und nachhaltig.

„Outlander“ überrascht auf ganzer Linie. Die Wendungen im Plot sind so reichhaltig, die Haupt- und Nebenfiguren so bemerkenswert und die Spannungskurve so unberechenbar, dass am Ende mehr übrig bleibt als es vergleichbare Produktionen in aller Regel leisten können. Lange Zeit scheint der Film nichts aus der Konfrontation von Alien und Wikingern herausschlagen zu wollen, doch dann wird nach und nach ersichtlich, warum genau das nicht geschieht: der Außerirdische ist nicht mehr als ein Fremder, der zum Freund und Verbündeten wird, ganz egal, woher er stammt, und dabei eben diejenigen Mittel zum Einsatz bringt, die er aus seiner Kultur kennt. Die Science-Fiction-Komponente will lediglich die Effektivität dieses Gedankens erhöhen, und das gelingt mit eindrucksvollen Bildern aus Kainans Vergangenheit (denen es auch nicht schadet, dass man ihnen das heruntergeschraubte Budget durchaus ansieht) und einer finalen Wendung, die den guten Eindruck des Films noch ein ganzes Stück über die End Credits hinaus anhalten lässt. Auf diese Weise gelingt es McCain und Blackman (mittlerweile offiziell mit einem neuen „Conan“-Film beauftragt), ihre Figuren ernst zu nehmen, ohne in Klischees oder Absurditäten verfallen zu müssen. Historisch genau mag das Wikingertum hier kaum dargestellt sein, und vor allem der Frauentypus, den die weibliche Hauptfigur vertritt (Tochter des Königs und resolute Verfechterin ihrer Unabhängigkeit), ist selbstverständlich eine nachaufklärerische Projektion – aber um derartige Details geht es dem Film auch gar nicht. Das Korsett historischer Akkuratheit beiseite gelassen, kann sich die Erzählung um Glaubwürdigkeit und Sympathiewerte ihrer Figuren kümmern, ohne dabei in Widersprüche zu verfallen.

Dazu trägt die gelungene Besetzung eine Menge bei. John Hurt gibt einen unerwartet weisen Wikingerkönig, dem die besseren Argumente zum Schutz von Volk und Familie mehr zählen als traditionelles Gedankengut. Jack Huston (tatsächlich Enkel des großen John) vereint den ständigen Kampf mit den Widersprüchen aus Rollenbildern, Selbstbehauptung und der aufkeimenden Freundschaft mit dem fremden Besucher. Jim Caviezel als Sternenkrieger mit tragischer Vergangenheit (und nachgerückt für Carl Urban), dient vor allem als Projektionsfläche aller anderen Figuren und bringt für den Zuschauer den größten Witz des Films sozusagen offline einfach mit (denn bekanntlich verkörpert er nicht zum ersten Mal einen Erlöser, den der Himmel schickt). Und schließlich ist da noch Sophia Myles (als Reporterin Beth Turner Herz und Seele der bedauerlicherweise nur kurzlebigen CBS-Vampirserie „Moonlight“), und mit ihr bekommt der Film echte Erdung. Eine Frauenfigur wie Freya, die so gar nichts mit der Zeit zu tun hat, in der die Geschichte angesiedelt ist (auch wenn sie deren Regeln inhaliert hat und beherrscht), spannt den weitesten und deshalb auch wirksamsten Bogen zum Zuschauer, indem sie ihn in eben der Welt abholt, aus der heraus er dem Geschehen auf der Leinwand beiwohnt. Das unverbrauchte Gesicht der Schauspielerin und ihr Ansatz, mit möglichst wenig Aufwand mehr über ihre Figur zu sagen, als die Vorlage alleine hergeben mag, ist ein unbezahlbarer Bonus, den der Film einfach so mitbringt.

Natürlich, eines regiert das Zuschauen wie kein zweites auch dann bereits, wenn es noch nicht zu sehen ist – das Wissen um den außerirdischen Angreifer nämlich, der so bedrohlich ist, dass er sogar zwei befeindete Stämme zum Waffenstillstand treibt (und so Ron Perlman einen kurzen, aber äußerst blutigen Cameo ermöglicht). Creature Designer Patrick Tatapolous („Underworld“, „Silent Hill“, „I, Robot”) hatte das Alien-Monster bereits in einem frühen Stadium und außerdem ganz ohne Gegenleistung entworfen, doch das merkt man dem fertigen Produkt keineswegs an. Vor allem der animalische Charakter, seine biologische Substanz sei den Machern wichtig gewesen, und so hat der Moorwen (Name inspiriert von den Morlocks aus H.G. Wells „Time Machine“) eine Menge von den Höllenhunden aus „Ghostbusters“, wenig jedoch von Gigers Alien oder dem Predator. Ein sehr eigenwilliger und wirksamer Gedanke ist die Bioluminiszenz der Kreatur, mit der sie ihre Opfer im Dunkeln anlockt und so dem Film einige eindrucksvolle Nachtsequenzen ermöglicht.

Zu einer landesweiten US-Kinoauswertung reichte es für den „Outlander“ leider nicht. Wie bei so Vielem, das die Weinstein-Brüder in ihren Regalen liegen haben, müssen sich die amerikanischen Zuschauer auch in diesem Fall mit einer DVD-Premiere begnügen. Das ist besonders bedauerlich angesichts der Tatsache, dass der Film bereits zu Drehbeginn eine breite Fanbase mobilisieren konnte, die von der bloßen Konstellation Alien vs. Wikinger so angetan war, dass auch ohne den mittlerweile üblichen viralen Aufwand ein merkliches Maß an Mundpropaganda die Runde machte. Das Erfreuliche dabei ist aber zumindest, dass McCains Film im Gegensatz zu anderen, ähnlich vorab heiß ersehnten Produktionen (etwa „Snakes on a plane“) eine Menge derjenigen Erwartungen, mit denen die Fans aufwarten, auch tatsächlich erfüllen kann.

(„Outlander“ wurde im Rahmen des 22. Fantasy Filmfests erstmalig auf deutschen Leinwänden gezeigt.)

Artikel © 2008 Thomas Lenz. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Filmplakat: Wild Bunch

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Den Schriftsteller Sergius Golowin haben Sie als "eine Art Vaterfigur" beschrieben. Was haben Sie von ihm gelernt?

Giger: Sergius hat in Basel als Bibliothekar gearbeitet, war Mythenforscher und ein Verfechter von LSD. Er hat Interessierte in Magie unterrichtet und uns die geschichtlichen Zusammenhänge erklärt. Durch ihn habe ich viel über Magie und mystische Symbolik gelernt. Leider ist er vor zwei Jahren gestorben.

Ein unbedingt lesenswertes Interview mit Giger bei SPon (danke, Mike).

Personally, I'm a bit sick of it, but if it does it for you, and you'd like some ready-baked creepiness, here's a formula. 

Elements of my newly patented checklist can be seen in the aforementioned videos (and ALL the following examples after the jump!), and pretty much any shitty horror movie that's come out in the last few years. (For some great specific ones, check out Pulse, Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows, and House on Haunted Hill. That's just for starters.) Though I personally haven't checked into this, desiring to retain a few brain cells, but odds are also good that these will make appearances in goth-poetry (Sorry, guys. I like you, but you take yourselves way too seriously.), and while I'm not sure, probably Dean Koontz novels. Some other fine examples of the pioneers of this aesthetic are Clive Barker and Edward Gorey. 

The formula lies... beyond the jump.

His Highness' Big, Generic Horror Checklist

1. Protagonist must be either be a) waifish, vulnerable, or freakish in some way, b) hot chick who can barely act, or c) your average dude WHO'S BEEN PUSHED TO THE LIMIT. This is assuming a standard narrative, and not montage. Note: Option A is an excellent way to corral them gothy types. No hatin', but they love that shit. Witness Jack Skellington, the main protagonist from The Corpse Bride, and pretty much any Johnny Depp character in a Tim Burton film. Option C is great for zombie flicks. B is your B-movie standard. 

Option A: Man, he is both fey AND waifish!

 Option B: Kirsten Bell. Magically babe-licious.

and, the classic, Option C: Will Smith. 

2. If a film, include stop-motion. Or any kind of Linda Blair-like movement. That shit be creepy.

3. Ambience must be dirty, grimy and abandoned. Also, things should be rotting, decaying, etc. Ideally, it should also be a hospital. Or some medical sort of place. Empty insane asylums= an excellent place to start. It should scream, "place where man and industrial cleaner fears to tread."  

 Creepy! A place where man fears to wheel downstairs. 

4. This one is important, so pay attention! EXTRA-PALE PEOPLE = SCARY. This is a well respected law in horror cinema, and literature, and pretty much anything that wants to creep you out. It goes even as far back (and probably further) as the cult classic Carnival of Souls. 'Course, that's a genuinely creepy movie. Like Rod Stirling on a bad trip. But in any case, don't trust any extra honky motherfuckers. Whitey's probably the bad guy. History, horror cinema or otherwise, should have taught you that. (You just got burned, white folks. Oh, it's okay, I can say that: my BEST friend is white. And he's cool with it.) This principle is also big in Japanese horror, or adaptations of it. Witness The Ring (RIngu) or The Grudge (Ju-on) for fine examples. Which will lead us to our next, time-honored example. 

Ok. That is pretty scary. But, in the interest of maintaining a deadpan, I'll make a joke. OH SHIT A PUN

Every guy's worst nightmare. Gives a whole new meaning to demonspawn. Paternity test, ASAP! Phew. Not mine. It's Lucifer's. 

5. LITTLE KIDS ARE SCARY AS FUCK. Fear and little kids go hand in hand. Who wasn't freaked the fuck out by the twins in The Shining, or that terrifyingly adorable child-demon in the picture above? And if you don't actually include a kid, invoking / perverting some aspect of childhood is a mainstay. It's also a really facile way of indicating madness (kids chanting nursery rhymes, etc...) This one is both still creepy, when done well, and really annoying, when done poorly. 

Playing house and pick up sticks forever? A fate worse than death. 

6. Throw down some BDSM. Nothing says horror like restraints and leather. This one's straight from the books and films of Clive Barker. Hellraiser was the first film I saw that I picked this up on, and you can see elements in it pretty much in every movie since, or in the Tool videos, or in horror novels, or horror comics-- it's everywhere. You can also see it in the art of H.R. Giger, especially in his designs for the movie Alien. Taking pleasure in pain (pretty understandably) scares people. Adding sex & fear together creates a distinctly unsettling, and vaguely dirty feeling that adds to our already grimy and bizarre setting. It's a small touch of the alien (for most) in our midst. 

Don't forget to work the nipples and ears. 

7. Decay, rotting stuff, general corruption of the flesh. Anything that fundamentally alters our appearance is really frightening to us. Especially if it's gooey. (I will now enter analytical mode. Feel free to move on down.) Basically, it's the rendering of ourselves foreign and unknown to ourselves, becoming alien to our self-perception. This applies to Mark Powell's artwork. And that is a really scary concept, beyond just the superficial fear of becoming ugly, but the latter's scary, too. Ugliness brings isolation, pariah-status, as does the appearance of disease. This is the bit in the zombie movie when you get bitten... and it's all over. You're one of them now. Then you get your head blown off, and that sucks. 

"PEEEEPS......PP...PEEEPS......."

8. MONSTERS! MONSTERS! MONSTERS! WHEE! They represent the introduction of the alien into our life. And the odds are good they want to eat our souls. Or at least take a nibble at the meatier bits of us. A monster can be anything; a zombie, a serial-killer, (both of which are also examples of the above point- the corrosion of their humanity makes them into the fundamentally different other) a werewolf, a demon, an experiment gone awry, anything: a monster is the literal representation of the other. Ooh, don't forget about freaks-- like in Tod Browning's Freaks! And they're physically threatening, too. Here are some of my favorite!

The devil made me wear this shitty costume!

Okay. A Nightmare on Elm Street is just one of the most awesome horror movies ever. You should know that. No joke. 

He's big. He's bad. And he hates premarital sex. Ladies and gentlemen, the handsome, the immortal, JASON VOORHEES!

9. Ancient secrets, myth, old stuff, old people, shit that's from the past. I guess this sort of overlaps with 3, but nobody wants to come home to find mistakes they made 10 years ago sitting on their couching sipping a juice-box. Tossing in a bit of folklore adds the flavor of something primal, primitive and therefore, something we don't understand. Since we're such bright, modernized domesticated primates, our own past frightens us. It's why the Republican party invokes the will of our Founding Fathers so much. If it's old, it's got some kind of weight and merit. Mythology is scary for that reason, and because if it turns out to be true, what we know and understand is completely broken down. That's a huge part of horror; destroying the boundaries where we remain comfortable and placing us into realms we don't fully comprehend. Also, if you throw in stuff from the Victorian era, you get elements of both waifishness AND BDSM (True fact: Victorians were way into BDSM. No joke. Here's another example.) Also, Victorian flashbacks are a great excuse to use that sepia filter. Or toss in a bit of steampunk. So, what dark secrets does the past, our very own Necronomicon, hold?

Don't forget the three code words:

Klaatu...Verata...*Coughcoughcough*

10. Come on guys, do I even need to say it? THE DARK. This shit takes place at night, a dungeon, an unlit building, or in a mist, like the PSX game Silent Hill, which is a great example of many of the items on this list. Anything that keeps our vision obscured and lets us get that money shot of something popping out of nowhere to scream in our faces. 

(thanks to this blog for the image)

So there you have it. Ten easy steps to insta-horror. Anything I've forgotten, or anything else that too many horror movies do these days that pisses you off?Leave me a note. 

Oh, and a disclaimer. I love horror movies. I love horror comics, I love the whole bloody genre. I wouldn't have been able to write this if I didn't. I like everything I've made fun of here. So don't get your panties in a twist. 

His Highness is an avid horror lover, two-time dater of goth girls, and white-boy himself.

A few weeks ago I received an oversize, 4 page flier requesting my presence for a seminar titled “Israel and the Countdown to Armageddon”. The presenter, a smarmy looking young man named H.S. Rester was giving a free conference about Bible Prophecy and if I acted quickly I could receive a free DVD about other “Unfolding Revelations“. Basically this was to be another end times sermon designed to pick and choose fuzzy bits of the Bible to scare suburban soccer moms into religious submission. All in all, the advertising was exciting with F-18 fighter jets flying over Israel, troops carrying guns, a very D&D dragon, a lion with wings and a 666. On the back cover was something I did not expect, this:

What? Who is this guy? Is that Jesus? Sure enough the Christian savior actually looks like he’s from the Middle East. Shocking! Needless to say I was surprised since most images of Jesus are far more, how should I put this, ethnically biased.

I live in the very suburban Front Range community of Fort Collins, Colorado and most everything I see is white-watered down to keep me feeling safe. Though we have a large Hispanic community, there is very little in the way of any real ethnic diversity so seeing a Middle-Eastern Jesus on my glossy, end of the world flier really sticks out.

Since 9/11 I would have imagined that portraying Jesus as being from the Middle East (which the Bible clearly says he is from) would be a bad PR move. Anything even remotely resembling the Middle East is considered scary these days in America. Terrorists are supposed to be from that part of the world, but not the Christian savior, right? But actually I was kind of glad that the people promoting the end of the world seminars were actually getting at least one bit of information right. For all their nonsense about the marks of beasts, four horseman and outrageous Biblical interpretation they at least moved a step closer to realizing their prophet was a Jew from Israel. Sure, the above image still leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy but maybe the days of the Anglo-Saxon, Romanesque hippie are drawing to an end.

The white Jesus has always bothered me because I think Christians need to face facts and stop watering down their faith with friendly, nice guy pictures of Jesus holding lambs and smiling with his 12 buddies as happy children run behind him tossing palm leaves. How is anyone going to take a guy who looks like he travels with Phish supposed to be the same guy that’s going to judge all souls come time for the apocalypse? I thought religion was supposed to be serious business and not a feel good romp through the meadow.

In my opinion white Christians like to avoid the nasty side of their religion. They like to make it easy on themselves to continue believing. They want to feel righteous and to do so they strip away all the stuff that clearly states they are poor sinners who could quite easily go to hell for all eternity. White Christians want to feel good all the time without any of the guilt.

Here is a very early image of Jesus. This fresco was painted in Daphni, Greece around 1100 and it can be found in the Church of the Dormition of the Virgin. The title is “Christ Pantocrator” which in Greek means Christ the Almighty. Some familiar features are visible such as the beard, long hair and thin face. His expression, though, is far more foreign that when we are used to seeing. Here is a man to be reckoned with, his large eyes look away from the viewer as if he has more important things to worry about than just you. The hand he keeps on the bible is interesting in that it is twisted and seems ready to drop that bible to punch someone if need be. Jesus is not smiling either because he is serious business and he means it. Overall he looks kind of mean and frightening but I bet you would not want to piss him off either. He certainly lives up to the name of this work.

This next image was done by Orcagna around 1354-57 and is titled “The Redeemer”. Here Jesus has been given a bit of a face lift to make him look somewhat more Italian since the artist was working in Florence, Italy. We still have the long hair and beard but now he is staring right at us and with his glowing crown he seems to be passing judgment on the viewer. He is still not smiling and his insensitive eyes make the viewer fear him somewhat like the above image but he at least looks like he could be related to any good Catholic Italian and thus he seems like an accessible savior who can be reasoned with. The title “The Redeemer” suggests as much anyway.

These two images (left & right) were both painted in the late 1400’s. The painting on the left is by Schongauer and is titled “Noli Me Tangere” (Christ With Mary Magdalen). The image on the right is by Geertgen Tot Sint Jans and is titled “Christ As The Man Of Sorrows”. Here both artists are appealing to our empathy. Gone are the angry, judgmental figures from 400 years earlier. The Jesus we are now seeing is frail and almost feminine and seems somewhat weak in the face of evil. Both paintings feature women who are reaching out towards him and instead of Jesus being an imposing, king like figure he is more of a friend who we can feel sorry for. Here is someone willing to die for all of human sin so that we don’t have to. He will take the pain away unselfishly so that you can go about your day without having to worry about all that yourself.

In this detail of “The Last Supper” by Leonardo da Vinci (which was painted in the late 1400’s as well) we get more of the same. Recently much has been made about this painting and it’s supposed hidden meaning. True, the symbolism of the number three is used all through the painting (3 windows, triangles, apostles in groups of three all represent the trinity) but these meanings are usually lost on the casual viewer. Sure most people can “feel” this is an important work of art and may marvel at it’s beauty but the image of Jesus is surrounded by cryptic meanings that only scholars can ever really appreciate. Leonardo give us a Jesus that is all math and symbolism, his meaning is shrouded in mystery and code. Jesus moves further away from having any real, down to earth meaning for the common man and becomes just another Christian symbol.

As the ages pass the images of Jesus become less and less what he probably would have hoped to portray himself. Forgotten is any message he may have had because it has been replaced by artists who wanted to make him less threatening in hopes to bring in more converts to the churches commissioning their work. Jesus the friend of man, Jesus the nice guy, the good looking white man who will forgive you no matter what you do is what we have left all in the name of Public Relations.

The above image is what remains of the guy. A portrait and profile of a white guy with a nice Romanesque nose and golden, flowing hair. He may be looking to heaven but I don’t think it’s because he is praying but rather because he is bored. In short, it’s a silly image.

There have been attempts to put the meaning back in the art though. The image on the left paints Jesus as a sort of pissed off black man and that’s not too surprising since it was made in the 1960’s. The right image is from the Caribbean and both images are trying to engage the viewer. They both have an iconic quality similar to the famous icons you see in Russia in that they are both looking right at you, ready to take you on and judge you. Jesus may not have been a black man but the point is you can’t hide from this guy because he will find you.

So why am I so concerned about how Jesus is portrayed in art? Basically it’s because I’m sick of Christians who believe in Jesus as the savior yet have absolutely no idea how to deal with him. I find it hypocritical that Jesus is just watered down faith with no substance. White Christian Americans love to proclaim that Jesus will send you to hell for not believing in him as your personal savior when at the same time they strip away all meaning Jesus has just to make their lives more comfortable. Christians may say they believe in Jesus, but which one? What Jesus are they worshiping every Sunday (when the game isn’t on)?

This year we were only able to spend a few Friday night hours at the 11th Annual Tattoo Convention at the Roseland Ballroom, NYC. The convention took place from May 16th to 17th, Friday-Sunday, Friday being by far the tamer night. The hall was not particularly crowded and the Best Tattoo of the Day competition had only six competitors. A whole series of competitions was held over the weekend, with the more interesting (such as the Best Overall Tattooed Person contest) held on Sunday.

Despite the low attendance Friday night, the artists were all present and most of them hard at work, needles abuzz. d42 made her rounds in search of a master whose portfolio was in line with the design she wanted for her upcoming epic backpiece starring the Shinto goddess Amaterasu. She was woefully limited to NYC studios, although, once again, the attendees hailed from all over the world: Germany, China, Holland, Japan, etc. After a few hours of browsing, she finally settled on Rising Dragon.

My favorite tattoo artist of the night was Vincent Castiglia of Omega Tattoo whose black and white otherworldy creatures melded their teeth and tendons and blind staring eyes with the flesh of their wearers. His art will actually be hosted at the HR Giger Museum Gallery, Switzerland, in November. Castiglia was also the author of a great Bruce Campbell tattoo featured at last year's convention.

Representing the body modification side of things was Brian Decker of Pure Body Arts, the man to whom I entrusted all my microdermals. I expanded on my chest piercing and this time videoed the process for your enjoyment. It's a little bloody, so beware if you're squeamish.

Brian placed a microdermal to the right and to the left of an already existing central piercing. The video is of the left one. If you look to the right upper corner you can catch d42's hand, which I am squeezing to pieces. (Video by Dazvsemir)

After our fill of eye-candy we hung around for a near consultation on a finally rejected free-style tattoo by Keibunsha Tattoo of Japan who for the first time in my experience spent all evening without anyone to shove ink-dipped sharpened sticks into. Then we checked out the Best Tattoo of the Day contest the smiley winner of which was this man:

Here is a closeup of the tat with beautifully accented colors in an otherwise black and white skull that makes me think of New Orleans voodoo and works well with the already existing skulls going down his left leg:

Here are a few more shots of the competitors:

And here are the fascinated judges:

We attempted to end the night by visiting the tiny sideshow that all these years was hidden in the basement, by the bathrooms, but the dude in a fez holding a two-headed duckling was too busy advertizing to man his station of freaks.

As usual, the convention was awesome. My new microdermals are healing nicely and d42 finally found the tattoo parlor of her possible dreams. Sucked that we weren't there for the rest of it, but there is always next year.

Designer: Benjamin Wysk
Inspired by HR Giger's amorphous designs, the Draught Watch, by Benjamin Wysk, carries the idea of symbiosis by proposing the watch and the wearer are one. Odd design, but regardless, something that definitely catches attention. That's what we like!

Os contratempos começaram em 1975, quando Giger começou a fazer o design para a versão cinematográfica de Duna, livro de Frank Herbert, que seria adaptado para as telas pelo cineasta e roteirista de quadrinhos, Alejandro Jodorowsky. O diretor chegou a montar uma equipe de primeira: Moebius também seria chamado para a arte; Pink Floyd e Tangerine Dream para fazer a trilha sonora. Salvador Dali e Orson Welles também teriam participação no filme, na frente das câmeras. Mas esse projeto não saiu do papel. Anos depois, o produtor Dino De Laurentiis comprou os diretos do livro e se interessou em chamar Ridley Scott para a direção e Giger para criar o design, já que ele havia trabalhado no projeto de Jodorowsky. Mas, depois de algum tempo, De Laurentiis acabou acertando com David Lynch para dirigir o filme, que estreou em 1984 sem o envolvimento do designer (Giger conta aqui a história completa, em inglês).

The Tourist foi outro projeto que não saiu do papel. A produção da Universal iria ser dirigida por Brian Gibson em 1982.

Quatro anos depois seria lançada a continuação do filme de Ridley Scott, Aliens - O Resgate, dirigido por James Cameron, mas Giger sequer foi consultado para trabalhar nesta produção. Isto o deixou muito desapontado, afinal de contas a sua criação estava sendo usada à revelia. Porém, nessa época, o premiado artista já estava trabalhando em outra produção: Poltergeist II, de Brian Gibson.

Em 1988, Giger começou a planejar o design para The Train, produção da Carolco que deveria ser dirigida por Ridley Scott mas, novamente, o projeto não saiu do papel. No final da década de 80 a Fox voltaria a produzir uma nova continuação para a franquia de Alien. A idéia era retomar o clima sombrio do primeiro filme e o diretor escolhido foi David Fincher, que anos depois realizaria Seven, O Clube da Luta, O Quarto do Pânico e Zodiaco. Desta vez Giger foi chamado para criar o design deste novo filme e, empolgado, desenhou inúmeras novas idéias. Mas, misteriosamente nenhuma delas foi usada em Alien 3.

Logo em seguida o artista foi contratado para uma nova ficção-científica, Dead Star, que acabou não se concretizando. Anos mais tarde esse filme seria lançado com o nome de Supernova, mas sem a participação de Giger. Em 1994, a Warner o convidou para recriar o Batmóvel para a produção Batman Forever, dirigida por Joel Schumacher, mas o filme estreou sem a criação de H.R. Giger (veja o incrível Batmóvel na foto ao lado).

Finalmente, em A Experiência (Species), de Roger Donaldson, Giger retornaria com certo sucesso ao cinema, em 1996. No ano seguinte, ele foi o responsável pela criação de outro "monstro" no filme trash alemão Camisinhas Assassinas (Kondom des Grauens), da Troma Film. A produção chegou a ser lançada em vídeo no Brasil, mas é raríssima de ser encontrado. Em 1997, o artista recebeu outro golpe da Fox: Alien - A Ressurreição seria lançado sem, ao menos, dar o crédito ao criador do monstro.

Giger também colaborou em A Experiência 2, mas pouco antes de ser lançado, o artista pediu para tirar o seu nome dos créditos. Em 2004 e 2007 foram lançados Alien Vs. Predador e o desastre de bilheteria AVP: Requiem, respectivamente, e novamente Giger não foi consultado.
Depois de tantos percalços, será que o criador da arte "biomecânica" voltará ao cinema?

Visite um dos sites do artista, clicando aqui. Visite também o site do documentário H.R. Giger's Sanctuary e as páginas do artista nos sites ArtCyclopedia e beinArt International Surreal Art Collective.

Todas as imagens que ilustram este texto podem ser ampliadas, clicando-se nelas.
Para fazer download de papéis de parede com a arte de H.R. Giger, clique aqui e aqui.

Escuchando: Organ in the attic sings the blues - Deadbeat

Eu confesso que quando era menor eu morria de pavor do Alien, mas não é pra menos né... o monstro criado por HR Giger é bastante aterrorizante... Agora eu não sinto mais medo, pelo contrario, tenho uma profunda adimiração não só pelo Alien, mas por toda criação do mestre Giger.

E uma coisa que eu REALMENTE gostaria de ter (e saber fazer) é um cosplay de Alien.. e neste site que vou passar agora tem o making of do Sacha Feiner fazendo um.
É de fato muito interessante como ele faz, e podemos dizer que ele é fera! ;D

Obs: o site é meio tosco, mas vale a pena! ^^
(clique aqui ou na imagem para ver)

First there were the sleeves on designer Vincent's pageant gown, which prompted guiding force Tim Gunn to say, "These ridiculous epaulette sleeves, talk about 'Beam Me Up Scotty'! I mean, where were they going, to Judy Jetson's birthday party?"

Then Phaolo of Project Yawnur compared the four designers remaining in the contest to the Fantastic Four:

The Invisible Woman was Uli, who "went unnoticed for most of the season." Jeffrey was The Thing because he "doesn't care who he steamrolls over." Laura was "Stretch" (I think he means Ms. Fantastic) because of her uniquely mobile facial expressions. Michael was the Human Torch because he's ... uh... hot and stuff. (3 out of 4 ain't bad.)

Then the most recent episode prompted recapper Rich of fourfour to compare one designer to Gollum: "Angela thinks fleurchons are preshhhhhhusssssss"

As well as comparing host Heidi Klum's hair to the work of H.R. Giger.

Finally, a fourfour commenter posited a link between designer Jefferey's neck tattoos and Trek:

"Dont you think Jeffrey's neck is channeling a member of the Cardassian empire? Gul-lejerk maybe? "

He even linked to that geekiest of sites, Star Trek Gaming Universe!

You know what this means, it's only a matter of time before Peter Jackson and David Tennant start turning up on the cover of Vogue. In costume. (Jackson will simply choose a costume.)

technorati tags: project+runway, fantastic+four, star+trek, cardassian, fashion, judy+jetson, tim+gunn, fourfour