This paper is some of my thoughts after reading 'In the Tracks of Jurassic Park - Phil 
Tippett interviewed by Iain A. Boal' from the book: 'Resisting the Virtual Life.' 
	In this article, they discuss the impact of new digital technologies on the craft of 
animation and special effects in the motion-picture industry. TippettŐs view is pretty clearly 
pointed out in the first sentence, he said, 'There is a hysterical feeling that if you donŐt use 
digital technology, you cannot participate.' Although he is definitely 'for' the advantages of 
using digital technology, but he takes a rather cynical attitude towards it, and he is also 
aware of the 'danger' of totally relaying the art of film-making on technology.
	One of the most interesting arguments in this interview is about 'virtual reality.' In 
my own opinion, virtual reality exists everywhere in a modern society. TV, film, CD, 
computer, and even books are all part of the virtual reality to me. Anything which 
transcends time, space, and creates a visual reproduction of the physical presence of 
anything can be counted as part of the virtual reality. Tippett mainly talks about the film 
industry. I think that it is pretty tricky to talk about film in this respect. If we look at the 
invention of movies, we will know that 'transplanting ideas into visualization' is one of the 
most important factors for this invention. So it is about 'making it real.' Special effects are 
inevitable, and they are part of the craft. But there are different degrees of 'removing things 
from reality.' The problem is that when technology starts to be able to make things looking 
realer and realer, crazier and crazier, the user(in this case, I mean filmmaker) loses track of 
the content. Tippett answers in one of the questions in this interview, he says, 'Any 
craftsman knows that to use tools to craft an object, you have to know your tools and their 
limits. The computer world is an area where people have no clue as to what can and canŐt 
be done with the tools. If you donŐt have an idea of what you want to do, and what the 
limitations  of the tools are, then all of the stuff is going to come out looking pretty much 
the same- a very small amount of it is interesting, just in terms of conventional picture-
making or performance or drama. ItŐs like airbrush art- you look through books of the 
incredible stuff people can do with airbrush, but somehow it all looks like the same 
	Hollywood films have definitely gone more and more into using special effects 
these days. Apparently it is because of the big studios' trying to cut their costs, but it is also 
an extension of business and technological communities 'supporting' each other. From a 
specter(consumer)'s point of view, a commercial is a commercial is a commercial; it 
doesn't make a difference in whatever form it appears. So if a filmmaker uses special 
effects in his films without any artistic reason other than attracting the audience,--- it is not 
art to me anymore. But who said that films 'have' to be about art?

	These are just some not-so-deep initial thoughts about this article after I read it. My 
conference work is on the special effects in film and computerized art. So there is more 
coming up---.       

Back to classpace