Summary of “A Journey Into the Radical Art of Brain Injury Survivors”

Then there’s the art studio, packed with painters, sculptors, drawers, photographers and crafters.
His mother tells me he didn’t really paint or draw as a child, and he never goes to exhibitions or consumes great works of art.
A week earlier, over lunch, Chris had said to me, “You can’t look at contemporary art without acknowledging the art made by the disabled.” It went over my head at the time, but had rattled around my mind ever since.
Prinzhorn, a former art history and philosophy student, developed a passion for the project, and by the time he left the hospital in 1921 the collection contained more than 5,000 works by 450 patients.
He published his research in his first book, titled The Art of the Mentally Ill. While the world of science largely scoffed at the book, the avant-garde art world became obsessed.
“The art world doesn’t even relate to people anymore. Most people don’t even engage with it. It’s removed itself from the purpose which it had all our lives. What we see when see people like Jason or Alfred Wallis is art that has a purpose. It hits us directly because it’s honest and has an integrity. But also it shows that art has a deeper function in society for all of us, and we’re just removed from it. Making a mark is an act of self. It’s an assertion of the individual. It is defiant. It’s almost the last thing you can have.”
“In Britain,” says Steene, “Part of the idea of the value of art is about the person who makes the work. We are celebrity and personality-obsessed. The thought that someone who has a brain injury might create beautiful art just isn’t widely accepted here. There is a judgment made about the individual at that point. This country has a lot of hierarchical issues and there is a pressure to change, but I think it will be a long time before we see one of the artists we’re talking about having their work in the Tate Modern.”
It’s just after lunch and “Riders On the Storm” by The Doors is rumbling from the speaker in the art studio as I watch Jason work on a set of small paintings: three 10cm x 10cm canvas boards.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How Disney Will Make 21st Century Fox Disappear”

Once Disney’s $71.3 billion acquisition of a wide swath of 21st Century Fox is complete – possibly by as early as the end of February – one of Hollywood’s most storied studios, the home of Shirley Temple movies, The Sound of Music and Avatar, will simply disappear.
As Disney absorbs much of Fox’s film and TV units – Fox Broadcasting, Fox News and TV stations will be spun off into New Fox, headed by Lachlan Murdoch – repercussions will be felt not only in Los Angeles but worldwide.
The number of employees working in TV, whether at 20th Century Fox Television, cable networks including FX and Nat Geo and Fox Sports’ international divisions, is difficult to pinpoint, with 21st Century Fox declining comment.
On Feb. 1, the HR department at 21st Century Fox sent a 12-page protocol guide, “What’s Changing, What’s Not: Countdown to Day One,” to 21st Century staff who won’t be moving to New Fox.
How much? Late last year, 21st Century Fox said employees without contracts will be entitled to “Generous” severance should Disney decide not to keep them beyond the first year after the merger closes.
When the dust settles, the iconic 20th Century Fox movie logo will remain only as a label within the Disney stable guided by Emma Watts, now vice chairman and president of 20th Century Fox Film.
Peter Rice, a protege of Rupert Murdoch who is now president of 21st Century Fox, will become chairman of Walt Disney Television and co-chair of Disney Media Networks, overseeing all of Disney’s TV assets sans ESPN. And Fox TV Group chairman and CEO Dana Walden will become chairman of Disney TV Studios and ABC Entertainment.
Disney employees from the old Fox sharing acreage, parking structures and a commissary with New Fox could get awkward.

The orginal article.

Summary of “There are too many video games. What now?”

Like a lot of game developers, de Paco sees the daily avalanche of games crashing onto online marketplaces such as Steam as a severe threat to his livelihood.
A saturated market Over the past decade and change, the number of video games on the market has increased exponentially.
The weekly trickle of games flowing into Steam has surged into a roaring river, with the number of games on the platform nearly doubling every year from 2014 to now – 1,772 that year, 2,964 in 2015, 4,207 in 2016, and 7,672 in 2017, according to Sergey Galyonkin of SteamSpy, a site that uses a quickly vanishing trove of public data to estimate the sales of games on the platform.
While the studio succeeded in capturing the spirit of the arcade – even roping in twin-stick pioneer Eugene Jarvis for the ride – Haveri says that there are simply too many small developers churning out quality games in that style and genre for Housemarque’s neoclassical approach to support a studio of its scale.
In a climate where every game is stuffed to the gills with five tiers of colored loot, massive open worlds, reams of optional content and a dozen content patches lurking on the schedule before the core package even hits store shelves, it seems that game developers are battering each other harder than ever before to compete for the attention of games worldwide.
“And if you’re spending 10 of those in a PUBG, or a Fortnite, what does that leave for the rest of us? It’s true that timing of release is critical, sure, and I don’t think that single-player, smaller-scope games are going to go away; there’s always going to be room for that. But time is something that you really can’t move, and you have to account for that when people move into these long-term relationships with games.”The crunch is actually worse than you might think, because it’s not just the number of games that are increasing; the number of actual gaming hours out there could be shrinking, too.
Though Valve’s “curators” program has failed to totally stem the tide of game makers and players alike complaining of issues discovering games that appeal to them, the eShop has even fewer options than that.
“In Spain, the ones who are making money in video games are the schools, not the developers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How ClassPass and Mindbody Are Killing the Big-Box Gym”

ClassPass membership allows customers to hop around different studios and build a workout routine that is anything but, and allowing them to be untethered to one entity except to ClassPass, of course.
ClassPass went through a period of trial and error that eventually led the company to land on its current system, in which users purchase monthly credit packages that they can use at fitness studios in their towns.
A ClassPass membership allows customers to hop around different studios and build a workout routine that is anything but, and allowing them to be untethered to one entity except to ClassPass, of course, which like all good internet middlemen hopes to retain members without making people feel like it’s holding them hostage.
Studios need to fill classes to make money, and ClassPass helps them do this, but they also rely on memberships: people who buy class packages or even yearly memberships to their studio and their studio alone.
“So I’m sure there are all these other studios out there who don’t realize that they’re being competed with by ClassPass.” Bond says that she was a ClassPass user before launching her studio, and she understands the benefit.
Still, it’s undeniable that ClassPass has had a positive impact on the fitness studio boom.
Studios, on the other hand, went all in on upgrades, implementing easy-to-use booking and payment options, partnering with companies like ClassPass and Mindbody, buying touchscreen sign-in portals, and even offering or integrating with personalized heart-rate tracking devices for in-class use.
In many ways, companies like MindBody and ClassPass that aren’t operating their own brick-and-mortar studios and hiring instructors and employees to run them are best positioned for a potentially all-digital fitness future.

The orginal article.

Summary of “What the Oscars’ New “Popular Film” Category Says About the Art-and Business-of the Movies”

The gap between the art and the business of movies is larger than ever, and the planned changes to the Oscars announced today by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences look like a desperate response to that chasm.
The Academy plans to move the airdate of the ceremony up to early February, to shrink the telecast to three hours in order to offer “a more accessible Oscars for our viewers worldwide,” and to create a new category “For outstanding achievement in popular film.”
Their over-all effect suggests a reaction to a much greater problem facing Hollywood: its increasing irrelevance to the art of the movies.
What’s more, in worldwide receipts-where Hollywood’s big-budget films now make a majority of their money-most of these films fell still lower in the charts, because culturally specific, locally anchored movies don’t travel as readily as ones made from preĆ«xisting fantasy sources.
When a new generation of filmmakers, richly educated in the most extreme trends of the art of the cinema thanks to the availability of VHS tapes and DVDs, brought forth movies of a new, original sensibility, they found themselves increasingly confined by the commercial demands of studio budgets and studio producers.
It’s no accident that the very notion of the Oscar campaign, of the high-powered behind-the-scenes exertion for awards, is the brainchild of Harvey Weinstein, an independent producer with Miramax who leveraged awards to vault his films and his company to a level of importance in Hollywood commensurate with that of the studios.
Because of this very commercial significance of awards for commercially minor films, the Academy’s decision to create a new award for “Popular films” is more than absurd and desperate: it’s rankly offensive.
The new category appears to be a play by the studios to siphon off some of the commercial benefits of the awards-to redistribute Oscar-related money upward from independent producers to the studios, from productions costing and yielding tens of millions to ones costing and yielding hundreds of millions.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Indoor cycling can be great for your heart”

Dennis,* an instructor at a major spinning franchise who’s in his early 30s, became concerned about his hearing and went to an audiologist, who diagnosed him with early onset hearing loss.
The study authors did not specify which companies they included but told Vox they covered six major US chains with locations throughout the US. Public health authorities are increasingly worried about noise exposure everywhere: The World Health Organization calls environmental noise an “Underestimated threat,” and hearing loss is now the third most common chronic health condition in America, just after diabetes and cancer.
A single 45-minute indoor cycling class was nine times the recommended noise exposure for an eight-hour workday Since I started reporting a series on noise pollution, I’ve received hundreds of emails about all the places people feel their hearing is assaulting on a daily basis: in restaurants, in clothing and grocery stores, at the movies.
Its researchers were working with the authors of the study to come up with recommendations for how to prevent hearing loss that were to be sent to cycling and exercise studios – part of a “Workplace solutions series” that offers public health guidance on safe workplaces.
How loud exercise classes can make us more vulnerable to noise-induced hearing loss It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of noise-induced hearing loss since the effects of loud sounds on the ears are cumulative and can take years to show up in hearing tests.
Loud noise we’re exposed to is thought to contribute to the wear and tear that degrades our hearing.
The louder the noise, the worse the damage – but really loud sounds can damage our hearing in a short period of time.
How to protect your hearing To protect your hearing, you need to understand how loud the environments you frequent really are.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How Superheroes Made Movie Stars Expendable”

Sony owned the rights to Spider-Man, and Pascal made intelligent use of them-her choices for director and star were unexpected, and together they made a movie that honored fans and non-fans alike.
“So you’re feeling wobbly in the job right now. Here’s the fact: nothing conventional you could do is going to change that, and there is no life-changing hit that is going to fall into your lap that is NOT a nervous decision, because the big obvious movies are going to go elsewhere and you don’t have the IP right now to create them from standard material. Force yourself to muster some confidence about it and do the exact thing right now for which your career will be known in movie history: be the person who makes the tough decisions and sticks with them and makes the unlikely things succeed.”
Then the machinery of wide release was supplemented by a new technology, VHS. Suddenly, there were video stores all over America that needed to purchase at least one copy of every major new Hollywood movie.
Something had changed, he believed, and Americans were becoming indifferent to their great cultural patrimony-an indifference that was linked, Puttnam maintained, to how movies were being made and distributed.
As the major studios faced the loss of a large and predictable revenue stream, they trimmed their release schedules and focussed more of their efforts on the global mega-brands: Marvel, DC, “Harry Potter,” “The Fast and the Furious,” “Star Wars.” The movie business transitioned from a system dominated by a handful of larger-than-life stars to one defined by I.P. This brought the era shaped by Ovitz to a close.
“Michael Ovitz,” writes Violaine Roussel, in her book “Representing Talent: Hollywood Agents and the Making of Movies”, “Is commonly described as the demiurge responsible for shaping and leading the reconfiguration of the system linking together the main agencies and the major studios.” Roussel is a professor of sociology at the University of Paris, and she spent five years studying the world Ovitz helped create, interviewing movie agents, shadowing them at work, and meeting with their various rivals and counterparts, including top executives at the major studios.
Granted, there were limitations in the old model, some of them severe; it is hardly incidental that two of the most popular and interesting movies of the past year, “Wonder Woman” and “Black Panther,” made deliberate efforts to expand the usual demographic of old-fashioned Hollywood heroism, and to push back against the history of sexism and racism that it reflects.
The Internet and social media have changed things, he said, adding, “You almost can’t make new movie stars anymore, right?” Cinemas are already in danger of becoming like the church in the Philip Larkin poem: half-abandoned houses of “Awkward reverence,” with an aura that intensifies as fewer and fewer people go.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to Introduce Your Kid to Studio Ghibli”

Studio Ghibli films have been a touchstone in my life for years.
Some young children may find elements in some of the Studio Ghibli films to be confusing or frightening.
Decorating your children’s bedrooms with beautiful art prints inspired by Studio Ghibli movies is an easy way to introduce younger children-especially infants and toddlers-to the films when they are too young to understand or pay attention to the animation or stories.
All Studio Ghibli films are distributed in North America by Disney or GKIDS, and you can easily purchase the DVD or Blu-ray versions on Amazon or other online retailers.
While children as young as two might appreciate these, both titles do have a leisurely pace, like all Studio Ghibli films.
Ages 8+: NausicaƤ of the Valley of the Wind is usually considered part of the Studio Ghibli filmography, but it predates the studio-it’s what led to Studio Ghibli being founded in the first place.
Studio Ghibli co-created The Red Turtle with a French animation studio, and it’s special because there is no dialogue.
There are many more movies and film shorts that well-known names-including Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, Yoshiaki Nishimura, and more-have worked on before or beyond Studio Ghibli.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Hollywood Wanted An Edgy Child Actor. When He Spiraled, They Couldn’t Help.”

It had been years since Renfro had delivered a performance that caught the public’s attention, and at the time, he was treated as yet another addition to the mournful legacy of former child stars – Dana Plato, River Phoenix, Judy Garland – whose lives collapsed from Hollywood darling to death by overdose.
Renfro became an overnight star because he was a rowdy kid with natural talent who stood apart from more seasoned child actors.
10 years after Renfro’s death, interviews with Renfro’s former colleagues make plain that the mechanisms in place to protect child actors – mechanisms compromised by conflicts of interest and a dependence on parents and guardians – were scarcely capable of protecting kids like Renfro, and largely remain so today.
Renfro’s parents divorced when he was 5; his mother remarried and moved to Michigan, and Renfro’s paternal grandmother, Joanne Renfro, became the primary caregiver for an increasingly wayward child.
None of the adults who worked with Renfro as a child who spoke with BuzzFeed News said they suspected Renfro might be addicted to a drug like heroin.
With no boundaries off the set, Renfro kept getting pushed past perceived limits for child actors on the set, as well.
Instead, throughout the ’90s and Renfro’s early adolescence, Hollywood kept courting the child actor, trading on his name and fandom.
If the parent or guardian is checked out, and their child’s darker facets are what keeps them employed, it’s not in any way surprising that an actor like Renfro would slip through a system so ill-equipped to save him anyway.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Made in China: every new video game you love”

For Zhu Jie, a 33-year-old with wireframe glasses and bright pink hair, credits are often the best part of a game, a rare moment of recognition for her and her colleagues at Virtuos Ltd, a company in China that builds 3D art and levels for the biggest game companies in the world: Sony, Microsoft, and Electronic Arts, among others.
In 2008, an anonymous poll of 200 major video game studios found that 86 percent relied on outsourcing for some aspect of development.
“It takes a village now, to build these games,” Peter Moore, then COO of EA, said in 2015 at the External Development Summit, “And I’m not just talking about the game itself. Because if games don’t have companion apps, if they don’t have websites – we have 450 different social media websites supporting all of our franchises, so we have requirements for integrated development that not only keeps the core game alive but keeps the ecosystem around that game humming, because if you’re not delivering content each and every day then the engagement drops.”
“We don’t place bets on certain IPs,” he said, referring to the intellectual property that constitutes a new game.
Costs for game development had been rising steadily throughout the 1990s, when the average budget for a PlayStation or Nintendo 64 title was between $1 million and $3 million, according to a presentation at the Game Developers Conference by Factor 5.
To ensure consistency across all the game’s outsourcers, van Beek and his team of artists at Guerrilla compiled a large library of reference photos of everything they wanted in the game.
Is there really a way to make a game of Horizon’s scale and complexity without someone being exploited along the way? Working conditions at many traditional game studios are already bad enough, with nightmarish crunch-time stories and frequent overtime, often without additional pay.
A recent report in Politico points to the fact that from 2005 to 2015, “The number of people in alternative work arrangements grew by 9 million and now represents roughly 16 percent of all U.S. workers, while the number of traditional employees declined by 400,000.” A 2016 IGDA survey found a similar force at work among game developers, only 66 percent of whom were full-time employees.

The orginal article.