Save the Rainforest - Keep "it's a small world" a classic.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

I suppose I just don't see the two concepts as mutually exclusive: history and entertainment--but I am biased, as I am a history buff.

They can both be enjoyed - but progress should not stop purely for preserving the original at all costs.

Else we'd be arguing that we should be enjoying looking at that piece of renaissance art under only candle light because that's what the original artist intended!

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

Else we'd be arguing that we should be enjoying looking at that piece of renaissance art under only candle light because that's what the original artist intended!

Actually, back then, the artist intent was to please the Church, their main patron, so they could get paid so they can buy a loaf of bread. The fact that it looked good in candle light is no different than how some scenic views look their best at sunset/sunrise.

Artist intent didn't happen until the patronage split when artists pretty much said they aren't going to paint someone's ugly mug in a way that makes it look like they are Adonis when they clearly are closer to the back side of a baboon. Can't really tell you when that happened as far as numbers go. All I know is that all the rules of art went out the window the moment a urinal became gallery worthy art.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

They can both be enjoyed - but progress should not stop purely for preserving the original at all costs.

Else we'd be arguing that we should be enjoying looking at that piece of renaissance art under only candle light because that's what the original artist intended!

If there were other choices for indoor illumination I'd say your point was an interesting one, but the illumination levels do not equate to artistic intent, IMHO. Since you bring up artistic intent, I'll give an example that fits this scenario quite well (unlike the candlelight analogy ).

After Michaelangelo's death, the church commissioned Daniele de Volterra to paint clothes on the naked figures in the 'Judgment' scene above the altar of the Sistene Chapel. The 'fig leaf campaign' altered Michaelangelo's intent. De Volterra did a fantastic job (he was a Michaelangelo apprentice), but the 'plussing' of the Sistene Chapel to make it more 'appealing' (in the church's view) robbed the artist of his presentation--posthumously, of course.

The question is: Is IASW an artistic creation of Walt Disney?

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

they don't care... its not the original so they haven't been bothered. Ironic huh?

The difference is that the Hong Kong attraction was originally designed with the characters as part of the show. The intent of that show is different, as designated by its designers who took influence from, but did not directly copy Mary Blair and WED's work.

Disneyland's version was never designed with characters as part of the show. It should remain as such, especially considering that adding characters serves no real purpose creatively for the show. The Hong Kong attraction utilizes characters for the publicly-acknowledged reason of introducing these characters to Chinese audiences.

I don't agree that this is the best place to introduce Disney characters, but that is the creative intent of that version of the attraction. It was never the intent of the Disneyland USA version.

Originally Posted by flynnibus

If this were a museum... I'd agree. But the place is intended to be some place people go for entertainment - not just a art exhibit.

The other versions are intended to be clones, with adjustments made as necessary to fit the location. More then that is purely sentimental attachment.

I wouldn't want any Disney park to become a time capsule - even in the spirit of preserving Disney's work. Start a Disney museum and transfer attractions there if you want to 'preserve' them and let people go there if they want to see originals - regardless if the original is worse then the current.

You have to realize that history, nostalgia, and entertainment all work together. If people didn't care about Walt Disney or the history and nostalgia of Disneyland then the 50th Anniversary marketing campaign would have greatly suffered, the Remember... Dreams Come True fireworks show would have been less of a success, and the "Walt Disney" name wouldn't be used on 50th Anniversary shows like the Walt Disney's Parade of Dreams. If nostalgic Disneyland didn't hold entertainment value, Disney wouldn't have produced that 6-Disc Musical History of Disneyland CD set, or release a line of "retro" merchandise during the 50th (with subsequent lines following after the 50th). Additionally, if nostalgia for Walt Disney's life and work wasn't so profitable and marketable, Disney wouldn't even consider re-naming and re-theming DCA's entry plaza as "Walt Disney Plaza."

Additionally, there wouldn't be a demand for Walt Disney-based products like the Walt Disney Treasures DVDs, etc.

I think its evident that the very history and nostalgia of Disneyland and Walt Disney is of very high entertainment value to a large percentage of Disneyland's audience.

I think we all get and agree that Disneyland shouldn't remain stagnant... but there is a fine line here because the nostalgia, memories, and history of Disneyland certainly contributes to the guest experience and overall entertainment value of the park. So where does the line get drawn?

I don't think anybody here is saying that Small World shouldn't be re-evaluated, updated, upgraded, and enhanced. We're just saying that those enhancements should remain true to the attraction, its themes, and its message.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

If there were other choices for indoor illumination I'd say your point was an interesting one, but the illumination levels do not equate to artistic intent, IMHO.

Oh but they very much do. Illumination totally affects perceived color. Showing a piece under a mercury light or halogen would very much change the way the original piece looks - and therefore alter the piece from what the original artist intended for it to be seen as. This is a key element in Disney's show as well.. Color is key - and color is a function of reflective light.

For instance, changing the staging and lighting in the attraction itself could very much change the color and perception of the attraction.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

Actually, back then, the artist intent was to please the Church, their main patron, so they could get paid so they can buy a loaf of bread. The fact that it looked good in candle light is no different than how some scenic views look their best at sunset/sunrise.

Uhh.. art as a form of expression has been around much longer then patronage. Your statement infers artists only do it for a job.. and I think history disproves you quite handedly.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

The difference is that the Hong Kong attraction was originally designed with the characters as part of the show. The intent of that show is different, as designated by its designers who took influence from, but did not directly copy Mary Blair and WED's work.

OH PLEASE... this is grasping at straws. It is a clone of the same attraction! The fact they've planned to plus it from the start doesn't change that one bit. It's not 'based on..' its not 'inspired by..' it IS IASW.

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

I think its evident that the very history and nostalgia of Disneyland and Walt Disney is of very high entertainment value to a large percentage of Disneyland's audience.

By your logic just leaving DL static would return just as much value to the organization because nostalgia would just keep bringing people back. Obviously that doesn't work. People get bored without change. The whole reason 'retro' works is because it too is.. CHANGE! It's different from the current.

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

I don't think anybody here is saying that Small World shouldn't be re-evaluated, updated, upgraded, and enhanced. We're just saying that those enhancements should remain true to the attraction, its themes, and its message.

From the outside - you don't defend those points well because the platform is applied inconsistently and provides little to substantiate the basis. It's based in opinion and the methods used to put weight in those opinions vs. others has not been convincing.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

Oh but they very much do. Illumination totally affects perceived color. Showing a piece under a mercury light or halogen would very much change the way the original piece looks - and therefore alter the piece from what the original artist intended for it to be seen as. This is a key element in Disney's show as well.. Color is key - and color is a function of reflective light.

We aren't talking about changing the artworks viewing position, Flynnie--we are talking about altering the artwork itself. You can always still display the Sistene Chapel by candlelight if one wishes--but you can't take the clothes off the nudes, can you? Lighting does not alter the artist's creative intent--it alters the physical presentation. My sis is a registrar, and former museum curator--let me tell you, they go to GREAT lengths to present the artwork in an appropriate supportive atmosphere (including, most importantly lighting).

For instance, changing the staging and lighting in the attraction itself could very much change the color and perception of the attraction.

'Course we aren't talkin' about changing a few colored gels are we?

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

Uhh.. art as a form of expression has been around much longer then patronage. Your statement infers artists only do it for a job.. and I think history disproves you quite handedly.

Not really. During the monolithic age, art was more about documentation than expression. That kind of documentation was then adapted and passed on to things like the statues of Egyptian rulers that were constaintly torn down because the next person on the throne didn't like the any representation of the previous ruler for one reason or another. The Europeans used it as a way of illustrating stories to those that didn't know how to read in the same manner as their ancient cavemen ancestors, but seeing as how the chruch themselves didn't know how to draw let alone paint, they hired people to illustrate the stories for them. If they represented them well enough, then they got a bonus. After that you end up having people like The French Court coming in saying "I have all this money and nothing to spend it on. I know! I'll buy an artist! I will be immortilized on canvas!" And then you have people that commission skillful artists of their contemporary time to document and represent their patronage... though mostly in a manner that is grossly decorative and probably inaccurate.

It's only been in the last hundred-some-odd years where personal expression took the forefront rather than "just doing the job" of documenting and representating events and people of the era.

Those these days, who is to say what's art? Flags in central park by Cristo? Maybe a bicected cow by Daimian Hursts? Purses by Taskashi Murakami? An anatomically correct skull of Mickey Mouse by Hyungkoo Lee? Or maybe a ceiling of blinking lights by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer? You can argue their personal and artistic intent until you are blue in the face (and believe me, I have), but the fact of the matter is these days anyone can be a critique and even the most self-proclaimed well-educated person will look at these and think that someone is phoning it in.

That said, it's become increasingly clear that my opinion on this IASW matter is invalid for multiple reasons. Even my suggestion of waiting until the 28th of April probably went under everyone's radar. I just hope someone here will be paying attention to Hong Kong when their Small World opens. I know I will be, but if I post my thoughts on the attraction when that time comes depends on how I feel about this community taking me seriously.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

We aren't talking about changing the artworks viewing position, Flynnie--we are talking about altering the artwork itself.

Mine was only an example of changing an element of the total composition that can significantly alter the end result (what the viewer/participant experiences). Pulling it back towards the original topic.. changing elements that normally would draw no attention from this lot (like the lighting) can totally change the end-product. In the topic at hand, the lighting is part of the total composition. But we don't hear people nit-picking these elements - parts that even Disney Imagineers themselves find to be some of the definitive aspects of an attraction. Why? Because even though it is a fundamental pillar of the experience, the armchair quarterbacks here don't have enough insight or available information to throw fits about it.

Originally Posted by fo'c's'le swab

Lighting does not alter the artist's creative intent--it alters the physical presentation.

But what the viewer experiences is what matters... and what roles like your sister tries to maintain - along with ensuring the pieces themselves are kept stable. In the case of these attractions - the presentation and what the guest sees is EVERYTHING. The perception deliver is what counts - not the means to get there (forced perspective, effects, scrims, etc)

My point is change does not auto equate to destroying intent or vision. Change can often improve.. and my initial analogy was to show that extreme preservation can be absurd when not applied consistently. Some armchair quarterback may cry bloody murder about the changing of wording on a sign - but be totally obviously to a much more radical affecting change such as lighting.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

Even my suggestion of waiting until the 28th of April probably went under everyone's radar. I just hope someone here will be paying attention to Hong Kong when their Small World opens. I know I will be, but if I post my thoughts on the attraction when that time comes depends on how I feel about this community taking me seriously.

What didn't you hear? HKDL's attraction isn't the same thing.. it's not IASW so it doesn't count.

I'm with you.. HKDL should be a great barometer of what the changes will feel like.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

My point is change does not auto equate to destroying intent or vision. Change can often improve.. and my initial analogy was to show that extreme preservation can be absurd when not applied consistently. Some armchair quarterback may cry bloody murder about the changing of wording on a sign - but be totally obviously to a much more radical affecting change such as lighting.

I agree--change does not always equal subversion. In the fine art sense, presentation being changed CAN enhance one's experience while viewing it, but the work itself being changed without the original artist's compliance/permission/assistance IS subversion. The latter of these two principles is what I see happening to IASW. In IASW's case the presentation IS the art-they are not two seperate principles. Therefore, IMO, you drastically change the presentation, you also drastically change the artwork. But here we have to decide for ourselves if IASW IS art.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

What didn't you hear? HKDL's attraction isn't the same thing.. it's not IASW so it doesn't count.

Yeah, sure. Just like how Tokyo DisneySea's Tower of Terror isn't the same thing as its US conterparts either.

I'll believe that statement when I actually see video of the ride hits the web on the 28th and it doesn't look like it is within spitting distence of how I remember IASW.

[lazyboy97O]

Hong Kong Disneyland's attraction has already been discussed. The "not a clone" phrase then gets tossed about.

[ZeekSlider]

Would you consider the Pirates in Paris a different ride because it has a sword fighting scene that wasn't in the original before Jack Sparrow came along?