Final Abstract

When writing the final version of the abstract I ended up changing the title of the animation from Object of Wrath to Vessel of Wrath because it better suited the concept.

Vessel - 1) A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids. 2) A person seen as the agent or embodiment, as of a quality
___________________________________

Vessel of Wrath is a study of the traditional controversy of freewill and determinism that has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries. The project explores a philosophy that reconciles both sides of the common arguments from the theological viewpoint established by St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

The two-minute animation features three characters; an artist, Lucius Zimmerman, and two characters of his design, including a bird that lacks the ability for self-reflection and a human-like creature who appears to have a will. The artist determines the characters’ actions, however, because the creature with human form has a separate will, self-realization, and does not feel coerced into making decisions, two separate planes of reality are established -- one for the artist and another for the animated beings.O Vessel of Wrath does not attempt to defend or completely explain theological compatibilism; it is simply an investigation of the subject as a philosophy from the Christian perspective. Due to its brevity, the animation only serves to present the conceptual framework of the philosophy and will retain the mystery and complexity of issues such as who is responsible for the animated characters’ actions and the ethical right of the artist to manipulate the medium.

Vessel of Wrath was primarily developed using Alias’ Maya software application. Lucius was modeled with Subdivision Surfaces and required the use of wrap deformers, cluster deformers, and blend targets for animation. I developed a Forward Kinematic-Inverse Kinematic blending system for the arm movement and used custom attributes to establish the motion and deformation of his facial expressions, hand gestures, foot placement, and cloth movement. Color, bump, and specular maps for the artist character were painted in Adobe Photoshop and procedural shaders were used to texture his studio chair. Lucius’ sequences were rendered with the MentalRay engine and used Low Dynamic Range Imaging for the environment lighting.

The human-like creature and bird used rigging techniques similar to those used for the artist, including FK/IK blending rigs on the arms and wings. To recreate a two-dimensional cartoon style for their sequences, I designed Maya Paint Effects brushes and applied them to the geometry using TomCat’s Maya Shader plug-in. To assist in the animation process I also created a Maya Embedded Language script that served as a shortcut to defining key types and selecting attributes of the characters that could be animated. The final rendered sequences were edited and composited with Adobe After Effects and Digidesign ProTools was used for developing the 5.1 surround sound mix.

Important Dates

This is just a reminder for the upcoming dates

April 5: Committee meeting, James' office 9am-10am

April 8: Nathan testing video/audio in REVE

April 11: Nathan testing video/audio in REVE

April 14: Thesis Defense 10am in REVE

Augustine vs. Pelagius on BBC Radio4

While researching some alternative media on the web I came upon an acted debate using Augustine's and Pelagius' arguments on BBC radio from last December.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/great_debates.shtml

Very informative and pleasant to hear the words of these great debaters acted out!

Abstract Version 2

This is a new version of the abstract after taking Dr. Ault's comments into consideration. Here is the link to the .doc file for editing and emailing to me for further corrections.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/abstract_version2.doc

________________________________________
Object of Wrath is a study of the traditional controversy of freewill and determinism that has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries. The project began with an interest in a philosophy that deals with reconciling both sides of the established arguments, something that had been defined as compatibilism by its champion, David Hume, in the late 18^th Century A.D. when he wrote An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Hume emphasized that a will cannot be completely free because it is bound to the cause and effect relationship. That is, while we are free to make choices, those choices are dependent upon our nature, but also, all things as we know them are a result of a cause and cannot rationally be called free, including the will.

The nature of the will is also a subject that was debated by St. Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius in the 5^th century A.D. The discussion centered on the freedom of man; specifically his moral ability to choose between good and evil. The Christian understanding of original sin, the inheritance of damnation caused by the Fall of Adam, the federal head and representative of the human race, was openly questioned by Pelagius. Since he was attempting to change a Christian doctrine, it was natural for other Christians at the time to compare his teachings with those found in Scripture. Because of this investigation and clarification, which was primarily conducted by Augustine, Pelagius was excommunicated and his teaching declared heresy by the Church.

The parallels between the teachings of Augustine and Hume center on the idea of compatibilism; that freewill and determinism are somehow compatible. Augustine’s theology declared that man’s will is bound to its moral nature, be it to sin or to Christ, and Hume taught that any decisions made by an individual will always be derived from the nature, or intentions, of the heart. The significant difference between Hume’s secular compatibilism and what has been termed theological compatibilism is the nature of the determining factor, or what causes the nature of a man to be what it is. Augustine and other prominent theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin stated that God, being sovereign over His creation, decides the nature of man’s will. Hume, being a skeptic and naturalist, tried to put the determining factor within the physical realm.

The short animation Object of Wrath mirrors theological compatibilism because it illustrates a personal creator who determines actions for other characters of a lower dimension; a bird who lacks the ability for self-reflection and another, the creature, who appears to have a will. The short film is not an attempted defense or complete explanation of theological compatibilism; it is simply an investigation of the subject as a Christian philosophy. Due to its brevity, Object of Wrath only serves to present the conceptual framework of theological compatibilism and will retain the mystery and complexity of issues such as responsibility for the creature’s actions and the right of the artist over the medium.

The term “object of wrath” is a reference to Romans 9, a passage that speaks of God as a Potter who, from the same lump of clay, creates pots to prepare for destruction and pots to glorify. Object of Wrath depicts an artist as the god over his creation, an animation, and his designing the creature to be one that is wicked in order that he may show his anger against rebellion by destroying it. I am exploring the hypothetical notion of the animated creature having a will separate from the animator. Although the animator moves the creature and decides what he is, there are two planes of existence involved; the time-space of the animator and that of the animation. While the animator moves the creature to action, he also provides an illusory freewill so that the creature is able to make conscious decisions regardless of his potential to alter the circumstances. Because the creature doesn’t feel physically or psychologically coerced and understands himself to be making active judgments, he appears to be independent of the animator. I feel this relates to an understanding of the difference between mankind and God in that, while we are bound to a linear timeline and are unable to see the future (as an animated creature is unable to know what the next cel in his sequence will be even though the animator is fully aware of it), God is omniscient not only because he can see all frames of our existence in a simultaneous fashion, like a storyboard, but He is ultimately the animator of creation.

Examples of animation throughout the 20^th century all point to the idea of compatibilism. Artists are inclined to develop characters that seem to have a will of their own, and many times the animator will interact with the animation, further signifying the development of another willful agent. Examples such as the Fleischer’s Koko the Clown, McCay’s Gertie the Dinosaur, and Jones’ Duck Amuck are clear illustrations of compatibilist freedom. Object of Wrath is a similar view of the philosophy, but it was my desire to focus on the theological understanding of the determining cause. I feel that the animator and his creation is an effective metaphor for reflecting many Scriptural instances of God’s sovereignty and man’s moral ability, and it is important for the topic to be readdressed in the modern Church.

Developing the completed animation for Object of Wrath required that I address many technical issues beyond the normal system of modeling, texturing, rigging, animating, physics simulation, rendering, and compositing. Each of these phases involved a unique work method that led me to create new tools and document my process. I utilized MEL scripting in Alias’ Maya application to create IK/FK switches for the arms and legs, and I also researched ways to best represent the different planes of existence for the animator and the creature by using LDRI and “toonshade” rendering. This project was tremendously involved; careful planning and testing was necessary to integrate the seven phases of production into a finished animation.

Ready to animate

Getting the bird finished was a rigging nightmare for some reason, but after 3 days of fiddling with him, all is well. The bird and creature are scaled, merged, and ready for the first scenes to be animated. I still haven't decided on which line type I'm going to use for the toonshader, which is why the models are still displayed in grey; look for updates on that this coming week.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/imgs/

New Progress Images

I finished modeling the "studio chair" and have it basically set and ready to go -- just need to finish the textures. Also got real far on the creature's rig. He's posable now, but I need to work on his face and hands; other than that, he's looking great.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/imgs/

Now to finish up the artist...

Production Schedule - Weekly Overview

Feb 20-26:
Finish modeling and texturing (including toon shades)

Feb 27-05:
Finish rigging, including facial expressions

Mar 06-12:
Set all major poses for creature and render for use in Lucius sequences
Finalize Audio needs list

Mar 13-19:
Animate Lucius sequences
Obtain audio portions

Mar 20-26:
Animate creature sequences
Test Lucius lighting
Obtain audio portions

Mar 27-02:
Finish creature animation sequences
Particle animation
Render finished scenes concurrently

Apr 03-09:
Render and composite animation
Polish and mix audio

Apr 10-13:
Particles and final renders w/audio
TEST ON REVE

An abstract Abstract

The text below can be found in pdf format here:

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/Abstract_v1.pdf

______________________________________________

Object of Wrath is a study of the traditional controversy of freewill and determinism that has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries. The project began with an intrigue for a philosophy that deals with both sides of the established arguments, something that had been defined as compatibilism by its champion, David Hume, in the late 18^th Century A.D.

Hume emphasized that a will cannot be completely free because it is bound to the cause and effect relationship. That is, while we are free to make choices, those choices are dependent upon our nature, but also, all things as we know them are a result of a cause and cannot rationally be called free, including the will.

The nature of the will is also a subject that was debated by Augustine and Pelagius in the 5^th century A.D. The discussion centered on the freedom of man; specifically his moral ability to choose between good and evil. The Christian understanding of original sin, the inheritance of damnation caused by the Fall of Adam, the federal head and representative of the human race, was openly questioned by Pelagius. Since he was attempting to change a Christian doctrine, it was natural for other Christians at the time to compare his teachings with those found in Scripture. Because of this investigation and clarification, which was primarily conducted by Augustine, Pelagius was excommunicated and his teaching declared heresy by the Church.

The parallels between the teachings of Augustine and Hume center on the idea of compatibilism; that freewill and determinism are somehow compatible. Augustine’s theology declared that man’s will is bound to its moral nature, be it to sin or to Christ, and Hume taught that any decisions made by an individual will always be derived from the nature, or intentions, of the heart. The significant difference between Hume’s secular compatibilism and what has been termed theological compatibilism is the nature of the determining factor, or what causes the nature of a man to be what it is. Augustine and other prominent theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin stated that God, being sovereign over His creation, decides the nature of man’s will. Hume, being a skeptic and naturalist, tried to put the determining factor within the physical realm.

The short animation Object of Wrath mirrors theological compatibilism simply because there is a personal creator of the animation; the simulated ink of the animation did not determine itself to have a will – the will was given to the animated creature by the animator. Also, the animation is not an attempted defense or complete explanation of theological compatibilism; it is simply an investigation of the subject as it is referenced from The Bible. Because of this, it will retain the mystery and complexity of issues such as responsibility of the creature’s actions and the right of the animator over the ink.

The term “object of wrath” is a reference to Romans 9, a passage that speaks of God as a Potter who, from the same lump of clay, creates pots to prepare for destruction and pots to glorify. Object of Wrath depicts the artist as the god over his creation, the animation, and his designing the creature to be one that is wicked in order that he may show his anger against rebellion by destroying it. I am exploring the hypothetical notion of the animated creature having a separate will from the animator. Although the animator moves the creature and decides what he is, there are two planes of existence involved; the time-space of the animator and another existence for the “time” of the animation. While the animator provides the creature with a will, and even moves the creature to the actions he does, the creature does not know this. Because the creature does not feel physically or psychologically coerced and understands himself to be making active choices, he appears to have a free will. I feel this relates to an understanding of the difference between mankind and God in that, while we are bound to a linear timeline and are unable to see the future (as an animated creature is unable to know what the next cel in his sequence will be even though the animator is fully aware of it), God is omniscient not only because he can see all frames of our existence in a simultaneous fashion, like a storyboard, but He is ultimately the animator of creation.

Examples of animation throughout the 20^th century all point to the idea of compatibilism. Artists are inclined to develop characters that act as if they had a will of their own, and many times the animator will interact with the animation, further signifying the development of another willful agent. Examples such as the Fleischer’s Koko the Clown, McCay’s Gertie the Dinosaur, and Jones’ Duck Amuck are clear illustrations of compatibilist freedom. Object of Wrath is a similar view of the philosophy, but it was my intention to focus on the theological understanding of the determining cause. I feel that the animator and his creation is a strong metaphor that reflects many instances in Scripture, and it is important for the topic to be readdressed in the modern Church.

Developing the completed animation for Object of Wrath required that I address many technical issues beyond the normal system of modeling, texturing, rigging, animating, physics simulation, rendering, and compositing. Each of these phases involved a unique thought process that led me to create new tools and document my work methods. I utilized MEL scripting in Alias’ Maya application to create IK/FK switches for the arms and legs, and I also researched ways to best represent the different planes of existence for the animator and the creature by using LDRI and “toonshade” rendering. This project was tremendously involved; careful planning and testing was necessary to integrate the seven phases of production into a finished animation.

The Outline

I've been working on the outline for the paper-portion of the thesis and...I'm on page six. Now, when the outline of a paper is six pages, what does that mean for the length of the final paper? I obviously am not having difficulty thinking of things to say (or even how to say them), but I am truly hoping that there is not a page limit. After several reviews I still doubt anything more can be removed.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/Outline_v1.pdf

Here's what I will call version one of the outline. I'm sure its length is due to the points I developed as notes for the actual writing, but it is still surprising. This does not include anything as far as a list of sources to be cited, appendices, or image pages; it only serves as a guide for the general text.

Progress Images Online

A quick page that has work-in-progress images from the different parts of the short.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/imgs/

This page is NOT thumbnailed, so I only recommend it for users with something faster than a dial-up connection. At the moment there are viewport snapshots of the geometry and skeleton rigs of the artist, creature, bird, and mechanical studio (of the artist).

Lucius Zimmerman

The animator, Lucius Zimmerman, is an animator and inventor in the late 19^th century. He has developed an elaborate chair-rig system that allows him to suspend himself amidst a grand storyboard; his magnum opus. The brief narrative that takes place within the short animation Object of Wrath is a small moment, perhaps a whimsical break from the tedious job of developing an elaborate storyline, where Mr. Zimmerman sketches the fate of one of his creatures.

Object of Wrath is to be seen as a sketch, an intriguing sidebar to the possibilities of animation. The simplicity of the storyline reflects the quest for amusement. When the camera pulls back in the final shot to reveal the entire storyboard of the animator it is important for the audience to realize that Object of Wrath is just a minute portion of the masterpiece the artist is working on.

The reason that Lucius has chosen to post up the frames of his work in sequence is for him to experience all moments of the piece simultaneously. Zimmerman is not concerned with the creature’s point of view – he is not attempting to live in the creature’s world. Rather, the animator desires to experience all the creature’s moments in time because it enhances the pleasure of the artist. Imagine the ability to experience all moments of a pleasure at once, such as the scent of your favorite flower on an unending basis. Some may introduce the notion that there is “too much of a good thing,” but I feel that it is relative to the nature of the experience. It’s akin to the desire to inhabit a gallery of artwork. Being surrounded by favorite works of art, perhaps your art, is much like the desire that Zimmerman has in posting each moment of the created history so that it may be admired individually, but as a part of the whole.

Lucius is purposeful in his art, never frivolous; every line is designed with intention and forward thinking. However, he is not compulsive, just thorough. When crafting the Object and the experiences it will have, Zimmerman is creating a piece of work that he will enjoy – the work is not created for any other reason. The animator is never frustrated or put out with his creation because all contingencies of the creation are his doing.

Zimmerman is unmarried, but not lonely. He takes comfort in his work. Although balding on the top of his head, he enjoys making radical formations out of what remains of his hair because it is another creative act that shows his lightheartedness. He will never be found wearing anything other than a suit with tails. Wearing nice clothes while working produces another sense of satisfaction in creating because he feels that what he does is worthy of honor. Being an artist is not an ordinary profession to Lucius; he understands the profound nature of what is his business and pleasure.

The original storyboards are online

I've scanned the original storyboards for the animation Object of Wrath and put them online.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/ngilder/thesis/storyboard/

There are brief descriptions of the actions onscreen and some hints for the intended sound/foley work. I have not decided what types of ambient noise (music?) I will utilize. The spaces to the left of the drawn storyboards are intended for 3d animatic and final rendering.

Up & Running

I'll be posting work-in-progress here, so check back.