Like many of my classmates, I expected a film with a name like Helvetica to be boring, monotone, and dull. I even had a great joke lined up for it, or, more like a line: Helvetica? More like HELLvetica. But, I must say, I couldn’t have been more wrong.
I found Helvetica to be extremely interesting, namely the use of the font in Europe, as well as the incredible surge in its usage when it first became available. I don’t think many of us have ever noticed the number of corporations using Helvetica, yet each one stood out and portrayed a unique message with italics, colors, and shades of boldness.
All this talk of Helvetica almost makes me wish I could convert the font of my blog! Sadly though, it isn't possible.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thoughts on Maya Deren's Meshes of the Afternoon
I think there are two avenues of cinematic presentation: one— strictly thoughtless, where everything about the story is given to viewers; or two— thought provoking, which propels viewers to take attention to details amidst sometimes massive confusion. As I watched Maya Deren’s Meshes of the Afternoon, it became apparent that her experimental film was one down the second avenue.
Continuously, images were repeated—the knife, the mirror, the headset left off the phone, the flower—and it was nearly impossible to watch and not search for some kind of symbolic undertone for each one. Thinking of these images, one after another, made me think back to Deren’s essay we read in class—Anagram. I remember Deren talking about humans and animals, and the basic difference between us is that we do not do most things by instinct, but how grow through experience; and that our basic natural faculty of rationale is something that is both a useful tactic, as well as something that drives us batty.
We want reasons, excuses, and logic as to why things happen. When Deren noted that we hold a natural faculty of rationale, I realized it is quite possible that her films, such as Meshes of the Afternoon, were created to make viewers think: why is there a knife? What does the mirror mean? Why do the scenes repeat? Personally, I feel Deren’s film is meant to play with our minds and that same natural faculty of rationale. I think we are not meant to find an answer, but rather, to spend limitless time trying to make something out of nothing. But then again, that’s simply my interpretation.
Continuously, images were repeated—the knife, the mirror, the headset left off the phone, the flower—and it was nearly impossible to watch and not search for some kind of symbolic undertone for each one. Thinking of these images, one after another, made me think back to Deren’s essay we read in class—Anagram. I remember Deren talking about humans and animals, and the basic difference between us is that we do not do most things by instinct, but how grow through experience; and that our basic natural faculty of rationale is something that is both a useful tactic, as well as something that drives us batty.
We want reasons, excuses, and logic as to why things happen. When Deren noted that we hold a natural faculty of rationale, I realized it is quite possible that her films, such as Meshes of the Afternoon, were created to make viewers think: why is there a knife? What does the mirror mean? Why do the scenes repeat? Personally, I feel Deren’s film is meant to play with our minds and that same natural faculty of rationale. I think we are not meant to find an answer, but rather, to spend limitless time trying to make something out of nothing. But then again, that’s simply my interpretation.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
the Pomegranate (phone)
Check out the sleek and super-multi-functional Pomegranate phone. Browse through each of the incredible features, then once you've seen them all, click "I've seen enough" or "Release Date." You'll be somewhat amazed.Photo: Courtesy of Communications Nova Scotia
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Seeing is Believing: Visual Communication
The question of “What is visual rhetoric?” has been somewhat plaguing me this week— not like a non-stop sort- of thing, but rather just a here and there type. I can’t say I’ve struggled with formulating an answer…maybe tangled is a better choice. As a paced my feet during a seven mile run through the stifling cold streets of Philadelphia this morning, I made several attempts at cracking this question. By the end of my run, I came to a simplistic conclusion—one that may or may not be the actual answer, but rather, my own interpretation of it; it’s merely a form of visual communication. That’s it? Well, no. Like all definitions, it’s merely the surface, with much more sitting beneath. Visuals, like words, require the same type of analysis. For instance, our in-class exercises required us to look a little deeper into the changes of several corporate logos. Those who designed them didn’t merely draw them for the sake of being noted as pretty pictures; they designed them with certain ideas in mind, such as what they wanted the reader to believe about the company based on first impressions, and what kind of inviting connections would be made between the company and the consumers.
How we reacted to the pictures in class is similar to how we interpret text. We often stare endlessly at the words, searching for something a little deeper. We Google, pull out a dictionary, or put it away and return to it when we have clearer heads. Images may conjure the same reactions, and perhaps more. Picture and video can invoke emotions; so can words, of course, but visuals bring out something else in us—like Steve McCurry’s portrait of the Afghan Girl in the June 1985 issue of National Geographic, or the multiple angels of footage featuring jets flying into the World Trade Center.
We are living in a visual age, where pictures and video capture our attention and emotion differently than text. Visuals are effective, and impact what we do, how we feel, and what we believe. I think our readings from this past week are meant to convey that message. Somehow, we all seemed to connect to one another during our presentations. We referred to each other’s points, built our ideas upon other readings, and developed conclusions as a whole.
Visual Communication Example: Vaguely, I remember reading an example from John Berger, a media theorist, during my undergraduate critical thinking seminar. He used the example of a circle. Try describing it. Draw it. Which one is easier to remember?
Visual Communication Example: Vaguely, I remember reading an example from John Berger, a media theorist, during my undergraduate critical thinking seminar. He used the example of a circle. Try describing it. Draw it. Which one is easier to remember?
Photo: Property of National Geographic. Top photo, Steve McCurry © National Geographic Society.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Class Reading Recap...Extended
Jeffrey Keedy’s Graphic Design in the Postmodern Era was intriguing for me. As someone who has never been educated on the friction of modern versus postmodern, I found it eye-opening—eye-opening as it pertains to my experience in mass communications, and how little I truly learned—history-wise and theory-wise, and I wonder if it is a generational thing. Keedy says, “With all the confusion in these early days of formulating theoretical paradigms, it is understandable why some designers have given up trying to connect their practice to contemporary theory.”
The first thought that enters my mind is a reflection—a reflection of what my graphic design courses included. There was no history. There was not theory. It was merely instruction, lessons on chromatics and page layout. This is Adobe Photoshop. This is what the magic wand does. This is Adobe Illustrator. There were no lessons on types or anything. After reading this, I almost feel robbed, as though I missed some incredibly important things—not because of class time constraints or the level of the course, but perhaps because those in the field who taught me didn’t believe in correlating practice with theory.
In terms of the postmodern era, I feel as though Keedy’s interpretation of postmodernism as it relates to graphic design is the constant need for relevance, and the arms race for technology. As Keedy says...”Today's young designers don't worry about selling out, or having to work for "the man," a conceit almost no one can afford anymore. Now everyone wants to be "the man." What is left of an avant-garde in graphic design isn't about resistance, cultural critique, or experimenting with meaning. Now the avant-garde only consists of technological mastery: who is using the coolest bit of code or getting the most out of their HTML this week.”
Keedy goes on to say,” Graphic designers are caught up in a media stream that is very wide and fast, but not very deep. The only way to navigate in it is to go faster or slower than the stream. To go faster you must be at the forefront of technology and fashion, both of which are changing at an unprecedented rate.”
I think it’s incredibly important to note that Keedy’s article is from 1998, which I believe, makes it just as interesting to read. Though only 12 years old, technology has changed—so much in our world has changed, and in graphic design, it’s obviously no different. From a critical standpoint, we should consider what the internet has done. It has opened unprecedented doors for everyone with access. Anyone can write and publish online. Keedy nearly sounds like he is predicting the future when he says, “Perhaps the Internet will simply co-opt graphic design, incorporating it into its operating system. Maybe graphic design will cease to exist as a discreet practice and just become another set of options on the menu.” Anyone can film and upload online. Anyone can create music and perform online. Anyone can design a graphic and post online. Artistry has changed dramatically because of the internet.
So the landscape has changed completely, and with that being said, does it change Keedy’s idea of what postmodern graphic designs stand for? Keedy mentions how the design of the 80’s devolved into the “ugly, grunge, layered, chaotic, postmodern design of the 90s. This devolution resulted in “one-style-fits-all commercial signifier for everything that is youth, alternative, sports, and entertainment-oriented.” As Keedy kindly put it, the "official style of the hip and cool"
My final interest of Keedy’s piece included the overall outlook or impression of graphic artists and their work. Keedy says, “Looking at much of today's graphic design one would have to conclude that graphic designers are twelve-year-olds with an attention deficit disorder. Designers today are representing our present era as if they were using a kaleidoscope to do it. Or more precisely, a constantly mutating digital collage machine, filled with a bunch of old "sampled" parts from the past, and decorated with special effects. Ultimately what we are left with is a feeling of aggravated and ironic nostalgia.”
My reaction to this statement is that of disagreement. I feel technology has bestowed upon designers a new set of tools, and a slew of new ideas to use. So my question to you, is this: Is Keedy right? Is graphic design today a constantly recycled kaleidoscope of the past? Do we see anything new in advertising, or is it what we’ve seen so many times over?
The first thought that enters my mind is a reflection—a reflection of what my graphic design courses included. There was no history. There was not theory. It was merely instruction, lessons on chromatics and page layout. This is Adobe Photoshop. This is what the magic wand does. This is Adobe Illustrator. There were no lessons on types or anything. After reading this, I almost feel robbed, as though I missed some incredibly important things—not because of class time constraints or the level of the course, but perhaps because those in the field who taught me didn’t believe in correlating practice with theory.
In terms of the postmodern era, I feel as though Keedy’s interpretation of postmodernism as it relates to graphic design is the constant need for relevance, and the arms race for technology. As Keedy says...”Today's young designers don't worry about selling out, or having to work for "the man," a conceit almost no one can afford anymore. Now everyone wants to be "the man." What is left of an avant-garde in graphic design isn't about resistance, cultural critique, or experimenting with meaning. Now the avant-garde only consists of technological mastery: who is using the coolest bit of code or getting the most out of their HTML this week.”
Keedy goes on to say,” Graphic designers are caught up in a media stream that is very wide and fast, but not very deep. The only way to navigate in it is to go faster or slower than the stream. To go faster you must be at the forefront of technology and fashion, both of which are changing at an unprecedented rate.”
I think it’s incredibly important to note that Keedy’s article is from 1998, which I believe, makes it just as interesting to read. Though only 12 years old, technology has changed—so much in our world has changed, and in graphic design, it’s obviously no different. From a critical standpoint, we should consider what the internet has done. It has opened unprecedented doors for everyone with access. Anyone can write and publish online. Keedy nearly sounds like he is predicting the future when he says, “Perhaps the Internet will simply co-opt graphic design, incorporating it into its operating system. Maybe graphic design will cease to exist as a discreet practice and just become another set of options on the menu.” Anyone can film and upload online. Anyone can create music and perform online. Anyone can design a graphic and post online. Artistry has changed dramatically because of the internet.
So the landscape has changed completely, and with that being said, does it change Keedy’s idea of what postmodern graphic designs stand for? Keedy mentions how the design of the 80’s devolved into the “ugly, grunge, layered, chaotic, postmodern design of the 90s. This devolution resulted in “one-style-fits-all commercial signifier for everything that is youth, alternative, sports, and entertainment-oriented.” As Keedy kindly put it, the "official style of the hip and cool"
My final interest of Keedy’s piece included the overall outlook or impression of graphic artists and their work. Keedy says, “Looking at much of today's graphic design one would have to conclude that graphic designers are twelve-year-olds with an attention deficit disorder. Designers today are representing our present era as if they were using a kaleidoscope to do it. Or more precisely, a constantly mutating digital collage machine, filled with a bunch of old "sampled" parts from the past, and decorated with special effects. Ultimately what we are left with is a feeling of aggravated and ironic nostalgia.”
My reaction to this statement is that of disagreement. I feel technology has bestowed upon designers a new set of tools, and a slew of new ideas to use. So my question to you, is this: Is Keedy right? Is graphic design today a constantly recycled kaleidoscope of the past? Do we see anything new in advertising, or is it what we’ve seen so many times over?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
TED Talk: Alexis Ohanian, How to make a splash in social media
It's funny. It's enlightening. It's motivational. Alex Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit, explains the social media phenomenon of Mr. Splashy Pants and the use of social media as a tool for positive change. Hmmm...using facebook/twitter/reddit for things other than stalking and procrastinating...that actually makes sense.
Courtesy of TED.com: Ideas Worth Spreading
Courtesy of TED.com: Ideas Worth Spreading