good

Good.is is a pretty awesome place. I really enjoyed the recommended video about the cost of the Iraque war. As with many videos of this kind, I think that the sound really ads to the professionalism. Nearly every animation that happens is correlated to some sound effect. Doing this really brings a video to the next level because it makes forced animations seem more naturalistic if done well. If you think about it, generally, when something moves, sound follows. So it makes sense that such scrutiny would ad to a video.

Other than that I was really impressed with the site as a whole. I really like the idea behind a source that exclusively produces the kind of news they do in such an attractive way. The other day, I was thinking about what it meant to be a designer. To have a better ability than the average person at visual communication. It's almost like a superpower that you cant help but to use once you have it. I mean a very utilitarian one, much in the same way as being a surgeon or lawyer. However, it is a power regardless, and it seemed interesting to me that the majority of those with that power choose to use it to advertise or brand businesses that may, but probably don't, make the most ethical choices. Its really an interesting complex: designers design for larger companies with more money so that they will have more money so to buy more things from companies that have good design (at least I know my purchases are influenced by the design of name brand products).

Right now, I don't care about this choice. I would be thrilled to get a job at a large advertising firm. And I am perfectly happy making my personal income by working on the UDK ad staff. But I wonder, if I continue along the same path of advertising and branding, if someday I will look back at my work and feel empty about its worth. I could see it happening. So, the search for other options begins.

The one thing that stuck out to me in this lecture was when Trollback said, "Storytelling is about imagination... Feed it by leaving things out." I think that is brilliant! It seems so obvious. But I think that it is something that I forget to think about in my own work quite often. He is right that Story doesn't happen as much in print, and its sad. It seems that the best you can do without requiring more than 10 seconds of an audiences attention is to at the very least elude to a story. Most print ads don't even do this. And when they do, the story usually sucks.

In motion leaving things out seems to be key. However, once you leave something out you are then faced with the question of how long will it be left out. Most major motion pictures end with a full circle or a simple cliff hanger for a sequel opportunity. Yet they keep you in your seat because there is always something left out until the very last frame. proof of this can be seen in films that run material relevant to the story during the end credits. The difference in the amount of people that stick around is monumental.

In print leaving things out is an interesting concept. If you leave something out in print. It is out for ever (unless there is some kind of sequential story). However, I think that leaving out information in print can be successful as well, as it involves the audience in imaginative thinking. Nevertheless, the outlier must be eluded to so drastically that the audience is consumed with thinking about it... which can be – about as hard as changing someones mind. One of the most successful ways I have found to do this is to set up such a concrete and engaging moment that the viewer begins to create the story themselves. You offer them all the pieces of the puzzle, and then allow them to do the fun stuff. They should be asking " What would I do?" or saying "Ive been there," or relating to it in some personal way.

I'm leaving the conclusion out.

(but that's just because I don't want to write one and not because whoever reading this will be thinking about what else I had to say)

Motion Inspirations

Troika

These guys just have an awesome body of work. Their style is really flashy and corporate, which can be nice to pick apart for some things. It kind of sucks that they only upload reels to their website though. There is so much to all of their projects and they look great when mashed up into a montage, but it would be really nice to see what they actually had to give to the clients.

adNau

These guys don't really have a lot of type in most of their projects, but their work is really great.

Response to "Type Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

I admit that I do not have a great understanding of design history, let alone how type faces play into it. Of course I have picked up the basics. But I'm not so sure that I would be able to tell Helfand whether or not Futura was made before the time of Freud's book. A better understanding of the cultural context of type would, I'm sure, change the way I think about using them. However, I am curious to how. I don't know that choosing type faces should be looked at by a historical standpoint. Does when a font was made change its readability? no... nor does it change anything else about the visual make up of the letterform. Yes, fonts made in certain periods may have characteristics specific to that period, but that does not mean that the design must fit within those stereotypes.
Things loose their value when overused. It is true for everything. And because of this article, I have been predisposed to a notion that I should never use Futura. It has been ingrained in my head for over a year now that students using Futura are like students using drugs for shock value in a short story. However, out side of the student world there are some very good stories that are shocking partly because of drug ussage, much in the same way that there are many good designs that use Futura.

I have only recently began to use Futura in some small projects when I get lazy about picking a font.. but really, I'm learning that it has a time and a place.

Instead, I have gone through certain phases of san serif fonts. Gotham, Helvetica (which has been used so much that no one can blame you), Trade, and Universe are a few. All these phases seem to where out after a wile and then I'll seem to develop another san-serif obsession. I should probably stop doing that. Its just that, everytime I discover a new san serif font that I like, its so exciting.

Speech ?'s

Who is Speaking?
Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Primer, Nikita Khrushchev

Why is it imprtant?
The Kitchen Debate was the first high-level meeting between Soviet and U.S. leaders since the Geneva Summit in 1955

Why do I feel it is interesting?
There are differing vocal patterns and nice white noise to work with visually. Also, the ending segment would be nicely ironic to make into a video showing Khrushchevʼs words in print.

What is the emotion, mood, tone, personality, feeling of the speech?
I think it is hard not to find the speech a bit humorous. Two political power houses bickering about translation and whoʼs better than who. And theyʼre in a Kitchen! But thats not really important in this case.

What is intonation, emphasis, what is loud, stressed, or soft. Where are there pauses...
I wan’t to call out everything, including crowd interaction and possibly even the Russian.

What do you FEEL should be loud or soft, long pause or ruhed?
Exactly what is

Is there a call to action?
When listening to it what are key/emphasized words? “your hand” makes for a nice resolution.

How does it make you feel?
I didn’t know what I was listening to at first. But then after I figured it out I almost rolled my eyes.

How do imagine that the audience felt?
It seems like the crowd is predominately American... but the speech takes place In Moscow. So I don’t know. But they seem to act as proud Americans.

Could there be another interpretation of the speech?
I’m actually sure there could. But I do like the reality of it in itself.

Write/find a short bio, of the person giving the speech.
Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, in office from 1969 to 1974. He served as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961, the only person to be elected twice to both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. A member of theRepublican Party, he was the only President to resign the office.
The office of Premier of the Soviet Union (Russian: Премьер Советского Союза) was synonymous withhead of government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Twelve individuals have been premier. Two of the twelve premiers died in office of natural causes (Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin), three resigned (Alexei Kosygin, Nikolai Tikhonov and Ivan Silayev), and three held the offices of party leader and premier simultaneously (Lenin, Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev). The first premier was Lenin, who was inaugurated in 1922 after the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR. Ivan Silayev spent the shortest time in office at 126 days in 1991. At over fourteen years, Kosygin spent the longest time in office, and became the only premier to head more than two government cabinets; he died shortly after his resignation in 1980.
The Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom) was established on 8 November 1917 by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) Government. Article 38 of the 1924 Soviet Constitution stated that the Council's powers, functions and duties were given to it by the Central Executive Committee (CEC) which supervised the Council's work and legislative acts. The Council of People's Commissars published decrees and decisions that were binding throughout the Soviet Union.[1] In 1946, the Council of People's Commissars was transformed into the Council of Ministers (Sovmin) at both all-Union and Union Republiclevel.
<< thanks to the one and only source. Wikipedia.

Public Type

So at first I took a bunch of pictures of this awesome vintage jukebox and Mrs. Pac-Man machine. They turned out pretty cool, but then I read the assignment and found out that you had to take a walk. I probably would have stuck with the vintage pics, but I was carless for a while this break, so I was walking everywhere. Unfortunately, everywhere was nowhere interesting. But I tried to take interesting pictures of nothing interesting. I think some came out pretty nice! The lot of them seem to have this grungy urban vibe, so I tried to edit them to mimic the color correction in the Matrix. Which is awesome for that... I dunno about pictures of public typography, but whatevs. Enjoy! <-- if anyone reads this...

Objects and Solutions (journal6)

Out of the conversations I listened to, there was ironically no mention of transportation; which was what I was expecting after watching the introduction. Before commenting on what I thought about the answers I heard, I must say how disappointed I with the footage these designers took of themselves. You would think that people who dealing with visual communication would at least take lighting into consideration, even just a little bit. I mean even for Pete Doctor, a screenwriter for Pixar, who chose to film his movie on the roof on his house, chose for the sun to be behind him. C'mon! you work for Pixar!

Alright no that that is off my chest, I would like to talk a little about the answers from Khoi Vinh, Ken Carbone, and Michael Lebowitz. Vinh said that he thought design should be applied to making things better in general. He specifically said that he thought that design should go into making useful and beautiful products, but people do that already. It may be done better in some cases than in others but no company that is producing a large amount of an object would choose not to hire an industrial designer. What I think he meant to imply was that designers should take a step away from selling things and start physically making a difference. That serves as a nice introduction to Carbone's answer: Education. He rose a very good point that designers, out of everyone, should know how to communicate to the masses and what better thing to make known than knowledge itself. That's a damn good point, I thought. Lebowitz was on a slightly different level, he suggested that the internet would essentially take over the world and designers should add some "humanity" to the coding guru's algorithmic mesh.

I'd agree with all of these in a way, and I really don't think they are that far off from one another. Only I don't really know anything about algorithms. So I suppose if there could be one that would choose the optimal design for any given situation, then I chose the wrong field. Basically, I agree that designers should start inhibiting their ability to communicate and start communicating the things that will make the biggest difference not the biggest paycheck, and I think the web is a great tool (and sure it may take over the world too, but I'll let my kids they need to worry about that one).

Ironically, I too want a decent paycheck, and so do Vinh, Carbone, and Lebowitz. And that's why they're not worrying about it unless they are asked. Carbone, I think it was, said that teachers should be paid more than lawyers. Ethically, sure they would. But that doesn't make sense in our society. Who has more money, big corporations getting sued or middle class undergrads? However, if you take into consideration the internet as a tool that has not yet reached its full potential, then some new opportunities arise.