After watching Larry Lessig's lecture on modern day creativity and the battle between the bootleggers and copywriters... well, I really don't have much to say about it at all. I'm kind of confused. I thought that there were good points to his speech as I was watching it, but now that it is over, I don't know what to do with any of the information he offered. I'm still not convinced that it is wrong for people to bicker about who owns what piece of media. It seems natural to me. And quite frankly, I don't really see it as a problem. Lessig seems to have some kind of personal obsession with finding a cure to a problem that I think only he may feel is a problem worth obsessing over. If he actually went into detail about what the middle ground he spoke of was, maybe I would be able to sympathize more with his argument. But he didn't; nor did he offer any sort of closure as to how we are supposed to handle "our kids" becoming pirates forced underground. What he did do, is complain. He pointed out many ways he thought modern society was repeating past mistakes and in one way or another acting foolish or taking part in silly games. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the average person, or even my more rested self, can decipher his list of complaints and define a possible solution. But at this point, all I can tell is that Lessig thinks that people need to end what he thinks is a childish war over copyright because... I don't even know why. I don't even know that he does.
The lecture, overall, was quite interesting. Lessig is a good speaker, and his presentation made him seem very knowledgeable. I just don't really get what it is I'm supposed to do with the information. If I want to mix up some anime to a Prince tune, I'm gonna do it! And I'm gonna be glad that there are places where I can post the abomination of a video to show all of my web-linked friends when its done. If I was Prince, on the other hand, or owned rights to a song of his that had been edited to an anime music video, I may be a little ticked off. It's the same complex that happens when you find out that you have a termite infestation. You get a little pissed that some termites are abusing your things for their own purposes. But the termites just want wood, and your house is some perfect wood for them to do their termite business in. The only difference is that the music industry hasn't really come up with a pest control service yet. But it doesn't seem like Lessig wants pest control. He, "as a good liberal," seems to want a happy medium where termites could maybe be allowed to play around in the older wood or something. Like a corner in the closet or something. But who knows, he never really said.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Its typeography in motion and poetry with animation.. it's some damn gooood inspiration!
A friend of mine posted this to facebook. After watching it, I wanted to post it to my facebook and tell everyone to watch it. But I didn't want to steal his status-post-thunder... So here you go! This is one of the coolest videos I've seen in.... forever.
If someone besides Andrea reads this, watch the credits to get an idea of the man power something like this takes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U&feature=player_embedded
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Hillman Curtis Inspiration
The work I saw in all of the videos I watched, Pentagram 07, Sagmeister 08, Paula Scher, and David Carson, was very inspiring. But now that I'm done watching them, I feel unexpectedly lethargic. As I have been drinking coffee all day, and have now secluded myself in a small room with blank walls and a broken computer, I can't attribute everything to the videos. Though it did make me wonder why the vast majority of documentaries about design, regardless of length, have such drowning music. Paula Scher's film was the acception, with a upbeat funk track playing over a slide show of some of her work. But other than that, all the music was slow and monotonous. I suppose you don'e want something with so much life that it becomes distracting, and again, it could be a combination of other things... but really, when a quiet guitar playing slower than 120bpm under rides Sageister talking about how worrying doesn't help, it kind of makes me want to go hibernate.
Other than that, I really loved hearing what everyone had to say. My favorite video was Pentagrams, the way it was edited was fantastic, as is their work. Nothing particularly jumped out and spoke to me. Normally, I think it would; which is why I'm attributing my negativity toward the music to the small blank room. Anyway, David Carson's video was great too. I've heard so much about him, but never heard him talk. It made me think of my own work.. I mean, my type book was the complete opposite of his. I tried to be as clean as possible, and have no unnecessary flare. I was even reluctant to use a color scheme. And his point about the computer making it more important to make sure we are personal in our work was interesting as well. I try not to be personal in my work. Most of the time, my work isn't about me. I can love it, but in the end, it has to make other people feel things. I've carried that mindset for a while, as far as design goes. I mean, he says he is self indulgent, and I indulge in my work. But I'm not so sure that the self indulgence should show through the work. Its something to think more about I suppose. I definitely do admire what he has done, I mean hes like a design rock star, like Elvis or something. But everything that I have been taught seems to lead the opposite direction. "Don't try to be original, just try to be good," has been something I always seem to come back to. Maybe there will be a point where I can do both. So far though, being good has been enough to worry about.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Design Thinking in response to Tim Brown
I listened to Debbie Millman interview Tim Brown, the CEO of IDEO and author of Change by Design. As someone who says he, "fell into industrial design." Tim seems to be an incredibly knowlegable and intellectual thinker who has a keen ability to disect problems in a way that allows for incredibly innovative solutions. I thought, at first, to pick a different interview, because I didn't think that hearing the point of view of an industrial designer would be as relevant to what I am currently working on than someone who deals more with motion. However, after a few minutes, I was convinced that I needed to read his book.
The interview somewhat revolves around what Tim calls Design Thinking. We hear those two words paired together quite often at this school, on various design blogs, in design books and other publications, but I am not sure that I have ever really given it as much thought as it deserves. Possibly I have taken the term forgranted; design thinking is creative problem solving. Its a way to come solve a problem. In the interview Millman reads Tim's definition from his book. Basically he says that the difference from a design problem and a math problem is that there is no definitive answer for any design problem. This creates room for creativity to take precedence in the problem solving process, leading to an innovative solution where new ideas or methods that have never existed are born. I thought that was brilliant. It sounds so obvious, but then again, many profound things do.
Other than this, there was in fact some information that applied to our current project. Tim is asked about story telling and how it relates to different mediums. He comments that programming for interactive design is a time based medium so there is room for story. But then he explains that as an industrial designer, his objects have a time base as well. A good example is a train seat. You have to sit in it for a period of time and that time allows for change to happen. Probably, your thoughts of your seat should remain constant throughout a train car. However, this made me think about the print advertisements I make at the Kansan. It is a common belief at the Kansan, that a viewer only lingers on an ad for about 3 to 4 seconds. I would say that it depends, but many times, the time spent is even less. Regardless, playing with the notion that because there is a time frame for one to view print, I decided that there are 3 basic ways to embrace story within the ad. The easiest and least effective of the three is a sequence. This is basically what happens in a comic book. You look at images that are divided by graphic elements to convey a sense of time between images. The second, which I think is more effective but harder to achieve, is a snapshot. This is basically one frame of a sequence that provides enough context information for the audience to determine the momentum of the scenario and fill in the spaces before or after the event. The third is sort of a mixture between the two depending on the way you look at it. in a way, it is what is happening when you read a paragraph. In my notes, I called it the "Hierarchical method" basically its a snap shot where the viewer is forced around the composition in a certain order. By manipulating what happens at the different points in the order, a story can be created. I can't think of a good example. I mean, a paragraph is a really simple example. You know where to start and end and you get there reading what is intended at the right time. I think I want to experiment with this in future work. And I probably need to think more about other options for non time based story telling.
I feel like I'm rambling. At one point I was going to relate all this back to our project with the Speeches. Basically, I noticed in class that many of the speeches (in book form) didn't have any sort of drive to get the audience from start to finish. Although we are supposed to visually articulate the audio of the speech, I think that it is also important to convey what the point of the speech is and what the viewer is intending the audience to feel (or at least how the designer is wanting the audience to interpret the speech). I wanted mine to feel like a pointless and endless debate because thats really what it is. So I have really tried to design the two speakers as characters through how I treat their type. I think that it has worked well, but it is still hard to create the tension between the two.
The interview somewhat revolves around what Tim calls Design Thinking. We hear those two words paired together quite often at this school, on various design blogs, in design books and other publications, but I am not sure that I have ever really given it as much thought as it deserves. Possibly I have taken the term forgranted; design thinking is creative problem solving. Its a way to come solve a problem. In the interview Millman reads Tim's definition from his book. Basically he says that the difference from a design problem and a math problem is that there is no definitive answer for any design problem. This creates room for creativity to take precedence in the problem solving process, leading to an innovative solution where new ideas or methods that have never existed are born. I thought that was brilliant. It sounds so obvious, but then again, many profound things do.
Other than this, there was in fact some information that applied to our current project. Tim is asked about story telling and how it relates to different mediums. He comments that programming for interactive design is a time based medium so there is room for story. But then he explains that as an industrial designer, his objects have a time base as well. A good example is a train seat. You have to sit in it for a period of time and that time allows for change to happen. Probably, your thoughts of your seat should remain constant throughout a train car. However, this made me think about the print advertisements I make at the Kansan. It is a common belief at the Kansan, that a viewer only lingers on an ad for about 3 to 4 seconds. I would say that it depends, but many times, the time spent is even less. Regardless, playing with the notion that because there is a time frame for one to view print, I decided that there are 3 basic ways to embrace story within the ad. The easiest and least effective of the three is a sequence. This is basically what happens in a comic book. You look at images that are divided by graphic elements to convey a sense of time between images. The second, which I think is more effective but harder to achieve, is a snapshot. This is basically one frame of a sequence that provides enough context information for the audience to determine the momentum of the scenario and fill in the spaces before or after the event. The third is sort of a mixture between the two depending on the way you look at it. in a way, it is what is happening when you read a paragraph. In my notes, I called it the "Hierarchical method" basically its a snap shot where the viewer is forced around the composition in a certain order. By manipulating what happens at the different points in the order, a story can be created. I can't think of a good example. I mean, a paragraph is a really simple example. You know where to start and end and you get there reading what is intended at the right time. I think I want to experiment with this in future work. And I probably need to think more about other options for non time based story telling.
I feel like I'm rambling. At one point I was going to relate all this back to our project with the Speeches. Basically, I noticed in class that many of the speeches (in book form) didn't have any sort of drive to get the audience from start to finish. Although we are supposed to visually articulate the audio of the speech, I think that it is also important to convey what the point of the speech is and what the viewer is intending the audience to feel (or at least how the designer is wanting the audience to interpret the speech). I wanted mine to feel like a pointless and endless debate because thats really what it is. So I have really tried to design the two speakers as characters through how I treat their type. I think that it has worked well, but it is still hard to create the tension between the two.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
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.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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...
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Winners Need Losers
I had never heard of Jonathan Harris, but this will absolutely not be the last time I pay attention to his work. I'm not so sure what will talk about in this post will relate to coding or the course of the web or really what it will do. But I loved his "lecture." It reminded me of a poem I read the other day. In my illustration class, we had a Final Comps deadline last week which basically meant that you better have some shit done or your ass is grass. Class time consisted of poking through everyone else's work and writing ambiguous comments on sheets of sketch paper that were left beside each piece. I was trying to only look through the projects that I knew would be good (the entire semester is dedicated to one project; most people make books). One of my classmates, sure of having good work, was illustrating a children's book of poems. I think a friend of his did the poetry, which was for the most part very good (and his illustrations were steller as always). They were all very cleaver and perfect for a fun and games type of child audience. They dealt with concepts like the babysitting aunt that could seriously be an alien and your parents were once 8! I laughed out loud at several of the poems and I think that it was the only book that actually kept me captivated through out the entire thing.
There was one poem that stood out though. It was about loosing. The speaker of the poem admitted to stinking at everything. He never won. He never even came close. Obviously, in the context of a children's book, I was expecting some sort of turn around ending; an unseen positive that could be generated somehow from the speakers abundance of misery. Instead though, the speaker sais something that can basically be translated to, "Its ok that I'm a looser, because without people like me, who would win?" WHAT?! Seriously? in a children's book? I thought that maybe the author was just having an off day and decided to write some morbid shit. I mean how else do you put something like that in a book for kids? To make matters worse, the illustration was a big glorious ribbon that said looser on it. Jesus.
Regardless, I liked the poem. Just not in a childrens book. The Harris talk reminded me of it because he brought up the point of there being only a hand full of nerdy dudes running the internet's social structure. Imagining those guys, and thinking about what Harris said about programmers not being comfortable with their bodys, made me think of the speaker of the poem. They're the losers that make it possible for everyone else to win. In essence that is what everyone wants.. I think. Contributing to others happiness. I mean, thats what is so awesome about being a movie star or a famous musician.
I remember an interesting study I researched when I was in general psychology about how people react stronger to personal identities rather than groups. Basically, it said that people were more likely to donate to a cause when the cause was paired with a picture of a face rather than a picture of a croup of people. Well, what if that study can be applied to these social-loser-computer-genius'? Ok, so I know I'm rambling a bit here, but hear me out. So: if people always want to contribute to others happiness and people gain the most empathy for individuals rather than groups.. would that mean that people gain the most happiness from contributing to the happiness of individuals rather than groups?
Ok, so down to the nitty gritty with it and then I'm done: Sex is probably one of the highest acclaimed past times of any culture throughout history. What happens during sex? Two people make each other extremely happy. Soooooo, if programmers are generally people that are uncomfortable in their physical bodies, is it possible that their sexual tension and therefore social frustration lead them to reach people in a different way that is programming their digital social interactions? Harris was very proud, and rightfully so, with his mural that his roommates could use as a pickup line. Is that a pre-learning-code way of dealing with the problem?
who knows.
There was one poem that stood out though. It was about loosing. The speaker of the poem admitted to stinking at everything. He never won. He never even came close. Obviously, in the context of a children's book, I was expecting some sort of turn around ending; an unseen positive that could be generated somehow from the speakers abundance of misery. Instead though, the speaker sais something that can basically be translated to, "Its ok that I'm a looser, because without people like me, who would win?" WHAT?! Seriously? in a children's book? I thought that maybe the author was just having an off day and decided to write some morbid shit. I mean how else do you put something like that in a book for kids? To make matters worse, the illustration was a big glorious ribbon that said looser on it. Jesus.
Regardless, I liked the poem. Just not in a childrens book. The Harris talk reminded me of it because he brought up the point of there being only a hand full of nerdy dudes running the internet's social structure. Imagining those guys, and thinking about what Harris said about programmers not being comfortable with their bodys, made me think of the speaker of the poem. They're the losers that make it possible for everyone else to win. In essence that is what everyone wants.. I think. Contributing to others happiness. I mean, thats what is so awesome about being a movie star or a famous musician.
I remember an interesting study I researched when I was in general psychology about how people react stronger to personal identities rather than groups. Basically, it said that people were more likely to donate to a cause when the cause was paired with a picture of a face rather than a picture of a croup of people. Well, what if that study can be applied to these social-loser-computer-genius'? Ok, so I know I'm rambling a bit here, but hear me out. So: if people always want to contribute to others happiness and people gain the most empathy for individuals rather than groups.. would that mean that people gain the most happiness from contributing to the happiness of individuals rather than groups?
Ok, so down to the nitty gritty with it and then I'm done: Sex is probably one of the highest acclaimed past times of any culture throughout history. What happens during sex? Two people make each other extremely happy. Soooooo, if programmers are generally people that are uncomfortable in their physical bodies, is it possible that their sexual tension and therefore social frustration lead them to reach people in a different way that is programming their digital social interactions? Harris was very proud, and rightfully so, with his mural that his roommates could use as a pickup line. Is that a pre-learning-code way of dealing with the problem?
who knows.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Type Questions
Advantages of a multiple column grid-
Using a multiple column grid allows the designer a way to keep everything organized and in proportion. It is a good way to explore interesting layouts that don't feel random.
Optimal words and length per line-
Ideally the a line of text should be about 12 words long at 50-60 characters. This is based off the viewing field of the eye.
The baseline grid-
The baseline grid allows for the base lines of all of the lines of text in a layout to be aligned.
Rivers-
Rivers are created when the spaces between words line up on top of each other in a body of text. This results in a vertical or diagonal line of negative space.
Clothesline-
A line created by multiple text blocks aligned to the same horizontal line.
Incorporating white space-
White space, or negative space, in a layout can be a wonderful thing. However, the space should not be so great that related text is separated. This can be achieved in a spread by positioning the majority of the white space around the text.
Type Color-
Type color refers to the density created by the texture of a text body. This can be effected by kerning, leading, font size and weight, and x-height.
x-height -
The x-height of a font is determined by the height of the x. Fonts with a larger x-height have a darker type color.
Justification: minimum, optimum, maximum-
These measurements refer to the amount of spacing between words. Optimum being ideal.
Paragraph breaks-
There are no rules to paragraph breaks accept that they work. A break can be indicated by increased leading, an indent, a color field change, or a change in a texts alignment or direction.
Hyphenating text-
En dashes are used to indicate amounts of time, like dates. Em dashes are used in dialogue to indicate a long pause in thought or speech.
ligeratures-
A ligerature occurs between certain letters that would seem awkward paired next to each other in certain type faces. f and i is a current ligerature to avoid the dot of the i from interfering with the finial of the f.
CMYK VS RBG-
CMYK stands for cyan, blue, yellow, blak. These are the colors used by printers. RBG stands for red, blue, green, the colors that make up all colors on a screen.
Hanging punctuation-
Hanging punctuation is basically, exactly want it sounds like. It is commonly used in quotations that not a part of a larger body of text.
foot mark & apostrophe-
A foot mark has no indication of direction ( ' ) whereas apostrophes will be curved to the left. This is the same in relation to inch and quote marks.
Using a multiple column grid allows the designer a way to keep everything organized and in proportion. It is a good way to explore interesting layouts that don't feel random.
Optimal words and length per line-
Ideally the a line of text should be about 12 words long at 50-60 characters. This is based off the viewing field of the eye.
The baseline grid-
The baseline grid allows for the base lines of all of the lines of text in a layout to be aligned.
Rivers-
Rivers are created when the spaces between words line up on top of each other in a body of text. This results in a vertical or diagonal line of negative space.
Clothesline-
A line created by multiple text blocks aligned to the same horizontal line.
Incorporating white space-
White space, or negative space, in a layout can be a wonderful thing. However, the space should not be so great that related text is separated. This can be achieved in a spread by positioning the majority of the white space around the text.
Type Color-
Type color refers to the density created by the texture of a text body. This can be effected by kerning, leading, font size and weight, and x-height.
x-height -
The x-height of a font is determined by the height of the x. Fonts with a larger x-height have a darker type color.
Justification: minimum, optimum, maximum-
These measurements refer to the amount of spacing between words. Optimum being ideal.
Paragraph breaks-
There are no rules to paragraph breaks accept that they work. A break can be indicated by increased leading, an indent, a color field change, or a change in a texts alignment or direction.
Hyphenating text-
En dashes are used to indicate amounts of time, like dates. Em dashes are used in dialogue to indicate a long pause in thought or speech.
ligeratures-
A ligerature occurs between certain letters that would seem awkward paired next to each other in certain type faces. f and i is a current ligerature to avoid the dot of the i from interfering with the finial of the f.
CMYK VS RBG-
CMYK stands for cyan, blue, yellow, blak. These are the colors used by printers. RBG stands for red, blue, green, the colors that make up all colors on a screen.
Hanging punctuation-
Hanging punctuation is basically, exactly want it sounds like. It is commonly used in quotations that not a part of a larger body of text.
foot mark & apostrophe-
A foot mark has no indication of direction ( ' ) whereas apostrophes will be curved to the left. This is the same in relation to inch and quote marks.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Make Mistakes Faster
Bruce Mau's incomplete list of manifestos was definitely far from what I was expecting. Many of his points seemed to be quite contradictory: Take field trips, avoid fields. Of course the meaning of field was completely different in these two cases, but there were other instances where I found myself wondering how this advice should really be taken. Some of the points seemed to be good advice for anyone at any time. But then every once in a while there would be a point like, "Don't enter competitions." I still don't think I really understand why Mau insists that they are simply "Not good for you." Is it that he doesn't trust unknown judges to decide what is best? Or possibly that he doesn't care for a best to be chosen? Whatever, I think they're probably alright.
Anyway, I ended up deciding to pick the mantra: Make Mistakes Faster. I think that Mau's idea (even though he admits to borrowing the idea from Andy Grove), is that the quicker you make mistakes, the quicker you filter out possible solutions, and the quicker you arrive at a feasible solution. I would agree with this. The problem is that making mistakes takes as much time as making progress. Mau would argue that mistakes are progress. And I would agree. But putting exhilarating effort into making choices I expect to result in mistakes seems like a waste of time. When I say that for this week I will MAKE MISTAKES FASTER, I mean that I will try possible solutions more vigorously. However, maybe it wouldn't hurt to try some things that I think are inherently bad.
Anyway, I ended up deciding to pick the mantra: Make Mistakes Faster. I think that Mau's idea (even though he admits to borrowing the idea from Andy Grove), is that the quicker you make mistakes, the quicker you filter out possible solutions, and the quicker you arrive at a feasible solution. I would agree with this. The problem is that making mistakes takes as much time as making progress. Mau would argue that mistakes are progress. And I would agree. But putting exhilarating effort into making choices I expect to result in mistakes seems like a waste of time. When I say that for this week I will MAKE MISTAKES FASTER, I mean that I will try possible solutions more vigorously. However, maybe it wouldn't hurt to try some things that I think are inherently bad.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sagmiester, Abrams, and McCloud (journal 3)
I don't really know where to start with this one. Sagmeister, Abrams, and McCloud all touched on such different topics. Sagmeister weighed the moral value of being a designer, Abrams explained the value of the unknown, and McCloud gave an extremely dense lecture on the science of comics and what their future entails. At first thought, there really isn't much these three have in common. One is a graphic designer renown for creating album art, another a director/producer, and the third, a comic book artist. However, they are all extremely successful at what they do, and they all do some sort of art. So they must all be good creative thinkers. McCloud said that the key is to learn from everyone, follow no one, look for patterns, and work like hell. Sounds pretty right on from what I know. The others don't provide such a simply put strategy, but I would think that they both follow some sort of similar model, even if only subconsciously.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
What is good Design? (journal entry 2)
O.K. so here are the summaries...
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Writing for Ideas (journal 1)
As mentioned in Writing For Visual Thinkers, I have been instructed to use various brainstorming techniques ever since grade school. In my earlier years, I went head strong into projects, with a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. Because of this, I felt a bit of cognitive dissonance when instructed to approach something by writing a word list or brainstorm for a bit. However, as I did them more and more, I started to realize what an awesome spring board for later ideas these various forms of writing could be. Over the years, I have taken certain aspects of these techniques that I have found helpful and have started to understand the circumstances when I should use one method over another or a combination.
Last summer, I began to keep a little black sketch pad where I would write random thoughts. As I got used to it, I started to use it for other things like sketches, and brainstorming. Now, it has become my number one item. I take notes in it, write concept maps and wordlists, brainstorm, bring it to important meetings, sketch ideas, and when I'm feeling really creative, I'll sometimes write a poem. It has essentially become an idea safe. I think that I'm a fairly forgetful person, so having a place where I can quickly jot down things so I can remind myself later is awesome. I'm not creepy about it; I've seen prestigious artsy kids whip out a pad and pencil at a party and write some profound drunken scribble down a few times. But thats weird. Even though I sometimes get the urge to write down booze induced thoughts, I think it looks too stupid to be worth it. So I try and remember until I get home to do it. Usually they suck anyway.
I thought the reading made an interesting point about free writing. Except for a few times in English classes, I've never tried to actually do that to generate new ideas. I don't know that I will try it. For now it seems that I have found a pretty good system for solving problems. Except for this one with a logo I'm working on.. but I think doing some more sketches will be a better solvent for that one.
ok thats all
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Chip Kidd's Advice
Of the three readings, which were all quite interesting and gave useful information when designing book covers, I found the Chip Kidd interview to be the most helpful. I'd like to bring up his answer to the last question first. When asked if one should judge a book by its cover, he replied, "Oh, go ahead." This was interesting to me because as a book jacket designer, he must have read a ton of books that he enjoyed that he thought had poor covers. However, it reveals something greater about his approach to designing a cover that he reveals earlier in the interview. He explains how he tries to 'subvert' a genre. When redesigning Minority Report he said, "I didn't want it to look like "science fiction," but it should still look appropriate for the subject matter." I'm not so sure what to think about this because as someone who thinks books can be judged by their covers, wouldn't he like someone who is looking for a science fiction novel be able to tell that Minority Report is a science fiction novel? Though he does also offer that covers should be interesting and appeal to the masses. So possibly, one trumps the other depending on the circumstances.
As for me, designing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, this creates an interesting complex. The book is so popular, that it would sell no matter what the cover looks like. But do I take its popularity into consideration when designing the cover? Should I apply to the masses, or elude to the book's content?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Cover Inspiration
The Opposite House
The flipped image caught my eye right away. There is something inherently interesting about things that are upside down, they just beg the viewer to ask why things are reversed. Of course turning things upside down to catch an eye would be irresponsible design, but in this case I think it serves a lot of purposes. First of all it creates an area that calls attention to the text. Also, given the title of the book, one can make the assumption that the opposite house is not the house opposite the street, but maybe opposite from a characters norm. This implies a lot about the story. And like it or not, someone browsing through a book store will be more likely to read the summary on the back if the cover looks like it is a book they would enjoy. I looked up a summary and the book deals with immigration.
The Fall of the Towers
I like how clean the text is in this cover, but I disagree that it was the best choice for the project. Giving the design the benefit of the doubt, I am assuming that this book offers a factual account of the event. If so, I do like the clean type and the way it is organized, however there could be more done to draw my attention to the content. This could be as simple as using capital letters, or possibly separating the authors name from the title in some way. The image is strong, compositionally, and there is a nice void that is created by the text in place of the towers. Yet, if this book is a clean and factually based non emotional account of the fall of the towers, it would be interesting to see how a clean, vector based image representing the absence of the towers would have worked.
I think that this cover is a good example of how type and image can work together to communicate important information about the book. In this case, the title is ambiguous to content. Because the content would be read in order to gain a specific set of knowledge, it is important for the title to easily suggest what information it would contain. The title is clearly legible, and works with the graphic to convey a larger understanding about the essence of the book. I agree that the Authors names and tag line should not be written in the same font as the title, but I think that right now they are a tad too distracting. This could be improved by simply adding a line to separate them from the center graphic. Also, I think that the Author's names are too close to 'LOST.' It looks like it is meant to be the same distance as the text at the bottom is from the white arrow, but I think that it is awkward because 'LOST' creates such a strong vertical that it seems cramped, whereas the arrow is just one point that happens to be the lowest.
Definitions
Sign - any object, action, event, pattern, etc., that conveys a meaning.
Index - something used or serving to point out. An indication (dark clouds are an index of rain).
Symbol - something used for or regarded as representing something else (the Jayhawk is a symbol of KU).
Index - something used or serving to point out. An indication (dark clouds are an index of rain).
Symbol - something used for or regarded as representing something else (the Jayhawk is a symbol of KU).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)