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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)