Time for a new layout! Ok not yet, but I'll have the page stripped down to default or some variation of it in the meantime.
So until I come back with a fresh new look, cheers and stay healthy & happy through finals!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Nuclear weapons [Design is utopian]
 |
| [Second atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan] Library of Congress |
Fairly often, we come across designs and designers who endeavor to improve general society in their work. Many are successful, while many are not. But rare is it that any do any sort of real harm. Most modern designs are nothing more than ergonomic enhancements or environmentally conscious redesigns based on old designs with little or no new practical functionality anyway. One design, however, that was engineered toward entirely new functionality that I would deem a major utopian work with irony (but not sarcasm) fully intended is the nuclear weapon.
I personally find the entire concept of nuclear weapons utterly repulsive and entirely unnecessary, above all other abhorrent tools of destruction. However, what is more human than the desire and struggle for bettering "our" society by completely wiping out "theirs"? I am well aware of the misanthropy in my words when I say that nothing is more utopian than self-service through the ruination of those whose own self-service conflict.
Credit company rhetoric [Design is Dangerous]
Have you ever actually through the printed terms and conditions of a given loan service before signing your soul away to your credit company? Chances are the answer is no. Aside from your laziness, there is a reason for that: they are designed that way on purpose. Credit companies have layout designers who purposely draft obscure layouts for the mandatory issue terms and conditions. This is obviously to discourage most of the company's customers from reading or having a chance to understand their rights and the customer service policies and thus take advantage. The actual layout is normally printed in an incredibly small font (maybe 6 point) with unbearably tight leading and tracking printed on a light grey paper with a slightly darker grey or tan ink. This almost immediately rules out the ability for people with sight problems or reading accessibility issues to even have a chance to read them, let alone able people.
But even if you had the ability and patience to read through them, you would immediately be bombarded with numerous abbreviations and cryptically convoluted rhetoric, making it a challenge to even understand, given you are not the lawyer who wrote the passage.
Such design for the sole purpose of inaccessibility is dangerous in that it allows these companies to easily take advantage of their customers. Some amount of government regulations would be necessary in order to defend society against such dubious immoral business tactics.
Is design really ethical? Just because it can and should be does not mean that it is. Just like any other trade, it could be used for moral or immoral purposes.
But even if you had the ability and patience to read through them, you would immediately be bombarded with numerous abbreviations and cryptically convoluted rhetoric, making it a challenge to even understand, given you are not the lawyer who wrote the passage.
Such design for the sole purpose of inaccessibility is dangerous in that it allows these companies to easily take advantage of their customers. Some amount of government regulations would be necessary in order to defend society against such dubious immoral business tactics.
Is design really ethical? Just because it can and should be does not mean that it is. Just like any other trade, it could be used for moral or immoral purposes.
Bare Bones: Color is the devil, and Why
Okay, no I do not actually believe that color is the devil and the root of all evil, however I do have some major qualms pertaining to its use and perception specifically in the realm of art and design. Color may not be some abstract evil deity, but it certainly has power far beyond those qualities which we normally think of when the concept of color comes to mind. I personally approach each and every one of my visual works, no matter what realm, with a deep fear and respect for value and chromatics. Here are a couple reasons why…
Color is deceptive in that it skews the perception of varying values.
Josef Albers already said this, but allow me to reiterate that while human vision is extremely inconsistent, the hues of different color throw off our comprehension of varying levels of value between shifting colors. When I refer to value, I am simply talking about the tints and shades of different hues. Take the above image for example. It's a quiz. Not really. Both levels A and B are identical with the only exception being that A is in greyscale. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Thus it is especially important to take this into account as a designer during the process, not after the fact.
Color distracts from content. If you have ever heard anyone advise to at least start your work in greyscale before moving on to working in color, you will notice that they will likely cite the deception of color in terms of value as I had previously explained. That is a big deal as a technical aspect, yes, but the idea that color distracts from content is far more important as the meaning or message or idea behind a piece is by far the most significant aspect as all the technical details merely act as intermediaries between viewer and content. When I say color distracts, I mean that the core function of a piece can easily get lost in the emotive vibrance and incredible variation of chromatic selections. The compositional structure of any piece is the core, the skeleton, upon which augmentations such as color are implemented in order to elaborate further. Even the above photo of Gabrial Dawe's installation exhibiting a large scale arrangement of threads representing prismatic order. While the focus is indisputably the manipulation of the color, the core structure of each of his pieces is what gives rise to each set of optical interactions they deliver. Without the unique structure, the colors would be meaningless.
Color can act as a gimmick for grabbing attention. Lastly, for now, color is often used and abused to snatch otherwise apathetic viewers' attentions. I find this to be an issue as a viewer in that when bright, zany and/or superfluous color is the first thing I notice when I witness a composition, my first reaction (correction: second, immediately following the all too human "Ooh pretty colors~ teehee!" reaction) tends to be a dismissal of the compositions meaning and content on the grounds that it feels far too desperate to catch my attention for the quality of the content to be worth a damn. Generalizations are never a safe bet however, and in recognizing that, my dismissals never last long — at least until the proposed lack of worthwhile content is confirmed. There are countless amazing compositions that fit the description by established creators to prove that color is not necessarily a gimmick for grabbing attention. But the point is that it can act as such, and thus it is important as a creator to be wise and mature about his/her use of color and doubly as important for the viewer (ie. everybody) to be as conscious about the content of that which they are experiencing as the method by which it clasped his/her attention.
 |
| Answers: A) No B) Most likely |
Josef Albers already said this, but allow me to reiterate that while human vision is extremely inconsistent, the hues of different color throw off our comprehension of varying levels of value between shifting colors. When I refer to value, I am simply talking about the tints and shades of different hues. Take the above image for example. It's a quiz. Not really. Both levels A and B are identical with the only exception being that A is in greyscale. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Thus it is especially important to take this into account as a designer during the process, not after the fact.
 |
| Thread art by Gabriel Dawe |
 |
| Straight on view of Dawe's installation |
Color can act as a gimmick for grabbing attention. Lastly, for now, color is often used and abused to snatch otherwise apathetic viewers' attentions. I find this to be an issue as a viewer in that when bright, zany and/or superfluous color is the first thing I notice when I witness a composition, my first reaction (correction: second, immediately following the all too human "Ooh pretty colors~ teehee!" reaction) tends to be a dismissal of the compositions meaning and content on the grounds that it feels far too desperate to catch my attention for the quality of the content to be worth a damn. Generalizations are never a safe bet however, and in recognizing that, my dismissals never last long — at least until the proposed lack of worthwhile content is confirmed. There are countless amazing compositions that fit the description by established creators to prove that color is not necessarily a gimmick for grabbing attention. But the point is that it can act as such, and thus it is important as a creator to be wise and mature about his/her use of color and doubly as important for the viewer (ie. everybody) to be as conscious about the content of that which they are experiencing as the method by which it clasped his/her attention.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Lauer & Pentak's Design Basics: A critical review
Total waste of money!
Future UCD design student: Save some bucks, save some trees, and just look up "Elements of Art" and "Principles of Design" on wikipedia or something. It's all right there! Take my word for it, as a student who deeply regrets dishing out 20 hours worth of slave wage pay for this over praised scrap of high-end press material.
How much is Wadworth paying you, professor?
Cheers!
 |
| Image stolen from a site that stole it from somewhere else… |
Future UCD design student: Save some bucks, save some trees, and just look up "Elements of Art" and "Principles of Design" on wikipedia or something. It's all right there! Take my word for it, as a student who deeply regrets dishing out 20 hours worth of slave wage pay for this over praised scrap of high-end press material.
How much is Wadworth paying you, professor?
This is all you need, a complete comprehensive and dare I say accurate replacement for L&P's Design Basics:
Cheers!
Monday, November 15, 2010
(Untitled)
Conceptual art as a genre is the greatest pretentious indulgence in psychobabble of the 20th and 21th centuries. I saw this film title (Untitled) (2009) about a week ago, and fell in love almost instantly. As a career art student, I have always sort of felt like an outsider, never buying in to the pretentious bullshit behind the supposed greatest works of whichever era, never caring to participate in critiques as a front to display my knowledge of the elements of art and principles of design, and I simply have never respected an artist/designer who has more words to say about their work than what their work has to say for itself. I guess what I am trying to get at is that in realm of art, I am an outsider on the inside and it almost feels like this film was written exclusively for me. I am not going to bother analyzing the film or even attempt to sum it up for you especially since the trailer is right here. Besides, that would be down right hypocritical of me would it not?
Anyway I will leave you with my favorite quote from the film, as spoken masterfully by Adam Goldberg's self conscious and mildly neurotic character Adrian Jacobs in response to a critical claim about his musical performance made by some art yuppies whom he was at a dinner party with:
Here's the trailer...
Anyway I will leave you with my favorite quote from the film, as spoken masterfully by Adam Goldberg's self conscious and mildly neurotic character Adrian Jacobs in response to a critical claim about his musical performance made by some art yuppies whom he was at a dinner party with:
"Harmony is a capitalist plot to sell pianos."
Here's the trailer...
The Toilet: Part 1 [ergonomics]
Is the standard toilet as we know it a perfect design? I would be amazed to hear a resounding "Yes!" In fact, I would be much less surprised to hear a majority of responses that fall along the lines of "No way, man! Not even close…" But then why have I seen such little variation an ergonomic improvement in toilet models beyond the two basic eastern style squatter versus the western style sitters? I mean this is an object that everyone (with few exceptions) uses at least daily, and not too many — I would imagine — would be very happy having to live without. Maybe the lack of variety or enhancement in the ergonomic design has something to do with the idea that folks are too afraid, reluctant, and/or just plain unwilling to take on the task of reinventing the throne, upon which we place our bare hide and release our bowels on a regular basis, due to its… toilety nature. Nonetheless, while the standard sitting toilet is certainly useable, in todays world centered around efficiency and luxury, it is yet far from perfect.
Firstly, the standard toilet as we know it is far from safe. Just look at the image above and imagine having to take your toddler to the emergency room because (s)he drowned his/herself in the toilet. Once you stop laughing about it after approximately three minutes, you will probably realize how tragic that would be, which may or may not cause you to continue laughing with greater intensity thus confirming that you, like I, have no soul. The risk of concussions, bruising, and/or broken bones is also very eminent, especially amongst the drunk, stumbling folks who attempt to approach the toilet in order to let their lunch loose from the wrong end. Virtually anyone is at risk of slipping and suffering blunt trauma from the edge of the porcelain basin, but of course the drunks, seniors and infants lie in the high liability zone. Should it not be that our design standards look out for these people first?
But forget about physical safety. What about our toothbrushes, our jewelry, our phones (our children...?)? It almost feels like every other day that I hear about someone's emotional trauma involving an incredibly expensive phone being sacrificed to the far from benevolent god of sanitation.
Second, the toilet is lacking in the comfort zone. I am a huge fan of the winter season. If you have lived in the area where I am staying right now — Sacramento/San Francisco bay area, CA — you probably are unfamiliar of the concept of winter. Nonetheless, it is my favorite season (for anywhere that is not here), for so many reasons except for one: the god forsaken freezing toilet seat. On the coldest of winter days I dread having to make a visit to the restroom and revealing my bare behind and make contact with the icy polished porcelain in order to relieve the tension my bowels. If it was not such a high priority duty, I would not think twice about forgoing the task. Could the engineers not find a material with a lower specific heat capacity that is as archival and cleanable as polished porcelain? I know there are replaceable cushioned seats on the market, but honestly those never stay up — I think I can speak for all men when I say they are a dread for those of us who happen to urinate standing up.
...Stay tuned for the second half, which will feature some more b.s. about the toilet's ease of use and performance!
 |
| Random uninteresting Youtube video featuring some insanely bad parenting... |
Firstly, the standard toilet as we know it is far from safe. Just look at the image above and imagine having to take your toddler to the emergency room because (s)he drowned his/herself in the toilet. Once you stop laughing about it after approximately three minutes, you will probably realize how tragic that would be, which may or may not cause you to continue laughing with greater intensity thus confirming that you, like I, have no soul. The risk of concussions, bruising, and/or broken bones is also very eminent, especially amongst the drunk, stumbling folks who attempt to approach the toilet in order to let their lunch loose from the wrong end. Virtually anyone is at risk of slipping and suffering blunt trauma from the edge of the porcelain basin, but of course the drunks, seniors and infants lie in the high liability zone. Should it not be that our design standards look out for these people first?
But forget about physical safety. What about our toothbrushes, our jewelry, our phones (our children...?)? It almost feels like every other day that I hear about someone's emotional trauma involving an incredibly expensive phone being sacrificed to the far from benevolent god of sanitation.
Second, the toilet is lacking in the comfort zone. I am a huge fan of the winter season. If you have lived in the area where I am staying right now — Sacramento/San Francisco bay area, CA — you probably are unfamiliar of the concept of winter. Nonetheless, it is my favorite season (for anywhere that is not here), for so many reasons except for one: the god forsaken freezing toilet seat. On the coldest of winter days I dread having to make a visit to the restroom and revealing my bare behind and make contact with the icy polished porcelain in order to relieve the tension my bowels. If it was not such a high priority duty, I would not think twice about forgoing the task. Could the engineers not find a material with a lower specific heat capacity that is as archival and cleanable as polished porcelain? I know there are replaceable cushioned seats on the market, but honestly those never stay up — I think I can speak for all men when I say they are a dread for those of us who happen to urinate standing up.
...Stay tuned for the second half, which will feature some more b.s. about the toilet's ease of use and performance!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
