Having spent the semester asessing my view of the design world and developing my personal design theories, I can see that there is no way to encapsulate my thoughts and feelings on design in only one paper. Above all else, design is an element of change, the rhetoric we use and the concepts we create are extensions of our need to communicate and change the world around us.
In the last 49 blog entries I have come to understand the value of challenging others to think critically about the world they live in. Whether my designs accomplish this fact, I dont know, but having seen examples of how designers can incite change in the world, I hope that I can rise to the challenge.
Showing posts with label Visual Rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Visual Rhetoric. Show all posts
4/21/08
4/14/08
Challenging the Standard Format of Modern Communication
Yes! This is exactly it! Check out these remarkable information design pieces. As I have been working on my own theories of design in my college studies, I cant help but recognize an excellent example of how design can remove the 'visio-rhetorical subtext' from something as commonplace as the news.
While I was drifting in the blogosphere I happened to stumble upon university student David Bowker's website, Designing the News. He has taken the
text of various newspapers, dissected them, and reinterpereted them as the visual content of his designs.
I think this is a innovative way of thinking about distributing information. He has interpreted the text of one full week of the guardian and based a series of visuals and information graphics. I think this piece is an excellent example of how challenging the standard format of modern communication can produce such provocative and inspired designs.
While I was drifting in the blogosphere I happened to stumble upon university student David Bowker's website, Designing the News. He has taken the
text of various newspapers, dissected them, and reinterpereted them as the visual content of his designs.I think this is a innovative way of thinking about distributing information. He has interpreted the text of one full week of the guardian and based a series of visuals and information graphics. I think this piece is an excellent example of how challenging the standard format of modern communication can produce such provocative and inspired designs.
3/25/08
AIGA Conference - Command X - pt.2
A complex issue such as youth voting is certainly not one that can be tackled in a mere 24 hours. This is not to say that the contestants in this years AIGA - CommandX competition failed to do so, but unfortunately the ideas that were presented had such great potential that it was somewhat of a letdown to not see them through to their end.
Kelly Dorsey's campaign 'they wont expect it' is a prime example of this fact. I loved the cheeky attitude of the ads, but as the judges had suggested, the creative was not supported by a cohesive campaign and sadly it did not fulfill its potential.
I thought that all of the campaigns did an excellent job of reaching the target market in question, but what surprised me was how perceptive the contestants were.
Each of the contestants issued a challenge to the viewer, in Kelly's case it was more overt, but in Nichelle's campaign I was blown away by the subtlety and severity that were played against each other. Here, rather than hit the viewer over the head, Nichelle allowed them to ponder the message; you are incapable of making change unless you vote.
The minimalistic execution popularized by apple fit magnificently, and allowed the concept to fully shine through. This style has become incredibly popular, and in this setting it becomes apparent that what is becoming trendy in design spheres, is conceptually driven advertisements that do not colour the way the viewer interprets the message.
3/21/08
Designing the collapse of a moral society
What design work would I refuse?
In graphic design there are opposing views as to how a designer should approach controversial issues. Either suck it up and do the work regardless of the message, or take a stand and risk putting your neck on the line.
Where do I stand on the matter? as you may have already gathered from the title of this post, I couldn't bring myself to work on an indecent campaign if I tried. I should probably be fairly specific on this count for fear of my meaning being construed.
Now, I consider myself a progressive individual who respects the rights of people to do and (usually) say whatever they want so long as it is respectful of others. I can appreciate when a person who is true to themselves speaks their mind honestly, but what I cannot condone is advertising that has no benefit aside from selling a negative and socially destructive attitude.
The diesel ad pictured above was part of a larger campaign which featured men in provocative scenarios which would not have been so bad if not for the medium; these ads were regularly featured on outdoor billboards. These ad's(above and below) shared a billboard on the side of a building looming over Yonge street for nearly a year.
While I would not consider myself a prude, I could not condone building a brand that presented a glorified image of perversity. Yes, I understand that this campaign was likely intended for a European market, but I feel too strongly that this sort of advertising further undermines the positive values and self respect that we no longer embody.
It is fairly naive to think that I could get by as a graphic designer if I refused to work on any account that offended my values. I understand that extremes must be explored if a brand is to be differentiated. I disagree with placing an ad like this on a billboard, it seems more intended to push peoples boundaries than simply creating awareness.
In graphic design there are opposing views as to how a designer should approach controversial issues. Either suck it up and do the work regardless of the message, or take a stand and risk putting your neck on the line.
Where do I stand on the matter? as you may have already gathered from the title of this post, I couldn't bring myself to work on an indecent campaign if I tried. I should probably be fairly specific on this count for fear of my meaning being construed.
Now, I consider myself a progressive individual who respects the rights of people to do and (usually) say whatever they want so long as it is respectful of others. I can appreciate when a person who is true to themselves speaks their mind honestly, but what I cannot condone is advertising that has no benefit aside from selling a negative and socially destructive attitude.
The diesel ad pictured above was part of a larger campaign which featured men in provocative scenarios which would not have been so bad if not for the medium; these ads were regularly featured on outdoor billboards. These ad's(above and below) shared a billboard on the side of a building looming over Yonge street for nearly a year.
While I would not consider myself a prude, I could not condone building a brand that presented a glorified image of perversity. Yes, I understand that this campaign was likely intended for a European market, but I feel too strongly that this sort of advertising further undermines the positive values and self respect that we no longer embody.
It is fairly naive to think that I could get by as a graphic designer if I refused to work on any account that offended my values. I understand that extremes must be explored if a brand is to be differentiated. I disagree with placing an ad like this on a billboard, it seems more intended to push peoples boundaries than simply creating awareness.
My Personal Design Theory Revisited
Having been asked to outline my personal design theory, I know that it can be an intensely personal journey to delve into our subconscious to pull out whatever it is we tap into. I have found that I have entirely too much to say on the topic so it has been difficult to narrow my focus to just one answer to the question: What is Design?
I personally feel that design(good design anyways) is visual rhetoric; a type of coercion which we are all receptive to on a subconscious level. We cannot help but respond to visual rhetoric because of the powerful way which our minds can automatically interpret visual information.
Think of a rhetorical question, it's intention is to present an idea, but rather than telling the listener what to think or do, it merely begs a question it has already answered.
For design to truly be a rhetorical question, we need to change the way we present the design, -if only slightly- so that the viewer is asked rather than told where to go next, even though we are leading them along a path of our own design.
In the end, if the goal of design is to entice the viewer into some form of action, the designs that are more effective are the ones that people have to think about. I think people will walk away from a rhetorical design feeling as though they can own the ideas they have taken from it, simply because they were asked -not told- what to think.
I personally feel that design(good design anyways) is visual rhetoric; a type of coercion which we are all receptive to on a subconscious level. We cannot help but respond to visual rhetoric because of the powerful way which our minds can automatically interpret visual information.
Think of a rhetorical question, it's intention is to present an idea, but rather than telling the listener what to think or do, it merely begs a question it has already answered.
For design to truly be a rhetorical question, we need to change the way we present the design, -if only slightly- so that the viewer is asked rather than told where to go next, even though we are leading them along a path of our own design.
In the end, if the goal of design is to entice the viewer into some form of action, the designs that are more effective are the ones that people have to think about. I think people will walk away from a rhetorical design feeling as though they can own the ideas they have taken from it, simply because they were asked -not told- what to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
