Kansas City Art Institute / Fall 2008 / Senior Graphic Design Studio
11/7/08
prj cm: reading 1
Read "This means This..." pages 19-32 and post your reflection to the comments of this post. Find the photocopied reading on Tyler's reserve shelf in the library.
Within the first example of the abstract expressionist painting, the perception of its value can shift abruptly depending upon the viewer's knowledge of its means of production. I find it interesting that the receiving of the message and its potentially false presentation can be so telling of the viewers absurdity- specifically when the receiver has been duped by a false message. This goes for anything really, whether it be a painting, or an object, or a philosophy... Perhaps the artist fabricates his concept out of disregard and spite simply to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewer. This is similar to the metaphor of the chimp and the artist, in that the viewer is reading the message from an unreliable source and therefore is faced to contemplate their own belief systems.
Having said this, it is crucially important that the individual search out for knowledge, become educated, lead their own path instead of following another's, and not get caught up in absorbing all the messages thrown in their direction. Such is the advertising world: "I shop, therefore I am.". I am disgusted by this thought. Because society and culture tells you something is good and wholesome doesn't mean that it is. Shopping at high end clothing stores and surrounding myself in expensive possessions may distinguish me as a well-round person in the eyes of others, but it says nothing about who I am as a person.
The fact that messages may be manipulated and/or misconstrued is very dangerous and perhaps even very smart, however unethical it maybe, a good example being the marlboro man and big tobacco... The point being as the viewer not to take everything for granted, and as the creator of the message to to be appropriate and concise.
The reading does an excellent job of deconstructing all the possible barriers to accurate transmissions of messages. It gives us as designers sort of a checklist to judge our messaging by and avoiding pitfalls on our end of the transmission journey. As pointed out by the author, however, some of the fault may lay with the reader/end user whether it be not having enough information to decode the message, passage of time corrupting the message, or interception of a message that was unintended for that user. I also think the "trickery/loopholes" in semiotics provides opportunities to designers to craft their messages in very clever ways and take advantage of more sophisticated ways to communicate. For example, "who is sending this message?" could allow us to use voice messages from a different POV in say an ad campaign by sending relatable messages to the audience from a more respected or authoritative voice.
The author also addresses our perception of value and worth based on who is sending the message. It was interesting to point out how we may value art made by a person more than one by a chimp even though they are the exact same picture. This is important because it highlights and allows how our perceptions may influence a message despite how it is inherently crafted; placing the importance on exactly who has crafted the message.
What is the message really saying? Focuses on layered meanings of messages. In the example given by the author, " I shop therefor, I am" exemplifies how prior information of the end users is required to receive the complexity of the message, however, someone with no knowledge of the original phrase will still be in partial receipt of the message, though probably less rewarding. This points out the consideration needed of your intended audidence when using certain messages. Esoteric phrases and meanings can be lost on larger audiences, however, they can be used to target more smaller niche groups within a larger context as the complexity of the message can act as a coded message specifically for them.
The author also discusses the mediums in which messages were sent and how those mediums can influence transmission. I dont think the author does a particularly good job of using the Mona Lisa example to present the case for the mediums. The representational and mechanical mediums seemed to be left out of the discussion and the focus was clearly only on the presentational meaning, which imho is the most obvious and well known and easily read portion of the Mona Lisa and pretty easy to understand his point with the abstracted faces.
How we should communicate danger to future generations? This section makes a great case for the relevancy of messages based on time and how we deal with the idea that our messages are lost rapidly and there is no real way to ensure that a myth is spread so that future generations can continue to decode a message made prior to them.
This article seems to underplay motive as a factor in the communication model. In the context of demonstrating the mutable veracity of language, the author's motive is deception to provide evidence to an argument.
A more in depth examination of the project of warning future generations about nuclear contamination. I think its excellent that this article mentioned myth and lore as a coded message across generations. It's interesting that this was the most effective mode of communicating culturally produced values and skills over time- one would think that being so removed from its literal intention that this would produce more noise rather than resist it. An effective counterpoint to the permanence of oral tradition is the lingering affect of images from antiquity. Consider the apotropaic "guardian figures" such as the sphinx, gargoyles, and lions that adorn ancient architecture. Mesoamerican artisans didn't provide us with statements, but one can still discern the splendor of Teotihuacan and the paranormal menace of the Popul Vuh without them.
3 comments:
Within the first example of the abstract expressionist painting, the perception of its value can shift abruptly depending upon the viewer's knowledge of its means of production. I find it interesting that the receiving of the message and its potentially false presentation can be so telling of the viewers absurdity- specifically when the receiver has been duped by a false message. This goes for anything really, whether it be a painting, or an object, or a philosophy... Perhaps the artist fabricates his concept out of disregard and spite simply to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewer. This is similar to the metaphor of the chimp and the artist, in that the viewer is reading the message from an unreliable source and therefore is faced to contemplate their own belief systems.
Having said this, it is crucially important that the individual search out for knowledge, become educated, lead their own path instead of following another's, and not get caught up in absorbing all the messages thrown in their direction. Such is the advertising world: "I shop, therefore I am.". I am disgusted by this thought. Because society and culture tells you something is good and wholesome doesn't mean that it is. Shopping at high end clothing stores and surrounding myself in expensive possessions may distinguish me as a well-round person in the eyes of others, but it says nothing about who I am as a person.
The fact that messages may be manipulated and/or misconstrued is very dangerous and perhaps even very smart, however unethical it maybe, a good example being the marlboro man and big tobacco... The point being as the viewer not to take everything for granted, and as the creator of the message to to be appropriate and concise.
The reading does an excellent job of deconstructing all the possible barriers to accurate transmissions of messages. It gives us as designers sort of a checklist to judge our messaging by and avoiding pitfalls on our end of the transmission journey. As pointed out by the author, however, some of the fault may lay with the reader/end user whether it be not having enough information to decode the message, passage of time corrupting the message, or interception of a message that was unintended for that user. I also think the "trickery/loopholes" in semiotics provides opportunities to designers to craft their messages in very clever ways and take advantage of more sophisticated ways to communicate. For example, "who is sending this message?" could allow us to use voice messages from a different POV in say an ad campaign by sending relatable messages to the audience from a more respected or authoritative voice.
The author also addresses our perception of value and worth based on who is sending the message. It was interesting to point out how we may value art made by a person more than one by a chimp even though they are the exact same picture. This is important because it highlights and allows how our perceptions may influence a message despite how it is inherently crafted; placing the importance on exactly who has crafted the message.
What is the message really saying? Focuses on layered meanings of messages. In the example given by the author, " I shop therefor, I am" exemplifies how prior information of the end users is required to receive the complexity of the message, however, someone with no knowledge of the original phrase will still be in partial receipt of the message, though probably less rewarding. This points out the consideration needed of your intended audidence when using certain messages. Esoteric phrases and meanings can be lost on larger audiences, however, they can be used to target more smaller niche groups within a larger context as the complexity of the message can act as a coded message specifically for them.
The author also discusses the mediums in which messages were sent and how those mediums can influence transmission. I dont think the author does a particularly good job of using the Mona Lisa example to present the case for the mediums. The representational and mechanical mediums seemed to be left out of the discussion and the focus was clearly only on the presentational meaning, which imho is the most obvious and well known and easily read portion of the Mona Lisa and pretty easy to understand his point with the abstracted faces.
How we should communicate danger to future generations? This section makes a great case for the relevancy of messages based on time and how we deal with the idea that our messages are lost rapidly and there is no real way to ensure that a myth is spread so that future generations can continue to decode a message made prior to them.
This article seems to underplay motive as a factor in the communication model. In the context of demonstrating the mutable veracity of language, the author's motive is deception to provide evidence to an argument.
A more in depth examination of the project of warning future generations about nuclear contamination. I think its excellent that this article mentioned myth and lore as a coded message across generations. It's interesting that this was the most effective mode of communicating culturally produced values and skills over time- one would think that being so removed from its literal intention that this would produce more noise rather than resist it. An effective counterpoint to the permanence of oral tradition is the lingering affect of images from antiquity. Consider the apotropaic "guardian figures" such as the sphinx, gargoyles, and lions that adorn ancient architecture. Mesoamerican artisans didn't provide us with statements, but one can still discern the splendor of Teotihuacan and the paranormal menace of the Popul Vuh without them.
Post a Comment