IMD/IPD Design History Blog

The final countdown

2006-12-12T14:18:00.000Z

So it has come to the end of our CMT lectures for this semester. The question is what have I got out of them? At the beginning, I found it difficult to link the lectures to our six cities design project, as the topics seemed totally unrelated. However, I have now realised, although the topics may not directly link, there are underlying themes and principles that have helped in the project.

Looking back to the very first lectures, the idea that we are all networked together through media, both old and new was evident and helped in providing direction for “six cities”. This showed that messages could be conveyed easily and quickly to mass audiences. Learning more about digital culture aided in the understanding that it is important to involve users in design and that various cultures can expect different solutions, so that making sure you know what your target audience wants is very important for success. It was also clear that digital media is a great tool for gathering opinions and discussing issues, due to vast online communities such as discussion boards/forums, etc. Although we didn’t use these to the best advantage, our project benefited from gathering some research this way. This also posed the thoughts that technology was taking over our lives, which in a way, I strongly agree with, as did the others in my group. Everywhere you look, technology is apparent, and often make things very complex. Perhaps the most beneficial fact I gained from this was that simplicity in design is successful. It is apparent in a lot of design that technology is just incorporated for the sake of having it – we decided, why use modern technology when there is no need. This led to our simple, but effective design trail using physical, coloured dimples and design map to lead people around design features in Dundee. Virtual Reality also got me thinking along the same lines – this is leading to technology becoming too immersive. We are no longer appreciating the ‘real’ as much as we should. Technology in design should not be a feature in itself, but more as an aid to improve design.

I think some of the lectures subconsciously influenced me throughout the practical work. Although it didn’t seem evident at the time, looking at comics, cartoons and graphic novels got me thinking about how people perceive images, and how the overused expression “a picture is worth 1000 words” is even more appropriate in this case, as there is often a lot of meaning in such mediums.

The lectures benefited me greatly, causing me to think about things I would never have considered before, such as the subtle ‘manipulations’ in Disney, whether they are deliberate or not. From attending them, I believe I now look at everyday situations in a different and more critical way, and this has made me a better designer.

To everyone: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

The Final Stretch

2006-12-12T03:02:00.000Z

So what did all these CMT and DHTP lecturers connect with our project work in Design Studies. Well firstly there is the obvious connection between the Six Cities Design Festival and The Great Exhibition. By looking at similar festivals from the past we can gain an understanding of what a festival might achieve and what it’s goals could or should be. Although the two Festivals are very different in terms of exhibits and situation we can still learn a lot by looking at past events. This brings me onto my next point.

Most of the lectures showed that anything new is usually built up by looking at old inventions, old theories and knowledge that has been acquired by others. Nothing is ever entirely original it is usually built upon things we know and recognise mixed in with creative ideas. For example the invention of film was not quick. Many different techniques were tried before finding a method and a machine that worked and so it continued. Now inventors and researchers are thinking about ways to show television as holograms.

Other lectures that don’t seem necessarily to be related are related. The Lectures on Post Modern Perspectives, the Global Village and Digital Culture gave us an insight into how people think and work especially with technology that is useful when you are trying to get the general public to interact with design or see design in a different light.

Even the Lectures on comics, Disney and representations of Violence were useful as they showed how powerful images could be and how manipulative the right image can be on a person. Symbols can be a powerful, subconscious tool, which unconsciously passes across ideas and messages both unintended and intended. I think knowing the power of images and symbols is important as if you know about them and you use them right you might just get the message you want to get across, across.

Wow this has been some crazy marathon. It has been interesting, but I am partly glad it’s over like any marathon.

Media breeding Violence?

2006-12-12T02:14:00.000Z

I think saying that playing violent games or watching violence on TV causes violence in children is just using games and TV as an excuse rather than wondering why these children haven’t been taught that this kind of behaviour is acceptable in the real world. Thousands of children play games with violence in them yet most of them never turn out to be violent. I do think that we should be careful of what we let our children play though for example you wouldn’t let an eight year old play something more suitable for a teenager anymore than you would let an eight year old watch something suitable for an eighteen year old. But to say a video game “made you steal” or “made you hit people” is just ridiculous. You decide what you are going to do or not going to do not a video game. If children are taught right and wrong properly and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable there wouldn’t be so much violent behaviour. That’s my feeling anyway.

Violence in Media

2006-12-11T15:11:00.001Z

This got me thinking... originally I would have said that violence in video games and on television has no effect whatsoever upon violence in the real world. But recently, even before this lecture there has been evidence to prove otherwise. Can what we see on TV really affect our brain so that we want to kill? Can playing as a hitman or violent character in a game make you act this way in real life? I'm not too sure.

Recently on CSI Miami, there was an episode involving kids who were "recreating" a violent video game in reality. As it turned out, they were part of a group of people, influenced by the maker of the game to act it out in reality, just so that the sales would increase. Although this was a ficticious story, it is easy to see how it could happen, but I do beleive the mentality of people involved in violent acts has to be affected in some way. What was unusual though, and makes a positive argument, is that about a week after this episode was aired in Britain, an incident in England happened, based on the events. A teenager who had been watching the program, tried to reinact the violence by robbing a bank, shooting a number of innocents for no reason. This can therefore argue that both video games and TV can cause violence in reality.

Another example of violent films affecting people's actions was with the release of "A Clockwork Orange". This film saw an increase in gang attacks across Britain, similar to the ones potrayed in the movie, promptly leading to it being banned.

On the other hand, there are counter-arguments to these. Why has there been a decrease in violent youth attacks with an increase in violence in media. Censorship has laxed alot in recent years, with the intensity of violence in films and games becoming extreme and very realistic. But this does not seem to have had an effect on the community. Why would previously banned films be re-released and censorship laxed if it effected our minds so much as to become more violent people?

It is my belief that it takes a certain type of person to commit violent attacks, and those people may well be affected by media violence. But would these people not just be violent anyway? Is media really a trigger for their violence?

Maybe...maybe not

Final Blog

2006-12-11T15:11:00.000Z

I think all the lectures had different meanings and understandings, which could be taken away and thought about afterwards. However, I found the relation between a few of the lectures, to the Six Cities Design project we were working on at the time, was the fact that using design can change peoples moods and emotions either over a time-period of even instantly. The lectures on posters and war/revolution design brought up the question of whether propaganda is a vital tool for capturing the publics support and interest, my answer to this question is yes.

Of course, I think that without design propaganda would be nothing as layouts/text/images/meanings have all to be conveyed in such a small space (e.g. posters/leaflets). The fact that moods and emotions can be altered by the use of music/imagery or even a colour really astounds me. I know myself that my mood can change just by listening to different types of music. I feel that many people probably do this when outside/working/etc, and ignore things that their mood doesn't connect with. During war people wouldn't have been able to think of anything else and so took interest in the posters/banners/parades going on, also due to censorship blocking out anything else! I find this fact to be very interesting as it shows not only how moods can change and how propaganda can be used as the 'secret weapon', but also that human interaction with this form of design partly depends on how that human is feeling. That is my opinion however.

I felt as though this related to our project as we had to promote areas of Dundee design to people inside, and outwith, of the city. The different ideas that each groups came up with had to try and attract peoples interest, either being blatantly obvious as to what it was or being vague so to make people feel curious. One of our main aims was to change the view of Dundee from 'Scumdee' to a more popular/modern view, which meant we had to try and convert people's image of Dundee. This meant trying different approaches to transform people's moods – from ignoring design to being curious and actually wanting to know why it was there, etc.

This is the main link I took from the two seperate parts of the Design Studies course and it really had an impact on me when I was writing up my blog on the lecture of the Russian Revolution. As I had little knowledge of the actual propaganda used in the revolution and World War I (knowing more about the historical details) I found my eyes were opened and knew that similar tricks are still used today, and without propaganda it would be very hard to capture peoples interest and imagination. This was the tool we needed to be successful in our Dundee Design project and so we all adapted it to our own thoughts and causes.

DISNEY (Deconstructed)

2006-12-10T19:07:00.000Z

After attending this lecture, I found it hard to see the point trying to be conveyed. However, thinking back, it seems to have been focused on attacking the theories and ideas behind Disney's creations. For example, portraying that Beauty and The Beast was in fact a representation of domestic violence, and that it was conveying the message that people should accept this, and forgive, seemed a little far-fetched to me. Disney's main audience is in fact young children, so it is hard to beleive that children will be thinking about these facts while enjoying a movie. To be fair, a lot of fairy-tales do have morals behind them, however, having watched Disney Movie's as a child, I do not perceive any immoral messages, and do not accept domestic abuse as a result of watching Beauty and the Beast.

It was mentioned that culture was the biggest USA export, which I can agree upon, as we often base our knowledge of how people live their lives by what we see on television and in blockbusters. However, I beleieve that we aren't affected by Disney as much as we may think. Although there is often alot of meaning behind the stories, there are still unrealistic features, including the fact that they are animated. OK, so children do get attached to animated characters, I'll admit, but does this really affect their view on real life? In my opinion, I think even children are able to seperate between fiction and reality to some degree. And in Disney's defence, why would they purposely portray bad influences? Their sole purpose is to provide entertaining stories, which from experience, require conflict and resolution - which is shown in Disney films. And is this not a good thing to teach our children - how to resolve problems? I think so.

The First World War

2006-12-10T18:15:00.000Z

During this lecture we were told several times that one of the main points, to take from it, was that moods can be changed easily by the use of visuals/music/etc. This relates back to my blog about the Russian propaganda posters, as I explained that views/opinions could be altered so to gain support and to oppose enemies. This was also true, as during the lecture many World War posters were shown to us showing different countries portrayals of events/opinions. Looking mainly at the British; Russian and German posters, it was apparant that this form of propaganda took different shapes in each of the countries. From my opinion, I found the British posters to be dull, relying mainly on text and basically just giving orders; the Russian posters being dramatic/colourful and patriotic and the German posters showing off powerful figures to be almost religious (as well as being colourful). My favourite posters were the Russian posters (probably due to my knowledge of Russian history) and my least favourite were the British ones (as I disliked the way they are set out and instead of trying to be persuasive, they just blatantly say what is expected).

Propaganda is the art of persuasion - persuading others that your 'side of the story' is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge etc.

However, the British government discovered that Germany had a Propaganda Agency after the outbreak of WWI. David Lloyd George (Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time) was given the task of setting up a British War Propaganda Bureau, so to keep up with the other countries, and have the same abilities. The WPB invited twenty-five leading British authors to discuss ways of promoting Britain's best interests during the war. Famous authors such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling and H. G. Wells attended and agreed to keep it a secret. It was only until 1935 that the WPB became known to the general public. Books, pamphlets, photographs and war paintings were produced as propaganda, as well as films/music etc, so to gain support and keep Britain running smoothly during the times of war. One interesting point was that only specific photographers were allowed to take photo's of the Western Front, with anyone else being sent to the Firing Squad!! Many British artists had difficulty creating paintings/pictures of the War, as they were required to only involve dead Germans instead of any British soldiers and were asked to show the friendship between Britain and the U.S/etc. However, many artists refused to do this as they wanted to display the real effects of the war, such as resulting gas effects on soldiers/death/etc. Therefore, the public only saw posters/paintings showing British triumph as well as posters asking men to go to war/about food/coal rationing and others. Recruiting posters issued during the first two years of the First World War included Alfred Leete's famous design of Lord Kitchener, war savings, charities and the role of women.

Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently perverse level. Adolf Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda. Goebbels 2 main tasks were to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party and to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible. Obviously, this propaganda centered around putting down the Nazi's opponents (Britain/France/Russia/USA and of course, the Jews). The Nazis controlled film production, censorship, what books could be read, providing cheap radios at low prices so Hitler could be heard, as well as rallies/parades and posters.

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it." Goebbels

This quote from Goebbels clearly shows that the Nazi's found propaganda to be a vital part of completing their goals and becoming successful in their aims, as well as depicting the public as conforming to any set idea as long it is repeatedly displayed to them (i.e. as in the use of posters/etc). Propaganda for the masses had to be simple, and appeal to the emotions. To maintain its simplicity, it had to put over just a few main points, which then had to be repeated many times so to make the public aware of it, but unaware that they were reading the same things over and over. This was done by altering text and images to create a different look. For the Germans cartoons and images were vital to showing their like/dislike of something (such as showing Hitler providing grain to showing the Jews asking for money, one poster even showing that Germany had defeated Britain and the Bolsheviks were next in line!).

My last blog shows in detail my thoughts on the Russian posters used by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution, but this also applies for World War I. Posters showed their leaders and soldiers to be patriotic and strong (similar to those of the Germans but not as biased - having one man fighting off 2 men at once). The colours that were used were always bold and usually invloved the colour red, showing them as the Reds (Bolsheviks wanted communism). Therefore their posters were more dramatic and dark, to a certain extent, not giving away too much but still asking for support in a subtle way.

These three countries were the main basis of the lecture and we witnessed many images and posters that were used throughout the Great War, but other countries had their ownkinds of posters such as France. The French focused on trying to encourage enscription into the army while pleading the justice of the French cause. These posters seem to be printed mainly on brown paper which makes them quite bland, but the bright colours used to focus the eyes mainly on the images involved. However, there is quite a lot of text used on many of them which would put people off looking at them for long. American posters were on the same lines as the British (as in asking for help and support) but used happier images and showed characters helping others, keeping them more supportive and straying away from war images (focusing on the behind-the-scenes views - transport/communication/etc.). These posters are quite clever but still don't make me feel as though they would have had a big impact when compared to Russian and German posters.

Altogether, I enjoyed this lecture as instead fo being told lots of facts it was left to our own thoughts and opinions of the posters and analysing a few of them. This was helpful as I was still thinking about the Russian revolution posters and so gave me a deeper insight into what the posters meant and how they could be used to alter moods and emotions.

Disney - Sheesh it's Fiction

2006-12-10T02:29:00.000Z

First off I wasn’t feeling too bright when this lecture happened but I did read up on it later on and was surprised. I was surprised because it seemed to be taking a kids film far too seriously. In a way I can see where they have got their ideas from but Disney are the softest cartoons around and here are people saying something along the lines of they are teaching kids sexist ideas and racism. Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t Disney been making cartoons since the 1930’s, those children grew up with Disney and they all turned out ok. Yet now all of a sudden Disney is evil in disguise because all it’s heroines are pretty!?

Are you saying that all heroines should be ugly? How is showing beauty being sexist? A large amount of anime shows characters as being big doe eyed and beautiful are you going to now say that it is being sexist? To me sexism isn’t about showing too much beauty it’s about women being taken advantage of and only seen as objects. If you want to see true sexism read Chaucer The Merchants Tale where May is treated completely as an object and not as a person.

Then there is all this about Disney only portraying broken families or portraying all mother figures as being either evil or non-existent. In Lilo and Stitch, there wouldn’t be much of a story if the family wasn’t broken, would there? Lilo and her sister are trying to cope with losing their parents. Don’t you think this might be a relevant issue given that families become broken in real life? Children lose parents in accidents and become orphaned. Sometimes children need to be able to identify with fictional characters in order to cope with their own real life situations so why is it considered so bad that Disney portrays broken families. In the Lion King Cimba has to cope with the loss of his father. And yes the mother is missing in The Little Mermaid but in the original version the mother only appears there for one line, I hardly think it makes a difference to the storyline. And since we’re on this subject of broken families, In Shrek Princess Fiona was locked away in a tower by her parents, In About A Boy there is a little boy who only has his mum who suffers from depression. Broken families do not portray bad values towards children.

From what I remember of watching Disney films when I was young, it was all about trying to do the right thing and finding true love, which is what most of the fairy tales we’re told as young children are about and I’m very certain you wouldn’t feel happy about the original fairy tales being told.

On the other hand I will agree that I find the idea of Disneyland somewhat sickening, the films themselves are beautiful examples of animation but Disneyland I always viewed as a money making scheme which was somewhat sickeningly sweet and fluffy.

But apart from that the Disney films are stunning examples of some quite beautiful animations it is a work of fiction, children should not be viewed as stupid to see them as stupid would be a mistake they are quite aware that cartoons are not real.

Final Post

2006-12-10T00:47:00.000Z

to be honest, i didnt think that i would take anything from these lectures, i just saw them as time when i wouldnt be doing any work. it turned out that i really enjoyed them, they were quite an eye opener. i found subjects and topics that have sparked my interest that i didnt even really care about before (9/11, American Politics, Psycology). they made me think more about how we, as a race look at things, how we tare things apart, analyise them to death. sometimes you just have to take things as they are and then from there, you will find out "the point" in them. i'd like to think that im more of a "creative practicioner" now and more open to other peoples ideas and opinions.

the lectures were an escape from the heavy project work and the more we got into the project work, the more important the time that we had in the lectures became. it was time to think freely, time when you weren't restricted to just thinking about "we have only got 2 days to finish this project". i saw it as my most creative time, as i would get ideas from some of the topics that we would cover, so you could say that those lectures directly effected my thinking on the projects. now im not sure if this was the intended effect, but that the effect they had on me.

the blog was the part i found most liberating, as i could just type what i was thinking freely and not feel restrained by an essay brief. it was the only way i could really "get out" what i was thinking. all in all, i'd like to think it was a positive experience for me.

media and the global village

2006-12-09T23:41:00.000Z

media has the power to change and influence people in such a powerful way that it can shape countries and destroy them with a single quote, picture or video clip. the internet and TV has allowed this to become available to anybody with an internet connection or a television. so the power of communictaion with the world as a whole is no longer in the hands of a select few. now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? are those with access to an internet connection educated enough to make statements that may effect how a person thinks about things? are those with a video camera and able to upload those videos to the internet again, educated enough to post those videos?

take for example, 9/11, this is the most documented "terrorist" act ever. within seconds of the first plane hitting the first tower, the internet was crawling with video clips of this act of terrorism. not just videos, you had full TV crews at the scene within seconds, screening what is probably the worst thing that had happen to the world since America dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan (again, filmed). now, was the world ready for constant 24 hour footage of this event. were we as humans actually able to handle the constant streaming of this event, this event replayed over and over and over again in FULL COLOUR with STERO sound. did this constant footage and the views of the people who were speaking on that day effect how we reacted after 9/11? if we hadn't have seen what had happened in FULL COLOUR and with STERO sound, would we have been so outraged? if it was reported just in type, would it have had the same effect? id have to say no.

the internet and TV played an important part on that day. its showed us the true horror of a terrorist act, in FULL COLOUR...something that had been seen before, just not on this scale. it brought the world together in complete unison, joined in a simultanious wave of hatered of the "terrorists". also, they reported lots of untruths, but these wouldn't be known as false until later on, but these also contributed on that day to form opinions. in this age of instant TV, the supposed "facts" may not actaully be facts, but aslong as they will reinforce the idea that you a trying to push its ok to say, (purely made up name and purely hypothetical) "thats a fact...this is true...Dakr Hisballi was a terrorist on flight 93"....then turns out he was actually back home in Pakistan and nowhere near there...but because it was reported as a "fact" Dakr is extridited to the US to stand trial even though he would be dead ?!?!?

the internet has the power to become a seriously powerful connection and informational tool, but its has to be used responsibly. will this happen? only time will tell on that one im afraid, but i remain hopefull that it will.

Virtual Reality

2006-12-09T21:30:00.000Z

....now, as i write this i have just happened to have bought the Nintendo Wii, which i would reguard to be the singualr most revolutionary games console ever. also, i would argue that it falls into Virtual Reality, but more as an Augmentation to reality.

the Nintendo Wii is no ordinary console. well, it does look ordinary, quite understated actually. anyway, its the Wii Remote that interests me and this that i would argue is an Augmentation to reality. when you you a Wii controller to play Wii games, its not just your usual joypad-to-play-a-game nonsence, you actually PLAY THE GAME. take tennis as an example, you have to SWING the remote to hit the ball, just as you have to SWING the racket to hit the ball if you were playing real tennis. how you "hit" the ball effects how it reacts, you can put back/front spin on the ball, lob it, smash it....it is in essense VIRTUAL TENNIS, and its the remote that makes this possible. "The position and motion tracking of the Wii Remote allows the player to mimic actual game actions, such as swinging a sword or aiming a gun, instead of simply pushing buttons. An early marketing video showed actors miming actions such as fishing, cooking, drumming, conducting a string quartet, shooting a gun, sword fighting, and performing dental surgery"....

THIS IS VIRTUAL REALITY NOW !!!!

Violence in Media

2006-12-09T21:04:00.000Z

this is a topic that i have been at odds with for some time, and one that i have discussed over and over again with my friends. the idea that watching a violent act will make you more violent as a result. this is just something that i just cannot buy.

taken from personal experience, i have never thought about killing someone after playing a computer game such as Grand Theft Auto, or watching a film like The Punisher, it just doesnt have that effect on me. i just see these things as purely fictonal experiences, they have no effect on anybody, nobody is really going to die. if you kill someone in GTA, you dont actually kill anybody, you mearly sent a signal to the computer to tell that set of pixels on the screen that you shot not exist anymore. its a program. thats all.

now, if somebody plays GTA, then goes out and murders somebody...in my opinion, there must have been something wrong mentally with them in the first place. to actually be able to commit a murder, to take a human life without thinking about it, is something that a computer game just cannot train you to do. yes, it improves you hand eye co-ordination, but train you to kill. No.

the columbine massacre that happened in America was blamed on two things. Marilyn Manson and....would you believe it, computer games, Doom to be specific. the "Satanic Music" of Marilyn Manson and a computer game called Doom turned two American teenagers from normal teens, to murderers...sorry, just don't by it. hows about the fact that because of Americas retarded Guns Laws, they had easy access to Guns ??? bring it on yourself ?? i think so. how about social exclusion, bulling, depression, a feeling of helplessness...could this have caused a fundimental shift in thinking that would enable two teenage boys to murder 13 people...id guess so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Disney

2006-12-09T20:35:00.000Z

when i came out of this lecture i felt exceptionally irratated by it and as i sit typing this out im still quite annoyed by it, as it was very one sided. all that i took from this lecture was quite simply "DISNEY IS EVIL...WE MUST STOP THEM NO MATTER WHAT". hmm...now, this is a company who produced, or has produced (and still does, but using PIXAR under the DISNEY name) some of the most beautiful animated films ever, so why are they so hated, what makes them any different than any other multinational company...nothing, thats what. they go about their business just the same as any other multinational company does, looking to make the biggest profit at the lowest cost and we are supposed to HATE them for it. hmm...that seems a bit off, one rule for them, and one rule for the others.

secondly, when the lecture turned to the analisis of Beauty and the Beast, i found it horrendus. why do we as humans take so much pleasure from compleatly disecting and destroying something, which in my opinion is one of the greatest (old school) animated movies ever, and turn it into "Beast: The Wife Beater". now, this is a film about a man who is cursed and turned into a BEAST...no longer human, he is clearly a BEAST..a monster you could say. how they can take something as innocent as this and turn it into what they want is just unbelieveable...how about we just take these wonderful animated films and treat them how they are supposed to be treated, as animated cartoons, works of fiction. lets stop looking at things with such a critical eye, sometimes its nice to just watch a movie and just do simply that,watch the movie.

now, im not saying that what they found in the movie is wrong, i mean, you can see where they are coming from, but you can do that with anything if you have the determination and drive to do so.

in my eyes, i just see Disney as an easy target for people who are unhappy with their lives...a big multinational company, lots of money and a responcibility to produce films that fit the so called "Disney ideal" that they have supposedly drilled into the masses for over 50 Years. if they are so bad, you dont have to buy their goods or watch their films, there are lots of other animation studios works you can watch. its just because its Disney, and that just doesnt seem right.

Futurism V 'De Stijl' (The Style)

2006-12-04T20:08:00.000Z

Futurism Movement

The movement, known as Futurism, ranged from 1909 (being firstly brought to the world by Marinetti's publication in the Figaro magazine) to 1944. Originating in Italy, as an avant-garde movement, it took technology, speed and modernity as its inspiration. Futurism showed the technological dynamics of twentieth century life. The futurist style hailed the machine age and war, and favoured the rise of Fascism. It reached its peak in 1909, when Filippo Marinetti made his first manifesto of the art style. Marinetti expressed violent views about art and literature, and it seemed that his comments were mainly focused about shocking the public. I find it very interesting that futurism was the first art movement to be self invented, therefore inspiring many people around the world to follow suit and create their own styles of art/design. Famous futurist artists included Filippo Marinetti, Giacomo Balla, Umberto Boccioni, Carlo Carra, and Gino Severini (all portraying their own views of sight - display of movement in contained painting, sound - creating abstract pictures of environments/public places which were busy/etc, and also states of mind). Being influenced by electrical equipment (such as streetlights), Cuban art and photographs/time-lapses some drawings/paintings produced showed the movements of playing a violin or even cartoon-like images.

One quote that I found quite interesting during the lecture was:

"You never step into the same river twice, for fresh waters

are always flowing in upon you"

This quote, by Heraclitus, was quite a good point in the lecture (although it was read wrong, as it had been changed) as it made me think that artists/designers should always try new techniques and take different approaches everytime, instead of modifying or copying existing styles. This relates deeply to the Futurist view of art/design as they wanted to create new styles, as Italy was being 'plundered' of its fmou artwork. Basically, the Futurist movement aimed to start over again and create a new kind of art (focusing on speed as a main influence, eventually leading to the introduction of cars/planes/etc).

The example shown is of a dog on a leash. The painting obviously shows the movement of the dog, the leash and the owners feet. When viewing this I instantly think of cartoons such as 'Scooby Doo' as it looks comical and fast-moving. I do like these styles of paintings, but others showing sound and mind-states are harder to understand as they can be very absract and you may not notice a certain part, whereas someone else might! I feel as though this painting works well as even the background fits in, with the lines shooting off as if to show the speed of the dog and owner walking.

The simple use of colour makes it very effective, in my view, and if other colours had been applied, I don't think it would have had the same effect.

Moving into the First World War, many Futurist artists joined the army and actually did paintings/drawings when at the front-line/etc. Some of these works are viewed as the best Futurist productions by critics while others don't. However, it has to be said that the pieces created clearly depict the tradegies/victories of war and the people involved in it. Some artists actually died during the war, such as Severini and Boccioni. The influence of machinery/etc being introduced meant the Futurists started creating new pieces such as those representing car movements/dynamisms. Also, futuristic buildings were drawn and depicted, however none were made but have relevent styles relating to today's architecture - showing that they possibly had an impact on the future of architecture, or that they were good guessers!

De Stijl Movement

The De Stijl movement (translated as 'The Style') was founded by Theo Vandenberg's publication in 1917. This movement was created by the Dutch and consisted of abstract paintings/patterns that used simple solid colouring; thick lines and the use of square blocks. The artists/designers in this period viewed paintings as outdated and so wanted to create a more modern representation of art. Many of these pieces are very abstract showing a tree as only a few brown squares, not even shaped like a tree! One reference that people may be more familiar with, in the modern day, of De Stijl is the White Stripes album 'De Stijl' which involves bold black lines and red/white solid squares.

The simplicity that characterises De Stijl thinking suggests that it is a model for organising space and achieving visually engaging and functionally successful solutions. This has been adapted in recent times as more bars/clubs and even flats are adopting a simple look, using up to 3 colours while keeping it looking smart and organised. Some of these buildings/spaces I actually like but I feel as though some are taken a bit too far, influencing highly from the De Stijl style. A great example of this is the Schröder House. Being built in 1924, by Dutch architect Gerrit Rietveld, for Mrs. Schröder and her children, she wanted the house to be designed preferably without walls. The house is one of the best known examples of De Stijl-architecture and arguably the only true De Stijl building. Now, as it has been furnished with only De Stijl styl furniture/etc, it is truly De Stijl but I don't like it mainly due to the fact that most parts aren't very practical. However, that is only my opinion and I know that many people would like this style viewing it just as a form of art/architecture or actually liking it due to their tastes/preferences - I am not one of these people. I do however respect the whole De Stijl movement, as it modernised the way art/design can look and strayed away from the traditional detail that was fashionable and converted it to a simple look. I feel as though it plays a large part in the modern-day construction of stylish bars/flats and many influences can still be seen nearly everywhere you look (in my view even the IPod contains some reference to De Stijl style).

Russian Propaganda Posters

2006-11-28T19:20:00.000Z

Having studied Russian history in great detail at High School I aready knew about a lot of the movements/wars/etc that went on. However, I realised that although I had looked into Russian propaganda I had never really focused on how they actually used it. Therefore, posters and publications interested me as it meant not only was I adding to my knowledge of Russian history, but I was looking at how they used art and design to portray their propagandic views. Although there were existing posters used in Russia, before the Russian Revolution, these were over-shadowed due the colourful and dramatic propaganda posters produced by the Soviets. The Soviets, being powerful and determined, knew exactly what they wanted and therefore got the help of talented artists/designers to create the dramatic looking posters.

Through the posters the greatest artists of the time proclaimed government policies, asked for support, and demanded greater efforts, all with the goal of building Soviet power. The Russian civilians would view these everyday, as more and more would be produced and replaced, and slowly be forced to support the Soviet views. Of course, many people would go along with what was being said at the time and these posters re-inforced this. Although other measures were taken to gain support such as the Cheka (secret police who could arrest any suspects, even kill them if needed - mainly the enemies of the Soviets or other political groups) and the use of FEAR, which was a vital factor of the Russian Revolution.

However, Lenin has to take the credit for creating the very first modern propaganda scheme. Stamps/parades/sculptures/publications/banners and most importantly posters helped him to gain allies and support. The Soviets used art as a special propaganda weapon and helped them from 1917 - 1984. Such propaganda techniques were especially important during the first years of the revolution, when the authorities were appealing to the whole nation. Propagandists had to transform the mentality of the people and make them accept new political ideas and a new lifestyle. In that respect, this mentality relates them with authors of modern advertising campaigns, who attempt to change people's habits and encourage them to try new products. Although most Soviet posters were issued in editions of 5,000 to 50,000, they are extremely rare today. This is because most posters were placed, and survived only weeks or months. The remainder were not recognised as valuable historical documents or collectibles at the time they were printed and were recycled or lost due to the ravages of war. Others were destroyed for political reasons (it was dangerous to keep images of Trotsky after 1928, for example).

Soviet political posters were usually accompanied by a slogan or even a whole verse. "Ah, my heart is burning, brighter than fire. Why, my darling are you rejecting me?" complains a young man from a poster. The poor man doesn't want to go to war, and here his beloved's reason. "Years don't go back, the river doesn't flow backwards. The Cheka will keep you warm," she threatens. These types of posters basically forced men to join the army, making them embarrassed and guilty if they hadn't already. This influenced the public to adopt this view, almost resenting those that didn't go to war.

As America alone produced about 2,500 poster designs and approximately 20 million posters – nearly 1 for every 4 citizens – in little more than 2 years, these lessons of American advertising in WWI were not lost on the Bolsheviks. Turning to poster art, to help win their civil war against the Whites, Lenin and his followers used this modern propaganda and made it a weapon - which would be used throughout the century in both hot and cold wars everywhere. Basically, the Bolsheviks used the posters (plus other methods) to put down their enemies while gaining support. Without this use of propaganda, many historians argue that they would never have been so successful while others see it from a different perspective. I think that propaganda is a great way of getting peoples attention and using it to basically 'brainwash' people into a different way of thinking. I do think it was vital for the Russians to use this technique, especially the dramatic posters, and it proved to be a major factor in achieving their goals to a certain extent.

Even today many people collect Russian posters as a form of art, as well as British/American/etc, and a way of keeping a record of historical events. Today russian artists still make their own interpretations of goings on, such as movie posters of 'The Matrix' and other examples, and can show different moods and feelings through these. Collectors will pay hundreds of pounds to buy them. However, it is viewed as a dying art as it can make cinemas look cheap, and even films! It is also seen by many as not a form of art and is even detested by many critics. This shows however that Russian art still exists and can change peoples views on people/places and events.

I find Russian propaganda posters to be very interesting, and when conjoined with the other design happenings in Russia at the time of the Revolutions, I can safely say that this form of art/design is one of the most important ways of changing public views secretly. Compared to German/American and British I feel as though they are more truthful and patriotic (to a certain extent!) and it was a very smart move to adopt the technique of using visual propaganda.

The Viennese Secession

2006-11-27T13:52:00.001Z

The Viennese Secession, part of the highly varied Secessionism movement that is now covered by the general term Art Nouveau, was formed in 1897 by a group of 19 Vienna artists who had resigned from the Association. The first President of the Secession was Gustav Klimt. Unlike other movements, there were no similarities in the artists work - but fell between the decorative qualities of Art Nouveau and the more agitated style of later expressionistic movements. The building itself is considered an icon of the movement, partly due to its entrance, displaying the phrase "to every age its art and to art its freedom", which had been carved into the material. Secession artists main concerns were exploring the possibilities of art academic tradition, hoping to create a new style that had no reference or relation to historical influence. The style was exhibited in a magazine that the group produced, called "Ver Sacrum" lasting from 1898 t0 1903, featured highly decorative works relating to the Art Deco period. Linear ornamentation, in whiplash/eel styles, decorated the buildings designed by Secessionist architects.

Gustav Klimt (painter), one of the founders of the the Secession, strayed away from academic art and based his work on styles similar to Art Nouveau. Influencing others, such as Oskar Kokoschka, due to his focus on the female body (emphasising the skin by placing flat areas of ornamental colours around it). The other founders of the Secession were Josef Hoffmann (architect) and Alfred Roller (stage designer). The actual building was designed by Joseph Maria Olbrich. Other well-known Secessionist artists, that produced new unique styles of art, are Egon Schiele; Koloman Moser; Oskar Kokoschka; Carl Moll; Marx Kurzweil and Rudolph Bacher. All of the artists participating in the group exhibition, in the Vienna Secession, are distinguished by their very personal and direct way of reacting to the political and economic situation - often by introducing seemingly absurd, sometimes self-destructive elements into their work that are full of humour, yet have no claim to universality.

Sharing notions, with Arts and Crafts, that the notion of great art versus minor art needs to be abolished. They designed and erected the geometric building for permanent exhibition space.They supported Art Nouveau, and Klimt especially was the most determined to create new styles and art, away from the stranglehold on exhibitions and policies. In 1905 came a further split within the movement split between the fine arts people and the applied arts people associated. The latter, including Klimt, associated art with industry and were dismayed by the increasingly strong trend towards naturalism. Geometrics, functionalism, and a two-dimensional quality were features instead here. In 1939 growing Nazism contributed to the dissolution of the movement. However, the Secession was seen as a big success by many. Hermann Bahr (critic) commented on the first exhibition saying:

''Such an exhibition we have never seen in Vienna! An exhibition without a single bad painting in it!''

Artists from all over Europe were made welcome, and when the Scottish architect and designer Charles Rennie Mackintosh and his wife, the designer Margaret Macdonald, were the sensation of the Secession exhibition in 1900 there was a move to make them stay on forever. I feel as though this new movement towards art and design was a well-taken step forward, as new styles and techniques were accepted readily instead of being constrained to following certain rules and guides. History itself basically helped the movement survive, as shown by Naturalism being pushed aside by the Nazi's so getting rid of competition that Secessionists disliked, and its remaining pieces today are fought over by avid collectors - paying huge amounts to get paintings/drawings/stamps or even wooden toy figures.

The group split in 1910 and the Neue Sezession was formed. Members of the Neue Sezession included Nolde, Pechstein, and other artists who would form Die Brücke, as well as Kandinsky and Jawlensky.

I find the Viennese Secession to be enlightening as young bold artists/designers used their own initiative to rebel against academic art, looking to experiment with new styles and techniques for not only their own pleasure but also to shown a different way of using subject matter/art. Although this was a brave movement, even constructing a building to hold exhibitions of new pieces, it was successful and showed the world (not only Germany and Austria) that there was other ways to use form/etc to create art and to go ahead with what they wanted.

Blog done, bye.

Virual Reality...

2006-11-26T20:10:00.000Z

I found this lecture didn't really provide any new insights or information on virtual reality than most people today already know, especialy with the video shown being over 10 years out of date. It did however, get me thinking on how advanced virtual reality is today.

One point that did stand out to me however, was that Virtual Reality's main purpose was to provide a safer world to escape from reality. Perhaps the most famous film to show this, is the Matrix. Here, machines control the "real" world, using humans to provide power. Therefore, they created a type of virtual reality, to immerse humans in a more pleasant, comfortable world to avoid suspicion.

However, I beleive that this is not the way Virtual Reality is heading. Is it not that people want to be able to do things they cannot in the "real" world? Will Virtual Reality not just provide a means to allow people to do this, live out their fantasies and desires, perhaps that could be dangerous, immoral or illegal in real life?

Ordinary games are already providing this, mainly through role-playing where a person can be any character they wish. With a range of input devices, such as the data-glove these are becoming more "real" to people as they can interact in a more 'human' way.

Although not quite virtual reality, I believe that CG-creation techniques is closely related. The way that the character Gollum was created in Lord of the Rings, is an effective way of immersing a user in an environment. Attaching hundreds of sensors to the human body, then linking these to an animated character, a variety of realistic motions and interactions are acheivable that cannot be created through programming and conventional methods. The drawback of this is there is no feedback to the user.

However, I have heard of research at a University that I have forgotten the name of, that a virtual reality system has been created that enables a user to interact with a car, and actualy 'feel' their actions, such as the handle of the car door in their hand when they grab it. If I remember correctly, this was achieved by sending pulses back to the user through equipment they wear.

It does make me wonder though, will Virtual Reality become too immersive? So much so that people will prefer it to the real world and become recluse? It can already be seen with modern gaming, with people becoming so addicted that they will play solidly for days, even resulting in a death about a year ago, when one gamer died of exhaustion from excessive gaming.

Moving Image........Computer Games History.....

2006-11-23T01:08:00.000Z

this lecture was on that i had singled out as being on that i thought, "yeah, thats going to be a really good lecture. get a good incite in to cinema, the history of TV and possibly even computer games....this is could be a gem." didnt turn out that way...and man i was dissapointed.

the best thing about this lecture was the small part on computer games...and thats something i'd like to think i know something about.

now....lets go over the main players in the computer games industry....old and new.

Atari

During the 70's and up to the mid 80's, Atari was the recognized leader in all area's of videogames. Starting out and establishing the Video Arcade industry, Atari set the stage for the 10 billion dollar industry with the release of PONG.

In later years Atari would enter the home with Home Pong and would ignite a fever never before seen with the release of its VCS (Video Computer System) and the release of a home version of Space Invaders for the VCS.

Atari reached their peak in the early 80’s with the introduction of Space Invaders, giving the company pre-tax profits of almost 200 million dollars.

Nintendo

The Nintendo Entertainment System was released in America and Europe in 1985, after some limited success in Japan as the Famicom. Over the next few years, its user base would grow exponentially until the NES surpassed the Atari VCS/2600 peak set in 1982. As of 1990, there were over 19 million NES systems in the United States alone.

In addition to the tremendous success of the system, its games had a great deal prosperity. For example, Super Mario Bros. 3 released in 1989 grossed over $500 million just in America. In the field of entertainment, only the movie E.T. has made more revenue. Super Mario Bros. 3 would sell more than 7 million copies in America and 4 million in Japan, which is more copies than any other game in history. Sheff wrote, "By record-industry standards, 'SMB3' went platinum eleven times. Michael Jackson is one of the few artists to have accomplished this feat."

1990, the money earned from Nintendo's NES and its games allowed Nintendo to usurp Toyota as Japan's most successful company. In the entertainment business, Nintendo netted as much as all of the American movie studios combined, and more than the three television networks had in the previous two years. In the five short years since the system was released, the NES could be found in more than a third of the household in America and Japan.

This monopoly gave Nintendo significant control over the market during the early days of console gaming, which they utilized in many malicious schemes. Despite all of this, they are still one of the most popular and well-known companies in the world.

Sega

Founded in 1951 by American David Rosen, who moved permanently to Japan after WWII, Sega (originally dubbed Rosen Enterprises) started out as an art export company. By the late 1950's Rosen had moved on to importing instant photo booths and coin-op games from the United States.

Rosen Enterprises continued to expand. In 1965 the company purchased a jukebox manufacturing company, which was then merged into Rosen Enterprises. Upon completion of the merger, the company was renamed to Sega, which was a contraction of "Service Games." Sega soon began producing their own coin-op games and competed directly against American imports. In 1970, Sega was bought by Gulf & Western.

Throughout the late 70's and early 80's, Sega produced arcade games and software for early home videogame consoles. Sega wasn't exactly an industry powerhouse yet,, but they had scored a few hits with games like Turbo (which was packaged with the ColecoVision's driving controller), Frogger, and Zaxxon.

Sega released a string of arcade hits in the mid-80's, strengthening its position in the U.S. market especially. Games like Out Run (1986), After Burner (1987), and Shinobi (1987) not only raked in cash for future arcade development, but also gave Sega a recognized stable of successful games that could be ported to Sega produced home consoles e.g. Dreamcast, Mega Drive and the Master System.

Sony

fter the release of the SNES in 1991, Nintendo started thinking of developing a CD-ROM version of their console because of the medium's advantages and in order to compete with rivals (Sega and NEC) who were all heading down this path. They got together with Sony, which eventually came up with the Playstation: A CD-ROM extension that sat beneath the SNES console and allowed 680MB CD games to be played. After Nintendo realized that Sony had a cleverly-worded agreement that allowed them to license all SNES CD-based games, the two companies abandoned the deal.

Not wanting to trash all their hard work on the Playstation, Sony continued developing it on their own. The new 32-bit standalone Playstation was built from the ground up and was not an extension of the one developed for Nintendo's SNES. In fact, so much work had been put into it that the end result in 1994 was completely different than the initial concept drawn up in 1991. The PS had the advantage (over the Saturn) of an extremely easy development environment, which attracted many third-party games developers. It also sold for £100 cheaper than the Saturn in the UK, which attracted consumers.

The Playstation was released in 1994 and enjoyed great success, mainly because of the company's strong financial back enabling it to market the PS widely and its ability to get hundreds of developers to license games for the console. Playstation sales figures were concrete proof that Sega and Nintendo had to be on their guards and start worrying about their latest and most dangerous competitor.
The Playstation retailed for £299 and has sold over 50 million units worldwide. Its library contains almost 1000 games! In 1999, Sony released an updated version of the PS dubbed the PSOne that was both cheaper and smaller. PS2 was on the horizon at this point, spelling the end for the PSOne.

...think thats enough for this blog...

.....comics....for kids....have you read Sin City ?

2006-11-21T18:54:00.000Z

comics, cartoons and graphic novels. this was the only lecture from the list that we had that i thought that i would enjoy...and so far that has been the case. maybe this is because i have an interest in comics, cartoons and graphic novels, i dont know, but this was by far the best lecture we have had.

anyhoo....comics....i know...for kids right....WRONG!!! have you read Sin City, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Hellboy....these...yeah, kids can read them, but they arnt the Beano. they cover such dark and relevent topical subject matters.....V for Vendetta - opressive government, no cival liberties and freedom fighters (terrorist to some)....this reminds me of someplace....oh yeah...NOW. v for vendetta is such an important graphic novel (and film....sweet) that it should be taught to kids at school. infact, comics and graphic novels in general should be taught in the curriculum. they are just as important as a learning tool as any of the other media forms, be it books or visual communication (DVD, TV).......sorry.....rant over.

....now....yeh...comics. comics, as we were told in the lecture, are reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the way that they communicate a story through the means of an image...and these has lasted for thousands of years...if it was good enough for the egyptians, surely this method of communication is good enough for us.

the thing that interests me most about comics is the 'superheros'. as were told in the lecture, the superhero genre of comics has been around for thousands of years e.g. the stories of the greek gods etc, and the 'superhero genre' is just a modern re-working of those classic stories, stories of amazing people doing extraordinary things. is this what atttacts people to read them, the fact that they will never be able to fly like superman, swing through a city like spiderman or i guess destroy a city like the hulk. as humans, we know that we have our limitations, that we will never be able to replicate any of the things that superheros can do, so instead of trying to fly like superman (which would be foolish) we read about them in comics.

on the otherhand, maybe we just want to be heros, and nothing less. we just want to be able to say "im a good person because i saved you from a burning building". could it be that comics as such arnt just taken from greek mythology, but are exaggerations of actual people, of real people who did heroic things in their lives. this idea of superheros is suggested in the M.Night.Shyamalan film "unbreakable", which i think is the best portrayal of a superhero so far that has been made in to a film form.

now, you may all say "hes not a superhero", i can see where you are coming from, it not your typical superhero form. hes portrayed as a normal person, like you and me, he constantly plays down his "superhero" abilities as just insticts, luck or pure chance. as the film progresses he come to terms with the fact that he should be helping people, using his abilites to the full and he feels better for doing that. now, that could be seen as a reflection upon us a a society, aswell as a twist to the genre, that if we helped each other out more othen we'd believe in ourselves more and we would get a sense of satisfaction from it......in doing this we would become better people....heros.

now thats not a bad idea is it......

Digital Culture...Digital Slaves more like.....

2006-11-21T17:15:00.000Z

for me, this lecture was an odd one, i mean, how can you define as a whole what is meant by the term "digital culture". the term is so vast and covers so much that for it to even have a dictorary definition would be amazing (im not going to put this in as it would take up to much room on the blog...but..if you're interested...http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digital).

digital cutlure for me isnt about defining what it is, as with the constant changing of technology, this will change almost on a daily basis. as the lecture was trying to show us, its about how digital culture as a whole has generated many sub-cultures (Techno-Social, Cyber Culture) and how these constantly evolve into newer, more complicated sub-cultures, due to the advancement of technolgy, of which without there would be no digital culture. complicated, but at the same time quite simple to understand. however...digital culture is not without its drawbacks.

its almost symbotic, our relation with technology, i mean, how often do you see a person without a mobile phone, MP3 player...hardly ever. now is this through nessesity or, is it because we have be told, conditioned "we need this" "we need that". i can remember a time without mobile phones...and to be fair, it was amazing. i find it a liberating experience when i forget my mobile phone, it feels like im free. you can go anywhere without the fear of peoples need for constant communication with you. people need to be alone, they need to be able to shut off and not have human contact for a while, be it physical or verbal contact. the mobile phone ruined this and we are now trapped in this "information age".

now, time for a case study on digital culture, well not so much a case study, just how ive observed my younger friends communicate wholy through technology.

as is now the norm, we all communicate using a phone, email, MSN messenger....some kind of technology. now, has this damaged our social skills, person to person....face to face....i'd say yes. my younger friends prefer, no choose to communicate using MSN and text, as this is how they have been brought up. they lack the social skills that i have when actually talking to a person face to face and actually feel uncomfortable when they have to. they'd much rather stay in their room playing Warcraft (a multiplayer online role-playing game...another digital sub-culture) than go out, say, to play pool or go to the cinema. they have relationships that only exsist in the digital world, through texting, Warcraft and MSN mostly. they dont like, hate even, the physical act of communication with other people. i find this quite ironic. the technology that is supposed to make us better at communicating has turned a generation into bedroom hermits.

have we come full circle....are we back in our stone-age caves (bedrooms), but this time around we are armed with the internet and mobile communication devices. we dont have to leave our houses to do anything. you can shop online, you can work online.....everything (i think) that you could possibly need you can get online. digital culture at its finest ?

to bring this to a conclusion, i think that digital culture will never really have a proper definition, its just too vast. also i feel, from what ive seen in relation to my younger friends, digital culture is too important a factor in the lives of people nowadays. they have let digtal culture consume them, like a junkie to hard drugs, they cant live without some form of the new digitized world we have created e.g. MSN, mobile phone, e-mail.

time to take a step back and slow down, for the sake of humanity.

A little bit of comics cartoons and graphic novels

2006-11-20T21:39:00.000Z

Comics, cartoons and graphic novels sounded like a really enjoyable and interesting lecture to me and, as it turned out, it was. I had never thought or questioned the origin of this style of entertainment/communication - it hadn't even crossed my mind. I suppose I just took it for granted. But this lecture explained the process and steps in the development of these three areas, naming some people I had never heard of before, who would be interesting to find more of their work, such as Jack Kurby and Robert Crumb.

I have often found it strange why comics and cartoons were often considered "kids stuff", especially when there is usually alot of meaning in them. In fact, I think nowadays, people realise how most are in fact aimed at and for adults. For example, Family Guy - this is obviously not meant for children at all, with adult humour and the like. Even The Simpsons, which I used to watch when I was very young, and many children do, has adult humour and complex ideas.

Most recently, I have noticed that the previously quite small comic and graphic novel market had been opened up, with many large budget films based on these, and a diminish in novel-based films. "V for Vendetta" and "Sin City" - both based on popular graphic novels with "Spiderman", "Superman" and "X-men" based on comics. So are graphic novels/comics becoming more popular, or are filmmakers just trying to bring exciting and gripping stories to a wider audience?

To me, the future of graphic novels seems good. I believe that with the recent uptake in films based upon them, and the different reaction within society, their popularity will grow. However, will film take over? There is the possibility that the original medium will die out, as we evolve in the digital age, so that graphic films will be more common. A film which I have not yet seen "A Scanner, Darkly" seems to be taking on this sort of approach, although as far as I know is not based on a graphic novel (I may be wrong). It uses animation overlayed upon film to create a comic-like style.

Thinking back to the lecture, it seems to me that Underground comix might be linked to society's views today, and the greater acceptance, especially with the diminish in censorship, allowing us to see alot more violence and sex on screen.

Playing Virtual God

2006-11-20T01:21:00.000Z

The Matrix a fictional film about the entire human race being deluded by machines into a believable virtual reality. The Lecture we had about Virtual Reality set me off thinking as the video we watched during the lecture was around ten years out of date I wondered just how far have we come to making the Matrix style virtual reality a reality. How close are we to being able to immerse ourselves so completely into a virtual world that we can’t tell the difference between the virtual reality and reality itself. Well having read around a bit we’re really not that close. We’ve written about it happening in books like Simulacron-3 and even dramatised it in TV series, such as the holodeck in Star Trek which acts as an escape from the ship by putting the characters into a virtual world which is very like the world they’ve left behind and call home. But as for coming close to creating a believable virtual world we’re miles off.

The most advancement, which has been with the idea of Virtual Reality, has unsurprisingly been in the gaming world. The Gaming Industry has been improving 3D graphics more and more through the past few years and even created game consoles to provide a more realistic interaction with the games. For example the new Wii console which allows people to use natural movements to play a game, for example using the Wii console as a tennis racket or a golf club.

But why do we find the idea so appealing? I suppose really we’re obsessed with the idea of being able to create our own world or playing god so to speak. It can act as an escape or it could act as a way to distract us from realities. Do we like the power of being able to create our own little world is that why the Sims game was so obsessive and why we sat there watching fictional 3D images live out virtual lives on a computer screen?

But on the other hand Virtual Reality isn’t all about fantasy. It can be used as a training simulator to teach people about how to react in potential dangerous situations that would be far too dangerous to simulate in real life. There was also a case of Virtual Reality being used in a study to help amputees who suffered from PLP (Phantom Limb Pain) by stimulating nerve receptors on the remaining limb and allowing the patient to see a 3D model of a limb and be able to move it around in a virtual world.

A Trip in Motion...

2006-11-19T01:40:00.000Z

There is no doubt that the invention of the “Moving Picture” (Kinetoscope) by Thomas Edison in the nineteenth century had a huge impact on the world. But even before that the idea of motion in art and pictures had intrigued Artists and Inventors alike. Comics for instance played with the idea using the audience’s imagination to fill in the motion that occurred within the gutters and later The Futurists in Italy and also Marcel Duchamp in France began to play with the idea of showing movement in a single image. They achieved this by showing every move within one image all on top of one another. Comics and Graphic Novels also played with the idea of showing motion within static images, either by using the idea of stylised lines following the object’s path or by overlaying multiple images or creating streaking effects.

But with the introduction of film it created whole new genres to explore and grow from films, to animation to documentary films. It created a new form of communication that was the original idea behind it but not in the way people originally thought it would be used.

-----------------------------

Sometimes I wonder do artists, film makers and writers think of fantastical things and create their work and then in turn inspire scientists and inventors to make these ideas a reality or are the artists, film-makers and writers merely expressing a wish or a dream which is already there? I wonder this because looking at an early film “A Trip to the Moon” and I wondered as it was made before Man landed on the moon and was the first film to portray space travel.

Arts and Craft Movement

2006-11-15T18:09:00.000Z

The Arts and Crafts movement was initially developed in England during the 19th century, and was adopted by the Americans; known also as the Mission style. This movement, which challenged the tastes of the Victorian era, was inspired by the social reform concerns of thinkers such as Walter Crane and John Ruskin, together with the ideas of designer William Morris.

The vision of a society in which workers were not brutalized by the working conditions (such as those found in factories) but rather could take pride in their craftsmanship and skill, so therefore focusing on a good society from good design. I think this is a very important factor of the Arts and Craft Movement, in the workers not only focusing on just the design but actually enjoying making the actual products. The rise of a consumer class coincided with the rise of manufactured consumer goods. In this period, manufactured goods were often poor in design and quality. Due to this poor quality Ruskin, Morris, and others proposed that it would be better for all if individual craftsmanship could be revived. Therefore the workers could then produce beautiful objects that displayed fine craftsmanship. Due to this, consumer class could be equalled as good quality products that would ultimately enhance the lives of average people (e.g. working and middle class). Of course, this meant that the workers also profited as they had decent employment and would be well paid for producing their beautiful products.

The Arts and Crafts Movement was highly influenced by Medieval European and Islamic aesthetics, as well as early concepts being influenced by Japanese styles. The forms that they took were angular and also rectilinear. However, eventually this style became known as the the 'Aesthetic Style' as mass-market pricing rose dramatically and so many craftsmen went out of business, only a few exisiting to make these unique and fine exhibits. This resulted in the art for the people being lost and so only wealthy individuals could afford to pay for these pricy pieces.

I think that the fact social concerns for changing the way of design is really strange, as instead of focusing on producing products to sell to a whole range of people (mass-marketing) as it is today, pieces were specifically made to consumer wants and needs, so took more time and effort to actually produce. I think it was very obvious that this wouldn't last though, as value of money is always changing (take inflation during the war as an example). The introduction of machines and assembly lines would have also led to an inevitable end of specially made items being made so widely, and today they do cost a lot to produce. However, more and more people are happy with mass-marketed consumer products as there are a large number of styles available and you just have to search for something you like. Ikea is a prime example, unique styles for cheap prices. When compared to expensive unique products I know which I'd prefer. Yes there is the question of the materials used, how they are made and the quality of them but in modern life new standards have been set and from what I can see - standards have lowered as more products aren't treasured as much and can be thrown out without thought. Whereas expensive products will be kept and treasured, almost as antiques.

Basically the Industrial Revolution separated the workers from their own creativity and individualism; making them a cog in the wheel of progress, living in an environment of shoddy machine-made goods. Therefore this movement relied on the talent and creativity of the individual craftsman and attempted to create a total environment, instead of just the products themselves.

The Arts and Crafts Movement was focused on mainly by Britain and America. The British movement focused on the richly detailed gothic style (white-washed/wallpapered interior walls, intricate/colorful/realistic pottery and textiles. While the original intent was to provide handmade goods to the common man, the cost of paying craftsmen an honest wage resulted in higher prices than the common man could afford. This limited the movement to the upper class.
In contrast, the American movement drew inspiration from the materials, choosing to highlight the grain of the wood or the form of the pot. They incorporated walls of rich wood tones, relegating wallpaper to borders. Paints were in rich earth tones. Furniture and architectural details were designed to take advantage of machines allowing the individual craftsmen to assemble the furniture and finish the wood. The use of machines lowered the cost, making the furniture, pottery and metalwork affordable and therefore available to "the people".

This movement has to be noticed in the world of design, as it showed how fast design could change and how important the workers of the trade actually were, when designing quality products. When thinking of this movement, my head is filled with images of 'fancy' tables and other furniture made of varnished wood, as well as sculptures. The effort and time spent on these items has to be praised, as days could be spent on creating an item based on the specifications of the paying customer, looking at sizes/materials/etc. Many factors had to be taken into account when creating these and nowadays older items can be viewed as unique, even antiques.

Until next time, au revoir!

Comics, Cartoons and Graphic Novels

2006-11-14T12:16:00.000Z

Oh yes one of my favourite subjects and finally the book that got recommended to me back when I had my interview for my course comes in useful! Comics are wonderful things and web-comics are especially wonderfully ways to entertain yourself when you really need a break from work (so long as you’re at a computer) and there are so many different styles to them. I enjoy them because I like the way the artwork will compliment the text. If a picture says a thousand words, a comic book says even more and just to illustrate my point the book “Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud is written entirely in comic book form and even though it’s been awhile since I read the book, I can still remember most of the points it made.

Comic books (or sequential art as Will Eisner termed it) began in one form hundreds of years ago as picture manuscripts for example the pre-Colombian picture manuscript “discovered” by Cortes sometime around 1519. Although not completely recognisable as a comic, it does tell a story using a series of images, well story is perhaps the wrong word, it tells a history like the Bayeux Tapestry tells the history of the Norman Conquest in 1066. You can still see sequential Artwork in many churches today, just look at the stained glass windows in some of the cathedrals. Most of them tell stories from the bible, the church used this method so that those people who had no education could understand the stories that the bible told and remember the important stories such as the crucifixion and the birth of Jesus. It was in the mid 1800 that the modern comic was properly invented by Rodolphe Topffer who added, borders and text with his series of pictures, creating the first combination of sequential art and text. This is just yet another example of how something new works on the old, which seems to be what all these lecturers are about, old things inspiring the new.

Like Scott McCloud says in his book most people see comics as second rate art and for kids, but some of the work that comes under the heading of Sequential- art is anything but second rate. For example the work “A week of Kindness” by Max Ernst (a surrealist painter) and the work “Passionate Journey” by Frank Masereel. For some reason people in western Society see comics as being for kids, however we only have to take a look at the political caricatures in the newspapers to see that this is not the case. In China and Japan manga and anime is drawn for different audiences including women, men, teenagers and children. Comics, cartoons and graphic novels are full of iconic images and symbolism that make it easy for us to identify with or pick up their meaning in a single glance. All societies have many different images that mean something, some are universal and others are more local. I can remember reading Astrerix in French. I wasn’t particularly good at French and could only understand about one word in every three but I could understand the drawings and from that I could pretty much figure out the plot line. It doesn’t matter what part of the world you are from you will always be able to understand images.

Colours also mean things but their symbolism changes from culture to culture, for example here white is associated with purity, life and holiness whereas in China it means death as white is only worn for funerals. We associated the colours black and green together with evil or the digital world and the colour red with danger, passion and rage. These colours can be used to portray a mood in a comic or a cartoon or a graphic novel to its audience. For example take a look at the image below taken from Sarah Ellerton’s graphic Novel Inverloch (http://www.seraph-inn.com). We have no idea who has been hurt. It could be the person talking to the guy holding the knife (Silvah), it could be the female elf (Lei’ella) or it could be someone else in the room. However we know someone has been hurt nonetheless. We can tell not only by the iconic images of blood and a dagger but by the colours Sarah Ellerton has used in the background.

Comic books and graphic novels also play with time. They show us sequences of images and our minds create the un-shown action that happens within the gutter (or between the frame if you like). Sometimes we aren’t even shown the resulting action, for example take a look again at the page from Inverloch I posted above. We don’t see the knife moving through the air and we aren’t shown the result of the knife throwing but our imagination fills in the gaps from the information we are shown. We see movement lines around the knife and fill in the movement in our imaginations, we see the blood and we see the shocked character and automatically assume it’s hit her and quite probably killed her. But we aren’t shown that. The fact that our minds do that opens up some fascinating possibilities, especially when drawing/ writing a graphic novel or comic book. You could create an atmosphere by showing a sequence of different aspects. You can slow the flow of the narrative by showing a sequence of moment to moment, which can create a feeling of suspense depending how you use it.

But it’s not just the image, which plays with time; the panel that surrounds each image also has a part to play. Lengthen the panels width out and you create a longer stretch of time. Bleed the panel off the page and it will create an atmosphere of timelessness or of a world larger than it appears on our page. The shape of the panel can create a mood or an atmosphere that will influence the story it is telling because lines are important in putting across ideas. Sharp lines can seem harsh whereas rounded lines seem soft and innocent. Abstract lines in the background of an image can also be used to portray the emotions of a character making the audience feel what the character feels, whether that be sadness, elation, anger or any other emotion.

So what was the point of all this? Well there’s a well known quote which goes “A Picture Tells a thousand words” so if a Picture tells a thousand words a comic will tell even more and with the thousands of ways it can use it won’t have a problem doing it.

Panel from Max Ernst's A Week of Kindness
Page from Inverloch written & illustrated by Sarah Ellerton (www.seraph-inn.com)

Digital Culture - What?

2006-11-10T17:36:00.000Z

Looking back at my lecture notes I can tell I had trouble keeping interest as I have a tendency to doodle more when I’m struggling to concentrate, (for some reason it helps), however when I began to actually think about what this lecture was about I began to get a little bit interested in the subject. The way I see it this lecture was mainly about different cultures or communities if you like and the way we communicate. It also seemed to again be about how we see our identity and ourselves and how we can manipulate that identity.

I guess I find the whole idea that we change our identity to fit interesting because of the fact that I am part of online communities myself. I mean taking one as an example, here we are a group of people who live thousands of miles apart from one another in different countries and together we can talk to each other in an instance, write, draw and put together a discussion ezine and post it up every month and all without ever meeting each other in real life. We don’t know if how these other people describe themselves to us is really what they look like. They could lie to us in an instant and we wouldn’t know. Often we create identities to fit how we see ourselves, not necessarily how other people see us. In other online communities such as gaming communities’ people fulfil fantasies by creating character identities to hide behind and play out alternate realities.

But I’m going off on a tangent; this wasn’t the only thing the lecture was about. It was also asking what Culture is. There are many different cultures in the world and when someone says the word culture my first immediate thought is of tribal cultures, I completely forget that the word culture also covers our own society. But then again when I do think about culture in terms of our society I immediately think about the upper class, going to Opera and drinking wine for some reason and when I think of the word Digital culture I see music, stereos and people connected to headphones. So is the word Culture a very vague term? It would seem to be looking at various different personages attempts to define it. Raymond Williams described Culture as being ordinary. There are also different types of culture, there is “High Culture” which aims towards beauty, intelligence and perfection and is viewed as a very elitist form of culture, which perhaps goes with my image of the upper-classes going to opera and drinking wine… even if that is very stereotypical of me. Then there is popular culture that changes from year to year, month to month and week to week.

After considering how vague the word seems to be I decided to look it up and came up with this definition

“Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals of behaviour and systems of belief.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture#Defining_.22culture.22)

But this isn’t the only definition. It turns out there are at least 200 different definitions for the word culture. So if there are so many different opinions on what it actually means… what exactly is culture? Perhaps the real reason is because the things people admire, like or want change so often that what the word encompasses changes all the time. Either way I think I’ve gone off on a tangent again.

Post-Modernism and Dreams

2006-11-10T14:01:00.000Z

This lecture seemed to be mainly about thoughts, theories and ideas about our own culture, society and our identities. I recognised quite a few of the quotes and names in this particular lecture such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Sigmund Freud.

I recognised Sigmund Freud’s name particularly well due to the number of times I used him in my English essays at school when discussing the symbolism of a poem or a text. Although Sigmund Freud wasn’t the first to talk about the unconscious or different levels of consciousness he was perhaps the first to bring it to everyone’s attention and set about interpreting dreams, which he called the “royal road to the unconscious”. In 1899 he published a book called “The Interpretation of Dreams” and through it he argued that rather than repressing our unconscious thoughts we should aim to understand them and master them in order to understand ourselves better.

He also had many theories were based on repressed sexual desires and behaviours, such as the Oedipus Complex where he argued everyone is fixated by their mothers. He also pointed out actions that people do either in dreams or in the waking world and explained them in terms of sexual repression such as thumb sucking or something as simple as running a hand down a banister.

I find the theories based around dreams and the unconscious interesting because of the symbolism people like Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung talked about. Jung’s attitude to understanding the psyche was to look at not just dreams but art, religion and mythology. There are symbols in all these areas.

Symbols are always sending out messages to us unconsciously such as a picture of an owl, we will automatically connect that with wisdom. Colour can even be used as a symbol for example red can mean danger, passion, love or rage. Black can mean death unless you live in China where White means death.

It’s this that I find most interesting about this particular area, because use the right symbols in your own artwork or illustrations or logos and you can unconsciously send a message to your user.

Digiculture

2006-11-06T16:17:00.000Z

So, it's been a while since my last blog, so I have to backtrack a wee bit to the lecture we had on Digital Culture, or as I like to call it "Digiculture". This lecture I found quite interesting, starting with a delve into discovering what is culture? My view of this is that culture is the way people and art are linked. Or is it more how we act?

Following on, we looked at the introduction of the digital age, and it's effect - namely digital culture. Some names were dropped into the lecture, the ones most standing out to me being Jean Baudrillard and Raymond Williams. Baudrillard's ideas on bringing the boundaries of real and fake together so that the difference between them is almost indistinct I find quite significant. This linked to simulation and the media, and has been carried through from before the digital age.

Also from the discussions surrounding new media and cyberculture, that being we can personalise and program media as a tool to communicate and create a social networking at a computer, I have come to realise that we are more or less dependant on digital culture these days. We use the internet now to socialise, keep in touch and convey our views. Our right to the freedom of speech is much easier this way. You cannot walk down a street without someone listening to music on a portable music player, using their mobile phone to text or phone someone or even using the simple things such as credit cards. We have come so dependant on digital culture, I think we would find it extremely hard to survive without it. This is not to say it's a bad thing, in fact I would say it is extremely good. Hasn't digital culture brought communities closer? Hasn't our social networking become much vaster, even communicating with people all over the world and not even likely to meet in person? Hasn't digital media saved us time? Hasn't it made us safer? Ok, so some people abuse it, become lazy and obese, ill, self-absorbed etc. but this is through no fault but there own, digiculture didn't make them do this, even if it provided an opportunity.

Anyhoo, until my next blog, Good Day!

Art Nouveau V Art Deco

2006-11-03T16:53:00.000Z

Looking at both lectures, overall, I found that Art Nouveau is curvilinear while Art Deco is more Rectilinear. This was depicted by the examples of Art nouveau looking more organic, heavily depicting life in all of it's forms (humans, animals, plants), using folds/shadows/etc. Being produced in the late 1880's, and becoming very popular between 1901-1905, it eventually faded away by 1911. But looking at recent trends, who knows if it might reappear (hopefully not though, seeing as though I really detest the 'old-fashioned' look of Art Nouveau styles - especially wallpapers!). Whereas, looking at the examples of Art Deco, it seems that they are generally associated with the 1920's. Both styles of art had their height of popularity during very optomistic times and reflect that in style, and still have some demand in todays world (as some wallpapers/etc are being re-produced or re-coloured).

Looking at the Art Nouveau style, I find it fascinating that it took influence from the Japanese styles, due to the forced import/export between the two countries, and also from archaelogical finds. Having studied the Celts and Vikings in detail at school, I found this part of the lecture the most interesting as I do find these objects attractive and unique - such as the intricate knotwork, for which the Celts are rightly famous for, in their ring designs. Brooches also, such as the one on the left, used symmetry most of the time and don't use bright colours, leaning more towards natural colouring.

Also, when European artists saw Japanese woodblock prints for the first time, they were mesmerized and so Japanese art became very fashionable in Europe. This led to many European artists like van Gogh, Gaugin or Toulouse Lautrec being influenced and starting to use large, flat coloured areas and designs without any use of perspective in their artwork and paintings. Basically, Art Nouveau was a rebellion against classical and traditional art. The movement was very successful, going beyond the borders of fine art and spreading into commercial and decorative arts. Famous artists like Alfons Maria Mucha or Gustav Klimt, went into such fields as high fashion and jewellery designs and clearly showed the Japanese influence in their products. Therefore, even though I don't 'rave' about Art Nouveau styles, it has influenced many people and has to be taken in to account in a design aspect. The paintings/jewellery to me are the most attractive pieces to be taken out of Art Nouveau, whereas I find the wallpapers and furniture bland and ugly.

Art Deco, on the other hand, was a reaction to the flowing motifs and fussiness of Art Nouveau - making it more simple and easier to look at. Following WWI people wanted a modern, functional style for their furniture, jewellery and decorative objects (instead of the dated Art Nouveau lok of things). Being influenced by the streamlined designs of ocean liners and industrial machinery, Art Deco used more unusual materials like ebony, steel, marble and rare and expensive types of wood. Their designs were geometric with clean unfussy lines, which seperated parts making them more 'brick-like' and uncluttered. To me, I find this art movement to be more successful as in todays world this is influencing the style of buildings/offices/bars and even schools! Simpler, more straight-forward approaches are in most demand, rather than fancy 'arty' designs. One of the most famous Art Deco designers (Jacques-Emile Ruhlman) held his first exhibition in 1913 at the Salon d'Automne and continued to refine his designs of mainly furniture, which is distinguished by its ideal proportions and the delicate tapering legs of his smaller pieces. Some pieces were so elegantly and expertly made, with joints so well-covered, they appeared to have been made from a one piece of wood. This was the new focus of designers and so influence was taken forward to new designs and still remain today.

Altogether, I think both movements were successful but angered many designers (either wanting to change design styles or not wanting to change them). To me, I find the Art Deco style more attractive and interesting, although I do think that Art Nouveau deserves a mention when talking about Art Deco - due to it being the main cause of change.

Well, that's another blog done, cya! Dan.

Reading Around

2006-10-19T16:32:00.000Z

I'm still thinking about the first CMT lecture, but I will type my thoughts up and post them sometime over the weekend (promise), however I've been reading around on some of the other lectures, especially the ones I didn't have such as the Gothic Revival.

I half wish I'd had this lecture as personally I find Gothic Architecture fascinating. Even though I never did Art History at school oddly enough Gothic architecture got covered in my English class. I really did have a fascinating English teacher in my last year at school. He was relating it to the Gothic novel we were reading at the time "The Turn of the Screw" (a really good read by the way if you ever have the chance) and also the hybrid gothic novel Jane Eyre (also a really good read).

You see the Gothic Revival and the Romanticism Movement led to the genre of Gothic Novels that usually cover general themes of mystery, supernatural, the horrific and the romantic.

I don't know if this relates in anyway to the lecture that IPD had as obviously being in IMD I wasn't there, but I find it interesting how a completely unrelated area was influenced by what was happening in another. Without the Gothic Revival the genre of Gothic Novels wouldn't have existed.

Pugin + Gothic Revival

2006-10-17T18:05:00.000Z

This lecture was not what i had expected it to be and so was pretty interesting. Learning about how different windows and construction methods, that were not only there for appearance and change but also for support reasons, was very insightful as it made me think about other buildings and objects in a different way. This question was pointed out in the lecture:

"Is design a practical response or a decorative one?"

The answer isn't either of them, in my opinion, but both of them combined as the lecture proved to me, such as the spreading of pressure by arched windows/doors that could also be made decorative while being stronger at the same time! I found this to make me think more about design as a whole as it shows that you can combine different production methods to create what you want, and to think about how to use these methods alongside each other to reach the required results.

The second question that was mentioned was:

"Why does something go in and out of style?"

I think the answer to this is more difficult as you can't really foresee future trends and the fact is that I don't think anything goes out of fashion for ever. An example would be today's music and dress sense, as it is becoming more retro as we progress going back to dated fashion and sounds. Although this could be argued against, as there are several different social groups, but overall I feel that it probably is true. Therefore, I think that things go out of fashion eventually due to the over-use of it. This can be said for anything, such as fashion/construction methods/products, as it won't last forever and if everyone does/has the thing in question, people will get bored of it. This is becuase they will see it everyday and eventually ignore it, as many things in today's world (i.e New York's huge promotion posters that workers will see everyday).

Although I am not a big fan of the 'Gothic' look of buildings, I do feel that it plays an important part in British history, the best example being Castles and Towers which show older methods of construction and appearance. I do think that the Gothic castles look good but when the interior (i.e roofs/furniture/etc) become Gothic too, I feel it is too much and the overall theme of the building becomes too extravagant. An example of this would be a church setting where everything has the same shape/structure basis, as in the pews/decorative windows/altar.

Pugin has and still inspires many people around the world. One expert in Australia even seriously compares his genius to that of Mozart or Leonardo da Vinci. But saying this, many people have never heard of Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin, including me until this lecture! It is obvious he had a passion for following the Gothic look and obviously he used this to create his 'architecural masterpieces'. Influence has to be taken from the bulidings/objects he created as there are so many examples. Ranging from chairs, to cupboards, to the clothing of priests! Every aspect of design can take influence from what he created and designed.

"Pugin's notion was that Gothic was Christian and Christian was Gothic"

This quote from Brian Andrews, an Australian design critic, clearly relates Pugin's designing techniques of the Gothic style to the churches and religious buildings he created, especially St Mary's Cathedral. This is perhaps why the Gothic style has gone out of fashion these days, being replaced with simpler/more straight forward looks. Realistically when asked about the Gothic look of something or shown a picture of a Gothic style, most people will think of churches/castles and of course the Parliament. I feel as though in today's world that these buildings are seen as special and wouldn't be tampered with, due to no continuation of this type of design and so they are unique and part of the past.

Hope you enjoyed the blog, bit more research done this time!, and feel free to leave me a comment. Cheers, Dan.

Gothic Revival - Quite interesting I must say!

2006-10-17T17:09:00.000Z

Well, firstly I think that Jonathon did quite a good job in this lecture considering he’s no expert on the subject, and he was standing in for Richard.

It must be said I was surprisingly interested in lecture. I found myself concentrating more than usual and was quite happy to go the whole hour without even considering going to sleep.

The thought that gothic design came about completely by the practical, not aesthetic quality of its design I found quite intriguing. It made me think what other styles or products are there that were designed for their practical qualities and not purely aesthetic, but then become appreciated for its aesthetics. The Gothic style came about because of the use of the new technologies developed with the new type of windows (Quito Actuo & Quito Recto), but these window styles were then seen as a strong aesthetic quality. The most obvious example I can think that has this same characteristics of design is the Dyson vacuum cleaner. It was an immediate success after its use of the new and unique bag less, cyclone technology which is now seen as a very strong aesthetic quality.

I found the way in which the windows were designed using circles very interesting and that would be something that I would want to look into in the future.

Post-modernism and all that jazz

2006-10-15T20:08:00.000Z

Ok, so this post is a bit late, but I've had some time to reflect on our very first Contemporary Media Theory Lecture - woohoo!

Anyways, the introduction to this lecture I thought was realy good and now I think I understand what CMT is all about a bit more. I particualrly liked the idea of treating it as a network of communications between people, showing that Design (especially in media) is an important and [possibly] effective way of conveying info to everyone and anyone.

Enough said, we moved on to looking at Post-Modernism... what is it? Well to be honest I'm not exactly sure :S

From the lecture, I got the idea that it was a way of looking at things in a new way - mainly spiritual, social, physical and subjective being the main topics. After reflecting a bit as well, I still find it confusing although I did get a number of names from the lecture, with their views on the topic, such as Jean-Francois Lyotard and in particular Jacques Lacan which I found interesting his ideas on the 'Mirror Phase' and the structured unconcious. So I'm thinking of looking up some of the ideas these people had to see if I can get a clearer picture of what exactly Post-Modernism is.

Also, the lecture just passed was cancelled, so there's not much I can say about that... in fact I can't really say anything at all.

Some thoughts on The Great Exhibition Lecture

2006-10-12T17:24:00.000Z

Like the first lecture we had I'm thinking that this lecture was also about us seeing how things were done or organised by designers in the past and using this knowledge so that we can implement it in the present.

The Great Exhibition (also known as the Crystal Palace Exhibition) was built and organised to show...

"a living picture of the point of development at which the whole of mankind has arrived in this great task, and a new starting point from which all nations will be able to direct their further exertions"

(The Illustrated London News, 11 October 1849. [1849-10-11]

It was to show the general public what had been achieved in the world in terms of technological advances, design, architecture, botany and a whole host of other areas.

Like our current project the Six Cities Design Festival it was really aimed at getting people interested. With the Six Cities Design Festival we are trying to get people interested in Design, whereas back in 1851 the people behind The Great Exhibition where trying to get people interested in design, technology, the natural world etc and to make people think about what they could do to continue this advancement.

The Great Exhibition influenced Britain's development of manufacturing as well as of museums, the standing of Britain in the eyes of other nations in terms of culture and technologically.

that's so (post) modernism .... what is it ..... ???

2006-10-12T16:13:00.000Z

...had quite a while to think this over....and i still don't fully comprehend what postmodernism actually is.

The lecture itself was good, full of information, dates and lots of name dropping, but the more i think about it, it didn't actually explain what post-modernism actually is. in my opinion, it was just a lecture about people who can be regarded as "post-modern thinkers", Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin to name but a few of the many, many names.

What i took from the lecture was that post modernism is all about open thinking, the importance of ideas and ideology. the idea that "enlightenment thinking" can bring about huge differences to society as a whole. now, if the lecture went a bit deeper into why the many "names" were so important, that would of made a huge difference to me personally. it would of allowed for an understanding as to why, say, Albert Einstein was such an important figure in post-modernism instead of just the statement, "he is important". (think at this point i should point out i am aware of why Einstein is important, his "Theory of Relativity" was groundbreaking, revolutionary thinking and explains "why" he is important.)

This type of approach to the lecture, singling out a select few to divulge information about, would of been more beneficial to me. i would have been able to leave the lecture and say "hey, you know that Karl Marx...he's fundimental to post-moderism...why....well, funny you should ask that...blah blah blah.. " and go on to say why and how.

The other thing i took from the lecture was that the human conscience is "an illusion". hmm.....how very "matrix" esc, again another statement without explanation. you can't put that in a lecture and not reveal how this is so. to me it summons up images of Neo, and the "red pill, blue pill" scenario. to explain this, i will now quote the matrix.

"Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind."

Now, if this is true and our conscience is just an illusion, how did it become so? Have we been conditioned over a vast period of time and only now realising that the human conscience is nothing more than a fabrication. Its not real. That's something i would like to know about. How did.....umm.....Jaques Lacan find this out. Did he just wake up one day, shoot a rabbit and not feel guilty about it...and all of a sudden this proves that the human conscience is, in his words "an illusion", or does he have scientifical proof, facts even that this is so. Interesting theory none-the-less.

Anyhoo.....time to end this, im beginning to just go on and on and on......

To summarise.

I don't know what post-modernism is.
I would have liked the lecture to have been more in depth.
Less names and more background information would have been more helpful.
If you make a huge, possibly life changing statements such as "the human conscience is an illusion", say why.

....think thats me done....

...."the moving image" here we come....

The Industrial Revolution

2006-10-11T15:04:00.000Z

Although we already had this very same lecture last year I decided that perhaps it would be better to look at this with a different point of view than last year where we were just recording the information with maybe a few extra notes on things which caught our interest.

This years lecture on The Industrial Revolution did cover a few other things which it hadn't covered last year, for example it looked a lot more at what was happening in Scotland at the time, but how does this relate to design in general?

I suppose most new things are generally built upon old things or old knowledge. For example Darwin couldn't have come up with the theory of Evolution without previous naturalists hard work and collections. Some of the machines or inventions that we now take for granted could not have been invented or designed without the work of older generations. For example electricity that has become a necessity in our lives could not have been discovered or harnessed without the scientific knowledge produced by the ancient Greeks, the theories produced by Benjamin Franklin and a whole host of other scientists.

Therefore I suppose this is why looking back at history is important, so that we can see what designers of a different generation produced and how it changed the country and the lives of the people that lived there. We can even see how the design of houses at the time reflected how things had changed at the time. Such as in the 18th Century houses were sparsely furnished and kept clear while the decoration was kept simple with pale colours and polished wood. But by the 19th Century things had changed so that the houses were cluttered, filled with objects with patterned carpets and wallpaper. By this time people had more of a consumer attitude for material goods.

But the most important area where design changed the lives of the people who lived at the time and the country, in which they lived, was the textile industry. Before the Industrial Revolution, weaving was traditionally done by farm families using spinning wheels. Originally it began as a second occupation for families to keep the money coming in. The children could sort the wool, the women would spin and the men would weave.

In 1764 a man called James Hargreaves looked at this process and tried to think of how it could be improved and ended up designing and building the Spinning Jenny.

This invention managed to speed up the process of thread spinning and eventually led to the shuttle loom being invented.

When Richard Archwright came along, he increased the speed of the process even more by inventing and designing an even better loom and then introducing the water wheel that helped power the loom, making the process even quicker to complete. It was at this point that the factories were built.

Already you can see that with a few designs, designed to speed up the process, jobs became available and the job was made somewhat easier.

There are other areas where you can see how the design of these machines and factories changed lives, for example the factory at New Lanark gave jobs to those people who didn't emigrate to Canada and encouraged those people to stay. Robert Owen even paid his employees above the going wage rate, started evening classes to educate the adults and ran schools to educate the children. The factory even became a tourist attraction, as nobody could quite believe that it was possible to do all this and still make a profit.

There are many other examples of how the design of these machines and factories changed people's lives and the country but it didn't really change the transport system of the country. The design and construction of the canal network and rail network came about because of the demand for coal and iron. The road network wasn't really suitable for this kind of heavy transport so people had to come up with a new way of transporting the products. The Duke of Bridgewater commissioned James Brindley to engineer a canal, which he did, creating the Bridgewater Canal that is considered to be the first true canal in Britain. In order to complete the canal, Brindley had to design an aqueduct over the River Irwell.

Without Brindley and without him designing the aqueduct there might not have ever been a canal network that was needed to transport the coal and iron easily from the mines to their respective destinations.

So to conclude, from the history lecture we can see that design and designers solved problems and helped improve the lives of people and the country and that looking back at previous designers we can think about how we can tackle the problems we have to overcome in new designs today.

Ps - could whoever is able to access the settings possibly add the counter on?
You can set it up here -> http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=newaccount
Then all you have to do is add it to the template

I'd do it myself but... you know... no access to the settings section.

First 2 Lectures

2006-10-08T16:49:00.000Z

Right, so the first two lectures we heard were on the Industrial Revolution and the Great Exhibition in Britain. As we had already had similar lectures on these two subjects, with Richard Carr in first year, I already had the basic knowledge of both the topics and so followed along easily. Although, there were some new comments and facts that I didn't know so at least the lectures weren't exactly the same.
I always find the Industrial Revolution to be more interesting as I know some basic points about it from school, especially on the creation of steam engines and locomotives (i.e Robert Louis Stephenson and his 'The Locomotive' and 'The Rocket'). Also the creation of the canals, so to link up the main parts of Britain, so to create new transport/delivery lines, proved highly successful. The boats on the canal were horse-drawn and this system proved to work very well and so became standard across the Britain. Horse-drawn canal boats were used on Britain's canals until as late as the 1950's but then began to get replaced by steam and diesel engines on the actual canal boats. I found it strange that the colourful decoration of boats was banned at one point, as when you think of canal boats you think of weird looking ones (and they always remind me of Rosie and Jim!).
The Great Exhibition lecture didn't interest me really, as I found it to focus more on architecture and interior design, so therefore I don't think it really relates to me as much as the Industrial Revolution. Although it is impressive that Britain made such a huge building that showed people sights from all over the world, I think it was a waste of time really. You'd think that seeing this creation that eventually degraded and faded away, the British Government would have realised that maybe the Millenium Dome would go the same way. I think that this building is also a wasted effort and that the money could have been used for something much better that would actually make a difference. As I have heard most of the same facts in first year, I thought the lecture was basically the same and so got quite bored from hearing all the facts being repeated. I agree that the building of the Great Exhibition centre did show the world that Britain still had power in different industries but I feel that it was pretty inevitable that we would soon lose out to the new innovations/techniques and ideally - money, of other larger and determined countries.
Altogether I did find the two lectures quite interesting but obviously I preferred the first one as I felt it related to my course much more, and gave me ideas and influences. Well there's my first two lectures covered, Gothic comes next! Cya, Dan.

My starting Post

2006-10-05T20:05:00.000Z

Hello, first of all let me apologise about the bad photo. It was the only recent one of me I could find. I’m currently in 2^nd year on the IMD course.

I’m hoping that the lectures we have in design studies will give me further insight into digital media and the design industry and how we can use the old theories and new ways of thinking in our designs. The lectures should hopefully help improve our ways of working on projects. I think the lectures that I currently think will be the most interesting the ones on Virtual Reality, Comics, Cartoons, Graphic Novels and Representations of Violence. I’m interested in the Comics, Cartoons, Graphic Novels particularly because I find narrative art really interesting.

(The cat in case anyone is wondering is called Lucy)

My very first blog!

2006-10-05T16:51:00.000Z

Well, this is my first blog so as you can imagine this is unbelievably exciting!

I'm Nick Griffiths from 2nd year Innovative Product Design at Dundee University. I think I'll find DHTP quite interesting and informative. The first two lectures were good as Richard Carr gave us a detailed insight into some interesting industral history, but alot of the content that was covered was from similar lectures that we were given in 1st year so there wasn't alot that was new to be learnt! I don' think that the history lectures will really improve my designing ability, but I could be wrong as I may be find inspiration from products from the past. I'm semi looking forward to the Art Nouveau and Art Deco lectures as I have studied this area alot in school so it will be interesting to see what i don't know about it. But before then I'l see if Gothic architecture is any crack!

Catch you later

i have arrived !!!!!!

2006-10-02T00:34:00.000Z

howdy.....finally managed to get this new fangled blogger thingy working.....hurrah!! im mark by the way, just to let you know. now, down to the subject at hand.....what will i get out of these lectures....??? i don't really know what i will get out of them to be honest. i know that they will be full of information that will contribute to me becoming a better, more open-minded designer...because knowledge is power so we are constantly told !! i am looking forward to a few inparticular : virtual reality, comics-cartoons-graphic novels and the moving image. these are the ones that i think i will enjoy most and get the most out of. yeah, so....umm.....thats me......catch ya later

Intro

2006-10-01T18:25:00.000Z

Hey! I'm Graham doing IMD (2nd year). I'm hoping to learn more about how digital and visual design can influence people's way of life and view of media. I also hope to learn about effective techniques and methods to help idea generation and development in both the IMD and design Studies courses. I'm looking forward to the digital culture lecture, as I found this one of the most interesting lectures last year, and would like to learn more.

My First Post!

2006-10-01T13:29:00.000Z

Hey, I'm Daniel and I'm in second year at Dundee University studying Innovative Product Design. I'm hoping to gain, from the Design History Theory & Practice section, the knowledge of how design has changed through specific era's of the past & how this has developed the way modern designers think and act. I think this section will help with my practice, as it will give me some insight into what has been done before, and hopefully it will inspire me to stray away from these examples and be more innovative. I think the most interesting part of the section will be looking at the Russian Revolution, as i studied this in great depth at school but the design side might be completely different. I think I'm going to enjoy looking back at how people lived and what main attributes from design helped to shape their futures, as well as ours. Anyway, that's me and I hope you enjoy my future posts, bye!