You are currently browsing jeremypwhite’s articles.
I recently went to the Milwaukee Art Museum and was surprised to see Warhol’s Brillo box that Prof. Jeff talked about. Take an admirable gander at my beautiful iPhone photograph of said box.
Just a quick little rant.
I’ve noticed some non-tech products using “High Definition” and “3D”. I believe they’re doing it because HD TV and 3D movies are trendy right now.
In Steak n’ Shake’s defense, they seem to be doing it tongue-in-cheek…and Steak ‘n Shake is awesome.
Anyway, back to work!
The readings also reminded me of Charles and Ray Eames: The Architect and the Painter, a film available on Netflix streaming. Ray and Charles Eames were a design team. As the film shows, Ray was marginalized in the media as an assistant to Charles, when she was more of a design partner. This could have been due to the fact that she had lady parts. It could have been due her expertise in painting contrasted to the hard (harder?) science of architecture. The title of the movie itself shows bias, or at least continues the marginalization of women and painters: Ray is listed second to Charles. How would people react if the title was Ray and Charles Eames: The Painter and the Architect?
Musician Moby was featured in the most recent podcast of KCRW’s Design and Architecture. He talks about the motivation behind his LA architecture blog, stating that the reason he likes architecture is because it’s the one field of design that affects your life 24 hours a day. I think that’s an overstatement. It’s easy to think about situations not affected by architecture (camping immediately comes to mind). Further, I think it disregards fields of design like fashion. This really made me think about our readings in feminism. What institutions are considered important? Architecture is considered more important by Moby. He rationalizes this by saying it affects our lives everyday. Yet both fashion and architecture affect our lives everyday. We all choose our clothes and use them as a means of self-expression. That seems very important and pervasive.
How are you relating the film analyses to interaction design.
Here are a few:
- Film history –> I see describing an interaction in terms of “1st wave”, “2nd wave”, or “3rd wave” as a historical approach.
- Auteurs –> Besides specific designers, I see critique products in a comparison to other products from the same company as an “auteur”, as seems to be done with Apple products a lot…maybe this is overstepping. The equivalent to film would be comparing MGM movies to other MGM movies.
Can we consider the camera-view to be non-diegetic? Only in first-person games, does what you’re seeing reflect what the character sees. The only movie that comes to mind that does first-person the whole time is Enter the Void (I’m sure there are more). Many times in movies, the camera reveals things that the characters can’t see or know about. This gives the audience special knowledge.
How does diegetic / non-diegetic relate to software / device interactions (besides games)?
- When I’m texting someone, they only see my text. They may have no knowledge of the interface elements I see. So in a social application, some things are revealed to the message receiver, such as the use of italics, but some things are not shown, like the button I used to make the word italic or the menu of emoticons at my disposal.
- On a webpage, the server and my browser are aware of lots of things (markup, cookies, hidden elements, etc…) that I do not see. I’m glad I don’t see that stuff because they’d be distracting. Are those things non-diegetic? Can we consider me and the browser as characters in the interaction?
I don’t think these are good examples, so please show me up.
I just finished watching The Double Life of Veronique.
I don’t really get the movie yet. If you haven’t seen it yet, ignore this:
Synopsis: There are two Veronica’s: Polish Weronika and French Véronique. Weronika dies healthy. Véronique lives. Metamorphosis plays a part. There are some creepy people. Véronique touches a tree and her dad reacts. The end. Well, I’ll sleep on it. Anyway, I liked the movie.
For a more in depth look at the movie, look at my Cliff’s notes! If you haven’t seen the movie, this will ruin it and also not provide you with anything useful.
Mudit posted a comment in the “Severe” game storytelling post by Brian that got me thinking. Mudit said our profile pics were our avatars. This special nature of those pics justifies having a separate album of just profile photos for each person. The “profile pic” album is a history of our portrayal of ourselves. I can look back and see how I used to be a much bigger douche. I don’t currently consider myself a douche, but countless other people doubtlessly do, and my future selves may as well. The profile pic allows me to reflect on who I was… and through an act of comparison, allows me to understand who I am.
The new Facebook timeline is a stronger version of the same thing. They’re both potential tools for personal reflection. That is pretty cool.
The denotation of the timeline is a list of dates and associated pictures. The connotation is a reflection of my life and a way to understand who I am, both as a function of my personal history and as a comparison to something (douche) that I no longer am (at least as I understand the term now).
This TED talk explains how an artifact affects our current culture.
I’m writing this in the spirit of trolling (see Vincent’s post below) and on the topic of auteur theory (sort of).
J.J. Abrams seems to focus on sci-fi mysteries. His TED talk is about this mysterious box that he’s supposedly never opened. He tries to include a mysterious “box” in his productions, always leaving the audience wondering…
Have you seen that TV show he made about a mysterious island? There’s a hatch that goes down into the ground. Time travel is involved. People disappear and reappear. Some sort of medical experiment happened on the island. Of course, I’m talking about “Alcatraz”. Or was that “Lost”?