You are currently browsing Kshitiz's articles.
Dec 17, 2008 2:30 pm (as on Oncourse)
OR
Dec 18th, 2008 2:30 pm (as told by Jeff in the class)
I am confused .. along with a few others…
The video is an enactment by a troupe for the recently launched Nikon D3x, which horrifyingly is priced at a whooping USD 8,000 !!!
While I loved the video, the enactment, I also looked into the connotative meanings that I was getting out of the video. What was also interesting is the curiosity, whether the speech (I do not understand any German) actually corresponds to the texts that is written in the sub-title.
This could be a clip from an old Hitler Movie, or enacted directly with the script for this camera release.
The harsh criticism is so evident from the piece that it makes you hate the camera company for an instance.
In the last act, where he surrenders his NPS membership, it makes all of those relying and swearing by Nikon feel the same.
It looks like as if its the end of the road for numerous Nikon fans. This is also signified from the mass exodus of the people from his office when he asks all those who had pre-ordered the camera to leave his office.
Within this act he also takes a shot at he current economy and the state of the current surviving cameras. His dialogue on “No need to change systems” is so suportive of the loyalty with the Brand. Having that loyalty with a person of this stature meant a lot. So when the person gets furious, it is a harbinger to the times to come in reality. In the photographic fraternity, some critics mention that perhaps the D3X would go down in history as Nikon’s biggest failure.
With the change in the tone of the protagonist, after knowing that Nikon has announced a camera that is just double the megapixles and way exorbitantly priced, it appears as if the act is postmodern. The whole sequence of shot here signifying that the public is not to be taken for granted and Nikon cannot do such a thing based on loyalty and the support it has enjoyed from its supporters so far.
I think this clip is a great example to understanding of almost all that we have learnt in this class this semester.
Question for Jeff, would this be an example of remediation?
After reading the Hebdige reading today, I tried to go into the cultures and subcultures that exist within the frame of Interaction Design. I was surprised how the thing that first sprang up was the culture of Web Design. And inside the culture of Web Design, we had (or still have) the subculture of Flash Websites.
When I dug more into this topic I found that it is really interesting to analyze from the days of the flashy banners (one subculture) , to the days of Web 2.0 (another subculture)
Initially the websites were full with texts, monotonous and boring content. In order to break away from this monotonicity, it was followed by the usage of lots of pictures and providing more and more links in order to make it more interactive for the user.
However in the gamut of links available for the user who often got confused, the notion of using flashing texts, and blinking images were introduced. This led to a surge in the number of websites trying to do it. And yes, what better way to gather attention then have a extremely harsh color like pink, orange, bright greens on a black background. Visual ergonomics took a back seat. It was all about garnering attention. Anything that helped in doing so, was in fashion. So many sites had extra borderings around content, in bright colors to lay emphasis. Clip arts were used to add to the texts to make it look more stylish. I am sure one can look at the prime background colors of the websites during this period and see that it was black.
This was similar to the punk subculture where the appearance itself was enough to get attention. Since what was accepted in the internet world was not clear and User Experience was unheard of, it was ok to have anything that “looked” attractive.
In around mid 90s , comes Macromedia Flash, and the whole notion of interactivity changes.But even within this there was still a group who saw Flash not as a means to increase interactivity, but to add more flashy and attention gathering content. Till this time animated gifs were in full swing. They were dancing, sliding, and scrolling their way across the eyes of web surfers trying to read the texts on the page. And for many Flash was merely an easier tool to produce this kind of “eye-catching-graphics”.
What Flash also did was that it set divisions within the society as to who built sites using what. It also became a status symbol to have a website built in Flash. The connotations being that it looked cool and contemporary. People who built websites using flash (the senders) were considered to be extra talented and hence looked high upon. So photographers, artists, musicians, and other “creative” people (the addressers) looked up to them having a Flash website and the more reliable, faster loading and content heavy sites made on plain HTML was left to the academia mostly. HTML sites became more of the intellectual, and the high funda stuff, whereas Flashy websites denoted a person who was more creative and was involved in the disciplines like the arts.
The above argument has evolved over the years. The use of Flash has proliferated well and crossed boundaries. Similarly with the advancements in the web development and other interactive options like PHP etc, this subculture may not exist anymore. And even if it does, it is probably limited to the amateur content.
What has evolved into web 2.0, could very well be considered a subculture these days. After all what was fashionable a few years ago like to have a Flash website, is now having a Web 2.0 website. I often wonder how many actually know what the meanings behind either of them were / are .
What I am trying to get into is that with constantly evolving paradigms in web design and User experience on the web, it is really interesting and I think worthwhile to study these various subcultures that have been established within the community.
One of the most interesting application of the semiotic theory and the various functions in it, I find; are in the area of graphic design, and posters in advertisements in particular. The more minimalistic the poster in terms of the elements that make up the poster, the more meaning it makes and the more the viewer is forced to hunt for the signifiers and also make meaning out of it.
Here is one ad (and their entire series actually) that I find really interesting and love.
Mahatma Gandhi
referential (content)
A set of advertisement posters for Apple company.
metalingual (code)
The text (Think Different) that supports (or reinforces) the statement made by the central character in the frame. The fact that the apple logo is in color, also is significant of the whole notion of Thinking Differently. This expression here itself is, embodying what the text is preaching.
formal (form)
The form is a poster that is in the print medium. The expression here is bold. The absence of color on the main subject makes the statement more prominent. The user is forced to get their attention on the chief components of the frame which happens to be the person in the frame.
The first attention is on the face and the stature of the man. Then if your attention digresses towards the top, it is making a strong statement – “Think Different”.
expressive (addresser)
The addresser here is Apple, the company. The designer who designed the poster is the sender but what the public sees, is a projection from the company Apple. So the addresser here is actually the company as a whole and not necessarily one person.
phatic (contact)
Users engage in viewing the artifact. There is a lot of deciphering that is happening at the cognitive level because of the elements in the frame. The viewer is not only forced to think in a denotative manner as to what in the poster, but also connotatively in terms of what the person stood for. The viewer is forced in a way to make the connection between the company’s logo, its statement and the person in the context of the design.
conative (addressee)
The addressees are potential buyers of the brand’s products. It’s target customers are people who dare to think differently or who should think differently at some time. The addressee as imagined by Apple is this elite group of people who buy Apple products, as they think differently.
contextual (situation)
The situation in this case is the viewer viewing the poster on the web or in the gallery. The company has chosen a prominent figure like Gandhi to make a statement. It is a statement of simplicity, of the belief in something, of the power to think differently, of standing for the truth and of perseverance, (some of the notions that one associates with Gandhi).
The use of a prominent historical figure in their advertisements as done by Apple is perhaps an attempt to make the advertisements move away from the cultural significance. It is to use the ideologies that the person was famous for, in bringing about the resonance with the company’s values and ideologies.
Having said that, companies should be very certain about the usage of figures in the cultural context. Religious sentiments were hurt, when some leading American brand portrayed the Hindu gods on lingerie ads. Similarly featuring any controversial figure, just because he was famous in one culture, might not be prominent. Time and again we hear of people protesting the usage of a particular brands in relation to the cultural significance.
I think that understanding of the sender / recipient , addresser/ addressee is really important as a designer. Just like we discussed in the class with the case of the User Research, I think that using this understanding is really important while doing brand identity and logo design. (One may argue that this is not really applicable as we are students of Interaction Design, but I still like this example) Here is a case of Bharti , one of India’s industrial powerhouse. The context being discussed here is the company changing their logo recently.
Old Logo
So when a company goes in for a change in their brand identity, in most cases they they get it done by a different design company (or individual at times). So we have a change in the sender. For the designer doing the design, the recipient of the design is the client. But the final addresser perhaps would be the entire company and the addressee the audience to which the design is presented (the you and me). Thus one can see how they are all different in this case.
New Logo
The sender (the actual person) here would be the person who designed the logo in the design team (which one is not sure, as many times groups in India have it done by non-designers), the actual addresser in this case is the company, Bharti (group of companies rather). This is not the same as , the founder / owner of the company speaking through the design. It’s a non human that we are being spoken by. In this case one does not even think that its Sunil Mittal the CMD, who is speaking to the addressee.
When the client (addresser) has a vision , then does it hold the same for the designer (sender) as well? While designing a logo for a company with any own vision, a designer’s vision requires to understand this, in a short span of time. This also has to be informed by the existing situations within the company and also the company profile in the real world. The designer (sender) also has to understand the recipient (the contact person in the client’s side) and also the addressees (the company and the final audience who view the design).
When trying to understand the semiotics behind the logos, one can see that the referential function (the content) has not changed much. In terms of the content, it is still composed of the two texts. However as signifiers, the two forms signify two completely different things.
The old one signifies stability, a company that is firm in its intentions and is built on a strong foundation. Hence the usage of the bold black fonts to make the logo. It is all about the establishing the company’s presence, by the addresser; till this point. The dynamic nature of the company that is still expanding in new horizons, but has its focus on establishing itself first, it signified by the yellow curve that allows itself to blend into the addresser’s intentions.
The new one signifies the a modern, new, dynamic approach that the company is adopting. The interplay of the formal content (form) in terms of a bold and the curved forms within the individual letters is interesting. It did exist in the previous form also, but it is very prominent in the new logo. It is a signifier of the company looking into different, and newer opportunities. From the company’s press releases it is understood that they are now looking into a stronger presence in rural areas of the country. This representation using the curved with the bold vertical strokes (which are really contrasting elements to each other) in the new logo, signifies the rather risky task that the company vision’s itself into. With their presence they seek out to bridge out the gap between the rich and the poor, the urban and the rural India. This; for any company is a highly risky business. But Bharti with it’s new dynamic logo wants to put it out in the open for the addressees. The addresser’s intention here is to make it clear of what they want.
The metalingual function that would be provided here is different than what held true for the previous one. Based on the understanding of expressive typography and basic color theory, one would interpret the two logos in a different way. The new one oozes with confidence and with dynamism. It is futuristic and also looking with hope into the future. This is also stressed upon by the yellow triangle. The use of two triangles and one out of its boundaries, signifies the company’s intention of expanding into the unknown territories. This same element in the initial logo was in the form of a yellow square that rested on the company’s initial policies. With the company’s vision changing, the subtle change in the orientation signifies exactly what the addresser wants the addresee to understand.
The redesign in my opinion is a sincere attempt to put into; a simple yet highly valuable form, the company’s vision that it has; setting into the next few years. The re-design of the Bharti logo, should be understood in this semiotic approach to get a better understanding of the company’s history, its current situation and its brand value that has been built. It is only then that one would get out of the superficial criticisms based on one’s personal judgment which are often I like it and I don’t like it.
I tried to play around with this notion.
If every artifact has a meaning in itself and it is left open to interpretation, isn’t it a case of a metalingual function not existing in things. But we know that everything that is created (or brought out into the real) is done with some intention.
We also discussed in the class, in movies the director may or may not use the medium with this notion. However if we are to look at the film previews (trailer) or the film reviews that come out before one has seen the actual movie, is it then that the metalingual function is being used.
Also, we discussed the notion of the addresser , addressee , sender and the recipient. Can this also be tied to the Metalingual function.
I guess I am confusing something here.
From what I understood, are we using this function only to give an indication of the denotative meaning that would follow in a later stage? Because if that is true, then the example of the Kieslowski movie is fine and acceptable. If not, then does it suggest that using this notion, the sender (the director, the person behind the facebook profile) is also allowing the recipient to have a connotative understanding of what is presented?
- A phenomenological understanding to Raghu Rai’s 2006 exhibition at Tasveer Art Gallery, Bangalore.
Proposal for final paper in Jeff’s class.
Background:
Raghu Rai, India’s best known photographer, exhibited in Bangalore in the Nov of 2006. Any of this exhibitions was not like this one. Being a member of the Magnum Photographers (the best known organization for Photojournalism, which was founded by Bresson and a few others). Raghu Rai is best known for his capturing of images of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. This was in true Photojournalism style and a great exemplar for realism in Indian Photography history.
Recently I posted a reply on the IxDA discussions, in which people were talking about the films that an Interaction Designer should watch. It had pretty interesting things, and I think some of them we have already seen at some point of time. The list from a prof at CMU, was pretty interesting and makes me want to watch all of them now 
My reply (paraphrased in a super condensed form here) mainly was that Interaction Designers should watch movies and cinema in general. This was against the argument that they should watch only movies that are related to design (like Helvetica). Film makers are masters in playing around with the dynamics of experience (that we also touched upon in the last semester) and how as interaction designers we can learn about creating better user experience from there.
I illustrated the facts with examples that were discussed in the class.
Here is the Discussion.
Would surely love to hear from a user (viewer point of view) a list of movies that an interaction designer must watch. I know that this would be a highly subjective list and there might be cultural issues as well associated with it, but still.
I have always considered myself a realist. As mentioned earlier, I have been inspired by Bresson, who is considered to be the father of Photojournalism (which I believe will always remain an example of realism) and is the inventor of the term “the decisive moment” in photography.
Bresson mentions in his books and in interviews that it was never the photography that he was passionate about. What interested him was life as it unfolded to him. His photography was an attempt to capture the experiences over time; in a fraction of a second, of the lifeworld as experienced by him.
“For me the camera is a sketchbook, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity, the master of the instant which, in visual terms, questions and decides simultaneously. In order to “give a meaning” to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, a discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry – it is by great economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression. One must always take photographs with the respect for the subject and for oneself. “
He goes on to say this,
“I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung up and ready to pounce, determined to “trap” life- to preserve life in act of living. Above all I craved to seize, in the confines of one single photograph, the whole essence of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes.”
It is not completely evident whether Bresson adopted a very phenomenological approach to clicking his photographs or a structuralist one. When he talks about the composition it almost appears that there is the structuralist approach, whereas when he talks about the entire experience that he wishes to capture in the photograph, it is a phenomenological approach.
There are far more challenges being a realist, as a photographer than a film maker. With a photograph (and I am not talking about a photo-story comprised of multiple photographs) you have to create a story out of that situation you are in and in which you had an embodied interaction; to the outside world. Then you leave it for interpretation to the viewer. This is another difficult part. It is just one photograph. There is no music to lay the emphasis and neither any cut shots. There is no timeline and no other cues in the later frames to lay significance to a particular metaphor used in the frame. Thus in this frame it is equally challenging to know what signifier to not put in the frame. To do photography based in realism, is all the more challenging as the real world is changing all the time. The challenge is to perceive this reality, almost simultaneously recording in the sketchbook (camera).
Another misconception that I generally had was that Realism always meant something that was in black and white. While on one hand it is true that it prohibits us from seeing the distractions and that the essence of a composition (be it of a real life as Bresson , or of the real Nature as Ansel Adams would like to) is brought about only when looking at the images in its Black and White form.
I have nothing against color photography, and perhaps I do propagate the usage of it when necessary. Bresson however himself was not too inclined towards using color.
He mentions:
“I am half afraid that this complex new element may tend to prejudice the achievement of life and movement which is often caught by black and white.”
The Photographer
I do think that realism is not in the medium of the black and white or the color. As, how can one think in black and white, when they are viewing the world in its true color. Its kind of a paradox, of having to deliberately having a mismatch in the real and the perception. It is just that the interpretation of the cultural expression changes.
In order to illustrate the point above, while in the black and white one, my focus is on the abandoned house and a photographer on an abandoned path; which is situated in a hilly area. My interpretation says that the photographer is perhaps lost or is going to unfamiliar territories.
This same artifact when viewed in color, creates a different impression. Apart from the above, the presence of the color enhances the other things like essence of nature, the time of the day, the season of the year and hence results in a more complete understanding of the situation.
My understanding of reality in both these situations seems to be different, even though the subject is the same.
I am not propagating that Realism (in color or in b/w) is good or bad. In the end its all about the technique. Technique is important insofar as one must master it in order to communicate what one sees. Thus in the case of Bresson, it happened to be those decisive moments. In the case of Kieslowski it was the longing and the grief which he was trying to convey.
Where does this fit in a context of Interaction Design? This is something I think will be in my next post !
A bit of a background, Bajaj Automobiles is one of India’s industrial powerhouses. In the 1980 and the 1990’s their flagship product was a scooter.Their advertisements were targeted at the general Indian public and were only showing a scooter. Till this time I am sure hardly people in India would have known that the scooter was associated with a female following and that it stood for what we read in the Barnard book and also seen in this ad.
This is the ad that appeared in 1989 and aired for a few years.
Recent Comments