You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Aesthetics’ category.
For my final paper I kinda wanted to revisit Folkmann, but I am unsure if this is enough for the purposes of the paper.
So here is sort of the breakdown of what Jeff talked about in class yesterday with regards to my overarching topic: Interaction design in public spaces
Note this is sort of the Why of my capstone, but I can’t separate them…
- Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to visit various cities and countries, as well as many museums in different places. The interactive installations and public art projects I have experienced have left a big impression on me. While these events have been impactful on the way I see the world, I believe these type of projects are scarce, in the sense that public spaces are normally quite static. I want to bridge this gap, and create everyday aesthetic experiences. My interest in ubiquitous computing and embodied interactions fit in this space, as I see an opportunity to bring interactive experiences into public spaces, and add to the aesthetic quality of life.
- The why in terms of contribution, I do see a trend in more tangible interactions in space. Be an app that guides you through a store, or in-store experiences, I think technology embedded in our environments is in a way inevitable, but the execution could be overwhelming and overbearing, or well executed and aesthetic.
- I seek to understand how public installations create meaning and build memorable experiences for people, with the aim of providing design principles for ubiquitous technology. Too broad ? (perhaps)
- I think the how is what might be different to my capstone, since there I am building something, and have talked to ppl and done a bunch of primary research. I think in understanding several designs more in depth, and I think Follkmann is a way in that seemed more natural for the type of design (meaning looking at sensual-phenomenological, conceptual-hermeneutical, and contextual discursive platforms). So would looking at say 5 installations and break them down into their components, and see what patterns emerge be enough? (what say you?) I think an underlying claim is that in understanding how installations create such experiences, we can design better ubiquitous technology or something like that.
So in terms of what things I need to look into, it would be something like:
- Explain Folkmann’s platforms
- Show why it ties well to this type of designs, or why I think it can be used (find the value in a way)
- Find if someone has used this for some other ulterior motive(s)
- Talk about 1 example of how it is used
- Summarize findings from doing this 5 times or so
I think the paper structure I am using as a basis is the defamiliarization paper (explain what technique is, how it is used in some cases, drop some principles).
What I cannot figure out with Joanne Entwistle’s book chapter is why she did not include any visual examples. Sure fashion trends come and go, but she could have shown the same woman wearing different garments and point out the differences between how a woman is portrays herself.
Hilary Clinton was first lady from 1993-2000, where she had the role of being the president’s wife. It is not an official role and she did not get paid for being First Lady. What she wore was feminine, had bright colors, lace, form fitting, etc. Could she have worn these same clothes and be taken seriously as a leader when running for President in 2008? Compare the two images, the one above and the one below based on what she is wearing. What kind of message is she portraying? What is she saying about herself?
My point here is an attempt to give a visual example for Joanne Entwistle’s argument. Which I agreed with as I was reading, but would have had a better understanding of if she gave me visual examples other than just describing garments. Over spring break, I remember watching the Today Show and there being a segment about the Wrap Dress turning 40. Would have I understood what the wrap dress even was or it’s role in feminism was by Matt Lauer just standing there and describing it?
Today in class, we discussed how a song was metal, broadway, or both, based on semiotics. I’m hoping to expand a little more on that here and work on my understanding of it.
Over Spring Break I re-read Faithfull: An Autobiography by Marianne Faithfull and David Dalton. I could probably spend hours talking about Marianne Faithfull’s books and music as she is one of my favorite singers. Her post 1969 voice is not for everyone, but it fits the worn, survivor she became after years of dealing with homelessness and drug/alcohol abuse.
In her book, Marianne discussed her first single, As Tears Go By, which she recorded when she was 16 years old. It became a huge pop hit and launched her into stardom. In 1987 she rerecorded the song for her first post-recovery album Strange Weather, and in her book, she stated 16 was not the appropriate age to record this song, 40 was the right age. I cannot help but agree with this after hearing the two versions, one right after another. To me, event though the lyrics and the performer are the same, they are two completely different songs.
First off, the 1964 recording is very light sounding, sounds like a 16-year-old convent girl spending her life trying to figure out what she should do with her life, whereas the 1987 recording sounds as if the person has been to hell and back. The re-recording is a more reflective song, she is looking back on her life, seeing what she has been through and accepting where she is today — it almost sounds regretful when she says she sits and watches As Tears Go By now, wishing and wondering how things could have been different. It became so much more personal, whereas the original 1964 songs sound a lot more generic. Marianne did not have the experiences yet to fully express the meaning of the song and make it a personal reflection on her life — just taking the lyrics at face value and not interpreting them as a way to show her journey from where she was to where she is. Could it be the voice or her appearance in the two videos that makes the two different, but to me, it is more about the performance. The performance of the 1987 recording is what makes it different. It has been slowed down, with more emphasis on the lyrics — they can be heard loud and clear with minimal production. Marianne sounds connected to the words here and even though she did not write the song (with was the first collaborative effort between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards), it sounds as if she did or could have. The words became her accepting who she became.
In addition to my previous post about fashion designer Iris van Herpen.
In the future, our clothes may be 3D printed. One of her quotes, “Everybody could have their own body scanned and just order clothes that fit perfectly.” Have a look at the article below and let me know what you guys think:
Also here is a sample of some of her dresses:
I do think they are kind of cool.
Dutch Fashion Designer Iris Van Herpen had models vacuum-packed and suspended in the air during her show during Paris Fashion week. This lady designed those really tall and weird-looking shoes Lady Gaga wears and does a lot with 3D print outfits.
Anyways, have a look at the link and let me know what you guys thing!
So I went through the process of consolidating the papers I’ve read over this weekend, and took a first stab at my main argument. Obviously there’s a lot more content linked to these claims, but I was hoping to get some feedback/critique on what I’ve summarized here.
- Single Claim: If we are to understand the emergence and pervasiveness of Instagram and mobile phone photography, we must first situate its use in the context of both the aesthetic intent of the photographer and its intended audience.
- Audience for Claim: the HCI community and professional photographers/photojournalists
- The audience understands the basic technologies and tools available for digital image-making
- We want to change the underlying belief that Instagram,or any other mobile applications that allow for one-touch photo manipulation, are “ruining” photography
- Additional technical vocabulary is limited to Instagram-centric terms, such as hashtag (#). In addition, the name of the application itself can be applied as a verb (e.g. “to Instagram” a subject of a photo) in lieu of “photograph” to imply its use of capture, curation, and sharing as part of a set mobile workflow
- Key supports for Claim:
- The notion of what is considered a “camera” has undergone several evolutions over the history of photography, and the smartphone camera as evidence of “convergence culture” seeks not to replace the traditional camera, but rather augment it.
- Image manipulation itself isn’t the entire scope of the problem, but rather the aesthetic misrepresentation of a subject or subject group that is problematic
- When formerly “offline” activities are brought into the online space (e.g. sharing photos in an album vs. through an online service like Instagram or Flickr), new forms of curation and folksonomy emerge, and these forms of “social storytelling” through images have their own form of aesthetic value.
On page 612 of Jeffrey Bardzell’s article, Interaction Criticism: An Introduction to the Practice, he quotes Lev Manovich and theory of transcoding in New Media. Transcoding means “the principle that computer files have both a computer layer and a cultural layer” (612).
When I read this quote (and I believe I read some of Manovich’s work when I was in Christians Briggs’s class, cause I know the theory of transcoding from somewhere), it reminded me of the video posted above from BuzzFeed. Photoshop is used as an example in Jeff’s article, so I will not repeat what he said here. What I want to focus on is the cultural layer of this video.
We often see models on the covers of magazines and automatically think, that is not the way he or she looks in real life, they have been Photoshopped. It is said these magazines and the practice of retouching photos to make people appear perfect has lead to increased instances of body dysmorphic disorder. What makes this video so different is that it shows the reactions of women after they have been put in the model’s situation and have photos of them altered, in order to meet what is called perfect. The reactions show they do no like what they look like, stating it does not look like them — going against everything these magazine covers are trying to show. Maybe the cultural layer of Photoshop should be seen more as making things unreal rather than improving photographs.
While I was looking through designs about food, Jared pointing out this collection to me. They are design glasses based off of the Seven Sins.
While in class we critiqued designs based on values and not functionality. I think these designs are very strong on design and not much on functionality. Though it would be quite the experience dressing up like the images and drinking from these glasses.