What do you really see?

2: Druker and Elkins both make the claim that various things have led us as a popluation to stop "seeing" the world around us. Druker makes the claim that this is inherant in the design of our public signs and images, Elkins that it is due to a lack of attention on our part.

Question - is this lack of attention and monotony of signage an oppritunity in disguise. We may not pay attention to the form of every stop sign, but when an object violates our expectations, it is all the more powerful. Can you think of any examples of such violations (eg. putting 'the war' underneath the word STOP on a stop sign)?


I have seen the example of 'the war' on stop signs extremely frequently, to the point that it has lost its luster and is just normal again. This shows how easily we can become accustomed to an object that stands out initially, but then is seen in a repeated fashion, in nearly all aspects of media, people, fashion, and public signage. We naturally group things into categories, and once a practical category is establish within our minds, the subset group now becomes its own identity, no longer stands out, and simply remains in contrast to the others. There are countless examples of this, from anarchy turning to fad, and hip turning to dull. This plays along with the 'merchants of cool' who hope to cash in on the ability of people to catch on to a category as something new, even though once the 'cashing in' occurs, the new aspect of whatever it is has been lost and is just another unoriginal cashcow fad. Below is more funny than a violation of expectations...