link
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jsadows2/WAM%20Syllabus.pdf
17 years ago
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
1) Prairie home companion represents the last vestiges of the radio drama - an entirely aural mass media story. When television first overtook radio, there were those that said it was less 'creative' because the viewer didn't have to imagine anything and could sit passively. Do you agree with this? Is audio inherently more involved than audio+video?
Television undoubtedly destroyed radio drama, and its influence on the world was unprecedented. Not because it allowed laziness of imagination, but because it transformed ability of foreign images to reach the mind. Although the screen is a passive viewing device, the mind is able to take such images and remember them, far better than the memory of imagined places (similar to how you forget dreams). I do agree that it makes you more passive in your viewing, but overall, I feel the tv can actually inspire more imagination as it provides images we would never be able to produce independently in our minds eye. Still, the radio requires more involvement, but i do not feel it makes us less creative.
Television undoubtedly destroyed radio drama, and its influence on the world was unprecedented. Not because it allowed laziness of imagination, but because it transformed ability of foreign images to reach the mind. Although the screen is a passive viewing device, the mind is able to take such images and remember them, far better than the memory of imagined places (similar to how you forget dreams). I do agree that it makes you more passive in your viewing, but overall, I feel the tv can actually inspire more imagination as it provides images we would never be able to produce independently in our minds eye. Still, the radio requires more involvement, but i do not feel it makes us less creative.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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...
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...
Q no A 4
1) Drucker believes that businesses and public signs have developed a language of their own for practical and pragmatic use, so that the use will be a means to an end (justification of a park by making it educational or drawing attention to business). What does messages in graffiti, especially well constructed or written, do to the language of the public eye? Has it created a realm of its own or does it try and fit in to mesh w/ this other ‘language’?
2) How much of public signs do you believe are for control (Fairey’s ‘OBEY’) or are for edification and benevolent beliefs? What of graffiti?
3)Has the 20th and 21st century migration to cities been a major cause for us to stop 'using' our eyes, in Elkins sense, since those that live there are removed from nature and the beauty he often speaks of?
2) How much of public signs do you believe are for control (Fairey’s ‘OBEY’) or are for edification and benevolent beliefs? What of graffiti?
3)Has the 20th and 21st century migration to cities been a major cause for us to stop 'using' our eyes, in Elkins sense, since those that live there are removed from nature and the beauty he often speaks of?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
