Until watching the film, I had never realized how much the font Helvetica was used. It's clean and simple font strangely varies for different logos and companies. It seems like the perfect font. Will there ever be another font that will over come Helvetica?
Helvetica seems to provide everything a type face should offer. Simplicity, sharpness, professionalism, and style. It seems the only way any other font could stand out is through bad design. It's odd how there is no longer a competition in typography, there's only Helvetica as the winner.
The film's bold move to do a documentary on something so specific was successful. Wouldn't it be more interesting to have done a longer documentary on just the topic of typography? Perhaps have gone into the stories of Verdana, or the dreadful Comic Sans?
I do feel more educated after watching the documentary. I feel I have a much stronger grasp on the importance on typography, and how to look upon type. Maybe this will help improve my eye on good and bad design.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
"Decasia" Bill Morrison
Bill Morrison's avant-garde use of aged film can be described in one sense, eerie. It took me a while to realize why the film was so creepy. The music definitely helped to distinguish the mood of the piece but there were other elements to support it. What really got to me was what was actually happening to the film and how it related to the scenes in the film. The blurs and spots act as being viral, or an infestation. There was a feeling that the characters shown were meeting a grim fate. As if they were dying along with the decay of the film. Specifically, as if they were apart of an epidemic. Perhaps, Morrison is trying to make commentary on the death of classic cinema in the new age.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Practice of Everyday Media Life
It is incredible what technology offers us. Society is able to access any information, purchase any need, be entertained, and most importantly, connect with people. Instead of taken advantage of the vast library of the world wide web, a large majority spends their time on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace.
It's a great resource to connect with friends, or family who live far away, or who have been lost over the course of time. But honestly, why do we spend so much of our valuable time connecting with people through a monitor screen, when we could just as easily be face to face? Why is there an appeal to talking in isolated positions? There's been a loophole created to prevent us from socially awkward, or uncomfortable situations. What will the result be of this new media life?
In my own prediction, isolation will increase dramatically. There's already been an increase in public isolation. When people are out alone in public, instead of striking up small talk with a stranger, people will pull out cell phones, ipods, or laptops to avoid talking to anyone. This occurred even before the beginning of social media. Will people now avoid going out and having a live conversation because there isn't a computer barrier to hide behind?
The other issue with everyday media life is the need to always be entertained. With a few clicks, anyone can access any video, song, or movie in a matter of minutes. These aren't necessarily activities that are interactive and involves talking with other people. Once again, we come across another isolation factor.
My worries are that everything we could ever need could either be bought, or fulfilled on a computer. In the future, will people ever need to go out into the real physical world? Or will the populations of 1st and 2nd world countries live in isolated pods? The 20th and 21st century might be the beginning of becoming like a future society predicted in literature. The strongest supports would be Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984.
With Brave New World and 1984 in mind, lets think about what will happen to art. Art has received leverage with the internet. The fact that anyone is able to see art has increased it's popularity. More people are studying art and design with the increase of visual domination. But will this destroy art? Not in our time, art will eventually lose it's value after too much molding around the world of technology. There will be a climax and collapse in the beauty of art. Right now, presently, art still holds onto most of its potential.
It's a great resource to connect with friends, or family who live far away, or who have been lost over the course of time. But honestly, why do we spend so much of our valuable time connecting with people through a monitor screen, when we could just as easily be face to face? Why is there an appeal to talking in isolated positions? There's been a loophole created to prevent us from socially awkward, or uncomfortable situations. What will the result be of this new media life?
In my own prediction, isolation will increase dramatically. There's already been an increase in public isolation. When people are out alone in public, instead of striking up small talk with a stranger, people will pull out cell phones, ipods, or laptops to avoid talking to anyone. This occurred even before the beginning of social media. Will people now avoid going out and having a live conversation because there isn't a computer barrier to hide behind?
The other issue with everyday media life is the need to always be entertained. With a few clicks, anyone can access any video, song, or movie in a matter of minutes. These aren't necessarily activities that are interactive and involves talking with other people. Once again, we come across another isolation factor.
My worries are that everything we could ever need could either be bought, or fulfilled on a computer. In the future, will people ever need to go out into the real physical world? Or will the populations of 1st and 2nd world countries live in isolated pods? The 20th and 21st century might be the beginning of becoming like a future society predicted in literature. The strongest supports would be Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984.
With Brave New World and 1984 in mind, lets think about what will happen to art. Art has received leverage with the internet. The fact that anyone is able to see art has increased it's popularity. More people are studying art and design with the increase of visual domination. But will this destroy art? Not in our time, art will eventually lose it's value after too much molding around the world of technology. There will be a climax and collapse in the beauty of art. Right now, presently, art still holds onto most of its potential.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
It is interesting how the industrial revolution and technology was the true beginning of art. Before the 20th century, art was mostly illustrative. Artists were only expected to document a time period. With printmaking and photography, machinery had the ability to create, and replicate faster than artist. The advancement pushed to artists to make art with a statement, or concept.
As industry increases, so does art and design. But is industry completely changing what most people know as "art"? A large part of art before the 20th century had been associated with nature. Industry continues to separate from nature, creating a break from the past. Will paintings and sculptures before the 20th Century no longer be considered "art"? Or will work from the 20th century and after be considered to be "design"?
As industry increases, so does art and design. But is industry completely changing what most people know as "art"? A large part of art before the 20th century had been associated with nature. Industry continues to separate from nature, creating a break from the past. Will paintings and sculptures before the 20th Century no longer be considered "art"? Or will work from the 20th century and after be considered to be "design"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)