I took my roommate to Mae’s Diner in Pleasant Ridge for her birthday today. Their front window was lined with these old-school faygo pops! I didn’t even know half of these flavors existed, but look at the can designs! I think maybe i’m obsessed with swiss-style design, because seeing these can designs made me way more excited a normal person should be.
You know what? I think I just made it my life goal to collect all of these. Ebay, here i come. I can’t even… i’m just so… what the… I need this.
“Recently, when throwing ideas around with people, I’ve noticed something. There seems to be a hidden language we use when evaluating ideas.
Neat idea. Brilliant idea. Dumb idea. Bad idea. Strange idea. Cool idea.
There’s something going on here. Each one of these ideas is subtly different in character. Each adjective somehow conveys the quality of the concept in a way we instantly and unconsciously understand.
For instance, a ‘neat’ idea is not the same as a ‘brilliant’ idea. A ‘bad’ idea is not quite the same as a ‘dumb’ idea.
I started wondering: is there an invisible language of ideas? Could there be an unseen hierarchy hidden in that language? What qualities actually make a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ idea? Could you visualize and plot the most popular words used to describe ideas? Would that unveil the structure? And would doing that be a ‘nice’ idea? Or a ‘terrible’ one?”
I was browsing around the internet looking for some examples of bad type and I found this lovely gem:
This image came from an article that had 23 examples of really bad choices of font for various businesses. I think this one was my favorite, but the others can be found here:
I had a really good laugh over these!
It seems as though the debate to define ‘what is art?’ is a never ending one, with consistent new challengers. However, I was actually surprised to find that a large portion of the art community denies video games as an art form. Now, it’s not uncommon that when I tell people i’m a graphic designer, they make the assumption that I am a gaming wizard and that someday I will be working on ‘Grandtheft Auto 57: Who cares, you’re going to buy it anyway’. Truth be told, i’m horrible at most video games, so I always find this assumption to be strange. However, for my colleagues who find their way into game design, I never really thought i’d see the day where their artistic identity was being challenged.
Here is the full article:
The author of this article basically summarized their point by siting a recent study that was done that found that of people who call themselves “Gamers”, only 1 out of 10 of them actually completed a game they had purchased. To apply this to other art forms, that might be like saying, “Well, i viewing Starry Night by Van Gogh, but I haven’t completed viewing it yet.” While this might be unheard of in the realm of painting, I don’t entirely agree that it fully discredits game art as a true art form. Perhaps the player might not be getting the full aesthetic experience of the game art designers work, the question arrises, “Who do we create art for?” This is tricky to answer, as the most obvious answer would be that game art is created entirely for the players. Do we know this for a fact? Do we know for a fact that each and every game designer is doing this and only this? The same could be said for graphic artists, yet most of us still hold true to our artistry.
Interesting article about Apple’s use of skeuomorphic design in their UI. How do we, as designers, feel about this kind of visual layout compared to the more modular approach incorporating visual hierarchy by apple’s colleagues over at Windows?
Interesting how this sort of ties into our recent reading from class.
Full article here:
Interesting ‘representation’ of Wright-style architecture. Too bad Rom’s campaign is total crap. I’ve seen more elegance in a litterbox than we saw at the Tampa convention. I wonder how Wright would feel about this supposed appropriation of his style…
“But of course most Americans don’t know about Wright’s dubious political (or even urbanistic) ideas. And in any case they would be hard pressed to find any serious trace of Wright in the GOP set, which is comprised of overlapping screens with faux-laminate frames. The idea is that this is Wrightian because it suggests the master’s use of horizontal bands of wood. Perhaps that was the inspiration, but it is now so far from the source as to be irrelevant. More accurately, the multiple screens projecting propaganda images of a great leader is derived from Soviet Constructivism, but you can be absolutely positive that no one from the GOP will be making that connection this week.”
I can’t even begin to imagine seeing a notice like this. It’s interesting the way the communication of ‘notice’ information like this has changed. The other day I was on campus and I was looking for a microwave. I came across a poster in the basement of the student center with a picture of a microwave, with a caption that said, “Looking for me?” “More microwaves on campus now.” The poster said nothing about where these microwaves might be located, but regardless, the idea is the same: A simple communication of an idea that would suggest the observer do something, without a direct notification. However, Eckersley’s poster varies greatly in style than the one seen on campus.