This wednesday, we're going to have a wild party that will be the envy of other enlish classes everywhere....NOT!
In addition to the in-class assignment, we're going to learn how to "save for web" images so that they are smaller and more appropriate for web (and for submitting to Susan). We're going to talk a little about file formats like .psd, .jpg, .gif, and .tif (there are many others) and the differences between them.
We're going to discuss graphics programs and the difference between pixelated images (the things created/modified in Photoshop) and vectored graphics (things created in programs like Illustrator and Flash that create images mathematically).
For our in-class assignment, we're also going to experiment with some of the drawing tools, either in Photoshop or Illustrator depending on the software load in the class. That will include how to "cheat" by tracing an image in Photoshop.
We have a lot to do, so be prepared to hit the ground running.
You can see Tufte's powerpoint rant at Wired:
If you subscribe (online subscription is free) The New York Times' take on the "Powerpoint as evil" argument. They even mention Tufte's analysis of the space shuttle diasaster; curse of the bullet-points?.
Watermarks are subtle transparent designs placed on copyrighted graphics to make them less desirable to image thieves.
Certain companies have systems where you can register your watermarks for added protection.
You can see an example of a watermarked document here at http://www.wekasoft.com/photomark/examples.htm.
Though they don't have a registry, Microsoft Word claims to have a process for watermarking graphics and text at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q285/0/55.ASP&NoWebContent=1. What I could find on Word's "watermarking" was lame; you had to create a watermark that would be SCREEN-ONLY and wouldn't print out OR you had to pre-print a watermark on a page which, of course, negates the idea of watermarking a graphic for copyright protection.
If anyone uses the watermark feature in word in some other way (different versions of word seem to do it differently), let us know how you do it.
I suppose it was only a matter of time - I've now gotten two spam mails in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish. But I noticed, before I deleted the most recent, that they follow the "standard" spam format of including a URL where you can ask them not to send you further email. And the scary thing is that even though I don't speak/read/understand Spanish, I could pick out the "if you don't want any more mail from us, click here" on my first scan. Three reasons: the word spam was written SPAM (thus visually louder), the URL was bright blue (high contrast to background and surrounding text), and the sentence looked like it ought to be the "tell us to go away" sentence (mostly the location - end of letter).
Under ordinary circumstances, I would be posting to the comment section. But the link for commenting on Chris' article seems to be missing. (Steph!) In any event....
After I finish giggling....
Who does this pompous ass think he is, exactly? Ahem.
o Background in the letter: frankly, not enough. Certainly not enough for any reasonable person to reach a decision on.
o Correlation to Bush: I can only repeat a recent observation that the good news for Gore is that he and Bush are neck-and-neck in the polls again, and the bad news for Bush is that he's... neck-and-neck in the polls with Gore again. 3 years after the election. When Gore isn't even running.
o The state of the letter in the PDF: what'd they do, run over it or something?
o The overall proposal: what happened, did someone's kid come home with Harry Potter or something?
o Ethos: very religious. Very conservative.
o Tone: well, it's not /quite/ "My God can beat up your God," but it's certainly in the same "you heathens!" ballpark that I usually get out of the local Jehovah's Witnesses.
o This 'classical literature' thing... isn't DH Lawrence considered classical these days? And then there's that Old Testament incest, rape, murder, and genocide stuff - where does that fit in?
o Ooooo. No propaganda. Obviously I wouldn't've been able to write my HS senior history paper on the American Communist Party if this guy'd been in charge of the local collections.
o I see they're keen on ease of censorship.
o Hmmm. I wonder if the "young adult" criteria means they'd stop trying to shove the really depressing stuff like "Bridge to Teribithia" down the kids' throats....
o Wait. The librarians don't get input on stuff that's taken off circulation? Er. After all that proposed new "rights of whatever" business talking about the fact that the librarian makes the judgment call about what's appropriate in what type of library, why are they then headed the totally other direction?
o Wait. The librarians are expected to /babysit/? Who /are/ these people, anyway?
o Heh. The First Amendment as the most "widely misused" portion of the Constitution. I disagree. The most widely misused part of the Constitution is the right to arm bears, and we all know it.
o Ooo! There's no censorship in this country, unless you're poor! Okay, that gives me an idea of what economics bracket this guy fits in.
o Lack of availability is not the same as censorship. True. However, if the /public/ library funded by the /public/ funds raised by taxing /the public/ - you know, through the /government/ - is told "take that down" by /the government/....
Oh dearie dearie me. Okay. After all, our country was founded on the premise that neighbors kept an eye on each other to make sure everyone was doing the same thing as everyone else. I shouldn't be particularly surprised that the push to keep "minding everyone else's business" is still inherent in our society. It's certainly less controversial than the "404 WMD not found," but it's definitely likely to get the local politicos who sponsor it into the running with Gore.
It just occured to me that in the course of studying Visual Rhetoric, we haven't looked at its most basic form.
Posit:
Rhetoric, whether verbal of visual is meant to sway a persons thought; meant to convince them of one thing, or another. In our examinations of Visual Rhetoric, we have overlooked the idea that untill relatively recently, Rhetoricians JUST used words to convey their point of view, their purpose, and the essence of their desires.
WOuld it then be safe to suppose that untill relatively recently, Rhetoritians designed their WRITEN rhetoric to convey Images? perhapes not even what we think of as Conventional images, but structural images as well? (by structural I mean, the development of processies in the mind, influenced by what we read, asd in a political or religious flyer that is meant to convert our thinking from one pattern to another) I will develope this further in the EE
I want provide an example of what I mean here... this is a letter writen to a judge in Texas. The First link is the document in PDF Format, the second link is the News story the letter came from, as well as a reprint of the letter its self.
Please notice the pains the author is taking in this document to make President Bush seem a hero for taking HIGLY controversial actions, then notice the effort the author is going to to convince the reader of this letter that in taking the Author's suggested controversial actions, he (the judge) would be considered a hero, and become extreamly popular for taking said actions.
This letter, while controversial is an excelent example of an attempt to sway a person through "mental" visual imagery.
what are your thoughts on the matter?
Chris B
Discussions about copyright and fair use are all over the media today, in large part because of the infatada infatada the RIAA has waged over MP3 sharing among consumers. But what does copyright really mean and where does fair use for purposes of academic and intellectual freedom fall?
Stanford Universities Library System's copyright website includes both primary source material for copyright information plus detailed disucssions of fair use and academic freedom. It points out some of the greyer areas of copyright.
I really honestly think that this site says it all when it comes to why a basic knowledge of visual rhetoric - how to get people to do something based on an image of some sort - is of critical importance. Although the site was established to allow people to complain about something in general, the majority of these are about interpreting images - such as the competing exit signs, both of which point at a hotel room door.
We have a long way to go in international cultural homogeny when it comes to using graphics in international communication. Symbols, letters, puns, animals, religions, and even colors present “translation” problems. These issues are the focus of the article, which attempts to give hope to the reader by providing guidelines for using graphics in a multicultural setting.
My personal response to this 1993 article involves discussion of the Internet. Read on my friends!
It occurs to me that to accomplish true cultural homogeny in graphics, nations themselves would have to be obliterated, for concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, are engrained in the simplist contrasts (such as right and left).
Since the writing of this article in 1993, however, the Internet has arisen as the great Obliterator (do you agree?). On the Net you can more easily internationalize, something that paper documents cannot do. For instance, the net allows cultural elements to be processed dynamically (have you ever gone to a website and chosen the "U.S." version to view?). A good rule for business communication today is "get on the net" because it’s the safest place to be.
Why?
Besides combining cultures in a dynamic way, the internet is also creating its own culture, its own law for graphics. Bypassing many of the hard-fast rules of paper documents, the internet has its own ground rules. In many senses, by logging on, you log out of the real world and into a whole new ballgame of graphical conventions.
QUESTION: In what ways do you see the Internet bypassing cultural barriers? Give examples.
Is the Internet culture killing other cultures or is simply a separate entity, one to add to the list?
In his paper, "Representation," Hall argues that "people who belong to the same culture . . . must also share the same way of interpreting the signs of a language" (p. 19). He then immediately asks, "But how do we know which concept stands for which thing? Or which word effectively represent which concept? How do I know which sounds or images will carry . . . the meaning of . . . what I want to say?" (p. 19). The fact that we have to ask, every time we share a concept with another person, every time we create a visual message, makes the case for individual interpretation and the utter individuality of each viewer of our work. I don't believe it is possible that we, as a group or as a culture, share the same way of interpreting any given graphical representation.
Hello Everyone! Welcome to Eva's session of blogging! We can talk all about Gregg Myers' Words and Pictures.
My Response to Text: When advertisers are not treating their audience passively they can assume certain things about them that may or may not be true (i.e. have to conjure the given-what the hearer already knows about).
Q to the Class: What is your own construction of the advertisements? Creatively discuss further if the advertisements carried different meanings for you than ads (Volkswagen, Spastic Society, Volvo, Moschino, Kenwood) aimed for.
Reminders:
*You can reply using the comments feature of the blog. You don't have to log in.
*The Myers reading can be found at the libros page.
*You can easily access Myers' images by clicking on the link on the lower left hand corner.
*Have Fun!
Quieren saber mas? This is just additional information.
My discussion is geared more toward social constructs and expectations of the advertiser.
How I came to my conclusion: Well first I've been thinking about what a person said early in class: meaning boils down to perception. Then, throughout reading the text I sensed a skepical tone in Myers' writing with his usage of words, "my own construction, my own discovery," "it could be," "usually," "may be," "have many meanings." I remembered Bennetton and one of his controversial ads with a black mother and a white baby. The ad had significantly different meanings in two different parts of the world. What about McCloud? He was illustrating that we come to associate ourselves by the cars we drive or things we buy, well what if some people do not? Anyway, I still do not know what that Moschino ad was all about anyway!
Plug: Everyone go to superbad.com. This website is chockful of great visual analyzing material.
One of the adds mentioned in the Tyler article is for Benetton. The Myers article we've read also talks about these adds, and neither article comes to a strong conclusion about what the images mean. I find it interesting that neither article mentions the full name of the company, which is printed in the adds: United Colors of Benetton. I think the word "United" might add something to these adds.
Traditionally, I think the word "United" signifies an organization committed to some larger societal cause (especially combined with the word "colors"- could be a reference not only to clothing but to skin tone). So does the use of the word "united" put the images into the context of a value system- ie, for or against the cause that might be depicted? (It's hard to determine what exactly is depicted in the Tyler article- a baby being born could stand for any number of issues/ideas)... does the word reveal what Benetton (if anything) might want to persuade us about?
Another thought I had was that Benetton might be trying to take the easy way out by not contextualizing their message: it allows the visual text to be approached from any number of manners, and thus could appeal to a wider audience (beyond just those who are for a certain cause). The image of the baby could, for example, be interpreted as a pro-life image & also as an image decrying overpopulation (that might be stretching it a bit, but the image has a tone of distress, and overpopulation is the first birth-related distressing subject that comes to mind).
My apologies if this adds to the confusion. Does post here mean here? Or to this thread? Is there a distinction between posting and commenting, and if not does anyone else think that creating a distinction would help us?
First of all, I am EXTREMELY embarrassed, and I give myself an "F" as scribe because I neglected to take down what is perhaps the most important info: the names of everyone in my group-- my profuse apologies. I am horrible at remembering names, and while I do have a vague recollection, I would rather be ignorant than wrong in this situation. Anyway, this is Eli, and my group was the second row of computers as you walk in. Group, please contact me so that I may correct my deficiency.
My attempt at covering the questions as per our conversations will be in the extended entry.
I will try to write this entry with reference to the three questions, but our discussion of the leaflets was not so structured although we did cover most of what we were supposed to.
1. We decided that the responsible party decided what the message would be, maybe verbatim, maybe not, and then these messages were taken to the design team to be illustrated. Less authority would be given to the artists because the command has the ultimate say so, and the command definitely has a specific goal in mind for the propaganda that is most likely based on some intelligence reports on the Iraqi citizenry and military. The design decisions for the messages themselves are probably based on some criteria of clarity and plausibility, i.e., what can we make them believe? For instance, the satellite/ we can see everything leaflet is a bit of an exaggeration of our power that could lead one to believe that we truly do see all (which I doubt anyone does). As far as the artists are concerned, decisions must be made about what images will best represent the messages and how best to go about achieving them-- realism or abstraction? Budget and time are also considerations. While it would be possible to create "real" images of Iraqi equipment being destroyed, it would be costly, would take more time and logistical cooperation (artists are not part of the airwing or infantry), and doing so might actually weaken the message in that the drawings create an iconic universality as opposed to compartmentability of a real, specific incident (McCloud).
2. An interest point was made about the process of delivery-- if these were dropped from the sky (not that we think anyone was fooled into believing this), then it can be somewhat metaphorical of Godlike power. If the literacy rate is indeed only 58%, then the citizens must have only been able to read the pictures-- we did not discuss how clear the messages were without the words, though. Our initial responses were "ludicrous" and "funny" in the context of the classroom, but in their intended context, they probably were effective, and if not, there is the possibility that they built resentment as displays of power and might often do. We did not get around to discussing our own experience of seeing them represented digitally.
3. Beyond what I have written, which to a degree covers question 3, we did not really get to explore this one much either as most of our time was spent going from image to image. One design decision that we did talk about, though, was of the Saddam image where he looks like a pig. We thought this might have been done to characterize him in a way other than his usual representation to the people of Iraq-- his image is all over the place there, so a photographic image would have less impact since the people are desensitized to this presentation.
With regard to what we might do with the images, two ideas were presented. One was to do a store-front window display-- we did not really develop this one, though.
The other was to try and arrange the images, changing them when appropriate, into a story for a children's book. Possibly a children's book satire, and of course, all of the words would be changed to achieve this end. We discussed putting a spin on them to recontextualize the images, but did not get very far with actual ideas for the spin itself. One was to turn it into a science fiction.
Hope this is pretty much what we were meant to do with it all.
E
Scribes post your notes for the Iraq Leaflets here using the comment feature. Prof. Romano did not start a section to post our group comments so I'm starting one here. Press 'Comment' under this post. I apologize for the confusion.
When our group originally viewed these images we thought they were simply layed out. The graphic manipulation was obvious and the text conveyed the main points quickly. Iraq has 58% literacy rate so if a person can't read the simple images usually conveyed a message.
Although, the images were disturbing and demanding of the audience this was a design decision by the authors. They wanted to persuade the Iraqi military by scaring and disrupting. The leaflets usually included the same design features (missles pointed at military installments and military installments on fire). We noticed the leaflet 020-01dd portrays the message that if the military installments shoot at coalition forces they will be destroyed. But in a later leaflet, izd-017b, it says, "whether manned or unmanned, these weapon systems will be destroyed." Now with contradictory messages the Iraqi forces know either manned or un-manned they're going to be targeted. As American citizens we're displaced from being in war and we process these less seriously (ie why we're changing the context of the images to be humorous). I would assume the Iraqi forces would take these leaflets seriously because of the impending danger.
Some of the ads were also tailored for the citizens. These were designed to make the citizens think the Coalition force is there to rescue them from the grips of Saddam Hussein. Also, keep them out of the way during battle and initiate civil disobidience (aid Coalition forces it they are in trouble).
In the design process we decided that the text came first and then the images were created. The design team had general themes they wanted to convey. Then they decided on quick threats and instructions; followed by graphics. We inferred that the graphic design team did not have a large budget and time.
We spent a lot of time on the OJ ad and, while it is interesting to talk about what we each "see" there and what it means or says to us, I had hoped to get into our readings more and talk about those ideas and how we might each respond to them. Do you agree? Not agree? How do you interpret the theories presented. Some of this came out in blog but hasn't been followed up on. Is the blog intended to be our main outlet for discussion of this kind? And totally off the point, but essential to conversation, lets all use a "real" name to sign entries so that we can begin getting to know each other. Thanks, Viqui
Here's some good resources for information and tutorials on grahpics and graphics software. Nothing takes the place of just doing it, however.
Anyone else who has good sources (online or via other sources) pipe up and share the wealth!
Photoshop's creator's site: http://www.adobe.com/products/tips/photoshop.html
Builder.com's graphics tutorials: http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/0-3883.html
Webmonkey's graphics discussions: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/design/graphics/index.html
GIF vs JPEG: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/geektalk/97/30/index3a.html
When photoshop goes bad (tells story of techtv host who improperly saved a photoshop file and ended up inadvertantly posting topless pictures of herself online). http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/27225
You can also check out the Photoshop WOW book which is available via interlibrary loan.
As we've progressed through the class, I have noticed the huge disparity among students in terms of use and familiarity with production software from basic things like Word and Powerpoint to more complex and specialized wares like Photoshop or the Dreamweaver products.
What types of design materials do you produce, and what do you use to produce it? Things like assignments for classes, websites, graphics, etc.
I ask this so that we might tailor some of the hands-on stuff to reflect the interests of the class while not ignoring the needs of those who are more basic users.
I just posted the following comment in response to Susan's questions and found it posted under another comment and takes some finding. I feel that there are too many avenues for comment and following a cohesive conversation in this manner is going to be unwieldy and time-consuming. Perhaps it is because I am new to blogging and not quick at navigating around yet; but I am going to find it tedious to follow the entries of up to 25 thinkers and the geometrically expanding branches of responses to each entry. Does familiarity breed efficiency for seasoned bloggers?
It is interesting--and shouldn't be surprising--that designers choose images that promote their points of view just as authors choose words and phrasing that promote their points of view. Being more aware of the choice (even that there was--and always is--a choice involved) of image we are looking at in conjunction with a given message has to be a part of a worthwhile analysis of the message and the effectiveness of the design.
But just as an analyst can delve far more deeply into that choice (as literary analysis often does)than the designer ever intended, we can find ourselves reading all manner of "intent" into those choices that may or may not have existed until we, through our analysis, create them.
Then, we are each in a world of our own, "reading" what we will into the text we see and, by our reading, making it so because one cannot argue away an interpretation. --or can one?
Hello all—
This is the prompt for the post-Wednesday blog discussion. This week we’ll use the space and time as a prelude to Monday’s face-to-face discussion. (Monday we’ll be looking at the images you’ve collected and learning to use the new vocabulary, if it applies, as we discuss.) I have three questions for you to answer (click on the extended message below to see them). Your answers will help shape the discussion on Monday.
If you are one of the first few people to log in and look at this prompt, feel free to INITIATE conversation below (by posting, instead of commenting). If you are logging in later, you may comment on what other people have said (or you can initiate if you so desire). In other words, you DON’T have to answer ME. You can make the conversation move along by answering someone else. The point is CONVERSATION, not correct answers.
Read on for the questions----
1.One of our course objectives is to become better readers of visuals and better readers of the visual/verbal combination. Review the Sturken and Cartwright text, this time looking carefully at the digitized images
Sturken Image Page
Which image discussion captured your attention best or taught you something you didn’t know before? [This is the open ended question]
2. On page 36, Sturken and Cartwright begin a substantive discussion of “image icons.” How does the S&C discussion jibe with McCloud’s long discussion of icons in Chapter 2 of Understanding Comics? Do these authors agree on the definition of icon? What’s the difference?
[This one requires going back and rereading. You can BEGIN a conversation with your answer, rather than wrap things up, if you want.]
3. In chapter 1, Kostelnick and Roberts introduce a number of concepts that they will continue to draw on throughout the book. Look at Figure 1.33 in K and R, Chapter 1, page 45. Now look at question 2 on p. 44, which describes the readership and purpose for the page. Talk informally about revising the site to better suit its purpose and audience expectation, which is this: to enable interaction among members of an international audience. In your discussion draw on what you’ve read—vocabulary and concepts introduced either in K and R or McCloud or in S & C. Again, be in conversation with others—be interactive yourself!
This salon blog article "Good weblog design and layout" talks about the distinctive features that guide one through a document and not to overdo them.
Lab Assignment One is due Wednesday, September 10.
Questions? Email Stephanie or Susan or ask in class.
This assignment has two parts: the re-design and the verbal rationale that explains your decisions using concepts Chapter 1 of Kostelnick.
Revise the Renovation Options document on page 10 of Kostelnick. Use Microsoft Word's style options and the graphics provided below. The discussion of verbal/visual cognates should inform your choices for design and content changes.
After revision, write an explanation of your decisions. You'll talk about rhetorical situation, the verbal/visual cognates (arrangement, emphasis, clarity, conciseness, tone, ethos), and conventions. You can also comment on your work through McCloud's insights.
You will find the images available for download at:
http://theanswergrape.com/comp/images/noonan1.jpg
http://theanswergrape.com/comp/images/noonan2.jpg
http://theanswergrape.com/comp/images/noonan3.jpg
http://theanswergrape.com/comp/images/noonan4.jpg
http://theanswergrape.com/comp/images/noonan5.jpg
Arrangement: |
Cohesive or scattered? |
| Clarity: |
Does my point come across immediately? |
| Tone: |
Does the tone match the rhetorical situation? |
Lab Assignment One is due Wednesday, September 10.
Questions? Email Stephanie or Susan or ask in class.
I had the toughest time logging on so I'm going to go back to the Mcloud reading for a moment. For me, McLoud read really quick and easy due in part to its style. It was a breath of fresh air to read just about the first three chapters in what felt like a couple of minutes. The most interesting part of the reading was McLoud's definition of ICON vs SYMBOL. I grew up reading comics (like most boys did growing up I guess) but I never imagined how much thought actually went into putting the story together with language and icons. Mcloud's first three chapters gave me a much greater appreciation for the visual text.
Overall this was a very fascinating reading. From the philosophies of representation to the negotiations of the truth in images, this article covered a wide range of topics dealing with the visual world.
The section dedicated to revealing (as if you all didn't know photographs were subjective) the myth of photographic truth was extremely interesting upon futher thought. I wonder if anything we do can be detached from our opinions and previous experiences. Is it possible for us to just recieve information without analyzation or classification? I'm fairly sure we do not possess this ability innately. Our perception of the world is based on the reception of data, both visually and verbally. Furhtermore, how we guide ourselves through our lives is based upon this accumulation of "knowledge." Was there (is there) ever a point in our lives when we had the ability to be totally objective? I think little kids are more blessed than I had previously thought....
So that was probably more than you wanted to hear...bottom line: cool ariticle, good pictures.
I do ponder this whole applying meaning to photographs thing though...the train picture and its description in the article, in the "contemporary" style of thinking, I think is interesting. I highly doubt the photographer thought previous to snapping the picture "man, this really represents society and the train, whoa, it like, represents life. And these are people 'on the train of life.'" No, I don't think so. But we can apply meaning after that. And all those contemporary ideas may be true. Or they could be a load of horse maneur and it could be a total misrepresentation of what was actually happening. I don't think this picture is necessarily innaccurate, but how we interpret photographs is totally subjective, thus there could be any number of "brilliant contemporary analyses." So which one is the truth?
Enough.
Till later
JB
To hand-code a URL, do the following:
<a href="http://www.yourlink.com">Title of link</a>.
To include a URL in a post (the listings that appear on the main page) you can hand-code as above, or you can also select the URL you'd like to link to and hit 'control C' (which is copy). Then return to your blog listing and highlight the text you'd like to make into a link and hit the 'url' button on the right of the new entry menu. A pop up box should appear with a URL line in it. Type 'control v' (which is paste), and save the entry.
Questions? Ask ChrisB or Rob in class (nice of me to volunteer you, isn't it?) or email me at thegrape@unm.edu (IM: Answergrape).
Let's see those links!
A Note from your Instructor:
Take a look at the links on the bottom right-hand side of the page, just beneath the "Post to Visual Rhetoric & Design" link. I'll be using this space to post images from the readings as needed and as I am able.
For the Sturken and Cartwright reading I've scanned some of them (all were in black and white) and posted here. (I'll probably add later the United Colors of Benetton image that somehow didn't get into the set.) Resolution is not good--but at least you can see what the authors are talking about.
SR
