Unique name cards

A bunch of unique name cards. Not just a piece of card paper with words written over it, but goes beyond what an prospective client would expect. Make it resemble what you are doing like the canvas stand and miniature clap board. Make it mean serious business like the divorce lawyer's name card. Or use different materials and create a multipurpose name card as seen from the last example.

The last one kind of catches my eye. Think about it, putting that extra effort to creating a name card that may serve a different function does wonders for the name card holder's credibility with the client. Imagine you pass off a similar name card, one made of metal to a client. The client heads off to a bar that evening and when ordering a bottle of beer he thinks about your name card and says "wait a minute". He holds off the bartender from opening the bottle, pulls out your name card and calls out to his buddy "hey check this out" and opens the bottle with your name card.

Surely you can expect a call from him the very next day. Don't just settle with a piece of paper, make it a MacGyver statement of business.

Movies can tell stories too

Checking out IMDB of 2012 expected movies, I find that out of the 21...


Only these three have the potential for a great story behind it. The rest are a bunch of super-jacked up CGI fest of monsters, guns, and explosions. I don't really get these kind of movies. Sure they are nice to see but I never remember much about them simply because they aren't worth remembering. Flashy graphics and special effects should not be the main focus of movies. Great stories make for great movies as evident from:

• The Dark Knight
  
• Lord of The Rings trilogy
• The Matrix (just the first one)
• Godfather (except the third one)
• Shawshank Redemption
• Fight Club
• Blood Diamond
  

The list can go on and on, but these are some of the greatest. These are movies people keep talking about, people keep quoting from or even make memes out of. They never die, they are immemorial and its not because of some multimillion dollar budget solely on special effects, but well thought out characters, carefully written dialogue and a storyline that grips you from the beginning to end.

It does not have to be some sort of crazy overwhelming or completely unique story, just something different from what we are used to. What about werewolves? I don't recall any movie based solely on werewolves. Or a serious movie where animals that have become highly intelligent and dolphins become kings while crows keep us in line. Or a guy that lives with his future self in the same house. Or a quirky rogue magician that leaves the highly guarded city of Azgris to find out about the plans of the city to wipe out outside civilization by a rebellion group of wizards and joins their ranks (Harry Potter's done, time for more magic). Or the life of the guy handling a hot dog stand (he's out on the streets all day everyday, he must have seen some crazy stuff).

The point is, big giant monsters, huge explosions, vampires, zombies, any form of top secret agent, any rogue cop/soldier/detective, muscle bulging half naked men firing huge guns or vixens in skin tight leather and stilettos are played out. That's why they rely on CGI to sell because there is nothing left to say or simply nothing much to say at all (Big mythical monster goes roar, swings blindly, gets stab, dies)

All that millions of dollars should be shelled out for writers. It's tiring having to sit for an hour or two knowing exactly what's going to happen next. Probably another explosion. If the listed 21 are the best of 2012, might as well sit out going to the cinema for a year.

SOPA

It's quite the hot topic everyone's talking about, at least on the Internet. It pretty much stops all forms of sharing information that is worth sharing. It is like the apocalypse for the Internet. Besides for the great effect it will have on entertainment and catching up on the latest news and using Facebook and pretty much everything that we use the Internet for, there will be one other major hit.

If SOPA goes through, students from all the over the world will be completely lost and probably fail everything. Personally I have yet to touch a physical book as a source of reference or information. Everything can be so quickly and conveniently found on the Internet; E-books, articles, journals, videos, pictures. My whole education experience so far has been possible because of the Internet, because people are free to share information and tutorials.

Besides, in a way students can improve themselves outside of class when lecturers are not available. The Internet makes it possible to continue learning from people all around the world. They can be the layman or a Fortune 500 company's art director. That kind of information is invaluable and can really spike up learning curves if a student devotes enough effort and time to self-learning.

Therefore I say...

...because I don't want to fail.

Form follows Function

Form is the appearance and structure of an object. The combination of shapes, lines and symbols create the form of an object. For aesthetic purposes or to create a sort of meaning through outlook, the form of an object is meant to please.

Function is the use of the object. What is it used for, how is it used and what is the result of it's used. The function of an object is meant to serve. I will be using architecture to illustrate further.

The Cathedral of Saint Vibiana

The Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels

Our Lady of Angels is the successive cathedral built over the demolished remains of Saint Vibiana in Los Angeles due to an earthquake that damaged the structure so much it was beyond repair.

I believe Saint Vibiana is a good balance between form and function. In it's form, it does look like a place of prayer. It adopts a Baroque architectural style and mimics certain aspects of what makes a cathedral a cathedral (such as the statues and crucifix ornament placed on the facade of the building). In it's function, it is a place of worship, it has the capacity to house a large number of people but unfortunately served for only 74 years, which is quite short for a building's lifespan.

Our Lady of Angels I believe has sacrificed form entirely to function as a building. It looks like a religious man's mansion (the entrance looks like a garage). It hardly looks like a place of worship. In form it is not pleasing, neither does it pass in function. As mentioned, form follows function, and a cathedral is functioned as a place of worship, not something that can be mistaken for a corporate building.

Dewitt H. Parker expresses that architecture requires the building to have a greater purpose other than shelter, if not it is just a building, not architecture. In that sense, it is just another object. Having sacrificed form, Our Lady of Angels lost its' functional meaning of architecture, thus remains just a mass of concrete, steel and glass erected from the ground somewhere in Los Angeles.

Another example, say a mobile phone. A mobile phone is meant to be handled by hand and often it requires active use over a length of time. Aside for that, ergonomics suggest that it should not force the hand to stretch too wide and have proper grip. Form follows such function and makes a hand phone have smooth curved edges for comfortable handling along with a surface that isn't too slippery. Whichever follows which though, it is about harmonious balance between the two, or it is just another meaningless object, or worse simply useless... like a square shaped phone.

Le Modulor

Le Modulor was developed by Le Corbusier as "a harmonic measure to the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and mechanics". There are three components that make up Le Modulor:

• Proportion
• Scale
• Size

Proportion was inspired by the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci.

The Vitruvian Man

The perfect human figure has the perfect proportion between limbs and body. When stretched out straight, it will form a perfect circle. When arched out, as if making a snow angel, it forms a perfect circle. That is the Virtruvian Man.

Le Modulor

Le Modulor can be thought of as a universal ruler. Anything and everything made and used by humans will be correctly made in size and proportion when based on Le Modulor. Like how the Vitruvian Man is the perfect human form, Le Modulor is the perfect human measurement.

Another influence to Le Modulor is the Golden Ratio (1.61803399). It is the happy go-lucky Grandfather of mathematics that was loved by all from painters to architects as the go-to ratio for harmonious proportion and aesthetically pleasing creations. In respect, the scale of Le Modulor is heavily influenced by the Golden Ratio.

The Golden Ratio was defined by the Fibonacci series (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5...). Each new number is the sum of the previous two numbers. All that mass of numbers that determines the scale on the picture of Le Modulor is the complex combination of the Golden Ratio, Fibonacci series, Metric system or measurement (centimeter, meter, kilometer) and Imperial system of measurement (feet, inches).

To my understanding, let's say we are building a round table. To correctly determine it's diameter, I guess we use the top section of Le Modulor as it is a stretched out arm so a person can reach all sides of the table, or rather the radius instead of it was meant to be shared by many people.

Still there must be a reason why Le Modulor has been lost in time as expressed by an architect by the name of Joe. The height of Le Modulor is 6 feet, but in most parts of the world the average human height is below 6 feet, going as low as 4'8" in Bolivia if Wikipedia is to be believed. Beyond this time, given environmental changes and evolution the numbers will change. Maybe one day the average human height of the world will be around 6 feet, but until then Le Modulor is not that perfect.

The ultimate tribute to Le Modulor, built entirely based on it:

Unite d' Habitation

Reference:
- Class
- Le Corbusier's Modulor Man
http://wharferj.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/le-corbusiers-modulor-man/
- Golden Ratio in Art and Architecture
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/gr_in_art.htm
- Human height
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Improvement from an original.

The Beatles - Let it be



Carol Woods and Timothy T from the movie Across the Universe - Let it be

Across the Universe is a movie musical that tells the story entirely through the songs of The Beatles. To me, the version of Let it be in the movie was better than the original. It was more powerful, has more investment of emotion and more musically diverse. Here's another example.

The Beatles - Come Together

Joe Cocker from Across the Universe - Come Together

Similar story here. Joe Cocker made it so much more powerful with his deep singing, turning what is sort of a steady musical ride to an interesting bumpy road of tunes.

To me, the covers were an improvement from the original. It is better musically and portrays the lyrics with a stronger pow. But it would have never existed if The Beatles never conceived it first. So maybe, everything has room for improvement; at least anything that is human made. Whatever we make can be a seed of inspiration for somebody else.

Technology moving too fast?

Video games have seen tremendous improvements in all of its' aspects. From graphics to game play it has changed so very much. Not looking back too far, the Nintendo Entertainment System was released during 1985 and feature games like this:

In less than 30 years, about 27 to be exact, we get games like this:

I must say that is an incredible amount of change and all within a span of less than 30 years. I mean is it even possible to imagine in the past that today we'll be able to actually see the detailed emotional representation of a monster screaming in pain while the player cooks it with fireballs shooting out the hand?

Taking another example, mobile phones.

That is Martin Cooper, inventor of the the first mobile phone during 1973.


Less than 40 years, we see the iPhone 4gs that fits right in your hand instead of looking like a potential weapon and has no buttons as it functions via interacting with pictures on a screen with your fingers but you can't actually feel them! Clearly this is magic or witchcraft, at least 37 years ago.Finally, this is the Nokia 888, a concept phone that can be bended into a number of shapes. We may see such phones that seem to be breaking the physical laws of mobile phones on store shelves in a blink of an eye.

Why I say that technology is moving too fast is because there are some people out there that choose not to move forward with technology. Even with all the hype and craze about the iPhone, there are some people that actually don't like it and prefer their old school Nokia. With video games, yes we can finally yell at the characters on screen because they actually look so real, but still there are people that prefer old school games like Mario. Plus it will be very creepy if games become anymore "real" than it is now.

What I figure is that this is a starting of a technological peak. What they show about the future in the movies are becoming our reality. It becomes difficult to imagine how the future will be like. In turn, the way we do work and function will change along with it. I don't think I'm ready for it. One thing is for sure, there is certainly no such thing as too crazy of an idea anymore, it may become the very next hype on the market.

Ever wish to sleep on the clouds?


Reference:
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/04/100-amazing-futuristic-design-concepts-w-wish-were-real/

Fight Club and advertising.

Great movie and book. In a nutshell, Fight Clubs, where white and blue collared workers come together to fight under a dim light bulb with bare knuckles and skin, have emerged all over the country. These people are frustrated with the system, the higher ups and the elites of society. They want to destroy status, power and cause mayhem through shear force and terror. No, they don't want to take anything, they are just frustrated bus drivers, sewage cleaners and waiters letting the system know that yes, they are pissed off.

Some quotes got me thinking,

"You have a class of young strong men and women, and they want to give their lives to something. Advertising has these people chasing cars and clothes they don't need. Generations have been working in jobs they hate, just so they can buy what they don't really need."

"The gyms you go to are crowded with guys trying to look like men, as if being a man means looking the way a sculptor or an art director says."

In the movie, there was a scene where the main characters were riding a bus and they noticed a Calvin Klein underwear ad. They commented whether that was the ideal man, without scars; they passionately disagreed.

Advertising tries very hard and spends a lot of money to put out this idea of perfection and the sense that we can all achieve it, that is no secret. But the thing is why do we chase these cars and clothes and try to be what a sculptor or art director is trying to tell us to be like? Why are we listening to these...

...and not them?

We listen and truly believe these faceless corporations and their advice of how and what to be. Why do we strive so hard for perfection?

"Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer."

Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club.

ROWE - A step to creative solutions.

ROWE stands for Results Only Work Environment. When a company adopts the ROWE management system, there is no fixed time to work. You come in when you want, dressed however you want and work in your chosen way. Although there is much debate whether it does work, there are some companies that have adopted this strategy; or at least something similar, and have seen success.

Google is one of those companies. It is not exactly ROWE, but they have a system called the "20 Percent Time", where employees can spend 1 day a week to work on any project that they desire. It does not have to do with the company at all, sort of like a day dedicated to pursuing their own interest, using the company's equipment no less.

The whole point is to let the employees enjoy their work. When the engineers at Google work on their personal projects, they dig deep and do their best to develop whatever it is they are working on to be perfect. I mentioned something similar in a previous post on creativity. Happiness, enjoyment, personal space to breathe and explore are important ingredients in the pot of creativity.

About the ROWE, a full adoption of the system may not be that good of an idea. Too much freedom may be abused. Certain levels of boundaries must stick in the working environment just to let employees know that yes, it is a job not home.

Nothing is original.

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to.”

- Jim Jarmusch

Saw this quote from some time ago and only recently remembered it. It got me thinking is everything in existence really just a form of imitation from one another? I suppose we'll have to really go far back in history to really find what is truly original. Without knowledge of that, I guess every idea that was thought of, everything that was made was inspired from somewhere.

Birds paved the way to airplanes. Torches became candles then kerosene lamps then the light bulb. Writing becomes printing. But I think there is more to it than that. Things are never original if the person is intentionally trying to create something. What about things that exist that happened because of an accident? Like how post-it notes and penicillin was made by mistake, or how bubble wrap was never intended to be used to protect heavy goods during transport but was actually wallpaper for houses, or the static noise when the television has no reception.

After all, if Jarmusch's quote is true, then how are we suppose to "steal" something when we don't even know how or what is being stolen or where will it be brought? When accidents happen there can be originality.

More is less. Less is more

A paradoxical statement but has meaning behind it. I think of it as a smart trade. Put out too much and there will be little return, but put out just that right amount and you can expect good results. Examples can illustrate this better.

The first image is of a McDonald's ad for their coffee while the second is about a mattress sale. The first ad is very simple the only elements being the coffee bean and logo. Yet it looks very attractive and does draw attention. This is possible because more effort can be placed to improving the quality of visual elements. There is more focus, and the subject of that focus looks great. Less visual elements was put into the ad, but the ad's effect on the audience is more.

The second ad has a mass of information on it, mostly textual. There is barely any white space at all; everything looks like its all clogged up and crammed in together. People may notice the $387 for the mattress but everything else just falls into the background and will either go unnoticed or become annoying to look through. Good example of putting way too much information in an ad and probably getting little attention.

When it comes to selling something to people, whether it is a product, design or message, I suppose this phrase deals with not suffocating them with too much. There is a lot people can say but that means people will have to put in effort to get the message. It is much harder to simplify something without weakening the message. If that is achieved successfully, one will get more for less and vice versa.

Creativity and schools

In the video of a TED Talk, Sir Ken Robinson talks about how schools are killing creativity, or rather how schools are not nurturing creativity in the students. I think it is true. In schools, students are driven into scoring good grades. That is what mattered, that is the only way they will ever get praised or even recognized, a piece of letter between A to F. Even with the impending change of grading system to Band 1 (lowest) - Band 6 (Highest), I doubt that will be any difference.

Now I will assume the student I'm talking about actually puts effort into studying. The problem with that piece of letter is that it is an end result, the finale of all that student's hard work. If that student did not do so well, say he/she gets a C, well all that hard work goes to waste. The thing is people always say "at least you tried" or "its the process that counts" and so on, but for this poor kid his/her process goes unnoticed and unrewarded. If this goes on, he/she might just give up all together.

Next is the student that does not bother because he/she is not interested. I like to think that there is no such thing as a useless person. Everybody has a skill they are good at, some are lucky enough to find it early while others are not. But the worse thing is to have found that skill but to have it thought of as useless. Some skills are very obvious such as being good at mathematics and logic or being great at drawing. Some skills are more subtle, such as being a great leader or crafty with wood. The point is, if it is not in the curriculum, it is not worth the time and effort.

Everybody has heard of that spark of inspiration when least expected and that's how I think creativity works. Of course for a person to have those sparks of creativity, he/she needs experience in whatever they are doing from exploring and learning as much as possible about the subject. For that to happen, he/she must be interested in the subject and be self-sufficient to go deeper into the subject.

So to wrap up, for the student that tries hard enough that alone should be at least recognized as something positive. That will teach the student that the process counts just as much as the outcome; it builds an attitude to be willing to learn. For the student that found his/her skill that may not fit with what the school is looking for, it should still be supported as every skill has it's place somewhere. Creativity is found somewhere between the two; from the idea that the journey is not just a means to an end and an outlook towards that certain passion that yes, it is useful and certainly worth devoting time and effort into it.

Pure beauty

Having taken Media Aesthetics this semester, at the end of the first assignment we were posed with two major questions.

1. Were we, as a group, able to come to one conclusion about which of two subjects was more beautiful/ aesthetically pleasing?
2. Is there such a thing as pure beauty?

For the first question, it was a no then yes. No because we all had different opinions, different justifications about why this certain subject was beautiful over the other. It only came to a yes when we compromised and pulled back some subjective point of views and try to look at it more objectively. We agreed that curves on architecture is beautiful, that flawless skin on people was beautiful and a catchy beat in a song was beautiful. Even though we didn't really feel something was beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, we saw that yes it looks interesting and we can all agree on it, settled.

For the second question, I think there is. However, we cannot describe or explain it in words. We find this pure beauty from somewhere inside, its an experience and if we really have to explain it, the best we can say is "it's beautiful". I also believe that it has to be something natural and not man-made. Finally, to truly know what is pure beauty, we have to be pure ourselves. Unfortunately I think most of us are corrupted all the way round. Kids and animals know this pure beauty. When kids see something pleasing they smile and laugh and both kids and animals don't walk around worrying, wondering and thinking; basically pollution of the mind and distortion of perception.

The very fact that we can discuss about whether this or that is more beautiful with valid points means our very idea of beauty has been corrupted. We actually are able to convincingly say what is less beautiful.

In terms of designing, beautiful should be replaced with aesthetically pleasing. So is there a pure aesthetically pleasing design? There's no way. Even the most humane concept; like starving children or awareness of a cause, for a design with the most warm and light hearted elements placed in it will find controversy. Besides, we work for the clients which works to please the mass of the public. Aesthetically pleasing is based on a work that gets the least amount of disagrees and, even though we may not really feel it, we can still nod and say "yea, that looks fine".