Lecture 6: Chronologies: Communication and Mass Media.

Yet again, I have sat through another lecture that I didn't understand. I understood that we were talking about graphics design and mass media & communication, but other than that a lot of the information just went over my head because I didn't really see the relevance of a lot of the points that were put forward. However there was one point raised that I thought was very interesting which was "By adding text to fine art does this instantly make it graphics design or advertising?". I'm very disappointed that we didn't look at this point in more detail because I thought this had the potential to be a very interesting discussion. Instead we talked about things I didn't quite understand.

John Everett Millais - Bubbles (1886) and Pears Soap advertisement

Picking up on the fine line between Fine art and Advertisement point, this is an example that was presented to us. On the left we have the original painting called Bubbles by John Everett and Millais in 1886 and on the right we have the same image, but "Pears Soap" has been added to it to advertise the product. Now the images are exactly the same but the only difference is the text, and this has completely changed the purpose of piece, so we could argue that there definitely is a fine line between the two subjects.

Other than that I don't really know what else there is for me to say, other than graphic design is a good way of mass communicating as we are all exposed to art everyday in some form or another, and it's rather easy to get work out there, especially that we now have the internet.

Lecture 5: MONK RHYMES WITH FUNK.

Finally! A lecture that I have understood!

Today's lecture title - well actually it had three because greedy - was Pictures at Work / Illusion in Action / Emotional Experience of Image.

So basically Illustration.

Illustration truly is a powerful form of communication, and is so much more than "just a drawing". It is the art of strategic image making, and conveys meaning or concept by using aesthetic and formal qualities. The way it communicates it's message depends on it's "tone of voice", and what I mean by this is how it jumps out at us and how it "feels". Whether it is elegant and sophisticated, loud, bold and friendly, innocent, bleek and sad. Because illustration can convey so many different emotions and meanings, there really isn't anywhere it can't be used, and can often put out a message more effectively than words. With illustration you can attach your own meanings, as there is room for interpretation and there is often the chance for you to relate images to yourself. I think that's why illustration is so powerful, because it can have an emotional impact and it can convey messages without actually saying anything or using words. 

Seminar 3: Auteurship and the Avant-Garde

Maybe one day I will understand what is being discussed in these seminars.

In today's seminar we were discussing Auteurship and the Avant-Garde, which are two concepts/terms that I have never heard of before, and I'm still not fully sure I understand what they mean. To my understanding Auteurship and Avant-garde is basically an individual's unique style, that is standard across their entire body of work, but then again I maybe wrong. I thought I understood the concept but then we would have a discussion that to me seemed completely irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, I found them interesting and even shared some views that were expressed in the discussion, but to me it seemed unnecessary and made me question my understanding because of it.

But is anyone really "Avant-Garde"? Artists and Directors are always taking inspiration from others, which is fine, it happens all around us all the time and we will take inspiration from real life, just like everybody else. Where else would we get ideas from? It doesn't mean we are copying other people's ideas, simply taking what we like from the work and making it our own by putting our own stamp on it. But does this make us original? I think this all depends on who took the first initial risk of stepping out, and being bold and different to anything that was around and the time.

There isn't really much more I can say because I really don't understand the majority of what was said in the seminar, that, and I've pretty much covered my view on Auteurship anyway. I think for something to truly be original it has to be the first of it's time, and to have no crossovers and inspirations taken from work before it. Yes, it may look completely different, and have a completely different meaning, but if it was inspired by something else then is it really an original idea or style?

My point of view might be completely an utterly wrong, but I'm going to stand by it. At the end of the day I think it is completely subjective whether something is Avant-garde, because you may see similarities and crossovers that other's don't pick up on, and it relies entirely on what your definition of the term is.