Journal 6 - Gestalt Theory

Similarity - This image (which is a CD cover design) shows the Gestalt Theory principle of similarity, which says that we naturally perceive similar objects as being in a group. In this image, the triangles in the background all are the same basic shape of a triangle, and because of this we perceive the colorful mass as one unified entity of a background instead of breaking them up and perceiving them individually in our minds. If there were circles and squares and triangles, we would not perceive it as one group and would get distracted by it.

This logo shows the Gestalt principle of closure. Even though the sheep is not fully drawn and enclosed, we picture the whole sheep. We do not even really notice that the sheep is not completely closed because our minds automatically assume that it is one entity.

This painting group shows the Gestalt principle of continuation. We perceive all these different painting pieces as one unit because the branches flow throughout the piece. Our eye follows the path of the branches, and because they continue onto the different panels we just see them as being one tree. This shows the Gestalt principle of continuation.

This drawing shows the Gestalt principle of common fate. The butterflies we imagine are all flying in the same direction we imagine as being one group - we do not make them distinct in our mind but take them in as a whole. However, any butterfly that is flying in a different direction - like the one in the lower righthand corner - we perceive and take in differently. We notice it because it is not heading in the same direction; it does not have the same common fate as butterflies flying together.

This poster design plays with the idea of figure ground. We're not really positive if the mouse is cut out of the chef's hat or vice versa, because the figure of the mouse is the same as the background. Or is the hat the background? The image plays with this idea of figure/ground.

This photo shows the Gestalt principle of proximity. Because the couple are standing right next to each other, we perceive them as one unit - a couple. However, if they were standing on opposite ends of this massive rock, the story we would perceive the image as having would be completely different.

Calvin exhibit reflection

Personal

I felt like the images were very well crafted, the photographer had a good sense of artistry and crafted the photos very nicely. The overall feeling didn’t settle great with me however, but that is mostly due to the subject matter. There was a slight eerie or sad feeling overall, which I did not like. Some people’s faces were covered – it was seeming to delve into ideas of struggling and such. The overall concept of the variation between images was interesting as well. I liked the sense of intrigue that was there, but do not have a clear sense of what Amanda Carmer, the photographer, was exactly trying to portray.

Technical

The exhibit was photography shown in a gallery. It was arranged intentionally. The images were taken with a consistent light – there was not color but just a two-tone image. The subject matter was of people – of people who seem to be struggling in some way. One image showed someone with their head between their knees. There was also scabs on the knees. In some of the pictures you were not able to see the person’s eyes, which added an interesting effect.

Intermixed with these pictures of people were also images of vegetables with an orange background. They were onions or something, they almost looked like mushrooms. They are very hard to see clearly or completely understand what is going on – the pictures are not crisp or obvious. They are sliced or cut in weird ways or repeated. A lot of them were not that interesting in and of themselves but they added to the overall composition (that’s a personal observation).

It is interesting to consider why the background color of the vegetables was chosen to be orange. Orange usually seems like a bright and happy color, while much of the rest about the images seems more sad. I think this contrast makes the exhibit much more visually pleasing and intriguing, however.

Ethical

I feel like the subject matter and how the images were captured do not have a lot of ethical considerations that would be very controversial. However, the subject matter itself does border on some ethical thoughts. It makes someone wonder what should be done, how to interact with this woman who seems to be struggling a lot. It seems to explore some ideas of society. It is also interesting that the images are mixed in with vegetables – some people could probably discuss that a lot.

Cultural

Culturally, the images are quite pleasing. The images are blurry or show only a piece of the puzzle. The color is very subdued, making it seem really sad. The vegetables mixed in with the other images would be startling to some degree as well – people might not know exactly how to interpret this. I think a lot of people would be able to relate in some way to the images shown, because most of us have probably seen some of the subject matter to some degree. Also, the vegetables being hard to see or understand can add to the feeling of confusion.

The scabbed knees can be an indexical symbol of the pain and struggle the images are conveying, culturally. The images of onions seem fragmented and sliced as well, making them indexical symbols of these similar themes as well. The holding hands show a tenderness as well in the midst of the confusion, which draws people to the images and makes them more desirable and relatable.

Historical

I think it is interesting to consider this exhibit considering how society is today. Relationships and families are struggling quite a bit. I think there is an isolation and aloneness that these images seem to portray as well, which is interesting because in this day and age people talk about how they feel alone quite a bit. Even though we are more “technologically connected” than ever before, people are emotionally and relationally actually feeling more distant, disconnected and alone than ever before. I think the images in this exhibit are trying to show some of those thoughts.

Critical

I think that overall, this exhibit is fairly effective. I think that the compositions of the images and parts of the overall feel were executed very well. However, a little bit of the meaning was lost for me especially in how to relate the two themes in the subject matter to each other. I was not positive how to relate the vegetables to the people, but maybe that is part of the point – that some things are confusing. However, I am not sure that people viewing this exhibit would get that impression from the images. I personally do not enjoy looking at art that seems sad, but I think that parts of the photography and exhibit was executed extremely well.

Kendall

Overall, I did not enjoy the exhibit at Kendall very much. I thought it pushed limits (which is what they were trying to do) but I struggle to call it art. I do not appreciate things that are intentionally offensive to try to make a point. I think if a point is valid, there should be a way to express that point without having to resort to purely shock tactics.

The Kendall exhibit was saturated and dripping with shock tactics. From very offensive thoughts and images regarding gender, to very revealing images, etc. It incorporated sounds, visuals, motion pictures, 3D art, photography, and more. (This is a good thing, to incorporate the different senses, I just didn’t appreciate the subject matter and shock tactics it used.)

I think art can be a conversation a lot of times, and resorting to shock tactics (which this exhibit seemed solely based on) is like having only an emotionally charged conversation. It does not respect the person you are conversing with, assuming that they cannot look at the objective facts and differing views and draw a legitimate conclusion. It is like screaming in an argument – it might gain attention, but it is not respectful nor is it as persuasive, in my point of view.

Again, if you have something good to say, you don’t need to overemphasize it to the point of being blatantly offensive.

On a more personal preference note, I love art that is simply beautiful and has pleasant aesthetics. I just really enjoy that about art and that is what I love about art, although I realize that many people like it for other purposes as well. I love to look at art that shows a high level of skill and craftsmanship as well.

In general, the Kendall exhibit did not have a lot of this, but I did include some images of pieces I appreciated more so. I think the Kendall building itself is a beautiful example of art, with beautiful structures and a rich history that goes along with it. I was able to explore and read about a little of the history through plaques they had on the wall. That was probably my favorite part of the experience!

Journal 8

This logo has an elephant on it, and it exactly resembles an elephant. Most people wouldn’t think that it was anything other than an elephant, yet it is not really an elephant – it is just a resemblance of an elephant. This makes it iconic.

This picture is indexical because it has the idea of adventure and travel, even though it is not showing that specifically using words or something. It represents something more than just a road – it represents travel.

This image is a symbol of the Republican Party of the United States – a lot of people would recognize and see this. It doesn’t imply it or represent it in and of itself, but it has come to mean the Republican Party.

Journal 7

Although this first logo looks nice, I don’t think it is effective. The words and image don’t seem to match. The words say, “high fashion designer” but the image is of a clothes hanger. To me, a clothes hanger indicates dry cleaning or something simple and basic.

I don’t think the Gap logo is very effective either. The word is Gap, which has become known as a very classy brand, but the typography here is very basic. That does not seem fitting for a brand that is expensive and has come to mean very nice things.

Although I am not sure what this is for, I do not think the visuals and the words match. The word “radical” does not seem cutesy at all, but that is the style of the logo. The heart does not seem radical either.

The visuals on this logo match the word very well. Making one letter out of negative space makes it intriguing, which then causes the person to think a lot about why the designer chose to make it this way – which matches well with the idea of “think.”

I think this business card visually illustrates what the words say very well. The words say that it is a card for a party planner, then the visuals are super exciting and stimulating like a party. It is fun, sparkly, classy, and unique.

The visuals of fish really match the words, talking about seafood. The idea of sustainable fits right in as well, in that the fish are forming some sort of circular motion or almost the motion of an infinity loop.

Journal 5 - Shock advertising and propaganda

Shock advertising is when someone creates an ad that crosses the acceptable lines in society. It is used to draw attention to the product or topic.

Personally, I strongly dislike and disprove of shock advertising. I do not think it is good to display images and content that most parents do not want their children seeing and plenty of adults do not want to be seeing either. I think it is kind of an infringement on other people – it is not respecting others very much. It is usually used solely for the company to gain advantage at the expense of the viewers.

I could see there potentially being a time when shock advertising might be appropriate in raising awareness or some sort of important issue, but in general I do not find shock advertising appropriate.

The first image I show is extremely offensive. It seems to belittle a very traumatic and heart-wrenching event. The purpose is only for wildlife preservation and taking care of the planet. I think there could have been a much better way to prove their point, especially because there might not be a ton that we can do to prevent tsunamis. This ad is extremely insensitive, especially to the families who were directly affected by 9/11.

The second one is advocating for people to stop using tobacco products. In a sense, I feel like the premise has some validity to it – when people are addicted to a product they are, in a sense, a slave to it. However, the general tone of the image is very shocking and I am not sure it is ethical to place this around the city. It is not an uplifting image for children and young people especially to be looking at. This one seems more fair than many shock advertising examples, but I still do not think that it is very appropriate. Specifically because the people are so young, it gives the image more of an eerie feeling. I do not think displaying images like this respects the public.

Propaganda is when (usually the government) creates misleading media or advertisements. Often they do not tell the whole truth – they are persuasive pieces that twist the truth to some degree at least and are supposed to sway and deceive the public opinion.

In general, I do not think that propaganda is a good thing. Any time someone is intentionally misleading the public, that seems quite bad to me. Even though it might be done with a good purpose in mind, I still do not think it is the best way. And then it falls under the personal moral compasses of the people in charge – maybe someone thinks one thing is an acceptable purpose for propaganda, whereas someone else does not. Any time facts are withheld or twisted to deceive, I say that falls under the category of being unethical.

What can be hard to distinguish sometimes are media pieces that are designed to help get the public on board with something. As sad as it might be, logic and facts and well-thought out advertisements might not be as effective in stirring public opinion as simple, emotionally-charged pieces that could fall under the category of propaganda. For instance, during war the government and other organizations often produce propaganda. War is a terrible thing, but if the country decides to go to war it is crucial for the public to be in support of it. Having the simple posters of the past that showed Rosie the Riveter and other types of mass communication that were trying to sway public opinion might not be a completely bad thing. However, as a general principle I do not find propaganda very ethical.

I think in some senses there are a lot of complexities to the issue of propaganda, although as a rule of thumb I would say it is negative. In some cases, it can be horribly, horribly negative and immoral.

I have two examples of propaganda here. One is a very straightforward example of propaganda that I found in an article on listverse.com. It shows an image the government of a country recently circulated to convince the public of something. However, it came out that this image was actually photoshopped. This is a blatant lie and clearly unethical; this is a very straightforward and clear-cut example of propaganda.

The second use of propaganda that I have here is an especially interesting example to me. This picture was actually taken by a friend of mine who traveled to a country that does not enjoy many of the freedoms we have. In the photo, it has the face of a prominent figure along with words that basically say that this person will continue until victory and that they will get victory. This is an example of propaganda – the government proclaiming things not completely true to the people. I think campaigns like this are unethical (especially when produced by the government) because they are not an accurate picture of reality and are not fair and balanced, nor do they aim to be.

In general, I feel like if there is something actually worth convincing the public over, it can and should be done in an ethical way. Any attempt to deceive or massively pressure the public is wrong and should not be done.