I think that last terms constellation study group (Archaeologies of the unseen) made me think a lot more about everything. Most of the time in the lecturers I was totally confused with what exactly the smaller details of the lecture was about but at the same I understood what the overall message of the lecture.
I took a lot from the first few lectures of this study group. It has made me more aware on how someone’s past experiences create the image in their head and they use knowledge they already process to see the image and they aren’t even aware of that they are doing it. I think that in graphic communications this is an important thing to always be aware of how many very different past experiences are and how much this could possibly affect how a person could see a design. I also was made even more aware that the viewer is extremely important (if not the most important aspect) of a design. Without the viewer the piece of design work (no matter if this is a poster, booklet, editorial spread, album cover or animation, ect…) doesn’t exist and if they can’t see the message that is trying to be communicated then in Graphic Design the piece isn’t doing it’s job and needs to be redone. This could be totally different in a different practice, like Fine Art for example having the audience not understand the meaning exactly maybe the point of the piece but with Graphics it’s the total opposite but while still trying not to be too obvious about it, to sort of lead the viewer to it then just confuse them.
I also learnt from this study group how effective it is to include some sort of human characteristics in a design as humans we are always looking for something humanlike in everything we see. We tend to connect more to things that we can relate too or see someone we know or ourselves within an image. Even if this is just a hand or a foot people look at it and subconsciously, in their head, go “I’ve got one of them.” This is likely why a lot, if not most, of adverts include a human or an animation of a human or the shape of one or at least a face and/or talking.
This study group has had me thinking of my MacBook Pro, less as an over priced metal shell that contains circuit boards, L.E.D screen, buttons and the nice apple shaped light on the back, and more as an added part of my hand which is part of my body. In the lecture some people raised that “Graphics doesn’t have tools that really could do this,” I could not disagree more than this, every time a pick up a fineliner it could not make a mark without me extending part of myself into the pen.
I found last term’s study group a lot more interesting than the first terms study group (After Modenism) and I could easily see links to my subject last term were as in After Modenism I struggled and was finding it hard to find any connection to graphics as it was obvoiusly aimed at more of a fine art student. Do no get me wrong I do enjoy looking and finding meaning in it I just thought most of the art movements we looked at it are quite a bit protentus and not my cup of tea. I did enjoy looking at the art movement Fluxus as there was quite a bit of type used in their work. I really loved the design of the fluxus manifesto, it was the contrast in the two typefaces and I am a sucker for white on black.
I found myself drifting of a lot in lectures, not because I found the subject of the lectures boring but because they were so long. I was finding that I was paying attention for the first forty minutes then after that I started to take in less and less information till was taking in no information at all (wasting nearly an hour). This is a problem I have always struggled with due to my dyslexia. It’s not that I don’t try to pay attention it’s that I can’t for two hours. This is has meant that my livescribe pen has been a god send as I have been able to record the audio. Because of this I don’t think that I was able to get as much as I could have if the lectures were split up into two separate hours even with a break in between them.