Skip to content

The Ophelia’s of the Media

Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Bought from Istock

Bought from Istock

Images can have psychological power on adolescence.  They can be used in such away so that they are more eye-catching and as result, they become ingrained in people’s mind.  According to Ginny Connor and her review of Mary Pipher’s book, “Reviving Ophelia,” (Today’s young Ophelias — Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher) young girls, around the age of seven, begin measuring themselves to popular people they see, especially those in magazines.

Such a world of visual stimulated messages can be damaging.   It undermines personal dignity by treating  young audiences as sexual objects.  In the Youtube video below, Mary Pipher mentions that one of the visual influences that young girls grasp is the idea to explore their sexuality.  This may not be what the designer/magazine has intended and are just designing stories to be interesting to young readers.   However, design ethics dictates what  we can and cannot do with images - that we cannot design things which may cause harm to others.

Can images be enhanced without portraying unintended messages? How do we know when we have reached the line?

References

Connors, Ginny. “Today’s young Ophelias — Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher. ” English Journal 84.6 (1995): 128.  Research Library Core. ProQuest.  George Mason University Library, Fairfax, Virginia.  18 Nov. 2008. <http://mutex.gmu.edu:2233/>

ChallengingMedia. “Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls.” 4 Oct. 2006. 18 Nov. 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrRtJY28ps8

Filed in Design Ethics | Comments (0)

To Photoshop or Not To Photoshop, That Is the Question - DRAFT 02

Monday, November 17, 2008

If you had an image of a murderer on the cover page of a magazine, is it ok to touch him up if he didn’t look mean enough? Just a few wrinkles and extra shadow lines won’t hurt anyone, right? When do we draw the line where it is acceptable or not acceptable to Photoshop a picture for a published body of work? In this essay, we will analyze and rationalize the positive and negative aspects of altering photos.

So why do we Photoshop images of people in magazines? Better yet: “Why not?” In today’s society, as well as in other past societies (the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.), the celebration for the idealized human body is not uncommon; people love to see healthy, beautiful people. Various fashion or men magazines, such as FHM, Maxim, and Cosmopolitan, are known to showcase the female body, but rely heavily on photo corrections to maximize the concept of “beauty.” Sure, it may not be natural, but certainly it is easier on the eyes of the public. In all seriousness, artists continue this practice because the majority prefers to see a perfectly sculpted individual rather than your everyday, average looking person.

On the other hand, the practice of manipulating photos is misleading and deceptive. By falsely setting up the standards of beauty, we are bending the perception of reality itself. The most common alteration in photos is skin; many of us have undesirable wrinkles or noticeable pores on our skins which unfortunately show up clearly on photographs. With the help of computer software such as Photoshop, those nasty marks on our hides can be edited out with relative ease. But that’s not all, there are professions that go as far as warping the bodies of women in photos to make them more sexually appealing, such as slimming the waist line, enlarging the breasts size, or adding extra volume to the buttocks.

Thanks to Jezebel.com, we can see an example of heavy photo manipulation on a famous country singer, Faith Hill (July 2007 magazine cover of Redbook). By contrasting the original image with the edited photo, we can spot obvious differences: skin spots and imperfections are removed, wrinkles on face are removed, subtle color change on hair is apparent, face is slimmed, teeth are whitened, collar bone shadows are removed, waist is dramatically slimmed, bottom portion of her body is scrunched up, arm in front is slimmed, hand in the back is removed and replaced with another “arm”, and so on. The Faith Hill we know on Redbook’s July 2007 cover is not even real, due to the significant amount of work done to her. If Faith Hill is not actually skinny in real life, how do people expect to match such “beauty” if not even she can’t realistically achieve it?

People who are not aware this practice could be fooled into believing that they could obtain this status of “beauty” created by magazines, thus potentially harming themselves in attempts to conform to such imaginary ideals. Robin Estrin of Chicago Sun-Times stated that “many girls mistakenly think they are overweight because they are getting the wrong idea of the perfect body from fashion magazines.” March 1999 Pediatrics journal issue concluded that two out of three girls from the grades of 5 through 12 said that magazines influenced the way they see themselves; nearly half of victims claimed they wanted to lose weight because of the girls they see in magazines (only 29% of the 548 girls that were interviewed were considered overweight). Epidemiologist Alison E. Field fears that girls who don’t read magazines are affected as well.

Editing photos in magazines may be deceitful and dishonest to some extent, but given the fact that fashion or men magazines are created for the purpose of entertainment, this practice may not hold serious value. Altering photos for serious publications, such as TIME magazine, Washington Post, or New York Times, on the contrary, may have more grave consequences.

Filed in Final Project | Comments (0)

A 3D Entertaining Experience

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Photo By Jake of 8bitjoystick.com on Flickr

Photo By Jake of 8bitjoystick.com on Flickr

From a static-book-like experience to a user-friendly experience comes a new look for the online Xbox 360.  Before, the Xbox 360 has used a book-type design which you navigate through as though you were flipping pages.

Apart from the marketing goals, the new design is a user-centered design where the visual message is enhanced because more people of diverse backgrounds can connect to the design.  According to Mike Snider, It features a new organized layout of menus, avatars that resemble the Wii characters, and a three deminsional space which feels like you can enter. The avatars resemble you as a digital figure in the game.  Not only will it be a personal experience but entertaining one as well.   Suite up and let the games begin!

Snider, Mike. “Xbox Live turns into ‘entertainment hub.” USA Today. 10 Nov. 2008. 11 Nov. 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2008-11-10-xbox-live_N.htm.

Filed in On the Web | Comments (1)

Intellectual Property Edit V1

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Intellectual Property:
By David Corsino

“A guy in New York, who drove around Manhattan with a 25-foot-long fake missile with “Viva Viagra” painted on its side, has been sued by Pfizer, the maker of the drug Viagra for trademark infringement.”
-http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=trademark

The above snippet is just one of many ridiculous and bizarre but true stories in the world of trademarks and patent infringement. Whether it is for fun or business, people have to be very careful about what they use when designing anything from a simple joke to a major advertising campaign. Intellectual Property is a very serious business and infringement can be a common occurrence if one is not careful about what one does or says in the public eye. Corporate consultants, painters, photographers, and free-lance graphic designers, to name only a few, need to be particularly aware of such infringements. They need to be prepared to rigidly research the content they use before completing any job. EVEN A CAREFUL DESIGNER WILL BE CAUGHT ACCIDENTALLY INFRINGING?  help but be confounded by the daffiness of it all.

According to Wikipedia, registered trademarks have been in effect in several countries around the world since around 1870, and trademarks in general have been around as far back as 6000 B.C. when beer makers used a design to advertize their product in Mesopotamia. Only in the past century or so, have companies and individuals greedily sought after legal ownership of content and been backed by the federal government. And only in the past half-century have we seen what some would call ludicrous lawsuits related to trademark and patent infringement.

SEPTEMBER 7–Paris Hilton has filed a federal lawsuit over a $2.49 Hallmark greeting card that uses a photo of the heiress and her trademarked phrase “That’s Hot.”
- http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0907072hallmark1.html

Intellectual Property is defined as “… A legal field that refers to creations of the mind such as musical, literary, and artistic works; inventions; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce”. Where does the previous quote come from? The loop hole to the definition of that term is found when anything created in nature or by a group (as in words or languages) is organized, or re-organized in such a way that nobody in the past has officially noted IT as their own, AND a patent, TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT can be applied  TO it. For instance, in the above example, Paris Hilton sued Hallmark not over using her physical likeness, but rather her slogan, “That’s Hot”. Clearly, Ms. Hilton did not invent the words, “That”, “Is”, or “Hot”, nor did she invent the contraction, “That’s”. What she has done is put those two words together and made a case that this phrase defines her persona in the public eye and therefore she deserves to own it such that no other entity can make a profit while using the phrase.

SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the Eiffel Tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one fell swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.
As a result, it’s no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission.
That means even to put your vacation photos on your personal web site, you’d be asked to include the text, “Eclairage de la Tour Eiffel - Copyright Société Nouvelle d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel – Conception Pierre Bideau.
-http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

So what are painters, photographers, or designers to do when working on a job or even publishing photos to the web on a personal website? The smart thing to do is to check the US Patent and Trade Office website and do a search across their database for anything that the professional thinks might be already “owned.” Their search tool is intuitive and easy to use. However, while this may help the person doing the search to find questionable content, what about WHEN EVEN THE pro doesn’t know that they don’t know? If someone were to take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night and then put it on HIS website, how on Earth would the person suspect that that image was protected under copyright law and therefore requireD a credit to be added to it? In all likelihood, the organization who owns the image would never come across the website, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal to post the photo without posting the credit with it.

“…Then there’s the Lone Cypress, a tree along California’s famous 17-Mile Drive in the Carmel / Monterey area. It is a very popular tourist destination and the tree has been photographed by virtually every visitor with a camera that has seen it in the past 100 years. The tree is now protected from being photographed by professional photographers who plan to sell or distribute the image of Mother Nature’s beautiful lone cypress.”
- http://leica-users.org/v20/msg03902.html

I believe this patent was either revoked or declined, though the symbol has been trademarked. [CD1] But the fact that someone tried to own this piece of nature in photos goes to show how insane TRADEMARKING patenting has become. Anyone who will be pursuing photography or design will have to educate themselves on Intellectual Property rights and legal issues and pay close attention to what imagery they profit from.

It doesn’t stop there…

“The actor Damon Wayans has been engaged in a 14-month fight to trademark the term “Nigga” for a clothing line and retail store… Wayans wants to dress customers in 14 kinds of attire from tops to bottoms, and use the controversial mark on “clothing, books, music and general merchandise,” as well as movies, TV and the internet, according to his applications.”
-http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70259

Here, we’re talking about the fields of entertainment and fashion. While this writer feels somewhat safe in assuming that most people will probably not create or use anything quite as offensive as the above suggests, it still shows how absurd some people are when it comes to patent and trademarking ideas. Try to imagine a rap artist having to pay Damon Wayans every time they used that word? Mr. Wayans would surpass Bill Gates as the wealthiest man on the planet! While this is an extreme example, clothing designers need to be just as aware of Intellectual Property as the photographer or graphic designer. They could not use words like “Pink” or “Sexy” without paying the company who “owns” the rights to use that word on clothing.

Could this madness go further? Yes.

“Orrin Clayton [of Ottowa] was disappointed when a patch of enormous steel yellow daffodils planned for an Ottawa cancer survivors’ memorial was scrapped in favor of a more generic bouquet of red, blue and fuchsia flowers… The yellow daffodil symbol belongs to the Canadian Cancer Society.
… The Canadian Cancer Society asked the foundation to do away with the sculpted yellow daffodils to avoid infringing on the trademarked logo. It seems branding, in the hyper-competitive world of cancer fundraising, is every bit as important as it is in the world of commerce.”
-http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=64ffcd9b-4c59-4c6e-9e82-b91bcfeb32cc

Horticulture[CD2] ? You bet. If you want to tell cancer survivors that you are thinking about them, you better check with the USPTO as well as international copyrights before you go sending out trademarked symbols and infringing upon The Canadian Cancer Society’s property.

And finally, we don’t want to leave out our performing artists.

“Happy Birthday”, with its ill-fitting lyrics and numbingly simple tune, is actually owned by a subsidiary of the media conglomeration known as AOL Time Warner
-http://www.wisegeek.com/who-owns-the-song-happy-birthday.htm

You may note that you rarely hear the song “Happy Birthday” in a movie or on TV. This is because the company making the movie (if it’s not AOL Time Warner or a subsidiary), would have to pay royalties to AOL. I’d be interested to know if people actually follow this or if this has subsided.

In conclusion, let this be a warning to all artists and creative consultants of the world. BE CAREFUL! Always check your content for patent infringement before finishing a project. It will not be easy, and you may very well find yourself in court, or at least holding a cease and desist letter for using an image or symbol or song or flower that is patented by some other entity. You may also do some investigation and discover that certain colors are patented as well as color combinations. So do your research and shake your head in shame for the greedy side of Intellectual Property.

I love the way you incorporated the interesting tidbits about actual occurrences.

More entertaining trademark facts:
The actor Martin Lawrence owns the trademark for “You So Crazy”
U-Haul owns the registered trademarks “Moving Help” and “Moving Helper”
M3 Technologies filed for a patent for the phrase “Nerd Sex Fest”
An individual named James Julius Jackson has patented the phrase “Broccoli Obama”
A sole proprietorship - DBA Brentwood Communications - owns the phrase “White Haired Dudes for McCain”
Entities that have tried to patent the phrase, “I love you”
Unisystems, Inc
Dualstar Entertainment Group in California

-All of the above were verified on uspto.gov using the TESS database.

[CD1]This is the first place you use “I”…You should probably turn it into a declarative sentence rather than a personal opinion.

[CD2]I think that’s the wrong word…that’s like saying: “Garden? You bet.”

Filed in Final Project | Comments (0)

Intellectual Property

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Intellectual Property
By David Corsino

“A guy in New York, who drove around Manhattan with a 25-foot-long fake missile with “Viva Viagra” painted on its side, has been sued by Pfizer, the maker of the drug Viagra for trademark infringement.”
-http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=trademark

The above snippet is just one of many ridiculous and bizarre but true stories in the world of trademarks and patent infringement.   Whether it is for fun or business, people have to be very careful about what they use when designing anything from a simple joke to a major advertising campaign.  Intellectual property is a very serious business and infringement can be a common occurrence if one is not careful about what one does or says in the public eye.   Corporate consultants, painters, photographers, and free-lance graphic designers, to name only a few, need to be particularly aware of such infringements and they need to be prepared to rigidly research the content they use before completing any job.    The outrageousness of Intellectual Property extends to so many fields and situations, that one cannot help but be confounded by the daffiness of it all.

According to Wikipedia, registered trademarks have been in effect in several countries around the world since around 1870, and trademarks in general have been around as far back as 6000 B.C. when beer makers used a design to advertize their product in Mesopotamia.  But only in the past century or so have companies and individuals greedily sought after legal ownership of content and been backed by the federal government.  And only in the past half-century have we seen what some would call ludicrous lawsuits related to trademark and patent infringement.

SEPTEMBER 7–Paris Hilton has filed a federal lawsuit over a $2.49 Hallmark greeting card that uses a photo of the heiress and her trademarked phrase “That’s Hot.”
- http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0907072hallmark1.html

Intellectual Property as it is called is defined as “…legal field that refers to creations of the mind such as musical, literary, and artistic works; inventions; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce”.  The loop hole to the definition of that term is found when anything created in nature or by a group (as in words or languages) is organized, or re-organized in such a way that nobody in the past has officially noted as their own, a patent can be applied for it.  For instance, in the above example, Paris Hilton sued Hallmark not over using her physical likeness, but rather her slogan, “That’s Hot”.  Clearly, Ms. Hilton did not invent the words, “That”, “Is”, or “Hot”, nor did she invent the contraction, “That’s”.  But what she has done is put those two words together and made a case that this phrase defines her persona in the public eye and therefore she deserves to own it such that no other entity can make a profit while using the phrase.   

SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the Eiffel Tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one fell swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.
As a result, it’s no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission.
That means even to put your vacation photos on your personal web site, you’d be asked to include the text, “Eclairage de la Tour Eiffel - Copyright Société Nouvelle d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel – Conception Pierre Bideau.
 -http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

 
 
So what are painters, photographers, or designers to do when working on a job or even publishing photos to the web on a personal website?  The smart thing to do is to check the US Patent and Trade Office website and do a search across their database for anything that the professional thinks might be already “owned”.    Their search tool is intuitive and easy to use.  However, while this may help the person doing the search to find questionable content, what about the stuff the pro doesn’t know that they don’t know?  If someone were to take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night and then put it on their website, how on Earth would the person suspect that that image was protected under copyright law and therefore require a credit to be added to it?  In all likelihood, the organization who owns the image would never come across the website, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal to post the photo without posting the credit with it.  

“…Then there’s the Lone Cypress, a tree along California’s famous 17-Mile Drive in the Carmel / Monterey area. It is a very popular tourist destination and the tree has been photographed by virtually every visitor with a camera that has seen it in the past 100 years.  The tree is now protected from being photographed by professional photographers who plan to sell or distribute the image of Mother Nature's beautiful lone cypress.”
- http://leica-users.org/v20/msg03902.html

I believe this patent was either revoked or declined, though the symbol has been trademarked.   But the fact that someone tried to own this piece of nature in photos goes to show how insane patenting has become.   Anyone who will be pursuing photography or design will have to educate themselves on Intellectual Property rights and legal issues and pay close attention to what imagery they profit from. 

It doesn’t stop there. 

“The actor Damon Wayans has been engaged in a 14-month fight to trademark the term “Nigga” for a clothing line and retail store… Wayans wants to dress customers in 14 kinds of attire from tops to bottoms, and use the controversial mark on “clothing, books, music and general merchandise,” as well as movies, TV and the internet, according to his applications.”
-http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70259

Here, we’re talking about the fields of entertainment and fashion.  While this writer feels somewhat safe in assuming that most people will probably not create or use anything quite as offensive as the above suggests, it still shows how absurd some people are when it comes to patent and trademarking ideas.  Try to imagine a rap artist having to pay Damon Wayans every time they used that word?  Mr. Wayans would surpass Bill Gates as the wealthiest man on the planet!  While this is an extreme example, clothing designers need to be just as aware of Intellectual Property as the photographer or graphic designer.  They could not use words like “Pink” or “Sexy” without paying the company who “owns” the rights to use that word on clothing. 

Could this madness go further?

Yes.

“Orrin Clayton [of Ottowa] was disappointed when a patch of enormous steel yellow daffodils planned for an Ottawa cancer survivors’ memorial was scrapped in favor of a more generic bouquet of red, blue and fuchsia flowers… The yellow daffodil symbol belongs to the Canadian Cancer Society.
… The Canadian Cancer Society asked the foundation to do away with the sculpted yellow daffodils to avoid infringing on the trademarked logo.   It seems branding, in the hyper-competitive world of cancer fundraising, is every bit as important as it is in the world of commerce.”
-http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=64ffcd9b-4c59-4c6e-9e82-b91bcfeb32cc

Horticulture?  You bet.  If you want to tell cancer survivors that you are thinking about them, you better check with the USPTO as well as international copyrights before you go sending out trademarked symbols and infringing upon The Canadian Cancer Society’s property. 

And finally, we don’t want to leave out our performing artists.

“Happy Birthday”, with its ill-fitting lyrics and numbingly simple tune, is actually owned by a subsidiary of the media conglomeration known as AOL Time Warner
-http://www.wisegeek.com/who-owns-the-song-happy-birthday.htm

You may note that you rarely hear the song “Happy Birthday” in a movie or on TV.  This is because the company making the movie (if it’s not AOL Time Warner or a subsidiary), would have to pay royalties to AOL. 

In conclusion, let this be a warning to all artists and creative consultants of the world.  BE CAREFUL!  Always check your content for patent infringement before finishing a project.  It will not be easy, and you may very well find yourself in court, or at least holding a cease and desist letter for using an image or symbol or song or flower that is patented by some other entity.  You may also do some investigation and discover that certain colors are patented as well as color combinations.  So do your research and shake your head in shame for the greedy side of Intellectual Property.

More entertaining trademark facts:
The actor Martin Lawrence owns the trademark for “You So Crazy”
U-Haul owns the registered trademarks “Moving Help” and “Moving Helper”
M3 Technologies filed for a patent for the phrase “Nerd Sex Fest”
An individual named James Julius Jackson has patented the phrase “Broccoli Obama”
A sole proprietorship - DBA Brentwood Communications - owns the phrase “White Haired Dudes for McCain”
Entities that have tried to patent the phrase, “I love you”
Unisystems, Inc
Dualstar Entertainment Group in California

-All of the above were verified on uspto.gov using the TESS database.

Filed in Final Project | Comments (0)

Paper on Design Ethics (Draft 1)

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

I have many pre-conceived notions that conflicts the ethics of ownership of a large Sports Utility Vehicle. First, these vehicles are large in volume, and takes up so much space on the road. Because of their size, they often weigh a lot more than regular vehicles. And since they weigh more, larger, less-efficient engines are required to propel its weight, which means more energy, or fuel is necessary to operate them on a daily basis. To me, Sports Utility Vehicle are also purpose-built vehicles; they exist to facilitate atypical tasks that cannot be otherwise be accomplished by smaller vehicles, like sedans– such as climbing over snow during the winter months, or carry a large group of people. However, most people abuse the purpose of SUVs and they can justify their own means of using such possession as their primary vehicle for everyday activities like commute or cruising all year round. What makes this even worst is that I often see them driving with only one or two occupants while this sort of vehicle are intended to hold 6 or more passengers. This kind of practice is wasteful and unwanted in our society, and it has to end.

 

I am a graphic designer who happen to respect the world, the environment that I live in– how ironic, right? Well it is only ironic if you understand the intricacies behind the practice of graphic design since there are many environmental and ethical issues that relates to the practice of graphic design, but is only understood by an insignificant amount of practitioners. There is only so much that I can do help lessen the negative effects of improper paper disposal, by recycling and encouraging others to recycle, hoping that it would make a small impact. Otherwise, many aspects are really out of our hands.

 

Likewise, a matter of ethics was brought upon me recently as I was asked to help design advertisements for Hummer– what a paradox! What can I do as a freelance designer? Of course I accepted the job. No doubt is this contradictory to my personal angst for the future of our planet.  Well, there is also more to it than just acting impulsively just to heighten my sense of accomplishment as a recent graduate student. The decision was actually made for good cause. First, I hoped to prove that by accepting the job, my commitment and respect for graphic design as a profession is genuine and that there is integrity in my character. Remember, we are not only problem solvers, but also strategic communicators. As a result, I felt that I was obligated to maintain my professionalism and be responsible to the society by communicating fairly– so I accepted the challenge.   

 

Look around fellow designers; there are greater competitions, more capable individuals everywhere around you. There are further challenges ahead that will besiege you. And if you don’t take on a job because you can’t lay aside your personal values, which are often based off of your personal experience rather than the actual truth, you need to open up your eyes and gain some perspective on the topic or issue in which you are dealing with; then, reconsider. I was there, and have done that– so this is where I am. I understood that I can’t rely on my initial intuition because there are likely far better reason for why a product exist and have become so popular, with a high enough demand for it that requires new advertisements to showcase the company’s newest development. Perhaps it is the other way around, which I concur more with at the moment. Given the current situation, from the spike of gasoline prices, decline of stock market share value due to share holder’s withdrawals, more and more people are watching their spending, especially on larger types of investments such as a new vehicle.

Filed in Design Ethics, Final Project | Comments (0)

Paper on Personal Design Ethics (2nd Draft)

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

As most Americans are aware, we are in the midst of several crises—particularly relating to topics of energy, the environment, and our economy. Our tendency to live beyond our means and EXHIBIT continually wasteful habits earns America the status of being the most consumptive nation on the planet. +Quote:

We are obsessed with consumption and the major source of our problem is caused by the abuse of energy and resources. Consider our mode of transportation for instance, Americans use large, heavy, gas-guzzlers and they are the main causes for our crisis.<WHICH IS WHAT?

*Foundation for discussing the proposal for demand à supply of new technology to meet CAFE standards

[We need to improve SUVs by creating more demand for SUVs]

-Supports-

1) Small cars more expensive to insure<WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING? IF EVERYONE DROVE A SMALL CAR WOULDN’T THEY BE SAFER? SMALL CARS ARE MOST DANGEROUS WHEN THE COLLIDE WITH BIG CARS

2) CAFE demands 35MPG<WHAT IS CAFE? AND THAT’S AVERAGE FOR CARS, HOV’S ARE CATEGORIZED AS LIGHT TRUCKS AND (I THINK) NOT SUBJECT TO CAFE.

3) Demand exists despite changes in our economy (such as unstable gasoline prices, increase pricesà lower oil consumption; lower gasoline prices, resumes consumption pattern: problems are not fixed)CAN’T GRAPHIC-DESIGN YOUR WAY OUT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS.

4) Plan for Carbon Offset contribution for every vehicle sold.<HOW DOES A DESIGNER DO THIS?

Our abusive means generates worldly problems that disturb our resources, which directly affects economy; and it is our responsibility to fix them.

We as graphic designers may have internal conflict with a project’s objective, but part of what we do is problem solving.

I want to maintain my professionalism as a designer and use graphic design as a medium to communicate fairly.

First, these vehicles are large in volume, and takes up so much space on the road. Because of their size, they often weigh a lot more than regular vehicles. And since they weigh more, larger, less-efficient engines are required to propel its weight, which means more energy, or fuel is necessary to operate them on a daily basis. To me, Sports Utility Vehicle are supposed to be purpose-built vehicles; they exist to facilitate peculiar tasks like hulling lumber and lawn mowers, or relocating your living room, things that cannot be otherwise be accomplished by smaller vehicles, like four-passenger sedans. Aside from the practicality provided by the added convenience from the extra room in the cargo area, can one justify using such vehicle as the primary vehicle for everyday activities like commute or cruising with merely one of two passengers? Even when one can ration their means or intent, this kind of practice is wasteful and unwanted in our society, and it has to end.

Recently I was confronted by an issue the challenged my ethics as a person as well as a designer. I have to say, many things are out of our control. As a freelancer, I never would have thought that Chevy would approach me to design advertisement to sell their latest iteration of hybrid SUVs. My initial response was that I needed some time to contemplate on the offer. I asked questions like, is it ethical to help them sell something that I believe there are too much of, or even– how can I go against my moral and ignore my values against SUVs as explained above.

To help finalize my decision, I decided to look at the objective from the opposing side’s standpoint.  When I did, I came up with some rather interesting ration for accepting the job. What is ironic is that my ration revolved around the positive effects of selling more SUVs. As a result, I took the gambled and accepted the job. At the same time, I felt that I have made the right decision. I felt that I was obligated to maintain my professionalism and be responsible to the society by communicating fairly.  No doubt is my action was contradictory to my personal angst for the future of our planet.  Well, there is also more to it than just acting impulsively just to heighten my sense of accomplishment as a recent graduate student. But I really hoped to prove that by accepting the job, my commitment and respect for graphic design as a profession is genuine and that there is integrity in my character. Secondly, we are not only problem solvers, but also strategic communicators. *I believe that graphic design is the most practical medium for communicating ….

Additionally, I thought it was my duty to communicate fairly because we owe it to the public.

There are greater competitions, more capable individuals everywhere around us. I sense that there are further challenges ahead, and that they will overwhelm me because of my deficiency in skills. It is particularly detrimental towards my career as a designer if I don’t take on a job seriously because personal values dominated my thoughts. I believe that if one can’t lay aside problems confronting them, which are often based off of your personal experience rather than the actual truth– one is not accomplishing the task. In order to be a problem solver, one must be objective by first gaining some perspective on the topic or issue in which you are dealing with; then, consider the possible outcome. It is the process one should follow to maintain the professional relationship with clients. I was there, and have done that– so this is where I am.

I understood that I can’t rely on my initial intuition because there are likely far better reason for why a product exist and have become so popular, with a high enough demand for it that requires new advertisements to showcase the company’s latest innovation that follows*** development. Perhaps it is the other way around, which I concur more with at the moment. Given the current situation, from the spike of gasoline prices, decline of stock market share value due to share holder’s withdrawals, more and more people are watching their spending, especially on larger types of investments such as a new vehicle.

Filed in Design Ethics, Final Project | Comments (0)

Design Ethics- Draft

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Say I am a designer who is working for a design firm. My boss comes into my office one day (Yes, I have my own office. I am a great designer. Play along.) She tells me that the firm just got a new client, and she would like me to take the lead in designing their ad campaign. “Who is the client?”, I ask. “Hummer,” she answers.

I look at her, shocked. Hummers are absurd. We have a fossil fuel shortage yet people still feel the need to drive MILITARY CARS THAT GET THE MILAGE OF tanks through the suburbs. What, do THEY expect an ambush on the way to the grocery store? OR Are THEY planning on driving to the top of A DESERTED mountain with THEIR family this weekend? If not, then the HUMMER IS A complete waste of fuel. Not only that, the fumes from THESE urban assault vehicle pollutE our air.

BUT, That being said, should I take the job? My boss tells me that I have to, Hummer requested me specifically. Great. Now what should I do? Should I design the worst ad I have ever made? Should I cleverly hide secret messages in the ad that subliminally tell people to not buy a Hummer? OR….SHOULD TAKE A STAND? EVEN AT THE POSSIBLE EXPENSE OF MY JOB?

My answer is no. I should create the best ad possible to sell those gas guzzlers. Sure, I think that Hummers are wasteful, are dangerously large on the roads, and are basically unethical themselves. However, I have an obligation to my firm to represent them in the best possible way, and that is by only doing my best on this campaign. I also have the ethical obligation to the client to design an effective ad campaign to the best of my ability. They requested me because they had seen my other work and decided that my ads were what they want.<NEED TO CONNECT THE DOTS A LITTLE BETTER, EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS A BALANCE OF ETHICAL IMPERATIVES RATHER THAN JUST YOU WANTING TO KEEP YOUR JOB, AND WHY THE IMPERATIVE TO DO YOUR OUT WEIGHS THE IMPARATIVE NOT TO SELL GAS GUZZLERS. And since they requested me, I cannot refuse the job without risking being fired.

EVEN THOUGH I WOULD DO, THAT DOESN’T I WOULD VIOLATE LARGER ETHICS WHILE In the ad campaign itself, I would make sure that Hummers are not depicted as anything they are not, such as environmentally friendly. I would make it clear that while I will design effective ads, I will only include true information and nothing, whether it be text or images, that is misleading. If their product is good, it should sell itself.< WOULD YOU BE FIRED IF THEY TRY TO MAKE YOU INCLUDE UNTRUE INFO\?

It all depends on the product itself, though. For example, if I were in the same situation but instead of Hummer as my client, it was a presidential candidate that I did not agree with, I would not take the job. Yes, I would get a lot of exposure as a designer if I did, but I would not want my name attached to a candidate that I do not support, even if it meant losing my job.<NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHY YOU THINK THE POLITICAL CANDIDATE IS A HIGH-STAKES CHOICE.

CAN YOU DRAW A GENERALITY ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT OK FOR YOU TO DO AS A DESIGNER?

Each designer has to make the decision FOR HERSELF where to draw the line between what is ethical and what is not. Unfourtanately, there is no line drawn for us, as there are in other professions, such as lawyers. And while I would very much like to stand up for what I believe in, I also have to pay rent. This is what makes the line between ethical and not seem to blur at times, the need to support myself. If I were to lose too many jobs because I stood up for what I believe in, and never took clients like Hummer, no one would want to hire me. Then I would be living off of public assistance, which would be unethical in itself because I am a trained, skilled person able so hold a job.It is a very tricky business, standing up for what you believe in. <END STRONGER? YOU ARE SEEMINGLY DISMISSING A PLACE FOR ETHICS IN DESIGN, AND I THINK BY PUTTING THIS IN BLACK AND WHITE YOU ARE MAKING IT HARDER THAN IT REALLY IS. YOU PROBABLY CAN PASS ON A FEW JOBS WITHOUT ENDING UP ON ASSISTANCE.

Filed in Projects | Comments (0)

The Reality of Political Designs (draft2)

Monday, November 10, 2008

In the beginning of our careers, our concerns are rooted in building a diverseROUNDED? portfolio in order to reach that dream job. We are obsessed<TOO STRONG? CONCERNED with the responsibility of handling our financial situations. Generally, we take the jobs we can get. Of course A DESIGNER  can opt for A favorite job to a point, but for most young designers, money outweighs morals. It would be nice to think the opinion of a Graphic Designer matters. That his or her say is the final answer and HE can pick jobs and designs based on these final opinions. But the reality is that it is just naive to think that in the “real world” SHE can pick and choose projects based on personal opinion, (at least not when we are starting out).

During the Obama/McCain elections political propaganda was everywhere—ON posters, print ads, flyers and emails. While some were stunning, hilarious, OR politically controversial MOST VIEWERS don’t usually question the political views of the designer. As good designs often go, the client’s views stOOD out. We typically assume that their views are the same as their productions, but what if they differed from the advertisements’, IS THE DESIGNER selling out? Do SHE really have a choice?

I am proof of this real-life situation. I’m a young designer with a full time job. Although I have the liberty of creating the designs of my choice, I am subject to the beginning outline and the final approval of everything I create. Recently, I was asked to create an email with the hidden innuendos of a strong political statement. While our company doesn’t usually make such statements, my boss felt so passionately about this particular election that she felt it was necessary to share her views with her customers. While devising the campaign, the instruction for the outline she gave me was… “make the header read: Say GoodBye to Conservative”. This was an obvious statement against the Republican Party. I paired the bold statement with bold non-traditional products, hoping to camouflage the political tone with the distraction of these unusual and unique items. As a Republican myself, I knew the offense some viewers might take to the email. I warned my boss of the possible negative effects but she assured me it would be fine. When I told her of my political views and the opposition I felt to creating such an email that goes against my personal beliefs as a Republican, she pulled rank by reminding me that this was after all, her website. All I could do was create the email. After all, I’m not willing to loose my job over one email that may or may not have any affect on our customer. Will they even read it the same way I did?

As I started to form the bulk of the email I actually found myself having fun. The key was to do my job and not take the email so personally. It was her email. I was just creating her vision for her, simply working as a graphic translator, so to speak.

The final email featured the email title: “Yes, You Can”, and the header, as requested, read: “Say GoodBye to Conservative”. As sub-text I wrote: “Conservative is Out! It’s time for a Change…Shop New Out-Of-The-Box Fashions for Horse and Rider”. The entire layout of the email was inspired by the design of BarackObama.com, lots of blue with accents of stars and stripes.

The results of this particular email faired pretty well. We certainly got the attention we wanted, however our customer service department was not too happy though. They said they got about a dozen emails and phone calls from unhappy customers which had phrases written like, “Keep America in America” and “I’m never shopping on your website again”. And my boss’ response was “Those Republicans have no sense of humor. It’s not like I said Conservatives are Out!”

I feel that the closest comparison to this situation is lawyers and their job duties. Although the relationship may sound strange, lawyers sometimes make their living defending clients despite their moral ethicsWHO PERFORM IMMORAL ACTS. They still do their job even THOUGH they may not agree with their clients. In a sense, Graphic Designers often face similar pressures. The way to overcome thE TREPEDATION OF DOING UNSAVORY?  is to answer this question: Do you get enjoyment out of what you do? Even though I may disagree with the requested assignments from my boss, I still get excitement out of the reaction I get from making this subtle political propaganda. The point is, to create emails or other designs when you can still get some joy out of it. Only then, you can find a way to take pride in your work. It may sound like I’m a sellout, Money is what makes you happy then that is also a reason to keep making the designs. If for example you get paid $100,000.00 to design a billboard, that’s still something to be proud of. That’s your worth, might as well make it worth your while!

Filed in Design Ethics | Comments (0)

Photo Manipulation = Social Degradation

Sunday, November 9, 2008

(I feel this is a bit redundant. It needs a good cleaning.)

Photo manipulation is the application of techniques that alters photos to create illusion or deception encompassing some arterial motive. Types of photo manipulation vary from traditional photography to digital photography, photomontage and the application of ink and paint by hand. In traditional photography negatives were double exposed for a recreation of multiple images into one scene. The ability to manipulate photos has been around since long before computers, photo manipulation has actually been in existence since 1821. It has been used for many different reasons, a popular first example being the image of Abraham Lincoln’s head joined with that of John C. Calhoun’s body. Leaders have used photo manipulation to encourage the public’s view in a certain direction. Journalism has abused photo manipulation, representing criminals more harshly and improved celebrity’s beauty.

Photo manipulation is used throughout PRINT news and entertainment media. PUBLICATIONS do whatever it takes to keep SALEs high among the public. Sacrifices have to be made; stories have to be emphasized to create a common interest. The fashion world requires photo manipulation to set up to their own standards.

It is the responsibility of the news media to provide trustworthy information to the public. If images are alerted it provides a false sense of reality potentially disabling the viewer. For example, if a serial killer’s photo is manipulated to make him look terrifying, people may not be able to recognize his face and he could escape the arrest enabling another crime. The news also informs the public of accidents and/or serious issues which may be inflamed or casually ignored in efforts to gain more viewers or a wider consumer base.

Photo manipulation typically occurs more often in entertainment media. Magazines, posters, movies and even toys influence our subconscious. The manipulation of photography is used to achieve a perfect picture that will best promote the product. This type of manipulation does not actually physically effect the consumer, but the images and or ideas suggested could alter the consumer’s thinking, influencing a new thought process geared towards a product or image. Commercials and advertisements are created to influence the consumer, yet should represent people or products accurately so as not to falsify their advertising statement.

Entertainment media such as magazines and posters offer the most abrasive of photo manipulation. Images of women and men alike are “touched up” to clean away imperfections, assigning a subconscious standard for society. Impressionable minds of adults are swayed into believing in these false images and information. Young minds of children are encouraged to rate themselves against the perfected adult figures: what makes it so impossible for people to be happy with the way they are? Why are we as a society so focused upon images and entertainment that is purely fictional? It is an idea or a dream world that stands nothing like our own, and yet the perfection is fascinating.

Many consumers look to the media for guidance and ruled structure. MEDIA INFLUECNCES CULTURE? Fashion magazines delegate what clothes we should wear, fitness and health magazines provide physical models for what our bodies should resemble, and news magazines provide information used to formulate personal opinion. It is in all cases wrong to use photo manipulation in the news media. >The risk of misrepresentation is higher than the effort to manipulate photos.

Why DO journalists misrepresent reality? THE DESIRE FOR SUCCESS? keep reporters AT fashion magazines from accurately reporting the news.<HOW SO?  The news media insists on tweaking the way images are represented. Images are a solid connection to a person’s subconscious. People’s strange attraction to the dark seeded corners of despair and tragedy compares equally to the attraction of beauty and perfection. On an evolutionary level, what do humans get out this need for such extreme gratification and where does it come from? These are the issues where we should have more focus. Reporters should not use photo manipulation in order to report the news because it will change the over all interpretation and therefore perspective of the public.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (0)