[That essay was not as short as you said it would be...]

Seriously? That essay was twenty-four pages long! That's not a "very short essay" in my book. I mean, it's not a "horridly long essay" Or a "almost killed me essay" either, but still. Don't lie, it's a sin.

Also, may I note that that essay was as pretentious as you can get? I swear, it's like he wasn't even speaking english sometimes. Admitted, it is fun to write big words sometimes, but it's not fun to read them. Jeesh!

Anyways, where was I... Ah yes. The essay.

As I struggled through this essay, two themes struck me: one being the perception that a photograph is an objective capture, and two being the ethical abuses of the photograph. What is it about the photograph that has caused it to leave such an interesting history? What in it's nature shapes our thoughts as such?

Let us look at the nature of the first photographs. They were grainy. They had no color. If the subjects moved or the camera shifted, the images would come out blurry. So what shaped the viewers mind to see the photograph as "objective"? Great painters were able to render masterpieces with an almost lifelike aesthetic, but photographs earned the title of objectivity.

Let us compare the photograph to the painting; the key difference we see is in the presence of the artist. In a painting, even the most finely rendered paintings, we can see the hand of the artist in the medium. We can see the strokes no matter how well hidden they are. In the photograph, however, the artist is invisible. The essay talks about (in its horribly overblown English) how people don't think about the photographer-they rather think of the camera. This gives the picture the appearance of being self existent, created ex nihilo by the situation itself. Thus people think them to be interpretations of real life.

Which leads to my second observation: the unethical use of photography. In the essay the class was barbarically forced to slave through, I observed many instances where humans were photographed and organized, the soul purpose being to note their flaws and categorize them into a certain "level of human". What about photography brought about such inhuman categorization?

If photography does not offer objectivity, it does offer something that is often mistaken for objectivity; verisimilitude, or the appearance of reality. Where an illustrators hand would be apparent for a scientist, a photograph gives him the feeling of actually being there with his specimen. With a photograph, he can closely observe his subject as if they are a frozen specimen. He can note the height of their height, length, width, and expression, taking careful note of every detail without actually being there, which leads to the root of our issue; because photography offers the appearance of reality, the scientist or observer feels he is in reality, and that the photograph is the whole of the reality of his subject. Thus, he only knows what he sees. He does not see the man playing with his children or speaking to his wife, interacting with friends. All he sees is the man with the stick, standing naked.

One photo that stuck out to me in that ostentatious essay was Front and Profile View of Malayan Man by John Lamprey. We see a naked Malayan man, holding a staff in front of a grid, rigged up for the photo. The nature of the photograph tells us, "This is all that there is to see. This is the whole of the man." But what we forget is that we have pulled the Malayan man out of his home and under the microscope. We forget that he is a man, and not just a specimen.

Ok...I didn't actually hate the essay. I just get overdramatic sometimes.

[It's late.]

This is a very quick prototype to check size, layout, and pullout tab placement. 

{SDG}

[Type]

Text is one of those things we take for granted. Since the invention of the computer, the printer, and the odious free-font website, text and type have become so much apart of our world and simply blend into the background, the art of type making all but forgotten.

Ah, but what a rich history to forget! So full of painstaking exactness, mind-numbingly precise measuring, and of course, a grandiose lexicon of pulchritudinous nomenclature for your edification.

I could go through such codification, listing off hither and thither the anatomy of type, but alas, these appendages are much easier shown than explained. Thus, I will attempt to rationalize the reasons for us to understand type and its apportionments.

Letters (and most every object in our world) exist in two different realms: the realm of the Signifier, and the realm of the Signified. Charles Sanders Pierce, the propagator of these two terms, said that every object in our world has "Meanings"; what the form of the object suggests, the realm of the Signifier, and what the culture surrounding the object suggests, the Signified.

Now the realm of thought that we initially recognize letters as placing themselves in is the realm of the Signified; rarely do we consciously recognize letters for their form, but rather we recognize them for their meaning. When looking at a curving path, we are more likely to comment that it looks like the letter 'S', thus putting our focus not upon the form of the 'S', but rather the cultural significance we have associated with that shape.

However, as designers, we cannot divorce the realm of the Signifier from the realm of the Signified. We must have the two hand in hand as we traverse the treacherous terrace of typography. We must readily accept that the Signifier, the form of the object, will affect the Signified, the understanding of the object.

To give an example, let us turn to signs. Why is it that for more serious signs, we use capital letters? Look at the form of the CAPITAL letter: It's size implies a certain austerity. There is a lack of roundness it its form; it appears far more geometric.

This is but one example of how the form affects our understanding. And so, as designers, attempting to portray a certain idea, it is important to understand the parts of fonts, so as to better understand their form, and thus, so we can create the proper response from our viewers.

{SDG}

[Oh look, its been a while...]

Well, this is embarrassing.

Here's some photos from the accordion book project.

Since iPhone photos are of such low quality, I wanted to find a way to present them as higher quality. So I pasted them to a clean white wall. In order to get a clean white light, I used a computer screen light, and used a very long exposure time (30 seconds), giving the photos a crisp, neutral look.

{SDG}