Dear Milena,
>Thank you for writing, then sharing your piece. I am particularly interested in this kind of design critique—one engaging with designed problems and responses that are of active interest to the public; where the writer attempts to analyze to understand, with the (potential or assumed) goal of such design becoming “better” in some ways thanks to the analysis; and where the objects of critique are a category rather than singular attempts.
Yes, this is intended to stimulate some (re)design practice. I gave the text to my Master students (communication design) and they do now pick up some themes and propose redesigns.
>I have a few starting thoughts. I will focus on the first part of your piece—virus visualizations—so that I avoid “over staying my welcome”. I am more than happy to keep going, however, if you’re interrested in further thoughts.
Thank you for your close reading! Please keep going!
>You state that the visualization of the virus helps us experience it as a "cause for the new disease” and something "that is identifiable, potentially controllable”. I disagree. The images you reference (and they do seem to be the ones dominating the virus visualization landscape) appear larger than life. Often, in fact, the virus is presented on big screens behind presenters and journalists, in essence making the virus a monstrosity, unlike some alien planet or spaceship. I would argue that the choice of scale—as larger than the human-body—communicates threat and, subsequently, our lack of control over it. It’s so large, it can hardly fit on our screens. The choices of abstract shapes and colours that appear to exist behind the virus, suggest a space we can not specifically identify. At times, it appears as some dark ocean, a cave, or lava, further reinforcing both its alienness and, by proxy, the virus as some alien invader. But unlike a spaceship, which appears enclosed / contained, the virus reaches out towards us with its many tentacles. There are numerous ways it can intercept us; its design appears singularly-focused on joining or bonding with another (through its suction arms). While the arms appear to communicate a desperate desire for contact, its lack of face suggests that it can not be reasoned with. We can not read its intent or emotion, or even whether its attention is directed towards us. We can’t negotiate.
I admit I did not see this: the scale of the virus within the mediated images is unclear. In my first image, one virus is bigger than the presenter’s head! Also, the backgrounds (as you describe them) suggest an alien environment. This micro-nano "world" is disconnected from our embodied perception. But isn't the display always contained in frames that everyone understands as images, thus not threatening? Maybe it is different in North America? I looked at some FOX news stuff, and indeed found visualizations as you describe them, and see your point!: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_kuFAuvc=/ (I'd say those displays try to make it look disgusting; also, "the virus" seems to flow towards the viewer, putting him into perspective.)
So, also the ubiquity of “the virus” visualizations make it more a threat? Or does the ubiquity make it more everyday? I am not sure. Maybe this needs some empirical investigation? I will discuss this with my students.
>I suggest that the items that have been introduced into the image geared at children, demonstrate our own desperate need to humanize the virus. It’s terrifying because it has no face, only need. So, when we want to reassure our young, those are the features we give it. We also give it emotional expression so we can know (in fact, determine) its intent.
Yes, illustrations /for/ kids are always projective! … if we need to explain the harm it /does/ we resort to signs of agency (like arms and legs) which is an everyday operation. In regard to kids we explain by metaphor. So, I am not sure if it shows our desperate need to humanize the virus.
>Finally, I would be curious to review how often the virus appears by itself—a singular enemy--and how often as part of a “swarm”. When in a swarm, does one being larger than the others suggest a leader?
I like this observation. I will also look at that!
I ponder to include this discussion in my text, do you mind?
Thank you and keep going!
Best,
Jan-Henning
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 19:38:12 -0600, Milena Radzikowska <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear Jan-Henning,
>
>Thank you for writing, then sharing your piece. I am particularly interested in this kind of design critique—one engaging with designed problems and responses that are of active interest to the public; where the writer attempts to analyze to understand, with the (potential or assumed) goal of such design becoming “better” in some ways thanks to the analysis; and where the objects of critique are a category rather than singular attempts.
>
>I have a few starting thoughts. I will focus on the first part of your piece—virus visualizations—so that I avoid “over staying my welcome”. I am more than happy to keep going, however, if you’re interrested in further thoughts.
>
>You state that the visualization of the virus helps us experience it as a "cause for the new disease” and something "that is identifiable, potentially controllable”. I disagree. The images you reference (and they do seem to be the ones dominating the virus visualization landscape) appear larger than life. Often, in fact, the virus is presented on big screens behind presenters and journalists, in essence making the virus a monstrosity, unlike some alien planet or spaceship. I would argue that the choice of scale—as larger than the human-body—communicates threat and, subsequently, our lack of control over it. It’s so large, it can hardly fit on our screens. The choices of abstract shapes and colours that appear to exist behind the virus, suggest a space we can not specifically identify. At times, it appears as some dark ocean, a cave, or lava, further reinforcing both its alienness and, by proxy, the virus as some alien invader. But unlike a spaceship, which appears enclosed / contained, the virus reaches out towards us with its many tentacles. There are numerous ways it can intercept us; its design appears singularly-focused on joining or bonding with another (through its suction arms). While the arms appear to communicate a desperate desire for contact, its lack of face suggests that it can not be reasoned with. We can not read its intent or emotion, or even whether its attention is directed towards us. We can’t negotiate.
>
>I suggest that the items that have been introduced into the image geared at children, demonstrate our own desperate need to humanize the virus. It’s terrifying because it has no face, only need. So, when we want to reassure our young, those are the features we give it. We also give it emotional expression so we can know (in fact, determine) its intent.
>
>Finally, I would be curious to review how often the virus appears by itself—a singular enemy--and how often as part of a “swarm”. When in a swarm, does one being larger than the others suggest a leader?
>
>Thanks again.
>
>All the best,
>
>m
>
>
>Dr. Milena Radzikowska, MDes
>Professor, Information Design
>Faculty of Communication Studies
>Mount Royal University
>
>She/Her
>
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>http://www.milenaradzikowska.com
>
>“The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." ~Thoreau
>
>I LIVE AND WORK on the ancestral and traditional Indigenous territories of the Blackfoot and the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta, which includes the Siksika, the Piikani, the Kainai, the Tsuu T’ina and the Stoney Nakoda First Nations. The City of Calgary is also home to the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III.
>
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Jan-Henning Raff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I wrote a short piece on some visual aspects of corona communication:
>> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">https:[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Happy to hear some feedback!
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan-Henning
>> ___
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Jan-Henning Raff
>> Fachbereich Design
>> Leitung
>>
>> HMKW Hochschule für Medien, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft – University of Applied Sciences
>> Ackerstraße 76 – Raum 2.03
>> 13355 Berlin
>> Deutschland
>>
>> +49 176 - 23 111 233
>> [log in to unmask] / www.hmkw.de
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|