Playdays — 1.’Firsts’

The first Playdays is done, and I think it was successful on a number of terms.

Fist of all there was a decent enough turnout, which is always nice. We maxed at 14 people which made for a nice sized group to work with, large enough to get a feel for what it is like working on a slightly larger scale. It also showed that there are enough people keen to get involved – I am quite confident that the next Playday will involve more people.

The start of the day was always going to be the hardest bit, and there was a lot of silence to begin the day. The standard brainstorming session led the way and everyone began to chip in. One thing I noticed during the idea-generation-stage was that people are most willing to share an idea if it is one which goes against an idea just said. By that I mean people are more willing to disagree with someone else’s idea than to contribute a new one – which makes sense – people naturally do not want to be put down, and the fear of that inhibits the free flow of sharing of ideas and thoughts, but one can quite easily deter an idea or thought put forward by someone else. This essentially shows that there needs to be, however, a certain number of people who are willing to get shot-down, for the sake of the larger scale idea generation.

Something worth noting that ran throughout the day, is that people are more than happy to sit and talk through ideas, for a long period of time, but are reluctant to actually try them. Trying to organise small scale experiments of the many ideas we came up with proved to be quite hard. A tendency to over-plan, down to the very last detail even the most simple of tasks was common. But once something was started, it seemed like people were willing to continue to the end. Unfortunately too, it seemed that if something was deemed a failure, it was deemed a waste of time – there was a failure to see the benefit even in a failed experiment among some in the group.

After a number of attempts at both personal and impersonal experiments, it was agreed upon, at the end of the day, that the experiments which involved a communal approach to the concept were far better than the experiments which involved a communal approach to the outcome.

It was also discussed that there were discrepancies as to the expectations of the day. Many admitted to hoping that there would be some kind of tangible outcome to the Playdays; something which is still worked on collaboratively, but an end product none-the-less. This highlights the communal idea generation vs communal outcome point. It may take a little while for participants to realise the benefit of exploring the process rather than the outcome, but I think we will get there, and reap the rewards.

I already feel like I am learning something about how to work collaboratively and organise collaborative work. It takes patience, but there must be an instigator – something to spark interest and debate. People prefer to disagree, than to agree.

People procrastinate.

Josh

We Live In Public

We Live In Public — Ondi Timoner

I just watched this film – and I’ll start by saying it was really great.

Josh Harris seems like an incredibly interesting guy – a trouble guy growing up, but a smart one too. His experiments into surveillance, networking and the human condition are fascinating. It has got me thinking about working with people and social structures – creating them, playing with them.

A self-led ‘workshop’ initiative (I am yet to find a better word than workshop, as it isn’t strictly a workshop) that myself and a number of other people in my class at university have collectively organised is launching in a week. The ethos behind it is collaborative thinking and collaborative working. We will not be working towards a fixed outcome, but will have a vague and open starting point. My hope is that the day will unfold organically feeding off the great pool of ideas generated by the mass of minds working together. My hope too is that eventually this will grow, in itself, into a larger entity in which we can invite more people, outside of our university and also outside of our practice, to work with new interesting people. Although this is nothing like the crazy experiments that Josh Harris conducts, I am without a doubt, going to be casting a critical eye on the structures that form in these workshop days to try and better understand notions of collaborative thinking and working.

Incidentally, the series of workshops, is called Playdays.

Josh

Finding My Way

I think I am starting to understand what it is I actually want to do – in terms of a career. I think I’d quite like to be a designer; in the broadest of senses.

I have always struggled with finding a single niche – something which I can do all day, every day, and always enjoy. It’s not necessarily that I get bored, I just enjoy lots of things. I enjoy research and learning about why things are the way they are, in design terms, but also not; socially, anthropologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. I enjoy working on smaller scale experiments to test ideas, rather than polished, beautiful outcomes. My second year of university education is well under way now, and it is now that I am starting to develop a concern for my lack of direction, but now I wonder if this lack of direction is in fact the direction. A broader knowledge of everything may lend itself well to a design director role. I would like to be able to design things which I may or may not actually have a role in creating. I can’t say I really know what this ‘job’ is (creative director?), but I like the idea of it.

Realising this now has also, in part, reinforced my want to pursue an MA at the Royal College of Art. I can’t help but notice every designer I admire turns out to have spent some time there. But I do also feel my way of working and thinking would be suited quite nicely to the RCA. It is also another two years to not have to worry about the real world – which is always nice. I write this now, intentionally*, on an online blog, so that I can come back to this when I am in fact working full time at the climbing wall. Time tells all.

Josh

*Because I am more likely to re-read an online blog than a physical – I am not sure how I feel about this, but it is true.

Organising Thoughts

It has been a while since I last posted anything, and so I thought it would be nice to start again, which I intend to now do somewhat regularly, with some organisation. Some of my interests as-of-late are:

Frameworks

The development of a framework, in which people can navigate and function within.

Largely digital, with the obvious social networking frameworks such as Facebook and Twitter; blogging with Blogger and Tumblr; open source with things like Processing, Linux, Wikipedia; and other areas.

Also physical with notions of community and person-to-person relations and folk culture.

Is the future designer one which designs frameworks, and no longer a designer which designs graphics, imagery and type – the visual is superseded by the experience and interaction.

Open Source

Mentioned before, but open source as it’s own philosophy is quite a large concept. Opening up ideas, information, data, tools etc. to the masses, for free and without discrimination, and to allow the masses to work as a self-regulating system which, in theory, improves and develops.

Also mentioned above, Wikipedia being a prime example. A device which is free and allows anyone and everyone to contribute, and yet over time, the ‘system’ (people) has learnt to regulate itself and to form its own cultures and feedback techniques – which has led to it being one of the most regularly used tools on the internet and far surpasses it’s official rivals, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Data

Data as the new currency, and questioning and understanding its inherent worth.

The availability of data and ways in which it is ‘mined’. How can data be quantified if we can all find our own?

All these ideas intermingle and work together. I have been, and aim to build prototypes which work towards or challenge ideas I have mentioned. I also aim to write more on the topic which will hopefully mirror the design work and add some worth to small scale experiments.

A book I am currently reading is We-Think, by Charles Leadbetter. It talks a lot about the ideas I have mentioned and celebrates them. Definitely worth reading if any of this resonates with you.

Amish Barn Raising — Originally seen on Chris Thomas‘s blog, whom shares some interesting ideas.

Josh

The Internet of Things

Timo Arnall — Making Things Visible

Timo Arnall (from BERG and a number of other interesting things) talks about the idea that now, objects and tangible things are starting to connect to the internet and with each other. With the ubiquity of things like RFID and other discreet web-connected services, new data and ways of interacting with that data are forming.

I am of the school of thought that good design is when it becomes so seamlessly merged with daily life that it goes unnoticed. With interactive design, that applies to things like interfaces; the iPhone touch screen being fairly recent successful example. The user need not be fascinated by it, or concerned with the lack of buttons, but more concerned about what it is they want to use the phone for. The computer mouse is also a success story as it has barely changed since it was first invented in 1963 and does it’s job perfectly — although some have the bottle to challenge that (which is commendable). But also with Oyster cards on the London Underground, something which integrated with a very complex and important social travel system quite seamlessly.

Arnall talks about the ‘Internet of Things’ where these now web-connected things can communicate with each other giving rise to a new way of interacting with the internet. He talks about how we go to the internet, rather than it coming to us, but if the internet integrates itself with tangible objects we then begin to use it instinctively and even without knowing, then the internet becomes something else.

Wilson Miner — When We Build

It is interesting comparing Timo Arnall’s ideas to those of Wilson Miner, whom, in his When We Build talk, talks about the screen being the new venture in mankind which will literally shape the way we live and interact with the world around us. Which was once a sci-fi fantasy, but is now become quite the reality . His ideas are quite convincing and do make sense, albeit in a quite poetic and fanciful way.

I generally avoid viewing social change and development subjectively and maintain an objective outlook, trying not to dread visions of the future and the problems it brings, but rather embrace the change and look forward to seeing how the human race adapts to it — because, on the whole, we do quite well. But I do like the idea of the internet integrating itself into tangible objects and moving away from the screen. I think the screen will always be the fundamental interface for almost everything we do in the near future, but it is nice to have something else to interact with more intuitively.

Schulze and Webb developed Availabot which:

Makes it easy to see when a particular friend of yours is available for instant messaging, even when you’re not sitting in front of your computer.

Although it does need to be plugged in via USB to a computer, the point is that it is an early prototype for a new way of interacting with the internet. It also provides something fun and something which people coule potentially personalise, which I think will be important in a very screen based world.

Nike+ is another example, but this is perhaps more useful and serves a more interesting purpose. I have had many frustrating moments with the maps feature on my iPhone when I have needed it most, and have resorted to leaving an A-to-Z in my bag to make up for the iPhones trappings, so I am dubious as to how well Nike+ really works – but it is another early example of how things could work in the Internet of Things.

The Nike+iPod Sports Kit is a device which measures and records the distance and pace of a walk or run. The Nike+iPod consists of a small transmitter device attached to or embedded in a shoe, which communicates with either the Nike+ Sportband, a receiver plugged into an iPod Nano, or directly with an iPod Touch, iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 or a Nike+ Sportwatch.

It is something which actively encourages the user to get out and exercise in the real world and actually looks really quite useful and accurate. Of course the user needs to return to the screen at the end of a run to access the data, but it is a new kind of data that could only be accessed by integrating the internet into tangible and useable objects.

The Internet of Things is a concept which is quite new [to me, at least] but is one which gets more exciting the more I think about it. But what is most exciting for me is that the underlying, driving force behind this development, or the development of screen based technologies is the internet. I think it’s amazing the internet has become such an important thing, and is shaping the way we design and live our lives — and is something I think I would quite like to be a part of.

Josh

What is the state of Illustration today as compared to other practices, and what does this spell for its future?

Illustration is a practice which is under constant scrutiny as to how far it can be taken as a critically assessable field of design. It has taken strong criticism from some of the most revered design writers and critics such as Rick Poynor and Steven Heller all of whom wonder what is the current state of illustration, and what will come of it.

To me, the current state of illustration is no different to the state of illustration 30 years ago or indeed 500 years ago. Illustration is not a design practice which one can look at retrospectively at get an understand of the social and cultural structure of a given time period in terms of what the images are saying. But one can understand gain an idea of culture from the way in which images are made.

Illustration and style are things which go hand in hand. In Steven Heller and Seymour Chwast’s book ‘Illustration – A Visual History’ they have categorised all the illustrations in the book into two main categories, Style and Form. They then go on to say, in the preface, that:

‘Of course, the Style section is chronological insofar as most cultural styles, being markers of particular times and places, signal particular periods.’

Style will always be applied to illustration and other design practices and style has a lifespan which eventually dies out in place of the next. This is not a bad thing and the design world may become quite bland if it wasn’t the case, but I think the problem for Illustration is that it too style led, and this in turn impedes it’s development critically.

Style and limited growth I think are exemplified in the recent insurgence of illustration collectives such as Peepshow Collective and Puck Collective and illustration specific publishers such as Nobrow. Early on these were hailed as a great thing; celebrating illustration like never before and providing a platform for illustrators to come together and seek strength in numbers and to produce work of their own without being ‘tainted by commercial impurities’ (Chwast, Illustration – A Visual History). On paper this sounds like a great thing; for a serious illustrator, creating personal work is a very important thing, which I will come back to. But a short browse in the Nobrow shop and you will see that this wonderful opportunity is going to waste.

Illustrators are using the opportunity to produce entirely style led pieces of work. Short comics in a child-like hand drawn style are in abundance and every single one seems to be the same. The books made up of pretty image after pretty image with a simple joke thrown in here and there – the simple style isn’t a gateway to let the strong narrative, or deeper meaning shine through. It is purely a single facet, a layer of prettiness printed nicely on lovely paper.

Paul Bowman, writing for Varoom in 2008 recognises a similar problem:

‘My contention is that good creative work sheds light on something not seen, something not known. It causes us to re-evaluate our lives, our society and ourselves. Good creative work challenges the viewer to question things. The subject matter is served by the style not the other way round, and the first question asked should be – is the subject matter any good?’

I noticed the same thing happening Pick Me Up this year (2012). Pick Me Up labels itself as a ‘contemporary graphic arts fair’ showcasing ‘the best new work from around the UK and the world’. The event was set up like a normal exhibition where there were works hung on the walls and viewers were invited to walk around of their own accord and contemplate the works. There was a strong emphasis on showcasing illustration and the aforementioned collectives were given a large amount of space to use each. This event again, is an opportunity for illustrators to produce and show to a vast audience personal, meaningful work. There was also an abundance of commercial work shown which, as a matter of context, is another debate.

The opportunity for these illustrators I felt was wasted, again. The works were shallow personal explorations in style and it all seemed very self-referential and a large ego-fest.

I must say though, I cannot help but wonder that if illustrators did have a drive to produce work assessing and commenting on the world as we know it, would it, even then, be enough to push illustration into something a lot more than it is now.

Steven Heller, when writing for Varoom magazine talk about the heydays of illustration:

‘Illustration commanded prime editorial real estate during the mid-1960s throughout the late 1980s and even into the 1990s. Moreover illustration added visual dimension beyond the scope of the text.’

There are a number of illustrators accosciated with this era whom are known for producing strong ‘conceptual illustration’ such as Brad Holland, Sue Coe, Gerald Scarfe, Ralph Steadman, Rob Mason and Marshall Arisman. These are all illustrators whom understood the importance of personal work and used it as an outlet for deeper expression.

Brad Holland declaring that he would never merely illustrate but instead he would interpret his commissions; Susan Coe turning a critical eye towards animal abuse with shocking imagery in her book ‘Dead Meat’; Marshall Arisman self-publishing a book of disturbing drawing about gun culture in America. Each of these illustrators works are held in high regard amongst design critics as strong conceptual works, and works which hold a ethos which needs to my carried forward by new illustrators and spread throughout the industry. But will it then actually make a difference?

Heller goes on to say:

‘The superficial elements of conceptual illustration were, in truth, easily appropriated. Surrealist and expressionist tropes (…) gave the illusrattion of intellectual complexity even if the images were void of real content.’

What Heller says here is that good illustrators can produce strong, complex and challenging illustrations, but in order for this to be appropriated into a real world, industrial setting, it only needs that veneer of complexity which comes on the style of the illustration. A commercial illustration in itself only needs to communicate what the art director wants it to, not the illustrators take on the content. It is here that I think the role illustration as a practice actually plays in the world of design and in society is not that of challenge and conception, it is more-so of decoration and accessibility.

If we take the work of more contemporary illustrators, post-digital age where style can literally be confined to a photoshop filter, but illustrators still considered to be conceptually strong and who’s work still invites contemplation in a small space – Cristoph Niemann would be one such example.

Niemann is known for his ability to quickly and effectively receive an article or whatever may need illustrating, and return a finished, clever and witty illustration which concisely sums it up and translates it visually. His work is almost 100% editorial and has become one of New Yorks most prolific and sought after illustrators. In January 2006 he showcased 800 of his spot illustrations in an exhibition called ‘1000 Spot Drawings’ (I have no idea as to why the total and the title do not equate, but 800 is still a very large amount of published illustrations for one artist). However, Niemann may be an archetype for the contemporary editorial illustrator; one who does not rely on style, is versatile, efficient and clever – but I can this does not mean that he will change the face of illustration. Niemann alone, and his counterparts worldwide, such as the United Kingdoms’ Paul Blow, are all producing clever illustrations day-in, day-out but this does nothing to change illustration and its social importance.

A successful illustration to a commercial art director, is one which is straight to the point but in a refreshing and clever way; a successful illustration to those sceptical to the development of illustration as a practice is one which is outward looking and challenging. To me, I don’t think these two successes are compatible – I just cannot see how an illustrator, or rather, the majority of illustrators practising today can produce challenging work with the development of their practise in mind, but also work this into the bread-and-butter of illustration which is commercial and editorial illustration.

This comes down to the difference between illustration and other design practices, and that is that illustration is a broad amalgamation of different practices. Some champion this fact, John O’Reilly while working as editor for Varoom magazine wrote in 2006 for Varoom:

‘[Illustration is] somewhere between news and commentary, art and kitsch, sociology and fiction. And, if we are honest, somewhere between the genius and the idiotic, in the magical place where it overlaps.’

Not only this, but illustration also lies somewhere between fine art, photography, graphic design, typography and near enough every other visual practice there is out there. Illustration works because of it’s lack of confinement, which allows it to work in a multi-faceted way. I see this a detrimental to the practice however; the very fact that it crosses so many boundaries (and there are many debates as to the blurring of the fine-art and illustration divide) is the reason why any efforts in the *right* direction are lost.

It is far too easy to apply all the successful works of Coe, Steadman, Arisman, Holland and so on to other fields that illustration does not necessarily gain from the efforts. And that makes sense – what it is now coming down to is that illustration is becoming a stepping stone between practices and it is beginning to look like it will always remain as this bridge – a bridge is not somewhere you go to, it is something you pass through en route to somewhere else.

Like all good analyses, one can further understand a model by comparing it to that of a similar and successful one. Typography is a very big constituent part of graphic design; debatably neither could function without the other. Some consider illustration to be a strong constituent part of graphic design, so it should follow that comparisons can be made.

Since the 15th century, a rich history of typography can be analysed. From the early blackletter manuscripts, to the development of Atiqua (roman) typeface in the early 16th century and then the German renaissance typeface Fraktur: developed to give the clumsy gothic letterforms some of the elegance of the new form-world. The forward into the 18th century and the development of Atiqua into Französische Antiqua which spread thanks to the influence of the French Rococo and so-called culture-countries. The complicated individual strokes of the Medival-Antiqua were replaced by the more regular line of the Didot-Antiqua which brought about a typographic revival gradually leading up to the first sans-serif type specimens in the first half of the 19th century. As printing methods developed so too did typography in order to adapt to the new mediums for which type was being repreduced, such as newspapers, magazines, leaflets et cetera. Many attempts were made over the coming cetury to look back to past typefaces, all of which failed and it was soon realised that once designers let go of the old and used, they were free to design for the new. This ultimately led to The New Typography and the sans-serif, minimalist way of designing which revolutionised typography (Tschichold, The New Typography).

It is clear that typography has a rich history and development which mirrors social and cultural change, something which, as I have said, illustration’s history does not do. The history of typography also shows, that an ongoing response and willingness of a practice to adapt to social change will lead to a richer future and stronger inter-weaving within culture – I am just unsure that illustration will ever have the ability to comment on society and still call itself illustration, whether the illustrator does or not.  I cannot help but feel like that any wonderful work in the field of illustration which can be seen as a step in the right direction, harking back to the ideals of Coe, Steadman, Scarfe et al., will not make a difference because there is no need for it. How can you influence something which does not even have definite boundaries.

Even comparisons made to recent changes in the world of Graphic Design and Typography: the drastic shift from print to screen. This has brought about huge changes such as screen only typefaces and layouts which only work on a particular screen format. Illustration has not had to adapt in such ways because it is not, to put it frankly, that important. Illustration is a practice which will survive as there is a demand for it, but it just not motivated by culture in the same way that other art and design practices are. I think that the industry is starting to come to terms with this too, as the sucessful illustrator Robert Mason asks some provocative questions in ‘Illustration & The Personal’ (AOI’s Journal, 2002):

How do we truly encourage personal work at a time of increasing globalisation, in Illustration as in all else? More importantly, does the industry really want to? Exciting though fashion may (sometimes) be, is Illustration too thoroughly in it’s thrall?

I do no think Illustration is in it’s thrall, I just think that is what Illustration is.

Josh

—

References

Bowman, P. (2008) Heated Debate: Educate, Agitate, Organise. Varoom, Iss. 8 p.64 – 65.

Heller, S. (2005) Christoph Niemann: Force of Nature. Varoom, Iss. 1 p.40 – 42.

Heller, S. (2007) Heated Debate: Is Illustration a Big Enough Profession?. Varoom, Iss. 4 p.64 – 65.

Heller, S. and Chwast, S. (2008) Illustration: A Visual History. New York: Abrams.

Hollis, R. (1994) Graphic Design: A Concise History. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson.

Hyland, A. and Bell, R. (2003) Hand to Eye: Contemporary Illustration. London: Laurence King, p.7 -9.

Mason, R. (2002) Illustration & The Personal. AOI’s Journal, 1 (13).

Mason, R. (2007) The Borrowers. Varoom, Iss. 5.

Mugnai, F. (2009) A Brief History of Illustration. Francesco Mugnai Blog, [blog] 16 Nov 2009, Available at: http://blogof.francescomugnai.com/2009/11/a-brief-history-of-illustration-part-i/ [Accessed: 14 May 2012].

O’Reilly, J. (2006) Illustrology: The Visual Theory of the Future. Varoom, Iss. 1 p.6 – 9.

Printmag.com (1980) The Missing Critical History of Illustration. [online] Available at: http://www.printmag.com/Article/The-Forgotten-History-of-Illustration [Accessed: 17 May 2012].

Tschichold, J. (1998) The New Typography. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, Ltd., p.15 – 52.

Vanderlans, R. (1996) Graphic Design and the Next Big Thing. Emigre, Iss. 39.

Organising Thoughts

I found out, the other day, that an hour long train journey is great for organising thoughts for an essay I need to write soon. So I wrote some notes. What follows will essentially be organised chaos, a lot of it is based on gut feelings and ideas, so take nothing from it. After this I will begin to research and back up or debunk my claims…

Main Focus: What is the state of Illustration today as compared to other practices in the same area of industry, and what does this spell for its future as a practice?

This may be a very biased and narrow minded outlook, but, for me, contemporary illustration today is Nobrow, Paul Blow, collectives, and no different to how it was 30 years ago; Illustration as a practice is just an image to accompany and help communicate content in some form… Which is fine, but, compared to other art and design based practices, that is a lowly definition. Illustration is not a main component of communication, illustration is not relied upon to make something work, it merely helps to make it better. Graphic Design and Typography are strong stand alone practices which are employed to truly change the way we understand given information. I am not sure Illustration alone has the power to do this.

For those reasons, despite all the efforts of new bodies such as the Association of Illustrators, illustration maintains that one of its main components is style: it is very much a style led practise. That can be said for a lot of things, but illustration more than any other practice that I am aware of has style so ingrained in it, that one need not study the subject in any way to be able to jump in a gain work if the illustrator conforms to a given style. Graphic Design has styles and trends also, and one can ‘learn-by-looking’, but one cannot make a name for themselves by doing so.

I am starting to think that maybe this style component of illustration is what is holding it back from developing as a practice. If we compare to Typography, which has a rich and diverse history, we see that that do not equate:

• Typography began as strong blackletter type and ornamental decoration stemming from a hand-written, pre-printing era of calligraphy and craft.
• The emergence of lithography and engraving then changed the way the type could be written, and eventually production demands mean hand drawn style type was no longer viable.
• The development of Constructivist art movements encouraged new ways of thinking which led to the development of the Bauhaus and suchlike.
• This fed into design and typography and helped to encourage the development of a new print friendly and universal typography (Die Neue Typographie – a term coined by Jan Tschichold) and the letting go of craft-like conventions.
• And so on and so forth.

Essentially what you can see is that Typography as a practice has responded the wants and needs of the present time and has adapted and grew into something which not only works for that time, but is necessary.

At the moment I just can’t draw realistic comparisons from the development of design to the development of illustration. But I can’t rule it out. Illustration is still a young practise and has only recently been acknowledged as something worthy of study and critical assessment. So, at the moment, all I can do is wonder:

• What does illustration as a practice need to develop as other practices have and does it have the capacity to do so?
• If it has these things, is it too late for illustration to develop? Has it happened? Is it happening? Will it?
• If it doesn’t have these things, what will happen to it as a practice? Will it disappear?
• Shall it be resigned to a lesser class of design and admit that it will always be a subset and accompanying aspect of Graphic Design, or indeed Art and Design?

I am about to embark on the writing of a good essay on this subject, so I shall return with a lot less bollocks, and hopefully a lot more non-bollocks.

Josh

Representation of Characters

I’ve finally got round to reading Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, a book which has come up on numerous accounts over the last six months or so. The book is a serious critical assessment on the understanding of images mainly in the medium of comics and sequential imagery, written in the medium itself, as a comic. A lot of his ideas can be applied to other media and it is turning out to be quite an interesting read. One of the most interesting things about the book is that you can see McCloud implementing the ideas he is writing about in the book itself.

The ideas explored above I found particularly interesting. It’s not something I have really given thought to before but the level of detail in which a character or object, or anything, is drawn in a comic or animated etc. does have a dramatic effect on how the viewer relates with that thing – people in particular. Frames 8 and 9 on the left hand page illustrate this very well, what McCloud says in the captions is very true. When reading the book, I would consider what the character is saying a lot more intensely than I would if he were drawn in the style of frame 9.

I am not sure how far I agree with McCloud’s theory that this happen because we then see ourselves in that slightly more abstract character, but I do definitely agree that we relate to a ‘cartoon’ human differently to a representational human, and indeed to a photographed human.

I am currently trying to develop a game engine to produce an interactive story of the life of Lenny Bruce, a post WWII comedian who is now considered to have been ahead of his time. I will most likely be writing about this in more depth soon, but this concept, and others in Understanding Comics will be having an effect on the visuals of the ‘game’.

Josh

Playing Games with a Trained Eye

I got an Xbox 360 today, the newer version, which hopefully won’t periodically break.

I haven’t had an Xbox for about 2 years now, and haven’t really been a gamer in that time at all, but with my recent foray into the world of interactive design, and looking at game design, it was inevitable (or maybe even imperative) that I got one. I was quite excited to unbox it (second hand from eBay) and stick one of the games on. I decided to play Bionic Commando, a remake of an old arcade classic into a 3D adventure/shooter:

It didn’t look like the best game in the world but looked fun. Turns out it’s a complete pain in the arse. I couldn’t help but critique it as I played; the user interface; the interactive elements; the narrative and how I as a user navigated the game. Here are a list of things that pissed me off about Bionic Commando:

• An opening cinematic with poor animation, voice acting and writing — I just want to play.
• A tutorial section separate to the gameplay and the story – ruins the flow and makes the story confusing.
• A loading screen every 5 minutes.
• A luscious world that I am punished for exploring (‘Game Over’).
• Awkward controls and physics.

I lasted about half an hour with the game and it made me feel even guiltier for buying an Xbox when I have plenty of work to do any way. Hopefully other games won’t disappoint; now I’m scared to put on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Bioshock and Halo Reach – games I know I would have loved a few years ago, but now I won’t be able to stop myself assessing. But that’s probably a good thing.

Josh

Depicting Other Worlds

Bill Bailey, Cosmic Jam — ‘2 Men and a Transvestite’

Finding an interesting way to illustrate complex models of other worlds is a difficult thing to do, but makes all the difference between the user/viewer/reader/etc. understanding the complex model, and the user not. Or rather, the user being engaged and enjoying the learning process, and the user getting bored and having to struggle through the learning process. But once the user understands your new model, you can then take them to new places within that model and immerse them in something bigger and perhaps more exciting – so getting the initial learning phase right is important.

And Bill Bailey uses the format of a pub joke to illustrate a new world pretty well. And it’s funny.

Josh