These silly lecture things I'm mandated to attend every Tuesday morning for a brisk nap.

So there are these silly lecture things I am mandated to attend every Tuesday this semester, which really provide for a great nap. Actually, only one of them so far has really put me to sleep, but that's because my coffee emptied before I got there. The lecture I saw 2 weeks ago was by a man named Peter Hanley, or something along those lines. I didn't particularly like his lecture, though his work seemed interesting. I just didn't really understand the concept of a digital studio, because it's not something that I work with or know how to use. He also wasn't a very captivating speaker, so it was difficult to follow him, despite the fact that his presentation had a lot of valid information.

Last week's lecture was much more my style. It was by a woman named Candy (or something like that...) and I can't remember her last name. She really was in to history and she utilized that in her installation work. I thought it was really cool because it was all really unified by a certain and distinct style, while being completely unique in each different work. She had been able to study in cities all over the world (for free!!!) and I thought that was really interesting, and that it would be something I could do, realistically.


On the whole, I enjoy the lecture series. However, Tuesday is the day when I remember that I forgot to water my pet cactus on the previous Friday... O:)

Illustrator Experiments

Illustrator Adventures

Helvetica is boring

Helvetica is boring. That's what I think. We watched a little video about how in the olden days of about 50 years ago, everyone was so thrilled with this new typeface because it was neutral. Now everyone tries their hardest to avoid it because it's overused and bland. I agree. But also, I rarely look at how something is typed. When you read an old book, it's in a weird print-press font, and when you read a new book, it's clean and usually either typed in Times New Roman or some kind of Arial or Helvetica type font. Does it really matter? Is it a big deal if something says "Parking Lot" or "Parking Lot" or "Parking Lot"?? What difference does it make? A parking lot is still a parking lot whether advertised in Helvetica or Arial or Courier New. I understand that in order to be the most effective graphic designer, one has to notice and understand the subtle differences of a hundred different typefaces, but when all is said and done, I think it really matters very little. As long as the font is uniform and legible, the message will be portrayed effectively. But then again, I really hate computers and graphics and the like. I'd rather water my pet cactus.

Adventures in Philadelphia, but this time I actually managed to get the pictures on the blog!!!

Adventures in Philadelphia! Cont'd

I've never really been a master at anything relating to technology. By that statement, I mean that I can hardly check my facebook without my computer crashing on me. So when my professor for a computer foundations class told me to have an adventure for homework, I thought it was the coolest assignment I've ever had. I took a trip into center city with one of my friends, with the intention of  finding a cactus in the Italian Market. The first thing I noticed upon walking into the Market was this Chinese restaurant, right in the middle of all the farmers' stands and plant stores. There were vegetables and fruits lining the streets, and stand after stand of fish markets, and even a chocolate store (which had absolutely amazing chocolates). The best part though, was a plant store, because I had it in my head that I was going to buy a cactus for my dorm. The store did in fact have a cactus, but I didn't think a $9 cactus was a good investment. So I continued my search. We wandered through the Italian market, and on to South Street, where my friend decided that she also wanted a cactus. We looked in every grocery store, plant store, supermarket, and shop we could find for a reasonably priced cactus. And then...(cue dramatic music) we found it. It was a small store, with plants of almost every kind. There definitely had to be a cactus somewhere in here. Then we found it. An entire wall of cacti. Little ones, giant ones, spikey ones, colorful ones. After a lot of debate, we finally walked away with 2 cacti each. They were so cute, and they could fit in the palm of your hand. However, I don't suggest trying to hold one. It's quite painful.

Oh, we also took a lot of cool artsy pictures and blogged and stuff. :)

Australian cell phone advertisements and lawsuits and all that jazz. And a cactus.

There was a lawsuit in the not so distant past pertaining to a girl from Texas who had her photo taken by a friend at a church function, and through a series of accidents her photo ended up as part of an Australian cell phone advertisement for Virgin Mobile. The add showed her picture, flashing the peace sign, and grinning, with the caption along the lines of "Dump your pen friend. Free calling Virgin to Virgin." The lawsuit was predominantly against the use of someone's photograph without their consent or knowledge, especially because the girl was only a child. 

I very much agree with this girl, against the advertisement. I think that it was incredibly wrong for someone to take the photograph and use it without her consent or knowledge, when they could have easily picked someone to take a similar photograph for the add. Yes, the company would have had to pay the person for the use of their picture, but I'm sure it would have been a lot less money than the lawsuit which followed. It's a scary thought to think that right now my picture might be used in an advertisement somewhere, without my knowledge, creating an image of myself that I don't know or won't know. 

The issue isn't so much the use of the photos without knowledge, because obviously that isn't okay, as we can see from the lawsuit. The issue that I, personally, have with it is the idea that it can't really be stopped. For companies, it's a way to cut expenses. If you google something, and a picture comes up, isn't it free for everyone to use? Companies have always been corrupt, and this is just another manifestation of that corruption, and no amount of lawsuits or new restrictions can truly stop them. The heart of the issue is that too many of our personal photos are too easily and readily available on the internet. We display them on facebook for our friends to see, and our friends' friends, and our networks, etc. We put them on our blogs and they become easy to find in a simple google search. As I speak, my photograph of a cactus in a supermarket on South Street could be the new logo for a plant store. The object that I am about to scan on my blog might be a new icon for a brand of paper bags or stylish receipts for chocolate. No, I'm not okay with that. But there is a simple solution to it all, and that is to make your photographs private. No, your friend's brother's girlfriend's best friend's cousin might not be able to see what an awesome time you had in the Italian Market, buying a cactus, but you also won't unintentionally supply a cactus store with a new icon, and that's definitely a good thing. 

On the topic of cacti, my cacti from South Street are doing quite well. :)

Adventures in Philadelphia!

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="288" height="192" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&hl=en_US&feat=flashalbum&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2F114573473044171102344%2Falbumid%2F5516464687255310449%3Falt%3Drss%26kind%3Dphoto%26hl%3Den_US" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>