Art and design among other things, such as culture, etc

This inauguration is the first that I can actually recall. I might remember two or three things politically before I was a senior in high school.  Other than that, I never really paid that much attention.

I’m glad I paid attention this time. Not because I had to watch out for idiocracy or anything of that sort.  I’m glad because I had the pleasure of witnessing a truly historic moment in American history; A good moment for that matter.

Barack Hussein Obama became the first African-American president of the United States.

Linguistically, that very statement was one to remember.  His name itself carries negative connotations among many Americans.  The decision to announce his presidency leaving his full name intact was a significant part of the day’s events.  For one, the signifying qualities of his name should be reassigned as big of a feat that may be, to use his full name was a start.

The day was full of images.  For instance the image of Obama speaking out to a 2-mile stretch of people was simply breathtaking.  However, for the most part the inauguration remained heavily linguistic, as all political events have and will continue to be.

Watching the ceremonies through a projected window labeled CNN didn’t give a necessarily “clear” depiction.  For one, there was a logo and a schedule taking up a third of the screen the entire time.  Also the announcers almost always had something to say which became somewhat problematic at times.  For example the announcer referred to the inauguration as a “secular version of a miracle.”  Is it really that miraculous? Miracles seem to be phenomenological happenings that really don’t have much explanation as to how they happened, which makes sense that they are viewed through a religious window.  I would argue that we know very well how this happened, Obama spoke, people voted in a democracy and this was the outcome.  Maybe it’s a mistake to even try to refer to a phenomenon with the word miracle.  I mean even the New York Times thought this was “trite.”

There was another phrase used at least four to five times throughout the ceremonies and by multiple speakers– the phrase “peaceful transition of power.”  Not having much knowledge of past inaugurations, I don’t know if this is a common phrase or something that might be instituted because of the historical implications.  Nonetheless, it was and continues to be an interesting statement made by a CNN correspondent, Dianne Feinstein and Rick Warren during his prayer.  The negating statement immediately comes to mind after one continues to ponder the words.  As if the transition of power was somehow NOT peaceful?  In all honesty I was worried, I even said it out loud, which probably from a linguistic perspective was a bit of a taboo in that context.  But for the actual inaugurators to refer to it in this way is extremely interesting.  Why use the word power also?  The word ‘power’ almost connotes a dictatorship or a monarchy in this context.  Technically it is a ‘transition of power’ but what American wants to think of it in that way?

Feinstein’s introduction was overall pretty well done.  She did bring up, more explicitly the chance of Obama becoming assassinated.  She used these words, “to those who doubt the supremacy of the ballot over the bullet…” which blatantly is speaking to a select few domestic insurgents pondering this.  She also actually used the word violence, which is pretty much the opposite of peaceful, which she also said.

Warren used some interesting words as well.  “humility, civility” and “seek the common good of all.”  It was also especially interesting the way in which he said Obama’s children’s names.  It made it so apparent that he had never talked to them or had never encountered the names before.   He approached the subject of Jesus Christ in quite an interesting manner.  Naming a few different interpretations of the figure before leading millions into prayer.

To sum up Obama’s speech, I would have to say that it was modest.  I thought that he was earnest in his remarks, conscientious, but most of all he showed humility in a moment where pride would be everyone’s most prominent characteristic.  Overtly, by stumbling over words during the oath, he expressed true emotion, to what was interpreted as mere nervousness.  But the phrases within the speech that day were spoken with conviction like always, but he seemed to realize that now I don’t really need to sell anything, I don’t need to be lofty with ideals and rhetoric.  Some rhetoric was used, for example “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”  And “All this we can do.  All this we will do.”  With the former statement he is alluding that he is hope and unity and everyone else with other ideas or representations is fear and conflict within the country.  And the latter he sometimes attempts to humanize a utopia that we all dream of, but it seems so far away.

However, some statements deserve attention as well:

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”
Another memorable passage:

“America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

“Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.”

The Inauguration Recipe

Sum up the day by cooking the same exact food that Obama and the new administration is having for lunch.

Tim Hayward from the Guardian writes:

It would be fun to eat with some of those organised and committed celebrators who will be replicating the menu themselves - if you feel the need we’ve got the recipes for the seafood stew, the molasses whipped sweet potatoes, to the duck breast with cherry chutney, as well as the video above with the president’s chef, to help you get in the mood.

Wow, what other President in history decides that we can eat what he’s eating? Ha, just kidding.

Today is truly a day of magnificent proportion. If you watched or caught glimpses of the events it is hard not to be moved merely by the images of people unifying not just on Capitol Hill but on the rest of the country as well.

I watched the ceremonies from inside SCAD’s Trustees Theater with classmates, professors and other people from around the community. Naturally, the experience of being with a crowd of people intensified the moment because of everyone’s energy and enthusiasm. It’s like seeing a movie on opening night when everyone is as excited as you are, laughs at the jokes, and gives applause at the end.

We had a big projection of the live feed in which CNN and I’m sure other stations were broadcasting during the ceremony, however, something very interesting occurred to me while watching. Naturally the language used was interesting, as it is during all political speeches, but the situational irony that not just I, but most Americans, were subjected to during the inauguration.

I found myself, at times, observing groups of people watching the inauguration. Which may not sound that weird, but when you start to ponder the situation of those on the screen in relationship to your own, it becomes a situation where you are watching people, who are watching people who are watching people, etc, etc, who are watching the inauguration. Today, we observed a giant mirror image of ourselves. Previously I had encountered Obama as being the simulacra, and could easily understand how an individual could come to that conclusion (of course, having the necessary theories of postmodernism in mind, ha). But today it was increasingly apparent.

Whats more, is that Obama’s speech encouraged us as Americans to take more responsibility for ourselves and for our country. He’s saying this as we are observing people coming together, stopping their day either in Times Square, Harlem or Pasadena, California watching him through the window of the media which focuses more on other people and so and so forth. Can you get any more perfect?

Have a great day.

Creative Review posted a link to this video.

The interviewer walks around and spontaneously asks people questions about Graphic Design.  It really is astounding how few people know what the profession is.  It’s not like we are asking what is postmodernism, or some other obscure theory, etc.  Maybe we designers really view the world with tunnel-vision.  Maybe that’s our problem, we are assuming that everyone will understand the true power of design.  Our audience, the people we are trying to communicate to, don’t have a clue who is on the other end.

Most everyone in America has been in an asphalt rectangle, delineated by perpendicular white lines known as a parking lot.  And most have seen which spaces are designated for expectant mothers and people with disabilities.  It makes perfect logical sense to provide a parking advantage to people that have a harder time walking than others.  Also, if an expectant mother happens to be going shopping in her third trimester, then of course these little parking perks make her life easier. We have quietly accepted these social constructs and complied with the rules while we continue to seek the closest possible spot near our destination.  We slowly drive our motor vehicle passed the handicap spaces down and up the many lanes searching for that perfect spot.  In the end, the less fortunate ones have to suffer through the extra 20-30 yard walk to their destination.

Located in Savannah, Georgia, there is a shopping plaza called Abercorn Common.  It was built by local developer, Melaver, Inc.  Melaver’s principle mission is to provide us with sustainable buildings that are better for the environment.  Abercorn Common is no exception, as it is the first Retail Center in the United States to become LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified through a program set up by the  U.S. Green Building Council.  Great, Melaver did what they set out to do.

It does not , however, make logical sense to give preferential parking to consumers who drive a more environmentally friendly vehicle. Which is what Melaver and the Abercorn Common complex did.  After the recognition that the building itself received, It seems like these signs were just an afterthought.  You know, just something to try and put the icing on the cake.  But I think it was just too much icing.  It really would be naive to think that someone driving a big SUV would drive past one of these spaces and think, “Oh, well I guess I should retire this old hog and get a new hybrid.”  To them the sign is almost as ridiculous as saying, “See, people with handicaps can park here, if you disable yourself at your own expense you can park in these bright blue spots anywhere.”

I realize that it might be an incentive to show people that driving a hybrid not only saves you money on gas and is better for the environment, but you can also get parking perks at select shopping plazas.  The only problem with that is it’s really not much of an incentive at all.  If you remember, we have already accepted the fact that some people can park closer than others and we have dealt with the extra trek to the entrance. People in this country are so set in their ways, so stubborn, even with gas rising above $4.00 a gallon, that they will not change.  They have been doing this for 50+ years and a parking space sure ain’t gonna change ‘em now.  The problem with this sign is not what it is saying but how it is saying it.  Because what it is saying is “Drive hybrid vehicles.”  but the presentation of this statement in the context of a parking space is disheartening to think that we are resorting to things like this to get people to realize it’s time for a change.

Atlantic Monthly has a wonderful article by Lisa Margonelli discussing the possiblity of termites helping humans produce a renewable type of gasoline called cellulosic ethanol.  It’s a provocative article that alludes to the production of the new ethanol in the near future. Who would have thought?  Its extremely exciting to see such innovative ideas spring up when we, as a country are in such a desperate need of it.  And its also exciting to think of the possibilities of the new companies’ brands and marketing material.  The notion of running our economy on “sawdust, lawn clippings and old magazines” is unique and deserves some new forms.

Creative Review posted an excellent article about Obama’s trip abroad.  Dan West comments on Jean Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra and connects it to Obama’s candidacy.

Some ex-employees of Google started up a new way to search the web.  Is it the total opposite of Google?  The main page is just as minimal, except it’s mostly black with a touch of blue, gray and white.  Are the founders of Cuil trying to say something?  Are they trying to point out that not only is Cuil trying to compete with Google but it is also going to take everything that Google had going for it (the clean simplicity of searching a massive internet) and make it black and blue.  They are making Google black and blue all over.  Cuil’s logo also isn’t as goofy as Yahoo!’s or as clean and formal as Google (even though Google’s logo works incredibly well) but their logo definitely offers a bold look to their viewer’s.  However, Google broke away with it’s simplicity, Cuil is tweeking the same design principles and applying some gradients to everything (which is now used everywhere) and expects to stand out.  We’ll see what happens.

Artist Jeff Koons has an exhibition up at Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art as a culmination of all his work.  NPR has an interesting slideshow and does a pretty good story on him. Check it out.

The other day, as I was eating my cereal after I had just woken up, I sat downstairs across from my nine-year-old brother and watched an episode of Spongebob Squarepants.

Spongebob has always pleased me.  The jokes are well written in that the literal actions that the characters take, appeals to the younger intended audience while the dialogue and insinuating remarks provide a chuckle to the adults that may be enjoying the show.  But everyone knows that, thats why the teenagers who want to be adults too soon in high school, but, are still in high school, have various Spongebob paraphernalia.  They like to think that they really understand the show from an adult perspective but they really only laugh at the show for its literal, “Three-Stooges” humor, when they are home from school, alone, watching Spongebob.

But the episode that I engaged in that morning had a different impact on me than usual.  I mean, I got all of the literal humor, the usual hilarious aspect of all of the characters’ personalities, but the subtle connections the show was making to real issues became apparent.  The episode called “Suction Cup Symphony” was episode number 109 in season number six and it first aired on March 6, 2008.  This particular realization came with this scene close to the beginning of the episode.  Squidward drops both Patrick and Spongebob out of his window because they are bothering him (as usual) while he is “honing his musical talent.”  After the characters land on the hard sea-floor, this dialogue occurs:

Patrick: “Owww, Ohh, Sponge-bob?”

Spongebob: “Yes Patrick?”

P: “I think I broke my bottom.”

S: “Haha, broke your bottom! Oh, Patrick you’re a card! Broke your…”

Patrick, startled, turns to Spongebob…

S: “Whooaewww.”

Patrick obviously hurt, shoves the “butt bones” back into his body, obviously hurting himself, as you can now see the bones in his mouth.

Sponge-bob turns to Patrick and with the look everyone seems to give when they say this:

P: “Hey Patrick, I think you should see a doctor.”

Patrick gives the answer that most people, in this country,  are now giving.

P: “I can’t see a doctor because my job doesn’t provide me with health insurance.”

S: “What job is that?”

P: “Exactly.”

It would be extremely naive to assume that Nickelodeon’s intended audience would or should know anything about health insurance.  Therefore we must assume that Spongebob’s writers did expect for an adult audience to witness the dialogue while watching the show with their children, or catching it while flipping through in the morning.  This resulted in the conclusion that the writers deliberately included an allusion to the problem with the American healthcare industry.  But the real question is, why?  Spongebob Squarepants has no (at least to my knowledge) political agenda at all.  It’s one of Nick’s top shows and its loved by most Americans.  Maybe that’s just it.  Maybe Americans love Spongebob for his innocence amidst all of the corruption that the audience sees in the show.  Through it all, the little yellow sponge never soaks up the corruption that the greed of Mr. Krabbs or the self-indulgent Squidward or sometimes even his best friend Patrick brings upon him.  They all seem to form some pretty heavy opinions in the show, but Spongebob is always the mediator.   He’s the peacekeeper that honestly and sincerely means no harm.

So why talk about healthcare then?

Well a couple of weeks ago, I went to see the new G-rated animated feature film, Wall-E. In my opinion, it was excellent.  The characters, the idea, the imagery were all outstanding.  But what’s interesting, and as Frank Rich of The New York Times touches upon, is that relevant issues have subtly evolved from the form suited for the pressing mass media to more of an art.  Wall-E, as a piece of cinema, deals with the apocalyptic result of our ongoing rate of consumption on earth.  A very real issue that is being confronted on a daily basis.  (Not really on the forefront of the news channels but it still lingers every once and a while.)  What is significant about Wall-E is that the G rating indicates that its intended audience is “everyone.”  Our culture really morphed the G rating as being mostly directed at children, which is fine, mainly because it continues to prove my point.

The point is that many issues confronting things that have needed change, or will need changed in the future are starting to make more of a presence in children’s entertainment than our dominant adult discourse.  Of course, Spongebob and Patrick didn’t go in depth on exactly how to reform the nation’s health care system or where they stand regarding the nationalization of health care, but it came up.  It is my hope, it maybe a naive hope, but I hope that children will take notice of these things they don’t understand and ask.  Hopefully, these 7- 10 year olds will bring it into conversation with their parents, teachers or friends. Maybe they can use the very mechanism I am using (the internet) to get more information and become more knowledgeable.  After all, most of those 7 year olds will be around at least 10-15 years after I die.  It’s really their issues to face, I’m stuck in the transition phase.