By this point, the new J. J. Abrams-produced monster movie Cloverfield has been out for well over a month and I don’t think I’m spoiling anything when I describe the (practically nonexistent) plot as follows:

An unexplained monster devastates Manhattan, and a group of rather stupid young adults halfheartedly attempts to escape, but not before wasting a lot of time trying to rescue a girl that should have died by the time they reach her. 

The film is presented in a cinéma vérité style that was well-established with the release of The Blair Witch Project–that is, the entire film is supposed to exist on a single tape “recovered” from a camcorder (though how that happens is a mystery to me; the camera in question ends up buried under tons of rubble in the middle of Central Park). Basically, we, the viewing audience, are supposed to take this entire film as a single video artifact–as something that is “real,” even though it is clearly fiction.That said, there are a number of extremely large obstacles that cause the film to fail in becoming an accurate, believable simulacrum of reality (monster-oriented devastation aside, of course–the elements that cause the film to falter are far more basic than that). Continue Reading »

I’m away on business until Sunday, so the regular Four for Friday will resume next week.  In the meantime, this caught my eye today.

The New York Times today has an article previewing the Museum of Modern Art’s new exhibition entitled “Design and the Elastic Mind,” which opens next week and remains in place until May 12.  The concept for the show is an interesting one:

Design and the Elastic Mind is a survey of the latest developments in the field [of design & technology]. It focuses on designers’ ability to grasp momentous changes in technology, science, and social mores, changes that will demand or reflect major adjustments in human behavior, and convert them into objects and systems that people understand and use.

When you translate that out of art-speak, the exhibition is at its core a look at the way that new and novel technologies, and the way that we interact with those technologies on a day-to-day basis, have influenced designers.  The result is artwork that sounds quite fascinating:

Joris Laarman’s “Bone Chair” was created with computer software that mimics the creation of human bones. The weight and stresses on a typical chair are programmed into the computer, which then works out an appropriate “bone” structure, churning out a series of increasingly refined prototypes. (The final computer version has a raw, undigested quality, but Mr. Laarman couldn’t resist adding a final dash of aesthetic refinement by smoothing over the rough edges, a nice little example of how reluctant some designers are to yield control.)

I for one will be going to see this show as soon as I get back to New York. I think it’s pretty apparent that I feel strongly that design should serve a practical function while retaining a pleasing aesthetic, and this show sounds as though it’ll show off the best of that very convergence.

Some exciting news… I was asked a few weeks ago to become a regular contributor to Black Star Rising, which is a blog run by one of the most historic and respected photography agencies in New York!  My first entry was just posted there, and it concerns learning to work with photographers as an art director.  A short excerpt:

It’s true that most photographers would say that they are artists, but in this instance the photographer is an artist for hire. If you aren’t happy with what you’re getting back, say so, though this wasn’t really an issue for me. I tried to give specific directions (”Can you frame the model so that there’s more empty space over his left shoulder?”) and I made an effort to indicate if something needed to be reshot (”Let’s do a couple more of this pose, maybe from a higher angle this time”).

Read the entire entry here!

Hello from Portland, Oregon! I’m on the West Coast for the next week or so for work… it’s going to be busy the next few days, but before I rush off to my assignment for the evening here are four links that I’ve picked for you this week.

• Living a paperless existence
  The New York Times discusses how one can live largely without using paper at all and even includes a handy diagram of a hypothetical home showing the technology that replaces your recipe books, CDs and albums and more. I can only manage to reduce some of my consumption of paper–I scan and then shred all of my bills and statements and such, but I’ve switched back to a paper calendar and can’t seem to control my urges to buy pens. It’s important to remember, too, that electronics can fail, but a piece of paper can’t.
• Black-out message tape
  Here’s a product that I really want though I’m not exactly sure why… it’s “message tape” printed in the patterns of LED displays. You use a black marker to black out the “LEDs” or “segments” that you don’t need, and voilà, there’s your message! I like this item mainly because it is an example of truly good design–it fits a variety of applications and yet it’s simple enough that anyone can use it.
• Nudity and advertising
  AdRants recently posted a scan of a Mexican advertisement for Mia Lingerie that was… well, fairly shocking–it was basically the top half of a naked woman whose nipples had been Photoshopped out. It’s certainly an eye-grabbing advertisement (no puns, please!), and the message comes through loud and clear, but you’d never see such an ad in the USA in light of the relatively prudish and Puritanical rules that govern “indecency” in the media in this country. (I imagine that a photo of a nude mannequin would probably fly, though.) My question–is it a good thing that media indecency, even in such a mild form as this, is so tightly regulated here? Or is there a certain point at which it just becomes oppressive and ridiculous?
• Dogs = Big ratings!
  FishbowlNY notes that puppies (e.g., the “Puppy Bowl”) and dogs (e.g., the Westminster Dog Show) equal big ratings.  Seems like eyeballs gravitate to man’s best friend even on a screen.

My apologies for the late post, but I spent the bulk of yesterday writing a chapter of my thesis. That said, I have some particularly interesting links this week. Enjoy:

• Designing for consumers
  After fumbling with what sounds like a half-dozen different badly designed digital photo frames, New York Times technology columnist David Pogue points out the primary reason that companies like Apple and Google–companies that focus on design–do so well. A revealing article indeed, especially if you’ve never really given much thought to the ease of use of various products.
• The Feltron Annual Report
  While it’s certainly lovely to look at, and I applaud Nicholas Felton’s gumption for actually creating it for the past several years (especially since you can buy a copy of it, if you feel so inclined), I don’t quite see the point of the “Feltron Annual Report,” which documents such banal things as average cab fare for the year prior or his five most frequented restaurants. It does highlight for me, however, how poorly I document my own life, though I can’t help but think that I don’t really need to remember how many bus trips I took in 2007, and I don’t especially care what album I listened to most in iTunes. If anything this is an artifact that can–and should–promote discussion about memory and the concept of self-documentation; it reminds me, in a few ways, of Gordon Bell, who is feeding every detail of his life into a “surrogate brain” with the end result being that he never wants to forget anything. That may be a fine goal for Mr. Bell, and perhaps for Mr. Felton, too, but I know that there are plenty of things that I would prefer to forget.
• Recording a remote podcast
  Here’s a good how-to post explaining how to create a podcast between two people that are in different places using Skype, GarageBand, FTP and Call Recorder for Skype. Very informative if you want to start a podcast with a buddy who may not be in the same state or even country.
• The business of tech support
  Amazingly, technical support services outside of those offered by computer manufacturers is estimated to be a $300 million industry, especially with the advent of Microsoft Windows Vista. So what do the experts, such as John C. Dvorak, recommend? “I advise everybody to buy a Macintosh because Apple products are the easiest to use. If you own a PC, you have to find a local nerd, a kid, maybe a relative [to fix it]… That’s the only solution.”