Quotable

Art is what you can get away with.

-Andy Warhol

Coming soon! A brief discussion about how Andy Warhol utilized technology in his artwork, in a way you may not have realized.

All about you!

If you're reading this blog - thank you! And I'm happy that you've stumbled upon me and my thoughts.

Please feel free to give any advice, critiques, or general thoughts for where you might want to see my topic go! I'm curious to hear from YOU!

Gender, Gaming, and Generalizations

Who are the greats? The masters? The visionaries? Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, Warhol. All male. My favorites? Caravaggio, Monet, Hopper. All male.

All my art teachers from age 6 to 18? Female. (College is a whole different story, but I'll get there.)

Hmmm...something just doesn't add up here.

The most recognizable names - the most famous of the artists in history - they're all male. And yet, there is a thought - a generalization, a stereotype, an assumption - that has been instilled somewhere that art is for girls. At least, that's the way I've seen it. In all my years of taking art classes before coming to Maryland, girls have been the dominant gender. And yet, I still don't know of one current famous female artist. My ARTH201 (Art history from 1300 CE - Present) certainly didn't inform me of any influential female artists. Just a small handful from the Baroque and Mannerist periods. I would venture to say that even in my art classes in college - I'm taking my 5th class now - girls have been more prevalent. The only difference is that I have had three male professors out of the five total.

So how does this all relate to graphic design? Well, I'm glad you asked.

I'm going to focus here on gaming and animation. Gaming, as you might know after a previous post on some research on gender and gaming, is male-dominated. You don't need to read a study, really, to know that. You could simply walk down the hall of my dorm and find at least two rooms full of boys playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl or MarioKart. And conversely, walk down the other side of the hall, and see that the girls are simply not.

Maybe that's because video games are generally more geared toward boys. (Or maybe this is a "Who leads who?"-type of issue, in which you can't be sure if the gaming world is leading, or if regular boys are making it such.) So those graphic designers, those animators, are they predominantly male? It's possible. My Computer Graphics professor is male. The TA of the class is male. In fact, this class is probably the most evenly split art class I have seen yet in terms of gender ratios. Otherwise, I would still say the classes are about 60-40, girls vs. boys.

So how come the boys keep getting all the credit? Food for thought.

Screen Size and Productivity

So, today in our JOUR289I class, we had a speaker - Dr. Bederson of the University of Maryland's Computer Science department. You can get more information on Dr. Bederson here. In his presentation, he discussed mobile technology - the design challenges and the diversification of mobile devices.

One of the points he made that resonated with me the most was that productivity is directly linked to the size of one's computer screen. Once he said this, I immediately thought of my Intro to Computer Graphics class (what a handy class for this blog!). In that class, we use - I'm going to go ahead and guess the size here, based off the Apple site - 27" iMac desktop computers. While we're working with scanned images and Photoshop files, there's a lot going on all at once. Dr. Bederson stated that the screen size issue came down to window management. He also said that the larger the screen, the less of a demand you put on your short-term memory in order to compare and contrast images and information. Essentially, there's less of a back-and-forth.

That's exactly the advantage that these large desktop computers allow us in our class. When moving from one image to another - creating selections, moving them to another layer on a new document, and editing away - you want to minimize the clicking from one area to another area. You want to be able to be efficient with your time - and all that clicking really does take up your time.

Now what happens when I want to work on my images on my relatively puny 13" Macbook? Good question. Frustration usually ensues. It's not as easy to view everything all at once the way you can on the iMac. And in that sense, it slows you down - way, way down. Often if I've made a mistake in a selection, it takes a few times as long as it would have in my studio class to go back and do it right. Photoshop in itself takes up a lot of space on a screen - you have tons of panels on the right (which can be minimized, BUT, the most of important of which - the layers panel - is always there), the tool bar to the left, and another tool bar on the top that changes based on what tool you are using at that moment. Then, you have the space in the middle of all that jazz to work on your images. And if you're synthesizing multiple images into one, chances are, you are barely squeezing on past each one.

There is one thing that makes my itty-bitty little screen breathe a bit easier. A bit, mind you. The Photoshop in Adobe CS4 has a new feature that allows for docking your images. If you open multiple images they will open in one, and then give you tabs to move between them. That way, you don't have 20 separate images open - just one, with 20 tabs. You can undock and dock as you please. However, I do have a bone to pick. After using CS4 for a few weeks now (in comparison to CS3), I can say that while it does save space, it doesn't exactly let you work as fast. Maybe I haven't figured out yet how to effieciently move between tabs, and maybe that will come with time.

Maybe I need a gigantic iMac...Mom? Dad? Birthday present?

Response on Technology and Gender, and the Digital Divide

We're going to go a little off course today to talk about the following study - “Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Gender, Race, and Information Technology Use”

Here are my thoughts!

It seems that technology had positive and adverse affects for both genders, but in very different ways. The research indicated that boys tended to use and play video games in much higher percentage than girls did (440). However, this signifies another aspect of the research, which states that video game playing had a negative affect on an individual’s self-concept (437). In addition, “children who play video games more have lower grade point averages and more problematic school behavior than children who play less” (438). The only positive that was noted by video game playing was an increase in visual-spatial skills, which could be helpful for math and sciences (438). However, the research indicates that Internet has a “positive influence on self-concept dimensions” (437). From all this, “girls had higher academic and behavioral self-concept, whereas boys had higher physical appearance and athletic self-concept” (439). This seems to be an effect from video game playing, because that usage has an adverse affect on academics, as noted before.

The digital divide, as explained in lecture (and in this study), expresses the divide between those who utilize the Internet, and those who do not. This may have to do with income, their environment, or – as the study indicates – it can be much more innate than that (without relying on outside factors). According to the research, males use the Internet more than females (438). Males tended to make use of the Internet for shopping of sorts, while females utilized the Internet for its abilities to connect and network with others (438). However, the study also notes that there is a divide between African Americans and Caucasian Americans in which “even within income levels, there are race differences in home Internet access favoring Caucasian Americans” (438). This evidence can support another statement made by this study, indicating that “Caucasian American youth score higher than do African American youth on social and academic self-concept whereas African American youth score higher on physical appearance self-concept” (438). Since Internet usage increases social and academic self-concepts, the logic follows that since there is a digital divide between Caucasian Americans and African Americans, then this self-concept divide would exist as well.

In terms of whether or not this information affects the use of technology in classrooms, I believe that this just does not relate. It seems to me that this study relates more to the private usage of technology for individuals, and less so for the usage in a classroom. Classroom usage is directed and instructional, while private usage implies freedom to explore the Internet and its uses.

Educating about Graphic Design

Does technology play a role in helping to educate individuals about graphic design? If so, how? If not, could it?

Well…have you ever seen a TV commercial ad for Adobe Photoshop? I haven’t. Not once. I’ve never seen it advertised anywhere. Seems odd, huh? How do people even know about this product? In fact, how do SO many people know the product by name?

Now that I’m thinking about it, this has gotten me really confused. I mean, graphic designers work almost 100% in the technological realm. They might sketch ideas out, and then scan them onto their respective computers and edit away. But I’m pretty sure that’s their extent of non­-technological work. So it’s just plain weird that Adobe isn’t advertising on TV, on radio, in newspapers, online. I’ve just never seen an ad. In fact, I just got really curious because I thought for a moment that Macbook Pros came with the Adobe suite already installed (I just have a regular Macbook). So I went to go check this out on the Apple site. Here’s what I found out – Mac likes to boast at how awesome it is – and man, are they awesome. But I’ve heard rumors that Adobe design programs were made for Macs originally, and maybe that’s why the Macbook Pro pages writes,

“The combination of the powerful Intel Core 2 Duo processor, advanced NVIDIA graphics, and the stunning LED-backlit display makes the new MacBook Pro the perfect notebook for creating with the iLife suite of applications or Adobe Creative Suite.” http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

Hey! Look at that! Some advertising in a technological setting for Adobe!

I knew it had to exist somewhere.

But, it’s important to note that Apple doesn’t really reference what the Adobe Creative Suite is or anything of the sort. It’s not exactly educating people on what the product does, what it’s used for, etc – it’s just a name-drop.

So how in the world does everyone just know what it is? I honestly don’t have an answer for this. I’m not even sure I know when I first heard what the programs were. I just know that all my life I’ve heard phrases like, “Oh, that was photoshopped” or “That’s so fake – it was definitely airbrushed.” Well, mainstream media photoshop and airbrush models and images to further “perfect” them – to intrigue us as consumers, make us want something and jump through all the hoops (AKA buy, buy, buy) to get there. So everyone just knows what it is. Maybe not everyone knows how its done, but they know it can be done. They know that some technology is working behind every image, every TV ad. (And yet, so many people still fall for it – admittedly, it happens to me, too.)

This brings me back to a point I believe I have reiterated in almost every post so far – graphic design is more pervasive in our world than we may even know. Sometimes we forget it exists and we fall prey to the fake images and fake people that are made – but hey, according to my computer graphics professor, everything we do in that class is to edit until we can make someone else believe it’s true. And because of that, we forget. We forget that graphic design is in every part of our lives. We might not know how it’s done, but there it is.

Research and Some Thoughts

To really begin my topic, we’ve got to figure out where all this graphic design came from. What prompted it? What spurred it along? Some of those answers can be found just by searching the web (oh, Internet…how I love thee) – and other answers might have more foundation in talking to those who use and utilize design products. But that will come later, I promise.

So, after painstakingly Google-ing any and every phrase I could think of to help me find any information on the beginnings of Adobe programming, I pretty much ended up with nothing. Well, obviously I found some important information, otherwise I wouldn’t have anything to go off of in this post, but I didn’t find as much as I thought I would. So more of my research will come later, but here’s what I’ve got for you so far. And before I get there, I’d like to direct you to the fantastic article that brought all of this information to my (and now yours as well) attention: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/02/20-years-of-adobe-photoshop/.

Did you know that in just one week, it’ll be Adobe Photoshop’s 20^th anniversary?

Yeah, I was kind of surprised too. I guess maybe I thought that because the Internet was nowhere near as advanced 20 years ago, I assumed that computer programming was just as down-in-the-dumps. But there you have it – Photoshop 1.0 was copyrighted in the years of 1989-1990 for Macintosh computers. After using Photoshop CS4, and seeing a screencap of the interface of Photoshop 1.0, I wish CS4 looked just as simple…but still maintained all its capabilities. But we’ll get to CS4 in time. Anyway, back to those ancient times called the 90s…

1991 - Photoshop 2.0 was released.
1992 – Photoshop 2.5
The programming for these versions (and subsequent versions that followed them) required more RAM in order for stability.
1994 – Photoshop 3.0 and the introduction of the Layers feature.
1996 – Photoshop 4.0
1998 – Photoshop 5.0 and the introduction of editable type which allowed for “pretty mastheads and decent web menus” – a huge step for designers.
1999 – Photoshop 5.5
2000 – Photoshop 6.0
2001 – Photoshop Elements – this program was marketed to non-design users who “didn’t understand or need some of [Photoshop’s] more advanced tools.”
2002 – Photoshop 7.0
2003 – Photoshop CS
2005 – Photoshop CS2
2007 – Photoshop CS3
2008 – Photoshop CS4

Check out this video (also linked by the “20 Years of Adobe Photoshop” article):

Definitely no need to watch the entire thing – lucky for you I checked it out. The most important point John Knoll (one of the creators of Photoshop) makes is right around the 4:00 mark to about 4:50. When talking about the programming of Photoshop, Knoll says that Adobe works so “artists can spend more of their time doing art” and less time with technology in the way. I think that’s a really pointed comment about technology, especially in relation to graphic design. He says that technology can get in the way for these “artists” – but isn’t technology the very thing that is allowing them to make and edit their art? Something to think about there.

Now, we’ve discussed the tools for graphic design. So what exactly is it? According to AIGI, the professional association for design that is located in New York, “Graphic design is a creative process that combines art and technology to communicate ideas” (http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/guide-whatisgraphicdesign). I was going to say the same thing, obviously. They just beat me to it. Really, I can’t say it better than this association – “graphic design informs, persuades, organizes, stimulates, locates, identifies, attracts attention and provides pleasure.” This is a fantastic definition, in my opinion. Graphic design clearly infiltrates every part of our lives – in business, in consumerism, in our government. It’s everywhere. But here is where I get stuck – art does those same things. At least, good art does. It sends out some sort of message: an opinion, a stance, and a point of view. It can be emotional, it can be shocking, and it can be disturbing. And so many more things. But the thing is, art tends to be something more personal. While graphic design on the other hand, tends to represent companies in logos, in web design, and in brochure design.

When I worked at that advertising firm this summer, I was amazed at how much design goes into every little detail for every company they worked with. Down to the type of paper, the color ink – everything represented the company they designed for. What words would be bolded? What words would be in all-caps? What is the color palette? Where do you put the logo? How big should the logo be? Every aspect it seems has an ulterior motive. And with traditional art, the motive is simply to be seen – to be heard – to inspire.

So where does art end and pure design begin?