ResponsesForFeb6AndFeb8

Write your name in the "Subject" box below. Write your response in the response box. Try to write at least 200 words. When you're done, hit "add comment."

Respond to either "Time Frames" or "The Image Culture."

Time Frames. Respond to Mccloud's theory of the panel or frame as a "general indicator that time or space is being divided." What are some of the ways to control time and/or space with the panel / frame? Mccloud describes at least four. List them and give examples. Also, how does a panel or frame convey motion? There are several ways - describe as many as you can. Finally, how does the Mccloud's consideration of time frame extend to multimedia design? Describe principles for multimedia projects derived from Mccloud's arguments.

The Image Culture. Rosen argues that images in our culture have "become less magical and less shocking—a situation unknown until fairly recently in human history." She continues: "Two things in particular are at stake in our contemporary confrontation with an image-based culture: First, technology has considerably undermined our ability to trust what we see, yet we have not adequately grappled with the effects of this on our notions of truth. Second, if we are indeed moving from the era of the printed word to an era dominated by the image, what impact will this have on culture, broadly speaking, and its institutions?" Respond to these assertions in terms of the article. Does she convince you that there is a challenge to our notions of truth through imaging technologies? And what impact do you think photography will have on culture? You might focus on her example of Photoshop: what role does she see this software playing? Base your response on her evidence and arguments in the article.

comments:

Christina Malcomb --cmalcomb, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:03:00 -0500 reply
I agree that technology is undermining our ability to trust what we see. Advertisers are constantly using technology to retouch pictures in magazines and on billboards. Movies and television programs use CGI to create elaborate backgrounds and add special effects. It has become so easy for people to manipulate images. Almost anyone has access to Photoshop and similar programs. It can be very hard to distinguish what is real and what has been tampered with. However, I do not think that out ability to manipulate images is necessarily a bad thing. I find some movies that contain computer generated images to be very entertaining. Some images that are created through Photoshop are very creative and exciting to view. I am only against this technology being abused. The example Rosen gives of the Bush administration using Photoshop to make a crowd seem larger is disturbing to me. Images should not be manipulated in order to manipulate the public. I think they should be used only to express creativity and for entertainment purposes. We should be able to know or at least figure out whether the images we are seeing are authentic or not.

Although we are constantly bombarded by images, I do not think we will ever become totally consumed by them. I don’t think it is possible for us to totally eliminate the written word. Like Rosen mentions, there is always the problem of images meaning different things to different people. Without words we would not be able to clarify meaning. I also think that reading and writing will still continue to be valued by our society. I believe there is too strong of a connection in our society between literacy and intelligence to ever stop emphasizing the importance of being literate.

Michael L Withrow --mwithrow, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:12:18 -0500 reply
While I do agree that as imaging technology progresses our society faces greater challenges, particularly in journalistic and other news information fields, I do not think that this type of technology poses anymore a threat than technology in general. That is to say that this is just another variation of the types of problems we will encounter as technology takes further and further steps forward. Images can be tinkered with to serve various purposes, and this is a scary thought because this has the potential to skew what is real. Then again, we will have to start adapting very soon to the hard fact that reality is quickly becoming a commodity. That itself is largely a result of technology. Rosen’s assertion that images have recently become “less magical and less shocking” is something that I do agree with. The shear number of images that are produced in contemporary society is a big reason for this. Generations before my own have all had that one single image that best captures the mood of their youth, the state of their world at that time. Who could forget the soldier kissing the woman in the streets at the end of World War II or the terrified Vietnamese man moments before his killer fired a bullet into his head. My generation does not have that one single image; instead, we have hundreds or thousands of little ones. We do not have a picture, we have a photo album. Whether or not that is a positive or negative thing I think remains to be seen. In comparison, I do not believe that we are producing less of the written word, nor do I believe that the written word is losing its value. A picture can speak a thousand words, but sometimes we are better off with a thousand words.

Michael L Withrow --mwithrow, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:12:44 -0500 reply
While I do agree that as imaging technology progresses our society faces greater challenges, particularly in journalistic and other news information fields, I do not think that this type of technology poses anymore a threat than technology in general. That is to say that this is just another variation of the types of problems we will encounter as technology takes further and further steps forward. Images can be tinkered with to serve various purposes, and this is a scary thought because this has the potential to skew what is real. Then again, we will have to start adapting very soon to the hard fact that reality is quickly becoming a commodity. That itself is largely a result of technology. Rosen’s assertion that images have recently become “less magical and less shocking” is something that I do agree with. The shear number of images that are produced in contemporary society is a big reason for this. Generations before my own have all had that one single image that best captures the mood of their youth, the state of their world at that time. Who could forget the soldier kissing the woman in the streets at the end of World War II or the terrified Vietnamese man moments before his killer fired a bullet into his head. My generation does not have that one single image; instead, we have hundreds or thousands of little ones. We do not have a picture, we have a photo album. Whether or not that is a positive or negative thing I think remains to be seen. In comparison, I do not believe that we are producing less of the written word, nor do I believe that the written word is losing its value. A picture can speak a thousand words, but sometimes we are better off with a thousand words.

adispenza --adispenza, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:28:42 -0500 reply
There is much controversy over technology and what effect it is having on our culture. Personally, I believe that too much of any one thing is not good. Rosen states that sight is our most powerful sense and the images we are seeing through the use of technology may not be as real as they look. One of the first pieces of evidence that I found interesting was even in the early 1900’s airbrushing was taking place. Russian communists Joseph Stalin used this technique to completely destroy and get rid of his political opponents.

When Photoshop was invented in 1990 it allowed anyone to “fix” or manipulate images. It today’s world I think it can be hard to trust anything you see because anyone can distort a picture. A perfect example of this is fashion magazines and how they airbrush pictures to make the models looks flawless. I think that the public forgets that the magazines do this and that people really do not look that perfect. I use to think that if you saw something that it was real or the truth. Now, because I am aware of this we not only have to question what we read but what we see as well.

We are definitely moving to a culture that is dominated by image however, I do not think that writing or reading will go away nor become something that only the elite do. One of the examples that Rosen provides is the use of PowerPoint?. Tufte states that PowerPoint? is “presenter-oriented” rather than content or audience-oriented. Being a college student in today’s culture I am had many classes where the instructor simply reads off the slides, is that really teaching? In reading this article I agree with Tufte and wonder can what college was like before slideshows. Maybe classes were harder or maybe the professor actually new what they were talking about and didn’t need bullets to teach. Either way, I wish I could have experienced it because sometimes I do think teachers use PowerPoint? as a “cop-out.”

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:00:53 -0500 reply

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:28:29 -0500 reply
I agree with some of Rosen's ideas including the fact that our culture has become somewhat desensitized to images. As technology has advanced, it is remarkable to think about the speed at which images are able to be shown at. Digital cameras have made the process instantaneous. People are able to check out a picture of themselves before anyone else, and have the option of deleting it right away or not. This is one mode of "deception" that pictures have taken- moat of the time people show themselves from the best angle, with the best lighting, and if not, the ease of deleting the picture forever comes with the push of one button. Rosen's Photoshop example further illustrates the power of photo-manipulation nowadays. I do not believe that these practices pose a threat to society though. For the most part, people are aware of these practices nowadays, and on one side of the argument, it is common knowledge that photos in magazines have been photo shopped and airbrushed. Still however, there is evidence to support an argument that manipulated pictures are detrimental to society. Particularly, manipulated pictures of models can be detrimental to young children who do not know any better but to think that what they see is the truth. I can see both sides of the argument against the manipulation of pictures.

Erica Reib --ereib, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:51:17 -0500 reply
McCloud? says that you can control in a comic simply by manipulating the panels. By adding a panel without any dialogue it creates a pause. By adding more panels without dialogue or by making the panel without dialogue longer, it makes the pause longer. This can be also be achieved by adding space between the panels. Actually, I don’t understand this one. I did not get the feeling of more time elapsing between frames because the gutters were a fraction of an inch wider. But I don’t really read and/or understand comics, so maybe that’s just me. Motion can be conveyed by adding motion lines, imposing an object that has moved in front of a stationary background, and by showing the object in multiple stages of its motion progression. Some of these are more used in American comics and some are more prevalent in Japanese comics. This can be related to multimedia because time and motion will probably have to be conveyed. Especially in our upcoming instruction sets this could be important because there will be an action that we have to portray. Since we are using visuals we will have to incorporate a way to make them look like they have time and motion. This will help better convey our point and make our instructions more user friendly.

Alison Daly --adaly, Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:14:18 -0500 reply
McCloud? lists some ways to control time and space with frames or panels. Some of these ways include to break a single frame into multiple frames so as to show each single moment at the time it occured at. Another example would be when trying to convey a pause in a frame, you could add a duplicate panel without words. This could be effective, but I think it would be best to change the person's expression. Another would be to add space between the panels. I don't see how that makes sense though, because my eye doesn't necessarily look at the gutters. And yet another could be to add multiple duplicates to make the pause seem longer. This I think definitely conveys a longer pause due to the eye seeing the same thing numerous times. Motion is another thing that comics have tricks for. Some of these can be by simply drawing a motion line behind the subject, so as to show it's moving. Another would be to draw transparent duplicates of the subject so that it is obviously moving from one place to another place. Another way is the streaking effect, which looks like a bunch of scribbles, but shows how fast the subject is moving. I think motion in comics is fascinating because it's simply drawn lines and yet they convey such a life-like movement. Motions and time frames can easily be compared to multimedia because there is time and motion in all of multimedia, one way or another. Take for example films. You can't have a film without some kind of time or motion. Otherwise it would just be a photograph. And as in the Web: there are all different kinds of websites that have moving objects or that deal with time and space. Everything relates back to multimedia somehow.

sbailey --sbailey, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:01:27 -0500 reply
In response to "Time Frames." The first way to control time and space within a panel is to make one large panel into smaller panels. This depicts that all of the actions within the large panel are not happening at the same time. A second way to control time or space is whether or not to put words in a panel. One panel can be depicted three different ways depending on whether there are no words, a silent caption, or a caption depicting sound. Another way to control time or space to make a single panel wider. Making a panel wider depicts a longer pause or length of time for that frame. Time can also be controlled when a panel is not enclosed. A panel without a top outline can depict a sense of timeliness. The first way to depict motion was to draw panels depicting the subject in different positions indicating movement. Next came the single line. One line drawn in the direction that the ball was coming from. The motion line, or zip-ribbons came next. In the beginning these lines were often messy and didn't depict any certain movement. Other examples of movement are the multiple images drawn through the lines and streaking effects. McCloud?'s ideas of the time frame can be related to multimedia. When designing websites, a person may want to depict time, space, and even movement. Different parts of the website may depict certain moments in time. With the next assignment on instructions, each instruction will be a moment in time. The instructions may also involve movement which may be depicted on the website in that instruction frame.

sbailey --sbailey, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:01:46 -0500 reply
In response to "Time Frames." The first way to control time and space within a panel is to make one large panel into smaller panels. This depicts that all of the actions within the large panel are not happening at the same time. A second way to control time or space is whether or not to put words in a panel. One panel can be depicted three different ways depending on whether there are no words, a silent caption, or a caption depicting sound. Another way to control time or space to make a single panel wider. Making a panel wider depicts a longer pause or length of time for that frame. Time can also be controlled when a panel is not enclosed. A panel without a top outline can depict a sense of timeliness. The first way to depict motion was to draw panels depicting the subject in different positions indicating movement. Next came the single line. One line drawn in the direction that the ball was coming from. The motion line, or zip-ribbons came next. In the beginning these lines were often messy and didn't depict any certain movement. Other examples of movement are the multiple images drawn through the lines and streaking effects. McCloud?'s ideas of the time frame can be related to multimedia. When designing websites, a person may want to depict time, space, and even movement. Different parts of the website may depict certain moments in time. With the next assignment on instructions, each instruction will be a moment in time. The instructions may also involve movement which may be depicted on the website in that instruction frame.

Emily Prompovitch --eprompovitch, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:48:29 -0500 reply
Time Frames: The comic strip is a very clever way of describing both time and sound. Each panel of the strip is important to the whole comic, but each panel is not a true representation of stopped time. For example, a photo is not an instantaneous image stopped in time, there is time between the click and the flash of a camera. A comic strip gives the feel that we are looking at time through panels and sporadic moments. The comic discusses how we are able to manipulate time through content, number of panels, closure between panels, the size and shape of the panel itself and even the creation of endless time through “bleeds”. Because comics represent the past, present and future, reading the comics left to right is natural, but comics can trick our minds by being organized in a conventional manner. Comics also have the ability to show motion within a frame through “painting in motion”. This allows the comic to take on characteristics of its own and to truly portray life as it is: in motion. “Subjective motion” allows the reader to become involved in the motion and feel the effects just by how it is drawn on the page. This comic was very entertaining and surprisingly informational.

April Marrara --amarrara, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:13:31 -0500 reply
I found Rosen’s whole argument to be very elitist. I did not like the way the author essentially called accessibility to the masses a bad thing. Furthermore, the author kept asserting in various ways that art should be considered more than it should be enjoyed. I was always taught that true art should do both. Accessibility to a larger group of people does not cheapen art. That is a ridiculous statement. As to the loss of culture she refers to as occurring with the transition to visual cues rather than written ones, I think that is a very narrow viewpoint taken on what must ultimately be thought of as the fluidity of culture.

As we come to rely more on images, I think our system of learning and assimilating information is also altering. I think it likely that we are sacrificing a bit of the written word to the more voguish visuals our society leans to today. But this transition happens in a thousand other ways in a thousand other forums as our culture changes. We cannot predict where the new pathways we are traveling on might lead, but it is silly and alarmist to assume that we will lose whole segments of our past as we march on to the future. That is not to say that all change is progressive, simply that it will inevitability occur in one manner or another.

Kim Miller --kmiller, Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:35:04 -0500 reply
I agree with Rosen’s statement that images in our culture are becoming less magical and less shocking than they were in the past. Before it was possible for us to digitally alter photographs their authenticity was rarely questioned. A photo was accepted and believed to be accurate, just as the news is. Now that we have the ability to drastically change photos, audiences have to be aware that they most likely will not 100% original. I think people trust photographers to provide them with truthful photos the same way they trust reporters to bring them accurate news. Usually only minor corrections are made to the photos to make them more appealing, but sometimes bigger changes are made. I took a media issues and ethics class last summer and we discussed an issue that had arisen at the Los Angeles Times involving a photo they published. The photographer combined two photos he had taken in Iraq to create one more appealing image. In this case a new image was composed from others, not just edited to enhance its appearance. I do think it is necessary for images to be edited so that they are more suitable for publishing, but this was an example of a photographer going too far. Fabricating an entire photo is as bad as a reporter fabricating a news story. The photographer took advantage of the trust his audience had in him by providing them with a fake photo. Photography can have an extremely negative effect on our culture if it isn’t used honestly. Consumers of media need to be able to have faith that they won’t be presented with images that don’t depict the truth. Photographers and publishers must make sure they use new technology honestly so they can continue having a strong relationship with their audience.

Christina Malcomb --sbaldwin, Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:31:54 -0500 reply
Christina: Your response weighs up the advantages of the exciting and creative possibilities of the new technology with the potential dangers to publish trust and the possibility of deception. The alternative is something like: are we willing to be entertained at the cost of the truth? Is there a way to bring these issues together? For example, could we imagine increasing the creative possiblities in a way that makes us more critical and inquiring, that leads us to think about and question? I mean: does entertainment have to exclude responsibility and thought?

Michael L Withrow --sbaldwin, Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:26:08 -0500 reply
Michael: Your response largely agrees with Rosen on the dominance of the image in our culture, but you don't really take a position on the question of whether an image culture undermines or challenges the status of truth in our culture. OR do you? You write: "reality is quickly becoming a commodity." A provocative phrase, certainly. If reality is commodifiable, what kinds of dangers or problems might arise - surely there are some?

adispenza --sbaldwin, Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:31:49 -0500 reply
Andrea: In terms of the first question, i.e. the truth of images, is questioning what we see a good or bad thing? Is it possible to decide either way? I mean, even if a picture in the past (early in the twentieth century, let's say) was not manipulated, surely it's meaning was subject to manipulation? (i.e. by context, by how the picture was presented or labeled, etc.) So, perhaps it's a good thing that we question the truth of images? Perhaps it leads us to be a more critical and questioning culture?

Angela Moscaritolo --sbaldwin, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:37:43 -0500 reply
Angela: Your response does point to some of the ways images make and manipulate meaning. Your example of "deception" is the way an image may show us from a particular angle (in the best light? or not?). So, these are ways photos show things from a particular point of biew. Does this threaten the truth? Are we able to get at the "truth of the thing" despite the distorted view? And what about cases where the image is completely distorted and transformed, rather than just from a particular angle? It seems to me that your response isn't totally sure of the answer! First you state "I do not believe that these practices pose a threat to society" but then you state "there is evidence to support an argument that manipulated pictures are detrimental to society"! It's hard to decide - but perhaps this proves that the image society does threaten our sense of truth and evidence?

Erica Reib --sbaldwin, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:57:48 -0500 reply
Erica: Good summary. You're right that this applies directly to multimedia. Comics are probably the best pre-computer example of multimedia, with their combination of image, text, movement, thought, etc. I agree that the time passage between panels is a little hard to pin down - it may be subjective, and perhaps not everyone notices the extended time between panels with greater distance between. Still, it makes a certain intiuitive sense, doesn't it? Think of two pictures a wide distance apart on a page... don't we naturally think of time passing as we scan from one to the other, no matter how apparently connected they appear?

Alison Daly --sbaldwin, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:15:17 -0500 reply
Alison: Good response. It's true that comics are perhaps the best medium for understanding multimedia - probably better than film, for example. Comics include both motion and stasis (pauses), much like a website, whereas film is in constant motion.

sbailey --sbaldwin, Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:11:45 -0500 reply
Sara: A good job summarizing McCloud?'s principles. As you develop the second project, think about how to adapt them to a multimedia. You may need to ask what the equivalent of each principle is in multimedia design - for example, how to depict motion? Well, first off the question would be what is motion in multimedia? Probably something related to navigating and reading, so the question would be where motion occurs in those activities and how to depict it visually...

Emily Prompovitch --sbaldwin, Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:17:00 -0500 reply
Emily: A nice explanation of how comics convey time. As you noted, there is no actual motion in comics, just as there is not in a photograph or even a movie (i.e. movies are just still images one after the other). We add the motion ourselves - this is what McCloud? calls "closure." How can we apply this to multimedia writing? For example, in design a website, how can we apply the principel of closure and other principles McCloud? explains, to produce a sense of time and organization?

April Marrara --sbaldwin, Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:16:01 -0500 reply
April: I agree that there is an elitist tenor to the article. The idea that rapid circulation and distribution of images necessarily leads to a challenge to truth assumes that the masses are less able to decide on what is true and not true - less so than the discerning few who previously saw the images, presumably. Even the claim that new technologies allow a manipulation of images that underlies this problem still assumes some elitism: there's the idea that the technology must be controlled or limited so that it does confuse the masses. Isn't there the possibility of a critical image culture, one where people could take in images but still think critically about them? This wouldn't need to be exclusive or elitist.