Research and Destroy:
The main point to the first part is obviously the differences between the goods that designers produce rather than that of a material good. Material Goods being needs, like producing food or clothing, designers dive deep into making the things that we already have worth more. Designers seem to be creating value in the things we already have, by making them look better, work better, and making them more desirable. This is not a bad thing, but enhances what we as consumers get to choose from. This customizes our needs into what we now have which is individuality.
The part discussing how the Graphic Designer must be a good politician seems like a funny concept, but only because its so true. As a graphic designer you must design a pleasing work of art the portrays and displays legible information to consumers while maintaining the expectations and desires of your client. That statement alone is giving me a head ache. I swear, my emphasis may be in Graphic Design, but I told the Dean this and will tell anyone and everyone who knows me: "I am a Graphic Artist, not a Graphic Designer, there seems to be a huge difference that needs to be addressed here!" I feel as though Graphic Design has lost, or maybe never had the sense of freedom that an Artist is allowed to experience, simply because you must appeal to an audience, and it is required that information is displayed in your work.
What I find most interesting is the fact that anyone can be a designer. No one has to have a degree, or any education for that matter. Anyone can decide to design, if not for a client, for themselves - and so then, what is a Designer? How they talked about defining a designer by what he/she is not, made a lot of sense, but would seem very mundain. Who wants to describe what they do based on the direct correlation they have with other work, designers, or the opinions of other artists? Seems to me like designers have once again drawn the short end of the stick!
A Republic of Fat:
It is sad that they compare "The Alcohol Republic" to our current situation when it comes to obesity. I mean, how could we have possibly gotten ourselves to the point where there is so much cheap food that we just eat to eat and get fat without doing anything about it? At least with alcohol it impaired your judgement so you kind of had an excuse!!!
It really is amazing how the 1970's is an american trademark year, not only for the beginning of a fatter america, but the huge boom in corn lead to not only an agricultural boom, but an industrial boom as well. With the high and excess production of corn, it was used in so many different processes and created so many materials that america not only started to gain wieght, but gained a profit by exporting some of the material out of country. This is almost a direct copy-paste of the Alcohol Republic timeline. Makes me wonder when, probably soon, there will be some sort of prohibition or regulations on food production and consumption. It can't be too far off I would think...
The fact that foods that are unhealthy have become the cheapest is not a good thing. This only promotes bad health and seems to me like it would be bad practice for our country to allow such things. The major factor here is that our bodies are tricked into thinking that unhealthy foods are also the tastiest!!! This sucks because it is now a dangerous cycle where people eat what is cheap, it tastes good so they don't care that its cheap so they buy more and so on. This continues and they get fat and get diabetes. Way to go Mr. Butz... wonder if you can really place the blame on him, but I do, at least for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment