This is the beginning of a series of posts which will explore various aspects of Design and Technology. The main format is that in art school we are to be delivered a series of 'provocations' in the form of videos or visits from guests, and our reactions form a body of work which is a parallel series of blog posts to our already ongoing exploration of 'Great Design'.
The first of many provocations was a film which goes by the name of Underkastelsen (submission), which took the form of an investigation into the scale, scope and effects of chemical pollution in our bodies and in the environment.
The film explored the presence of a wide amount of chemicals including PCB, DDT, Lead, PFOS, oestrogen and flame retardants, which were variously linked to conditions such as Autism, Cancer, Diabetes, ADD and Obesity, as well as observing the emergence of hermaphroditic fish in lakes. Some of the more concrete evidence was levelled at things that have already been banned, (the aforementioned PCB and DDT), which proved an interestingly scary introduction to the film, while the film continued, with the support of various experts to clarify the impact of many of todays problems with statements such as "worrying", "we just don't know" or alluding to a potentially multiplicative "cocktail effect", where these chemicals, in their nanogram/litre concentrations may adversely effect us in a big, big way (perhaps even more than climate change).
The most clear experience I got from the film though, was not of a learning of the subject matter, but a surprise and an interest into the dramatic nature of the film's delivery. It begun by illustrating how the filmmaker's father had convinced him to pretend to be run over by a car, invited in a pregnant actress (Eva Röse) as a parallel subject and narrative, took us very personally through the tests, took us fishing to take our minds off things, went onto a story about his father taking him to the dentist to get his head chopped off, and finished on an image of the aforementioned Eva holding her baby alluding to an image of Mary and Christ. I'm not saying all of this is silly, there is clear artistic vision and commentary in tying up the general idea with themes and images, it adds interest and visual fodder to the documentary. But I can't avoid thinking that if the problem was so great, pressing or interesting, it wouldn't need such melodramatics.
This brings us onto what I want to focus on: not the content of the film per se, but how we can effectively design communication to deliver an impact.
Underkastelsen, in it's delivery, reminded me of a video from a few years ago, KONY 2012, a film which was designed to inspire a new generation of social media activists to pressure their respective governments into doing something about Joseph Kony. Kony is a war-lord of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), for a time based in Uganda, who has been involved in many atrocities, most prominently the capture and use of young children as child-soldiers. No one can argue against this as a worthy cause, and as something that requires our attention: this is why the central theme was around making an impact and spreading the word.
Spread it did: It became the most viral video ever, with over 100 million views in 6 days, but perhaps it's long-term goals were not met. It was accused of encouraging 'slacktivism' and the planned worldwide movement planned for the night of 20th April, attracted few attendees.
There are many similarities beween KONY 2012 and Underkastelsen: both films are primarily aimed at 'raising awareness' rather than delivering the truest information; both are authored by people who are primarily filmakers (they know their medium well); they begin with grand, symbolic imagery and where possible 'authorities' are used to give weight to the seriousness of the central concept.
More strangely, both prominently feature childbirth, which jerks the emotions, makes us consider the wider long-term impacts, and makes us consider our own children. Further to this, in both, the author literally explains the concept to a 'naiive' subject. In Underkastelsen this is the female actor, in KONY this is the child of the author. Such undertakings allow the author to simplify the concept and deliver it directly. By proxy, we are the naiive.
The main central thematic similarity however is how both are delivered as highly personal stories. In Underkastelsen we are taken through the journey via both the filmmaker, Stefan Jarl, and his 'friend' the mother-to-be, Eva Röse. In KONY we explore the relationship between the filmmaker, his own son, and his Ugandan friend, Jason. This is because, as humans, we are more likely to listen to, respond to, and remember information when it is presented to us as a story. This is a key design principle we can use and manipulate however we see fit.
This concept is brought to a level of intellectual appreciation in the book Made to Stick, by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. In it are outlined the steps to make an Idea 'Stick' - exemplified by Urban Legends and politician's speeches - and summarised with the SUCCESs model:
A successful idea, if it is to stick must be Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and a Story. We can see these tenets in the Underkastelsen film, which we can now see as a shining and successful media manipulation, if not true credibility.
Simple: There are dangerous chemicals in our bodies.
Unexpected: There are dangerous chemicals everywhere, in large amounts, in food, carpets and chairs
Concrete: The fish are becoming hermaphrodites, also, graphs, lots of graphs.
Credible: We have interviewed about 40 scientists (no mention on how many scientists disagree)
Emotional: Eva is going to pass this onto her children.
Story: My father got me run over by a car... I showed submission... etc.
As I said, I do not aim really to disturb the credibility of the film itself, although more balanced sources on a number of issues tend to emphasise the do not know side of the argument, but I do think we should be impressed and suspicious in equal measure when we sense we are at the receiving end of such well-designed messages.
In design, especially at the forefront of egotistical 'rockstar' design, we see how SUCCESs is used, consciously or otherwise, to really greatly deliver concise, understandable and succint design solutions, and is therefore something that we, in presentation and in process, should be acutely aware of.
We see SUCCESs in the work of Philipe Stark, especially his early work.
He was described by Deyan Sujic in B is for Bauhaus as someone who could 'come up with a philosophy of nursery-rhyme simplicity for every new product'. We see this in his products, they have names for one, and upon seeing them we see a conceptual simplicity which is easy to 'get'. We also can read a functional simplicity, which is not always reflected in the final use of the product.
In architecture, Bjarke Ingels of BIG is a master of media, explanations and stories, his 'ideas' are succinctly 'explained' to us in various forms. In comic strips; Images;
And videos;
which are delivered with a wordless, sequential and irrefutable kind of logic. This attaches itself instantly to the mind of the viewer, and is hard to shake, but I am almost certain that the actual design process, or the result, isn't as smooth or logical as he professes.
What we can learn from the above provocations is the power of well-constructed messages. These messages can be images, films, products or buildings; but to have a powerful grasp of the subject-matter and manipulate it into a form that is Simple, Shocking and Emotional is a very powerful ability. In design we can learn to create forms that have instant, understandable impact. We can also use these techniques to over-simplify our process-stories to create a device for the continued successful impression of our results.
What we must be wary of however, is how easily this can be done. A lot of the time, in the case of urban myths, it is something that happens organically. In the case of manifestos, new ideas and news stories however, it can often be used in a manipulative sense (or with the aim of self-promotion) we must be careful to not be swayed by simple and engaging polemics, the problem is always more complicated than we give it credit for.
The first of many provocations was a film which goes by the name of Underkastelsen (submission), which took the form of an investigation into the scale, scope and effects of chemical pollution in our bodies and in the environment.
The film explored the presence of a wide amount of chemicals including PCB, DDT, Lead, PFOS, oestrogen and flame retardants, which were variously linked to conditions such as Autism, Cancer, Diabetes, ADD and Obesity, as well as observing the emergence of hermaphroditic fish in lakes. Some of the more concrete evidence was levelled at things that have already been banned, (the aforementioned PCB and DDT), which proved an interestingly scary introduction to the film, while the film continued, with the support of various experts to clarify the impact of many of todays problems with statements such as "worrying", "we just don't know" or alluding to a potentially multiplicative "cocktail effect", where these chemicals, in their nanogram/litre concentrations may adversely effect us in a big, big way (perhaps even more than climate change).
The most clear experience I got from the film though, was not of a learning of the subject matter, but a surprise and an interest into the dramatic nature of the film's delivery. It begun by illustrating how the filmmaker's father had convinced him to pretend to be run over by a car, invited in a pregnant actress (Eva Röse) as a parallel subject and narrative, took us very personally through the tests, took us fishing to take our minds off things, went onto a story about his father taking him to the dentist to get his head chopped off, and finished on an image of the aforementioned Eva holding her baby alluding to an image of Mary and Christ. I'm not saying all of this is silly, there is clear artistic vision and commentary in tying up the general idea with themes and images, it adds interest and visual fodder to the documentary. But I can't avoid thinking that if the problem was so great, pressing or interesting, it wouldn't need such melodramatics.
This brings us onto what I want to focus on: not the content of the film per se, but how we can effectively design communication to deliver an impact.
Underkastelsen, in it's delivery, reminded me of a video from a few years ago, KONY 2012, a film which was designed to inspire a new generation of social media activists to pressure their respective governments into doing something about Joseph Kony. Kony is a war-lord of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), for a time based in Uganda, who has been involved in many atrocities, most prominently the capture and use of young children as child-soldiers. No one can argue against this as a worthy cause, and as something that requires our attention: this is why the central theme was around making an impact and spreading the word.
Spread it did: It became the most viral video ever, with over 100 million views in 6 days, but perhaps it's long-term goals were not met. It was accused of encouraging 'slacktivism' and the planned worldwide movement planned for the night of 20th April, attracted few attendees.
There are many similarities beween KONY 2012 and Underkastelsen: both films are primarily aimed at 'raising awareness' rather than delivering the truest information; both are authored by people who are primarily filmakers (they know their medium well); they begin with grand, symbolic imagery and where possible 'authorities' are used to give weight to the seriousness of the central concept.
More strangely, both prominently feature childbirth, which jerks the emotions, makes us consider the wider long-term impacts, and makes us consider our own children. Further to this, in both, the author literally explains the concept to a 'naiive' subject. In Underkastelsen this is the female actor, in KONY this is the child of the author. Such undertakings allow the author to simplify the concept and deliver it directly. By proxy, we are the naiive.
The main central thematic similarity however is how both are delivered as highly personal stories. In Underkastelsen we are taken through the journey via both the filmmaker, Stefan Jarl, and his 'friend' the mother-to-be, Eva Röse. In KONY we explore the relationship between the filmmaker, his own son, and his Ugandan friend, Jason. This is because, as humans, we are more likely to listen to, respond to, and remember information when it is presented to us as a story. This is a key design principle we can use and manipulate however we see fit.
This concept is brought to a level of intellectual appreciation in the book Made to Stick, by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. In it are outlined the steps to make an Idea 'Stick' - exemplified by Urban Legends and politician's speeches - and summarised with the SUCCESs model:
A successful idea, if it is to stick must be Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and a Story. We can see these tenets in the Underkastelsen film, which we can now see as a shining and successful media manipulation, if not true credibility.
Simple: There are dangerous chemicals in our bodies.
Unexpected: There are dangerous chemicals everywhere, in large amounts, in food, carpets and chairs
Concrete: The fish are becoming hermaphrodites, also, graphs, lots of graphs.
Credible: We have interviewed about 40 scientists (no mention on how many scientists disagree)
Emotional: Eva is going to pass this onto her children.
Story: My father got me run over by a car... I showed submission... etc.
As I said, I do not aim really to disturb the credibility of the film itself, although more balanced sources on a number of issues tend to emphasise the do not know side of the argument, but I do think we should be impressed and suspicious in equal measure when we sense we are at the receiving end of such well-designed messages.
In design, especially at the forefront of egotistical 'rockstar' design, we see how SUCCESs is used, consciously or otherwise, to really greatly deliver concise, understandable and succint design solutions, and is therefore something that we, in presentation and in process, should be acutely aware of.
We see SUCCESs in the work of Philipe Stark, especially his early work.
He was described by Deyan Sujic in B is for Bauhaus as someone who could 'come up with a philosophy of nursery-rhyme simplicity for every new product'. We see this in his products, they have names for one, and upon seeing them we see a conceptual simplicity which is easy to 'get'. We also can read a functional simplicity, which is not always reflected in the final use of the product.
In architecture, Bjarke Ingels of BIG is a master of media, explanations and stories, his 'ideas' are succinctly 'explained' to us in various forms. In comic strips; Images;
And videos;
which are delivered with a wordless, sequential and irrefutable kind of logic. This attaches itself instantly to the mind of the viewer, and is hard to shake, but I am almost certain that the actual design process, or the result, isn't as smooth or logical as he professes.
***
What we can learn from the above provocations is the power of well-constructed messages. These messages can be images, films, products or buildings; but to have a powerful grasp of the subject-matter and manipulate it into a form that is Simple, Shocking and Emotional is a very powerful ability. In design we can learn to create forms that have instant, understandable impact. We can also use these techniques to over-simplify our process-stories to create a device for the continued successful impression of our results.
What we must be wary of however, is how easily this can be done. A lot of the time, in the case of urban myths, it is something that happens organically. In the case of manifestos, new ideas and news stories however, it can often be used in a manipulative sense (or with the aim of self-promotion) we must be careful to not be swayed by simple and engaging polemics, the problem is always more complicated than we give it credit for.
No comments:
Post a Comment