The Bonaventure

To be honest, both articles were a bit troublesome to read. I felt like I spent more time deciphering the language then soaking up the main concepts. Jameson seemed to be “far out there” with his subjective viewpoints of postmodernist space as a war zone and I found a better understanding and agreement with Davis. The metaphors Davis used to define postmodernism along with his explanation of the history of development of Los Angeles and its relation to foreign investors all made clear sense. In general, the one point that stuck out to me in relation to our assignment is that even though we are studying one space we need to be conscious of the outside environment as well because the exterior effects it just as the interior does. The decision making behind the Bonaventure building makes more sense understanding that the outside is full of smog and mirrors, as Davis describes. Surrounding culture, people, actions, etc all contribute to make our space what it is and we should be aware of this to make accurate conclusions.

Hieroglyphs and Dreams

Both these articles were extremely entertaining to read, partially due to the visual elements presented. Deciphering the images was just as important as the words, creating unordinary interactions in comparison to other textbook readings. I think one of the most important points from both articles is cultural impact in visual language development and how pictograms must be learned. As Miller would say reacting to Lupton’s discussion of bathroom signs, the pictograms of men and women have “seeped into the pores of our culture.” The signs do not have the silhouetted people using toilets but we all still understand them as bathroom signs because of their rich conceptual and historical development. This same idea applies the understanding of language, especially homophones, and how the English spelling system will never become rational because society is already deeply accustomed to its irrationality. This brings us a challenge as designers of a visual language in our current assignment. Symbols that we already know, we know because they have been around for years, but we must somehow create new semiotics that are highly communicative without rewarding them the time to become familiarized in society.

To continue discussion of the male and female bathroom signs we have all become so familiar with, I am currently taking a Gender Women’s Studies course and on the first day of class we briefly discussed them. My professor took a poll to see exactly how many women were wearing skirts to initiate a discussion on gender role expectations and if these silhouetted females and males were still appropriate. Today’s society creates gender more so then genetics. There is no longer a clear distinction between male and female and who can wear skirts and who cannot, but that is for a different class discussion. The point I am trying to make is that even those these pictograms are no longer correct, are they editable or are they like the English language were they will never be rational because it is embedded in our culture. This could also bring up an interesting discussion on Chief Illiniwek and how the same symbol communicates a wide variety of meaning and if this is enough support to keep or retire him.

The Desktop

One of Johnson’s main focuses in his comparison of interfaces and architecture is the use of chat rooms and people interaction. He states that chat rooms should create actual environments as if one was sitting in a living room, relaxed on a couch, enjoying a conversation with a friend. Video games have achieved this type of three-dimensional space and Johnson hopes they will be inspiration to replace lines of text common in most chat spaces. I feel web cams have already succeeded in this area, but I could see how a virtual world may be more comfortable for bringing “strangers closer together” as Johnson describes. Maybe people in chat rooms like the secretive characteristics of not knowing the exact physical identity of those on the other side.

In comparison to Fuller’s article, I feel Johnson does a much better job at communicating to a broader audience. His metaphors are much easier to grasp and much more applicable to the average person. Johnson focuses more on humans interacting through the Internet while Fuller elaborates more on the users interaction with the computer. For example, both discuss video games, but Johnson is intrigued by the way the player can interact with other players in a virtual environment while Fuller elaborates on how the player can change the outcome of the game in the way he interacts with the interfaces and non-player characters.