Project 3
ITERATIONS 2
Stealing is hard.
It is difficult to blatantly appropriate an image without it feeling like a satire or a parody. These iterations go beyond borrowing just GD images and include the appropriation of fine art images. I feel like another layer of content may be necessary.
dsr
Advertisement
I agree with you. This type of appropriate is very sticky and tricky. Because of the collage technique (and the fact that I recognize much of the material you’re using and realize it’s source) my mind is trying to make sense of what you’re putting together. I want it to have a bigger meaning. A larger message. An overall idea bigger and more than the pieces.
From your presentation last week, it seems that you’re commenting on this as a design technique and wanting to experiment with using things just ad hoc, as complete stolen pieces. However, I am still looking for all these pieces to add up to something else…
I think the collage that’s working the best right now is the very last one which uses Christina’s World. The way you’ve further manipulated the image (even though it’s a simple reflection), and the subtle ways you’ve pushed the type (sliding part of it behind the barn)….I feel like this is creating some interesting tension.
I think you’re onto something with the more iconic fine art images. They give the design intervention a place to live, a place to do its work, and help to call out precisely what you’re pointing to — which, I believe, is an interrogation of image/style appropriation and its impact on a message’s “authenticity,” as it were. Some things to explore: can the design language you employ as intervention carry some sort of particular, identifiable stylistic statement itself? Can the textual messages begin to reveal a consistent ideology or at least tactical point of view?
I think you could bring back in the idea of quotes as an ‘endorsement’ (or not) of appropriation and give some more meaning to how we interpret it’s validity – make us think about how we might appropriate images, ideas, techniques and the judgement that we (as designers) use in deciding how and what we appropriate. At what point does it move from inspiration to appropriation? is it all about intent? I think that each poster could take a look at some sub-topic. Right now, they are not really building in a meaningful way.
“Stealing things is a glorious occupation, particularly in the art world.” – Malcolm McClaren
I am gathering that your design strategy is “re-appropriation” and I think that it is interesting to explore how the viewer perceives these pieces that have been re-appropriated. I am interested in the “labels/tag-lines” that you have consistently included on each piece (This is Fake, This is Real, This is Yours, etc.). What are your thoughts behind these? What does/could this say about authenticity? In what way could the viewer contribute? It makes me think that it would be interesting to allow the viewer to participate with the piece in a way by adding their own “label” based on how authentic they find it to be. Or even just “real” and “fake” labels that could be applied as they desired.
I love how you copyrighted the third poster even though Saul Bass’s original signature is visible on the image. That little detail says a lot! I wish I could see these images horizontally as a complete series to give you a better idea of how I think they work together. Other than that, I am curious about your choice of wording, like why FRESH appears twice. Does that have a key significance when reading this as a set?
It definitely feels like there is some type of underlying statement in each these iterations. It’s a little unclear at this point what those might be. Can you elaborate more on your word choice (this is real/fake/yours/mine,etc) ? The idea of appropriation can really tie into how and why we interpret things as authentic or not, I think this is a really interesting direction you have chosen.
I agree with Linc’s evaluation of using fine art images as a fertile approach. Moving the conversation a step away from graphic design could help clarify your message and help viewers understand it by approaching it from another perspective.
The “This is Fresh,” “This is Fake,” “This is Real,” etc. labels feel both too vague and too specific to me. (Sorry, I get the “too vague” accusation all the time.) What I mean is that they seem apparent at first glance as the blatant addition of your viewpoint to the mash-ups, but then upon further reflection they seem to lose meaning because I start to wonder what exactly is meant by “fresh,” “fake,” “real.” Maybe I am not picking up on the meaning of all the other things added to these images and that’s why I’m confused. I can’t really decide if these labels are a good thing or not (i.e. to tell you whether or not to change it), so I’ll leave the decision to you, based on what you are trying to do and/or convey.