In the book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig discusses the effect that copyrighting has on creativity and cultural production.  He explains that in the good old days there was a kind of uneasy balance between the rights of the creator to protect their work and those of the public to experience it.  People were more able to build upon the work of others to create bigger and better things.  However with cases such as Eldred v. Ashcroft copyright protection can be extended far longer than before. The case challenged the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).  The act itself proposed to extended the existing copyright terms of the Copyright Act of 1976 by 20 years.  However, depending on the date that the work was created it could be extended by 95 years, or the life of the author plus 70 years.  This would affected both new and existing works.  The Rehnquist Court ruled 7-2 that the CTEA was constitutional.  When this law first came out there were numerous ways for the public to get around copyright laws.  However now because technology has changed the way we share information the effects of this law are much more prevalent.  The book goes on to talk about the heavy fines that are imposed on those who break the CTEA and download copyrighted material.  I tend to agree with Lessig on this point, and many others, that the extent of the fines are absurd. 

Because copyright laws are becoming more and more stringent Lessig is concerned that creativity will be stifled or at least people will not be able to use technological advances to their full advantage when creating.  And I think that he is probably right.  I am not promoting the elimination of all copyright laws, and of course neither is he, but I do think that everything is a trade off.  As a consumer, I would love to rewind time to the days of downloading free music on Nabster and Kazza. However as a wanta be author and someone who knows how little most people actually make from their work, I enjoy the peace of mind that my work will not be “stolen”.   There has to be some level of balance between having everything be public where the creator can make little to no profit off of their work and having to pay exorbitant fees such as for a 5 second clip of a popular TV show. 

Lessig offers several suggestions for how to create more balance between the public and private domain such as shorter copyright terms and registration requirements.  Personally, I tend to think that these are good ideas.  If you create something and you want it protected than great but if you don’t have it protected than it is free to enter the public domain.  I believe that there is a fine line between using someone’s work as inspiration and stealing it and that that line is difficult to define, although many have tried.  But I agree that art, no matter the form, is a culmination of many people’s works.  We build upon, change, and adapt to create something that is our own.  Without the opportunity to access and learn from the works of others, I think that creativity will indeed be hampered. 

What do you think Lessig would think of the recent ruling against the the founders of The Pirate Bay?

A recent study found those branded as "pirates", people who download music illegally are 10 times more likely to buy music.  Why do you think this is?

This book was written in 2003, that is also the year that the iTunes Music Store opened. Since, it has sold over 6 billion songs. How do you think easy modes of distribution have changed the media landscape? Does this work for all forms of media? What other changes have happened since 2003?

This book was released under Creative Commons on the internet, along with a free audiobook. How do you think copyright needs to change to address the internet after reading Free Culture?

Lessig repeatedly referred to Walt Disney creativity, or creating from ripping elements from previous works. Isn't this how everything is created? Why has our culture grown to reject this?

When do you think the internet will reach the freedom that Lessig describes radio, tv, and movies have as a medium? What will it take for it to establish its own common understanding in our culture?

In 2007, critically-acclaimed English rock band Radiohead released "In Rainbows." Fans were given the option to pay whatever amount they wanted, including nothing. Though some detractors felt Radiohead was erring in giving the album away for free, it worked out very well for the band.


Cover art for Radiohead's "In Rainbows"


The principles behind Radiohead's decision to release its album essentially for "free," is an idea that Lawrence Lessig would probably agree with. Lessig, a legal scholar from Standford, argues eloquently in his book "Free Culture" about the nature of cultural production, its history, and how digital technologies have transformed how it is distributed currently. Lessig's arguments, unsurprisingly, center around the legal history of cultural production as he explains how recent copyright laws are anathema to freedom of expression.

Lessig does a brilliant job of introducing the reader to the main issues surrounding copyright laws and how the Web has complicated things. This is not to say the Web is to blame. Quite the contrary. The Web is a great facilitator to sharing ideas and content, Lessig says, and I agree. However, the author is quick to point out that piracy in its conventional sense-- the act of stealing from those who produce or distribute content is wrong-- Lessig explains that file sharing and other methods of sharing information online are not so clear-cut. Lessig points to history to support his claims.

According to the book, copyrights have not always been so clearly defined. While copyright law today encompasses things that written, songs that are recorded, computer programs that are developed, videogames that are designed, and other cultural artifacts, early English copyright law only protected books. But these early copyrights were designed with the aim of protecting the distribution of books, and not the artists.

Lessig connects this argument to today as he explains that artists still reap little of the reward their works produce. Drawing from the work of various artists of various kinds, they are always happy with the way copyright laws work either. Unsurprisingly, it is the MPAA (A body responsible for producing motion pictures) and the RIAA (the lobbyist arm of the recording industry) that are the biggest culprits.

The author's arguments rotate between examples drawn from legal history and philosophical arguments supporting the notion that spreading culture is important. After painting a nuanced, detailed sketch of the problem, Lessig recommends a remedy for the copyright issue: a new way of legislating copyright concerns. Lessig feels that the creative properties of artists should be defended against those who would try to profit wrongfully from other's work, but at the same time, appeals for the importance of sharing work that is culturally significant.

Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Lessig understands this, and his assessment is thorough and well-reasoned. Coming into the reading, I expected this to be simply an assault on the importance of copyright law, but Lessig's work is much more than that. It is an appeal to all thinking people to reconsider how copyright laws are harming the spread of knowledge and culture and aims rectify the problem. As media outlets become increasingly more powerful, it is important for thinking people to stand up and take notice. Lessig's work caused me to take notice.

     About a month ago, Adam Wilson thought of a Tweet, and "poof", it magically appeared to his followers.

     Of course, as we grow up, most of us stop believing in magic.  We learn that there is an explanation for what fools our eyes.  Adam Wilson and his associates have been studying pieces of technology that interpret people's thoughts in an effort to glean communication from those who cannot speak, such as patients with (ALS) brain stem stroke, and upper spinal cord injury.

     Recently, moving a cursor on screen has been an effective scientific exercise for patients with lock-in syndrome.  But their concern is communication.

     Wilson believed that Twitter provided a good test interface for new apparatus he uses.  In essence, all the letters are displayed, and flashing.  Then the letter "R" stops flashing, then appears and starts flashing.  The brain recognizes that something is different about this letter, and this brain activity can be scanned.

I am not going to do it justice attempting to explain it more.  One can find more about this interesting article here.

After reading Lawrence Lessing’s Free Culture, I decided to further read on the subject of “free culture.” I found an organization, FreeCulture.org: Students for Free Culture, devoted to advocating and pushing the Free Culture movement. On the organization’s Website, they have a blog space where I found a blog on the work of Tim Hwang.

In Tim Hwang’s speech It’s Tough Out There for a Geek: The Changing Battlefield for Online Freedom, he discusses the history and activism of digital freedom and the way in which the movement is affected by present day digital standards.

When I first heard that we were going to design and create our own fonts and color palettes in class, I was excited by the project. I have always had an appreciation for font and color design, but I had never had the opportunity to develop my own.

I was not familiar with the Web application FontStruct, and I assumed it would allow me to create a font containing curvaceous letters. I began sketching a font that I thought represented my screen name moniker “aheartofstars.” The font was to have thick crescent moon and heart like curves accompanied by a random star.

When I tried to mimic my sketch in FontStruct, I was forced to abandon my font. FontStruct is a great application, but it does have limits. One such limit is that it can not replicate extended curves properly. I felt disappointed and discouraged, but the assignment needed to be completed, so I tried to think of another way I could represent my screen name while conforming to the limitations of FontStruct.

I decided to make a novelty font that could only be used as a heading. It breaks many of Lupton’s rules as the letters are contained within a heart shape. The heart maintains a static cap and x-height, and it always rests on the baseline. I am not satisfied with the overall font.

I did enjoy creating my color palette in Adobe Kuler. As with my font, I built the color palette around my screen name. I used red as the base color as it represents the heart. I used a deep dark blue/purple to represent both the night sky and veins in the heart. The yellow, grey, and white represent stars, clouds, and other heavenly objects.

It's no secret that I hate my job.  In fact, I've disliked most jobs I've had because of crummy co-workers and awful bosses.  (I've worked on golf cart maintenence, bussed tables, waited tables, and worked at a gym.....all sucked).  But one thing that I've always been wary of has been being online friends with co-workers.

This article from NY Times discusses the pros and cons of accepting friend requests from co-workers and bosses on networks like Facebook and Myspace.  I highly suggest checking this article out; it's got some awesome tips and guidelines for how to handle online relationships with co-workers.

 

I found Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture to be a very interesting book to read.  My real fascination came from the fact that I'm a musician, and am always interested in reading about copyright laws and the history behind them. 

I've found that the laws concerning copyrights are very complicated at times and difficult to get a grasp on, and sometimes it becomes tough to form a solid opinion as to exactly how you feel about certain aspects of the law.

I liked Lessig's section on Music on page 55, as well as his suggestion for creator compensation on page 106.  A lot of my friends download music for free, in fact my one buddy JD regularly tells me about how he "hasn't bought a CD in years" because he downloads entire discographies.  To some, this may seem like a smart move, and a great way to save money.  But let me explain how this looks from the opposing side.

As a musician who is trying to promote myself independently, the whole process rests on my shoulders.  No management team, no record label, no PR group, nothing; just me and the help and support of my family.  Let's do a little math:

- First, we have supplies and tools to do my job (write and perform music.)  Guitars, amplifiers, microphones, mic stands, PA system, cables, extension cords, guitar strings, picks, guitar straps, effects pedals, slides, pickups, and  capos. 

- Now let's add in the instructional DVDs and lessons that I've learned from of over the years.

- I began playing music at the age of 12, so factor in 10 years worth of time spent working on my music (I'm primarily self-taught.)

- Add in the hours of practice each week, as well as time spent working on new material, shaping and crafting songs, and generally working to improve.

- I released an album in October 2008, (yes, a shameless plug, but I have to promote myself, remember??)  I had to pay for the time spent in the studio to record, as well as pay for the album to be printed and sealed, and then shipped out to me.

- Lastly, let's factor in the money spent on gas when I drive around to perform and promote my music.

Now imagine I wake up one day and find my album is up on Limewire, and everyone's downloading it for free because they don't want to pay for it. 

I only tell you this to remind you that a copyright protection, in this case, is there for a reason.  I think a lot of people see copyright protection as almost an inconvenience.  My friend JD doesn't get why you would pay for a CD when you can just dowload it for free?  CDs may be "expensive" in some people's eyes, but you have to remember that you're not paying for the plastic case, or the CD itself, or the lyric book.  You're paying for the time, energy, and money spent by the musicians/songwriters who have dedicated their lives to creating music (or any art form, for that matter) for people's entertainment.  Sure, I want to share my music with the world, but honestly, I don't want to starve in the process.

Now let's look at Lessig's point about building off of previous creations.  He gives the impression throughout the book that if we begin to limit what people are allowed to "add on to" or "springboard" off of, that our free culture will suffer.  I disagree.  Again, let me relate this back to music.

I'm a big John Butler Trio fan.  Now if I ripoff this song, Pickapart, and make some changes, but claim I've only built on what was already there, there's no way you're going to convince me that that's ok.  Instead, I feel that the drive to avoid copyright infringement has pushed me to study JBT's style, mesh it with my other influences, and create something unique to myself.  I have a few songs that are in the same style as JBT, but swiping specific melodies and progressions would be piracy in every sense of the word.  Lessig's assertion that the concept of "property" is detrimental to growth in a free culture is a bit absurd, but again, I may feel this way because of my background in music.  As my classmate Chris said in his post, " His theme is that if this occurs, 'Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less.  Ours was a free culture.  It is becoming less so."  (p. 30)'"  There is plenty to build upon without ripping others off. 

Let me ask you this; if I came to you and said, "Hey a friend of mine approached me and said he wanted to use the melodies and vocal patterns from my song Jet Plane for a documentary he's filming.  He doesn't want to use my song, he just wants to create a song a lot like it and add in some piano parts, maybe a violin, and use a female lead singer."  Would you say that's ok?  Sure, he's adding on to what I did, but is the song not, at its core, still my creation? 

Copyright protection is something I feel passionately about, and this book really made me get really passionate really quick!

     Lawrence Lessig presents an interesting study and analysis of creativity, culture, copyrights, property and intellectual property in his text Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity.

     Lessig offers many arguments against giving authors complete control over copyrights and intellectual property.  At first, it seems like he is against giving authors any publishing control over their work.  But he starts the text explicitly stating, "We live in a world that celebrates 'property'.  I am one of those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call 'intellectual property'."  (p. 28) In addition, further analysis of his text reveals he is actually unveiling both sides of the perspective, author's and creator's as well as the public's.  Not only is he describing both perspectives, but also he is drawing logical conclusions about what is going to happen in our culture due to the changing technology, the copyright laws, and the affects these have on the public in general.

     Lessig begins describing one of the central issues of intellectual property by using Disney as an example.  In 1928, Buster Keaton created a silent movie called Steamboat Bill, Jr.  Before the release of this movie, Disney had been experimenting with music and animation in its short cartoons.  Upon the release of Keaton's movie, Disney released a short animated feature called Steamboat Willie, starring an unknown Mickey Mouse.

     The point in using this example is that in 1928, intellectual property was not a big issue as it is today.  If it were, Buster Keaton could have sued Disney for this creation.  The idea is that Disney used creative elements exclusive to Buster Keaton's creation Steamboat Bill, Jr, that Keaton as author had control over.  If intellectual property was an issue during the period, the creativity that spawned such works as Cinderella, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan may not have occurred.  His theme is that if this occurs, "Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less.  Ours was a free culture.  It is becoming less so."  (p. 30)

     I believe what he is saying is that he fears that our culture and creativity will suffer if people are not allowed to add on and adapt to other people's creations.  He doesn't believe it is fair for society as a whole.  I am not sure I entirely agree with his point.  I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes, so to speak, but I am going to go with a much more conservative viewpoint than I believe others who read this book will take.

     I believe in the right of every American to make as much money as they want to, without interference from the government.  Some may say, "Well, how much money is enough?"  Some may call this a "sleazy, capitalist" viewpoint.  "Enough" money is a subjective point of view.  There is no rational, scientific viewpoint for "enough" money.  I refuse to make that judgment on anyone.  Further, if I were in Mr. Lucas shoes, I cannot say that I wouldn't want to make as much money off of Star Wars as I could too, so how can I judge him?  Let me give an example, if I am George Lucas, and I create a highly profitable intellectual property called Star Wars, I have every right to make as much money as I want to off this creation.  (On another note, I think Lucas is a lousy filmmaker and writer; he had only one or two good ideas for films, the rest were flops.  I believe he is just an excellent businessman and marketer, and at most an average filmmaker.)  I recently saw that George Lucas is making an animated television series called Star Wars: Clone Wars.  Let's say for argument's sake, using an analogous situation that Lessig refers to above with Disney and Steamboat Willie, that another creator five years ago (does not even have to necessarily be Disney) wishes to create an animated series using some creative elements from the Star Wars franchise.  Mr. Lucas says no, or charges an enormous amount for permission to use these elements.  Maybe the creators of the animated series did not even ask Mr. Lucas and he sued them for damages.  Using the arguments that Lessig puts forth, these "animated creators" are just adding to free culture, adding to our culture's creativity.  But how do we, as the public, or the animated creators, know that Mr. Lucas did not plan on creating his own animated series based on Star Wars?  Should not he have a right to do so if he wishes?  He eventually did create a series.

     Lessig also uses an example of how a documentarian friend of his created a scene where a television was playing four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  He goes on to tell us that Fox (who owned the rights) refused to allow him to use the footage without paying an exorbitant fee.  While I believe and feel that Fox is essentially not being fair, they have every right to make as much money as they want off the creation they own.

     This may lead some readers to go back to the argument that creativity and culture suffers.  I don't entirely agree.  If people are not allowed to use other people's creations, it doesn't necessarily follow that NOTHING creative will be added to our culture.  Isn't it possible that instead of people relying on other people's creations to make art that they create something new and ingenious?  Further, copyright and intellectual property laws aren't refusing creators from adapting other people's creations to make something new.  It is only forcing creators to get permission.  While there are some creators who will say no for no logical reason, or some creators will charge fees that make it impossible for us to adapt their copyrights and intellectual property for our use, I believe that the majority of authors will be reasonable and either give permission or only charge a fair, market price.

     Lessig is right though; Congress must find a balance between the public's fair use, and the author's right to make money off his creation.  If authors have no financial incentive for creation of art or addition to culture, then free culture definitely suffers.  Overall, I think some of Lessig points seem hyperbolic, especially since some examples he uses seem dated.  For instance, the Napster example he uses I believe is settled.  The technology cannot be outlawed.  Pirating movies and DVDs is a crime.  Congress established this a few years ago and I agree with their decision.  I believe that he chooses examples and scenarios that paint a "black and white" picture of the situation.  For example, choosing the situation where his friend the documentarian had issues with Fox for using four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  Are analogous situations prevalent amongst authors and publishers of copyright and intellectual property?  He doesn't really prove that to me, and I am not sure he could convince me even if he tried harder.

Others may have differing viewpoints; I look forward to hearing from them here or in class.

A few weeks ago we read Lupton’s Thinking with Type.  Which is a fascinating book about how to use different fonts.  We used the theories that were discussed in Lupton to help us design our own  typeface.   Only a few days after I had finished the rough draft of my font I came a crossed an article on Yahoo that gave me a little more insight into typography.  (I’m am not sure if “rough draft” is the right phrase to use in this situation but I think that my meaning is clear.) 

The article was titled “Typeface Inspired by Comic Books Has Become a Font of Ill Will” by Emily Steel.  It discusses the controversy over the continued use of Vincent Connare’s font Comic Sans.  The font originated fifteen years ago as a software project at Microsoft.  Since then it has spread to “grade-school fliers, holiday newsletters, Disney ads, Beanie Baby tags, business emails, street signs, Bibles, porn sites, gravestones and hospital posters about bowel cancer”.

Unbeknownst to me the font has caused quite a commotion with graphic designers and other aesthetes.  I saw the font as simply cute and childlike fine for a five year olds’ birthday invitations but inappropriate for much else. However, it has caused so much controversy that many want it banned. There are numerous websites devoted to just that.  At such sites, you can even purchase anti Comic Sans apparel, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc. 

The Ban Comic Sans movement’s manifesto explains that they “believe in the sanctity of typography and that the traditions and established standards of this craft should be upheld throughout all time... Type is a voice; it’s very qualities and characteristics communicate to readers a meaning beyond mere syntax.

In fact after reading their position I was a little upset that I had attempted to create my own font because I might be considered one of the “uneducated [who now] have opportunities to desecrate this art form; therefore, destroying the historical integrity of typography”.  I am sure that they were not referring to students completing assignments however, their language was a little intimidating. 

However the site make several good points many of which were discussed in Lupton.  One was that like the “tone of a spoken voice, the characteristics of a typeface convey meaning.  The design of the typeface is, in itself, its voice. Often this voice speaks louder than the text itself”.  Therefore using Comic Sans for much of anything outside of a comic book is “analogous to showing up for a black tie event in a clown costume”.

 

When asked about the attention given to the font Mr. Connare said.  "If you love it, you don't know much about typography….if you hate it, you really don't know much about typography, either, and you should get another hobby."

I'm sure we all remember back in February when Facebook was about to put into effect a new set of Terms and Conditions that would grant them ownership of users' content, photos, etc, even after an account was deleted.  And I'm sure we also remember the total outrage that ensued.

Well it looks like they listened when we complained.  According to a New York Times article, after the enormous amount of protest and and resistance from users, Facebook has drawn up some new Terms and Conditions, and allowed users to vote on whether or not they should be put into effect (these new Terms and Conditions grant ownership of content to users once again.)

I think this is a great step forward for social networking.  It proves that the users really are the ones in control.  It's easy for changes to be made and it's up to users to simply adapt and get used to it, but the fact is we are the ones who keep these networks running.  If it weren't for us, there would be no Facebook, or Myspace, or Twitter, or Skype, etc.  I was very happy to see this unfold the way it did.

 

 

 

1)  In one of our first classes, we discussed how the ideas we communicate and interpret through metaphor are embedded in a larger conceptual framework that is socially and culturally constructed.  How has the concept of metaphor resonated in other readings, such as Understanding Comics, and how did such texts build upon our early discussions?  Has your awareness of such meanings freed you in your drafting of projects (such as the font and final cartography assignment) or caused you to stumble in the complexities of your craft?

2)  In Information Ecologies, Nardi and O'Day claim, "The social and technical aspects of an environment coevolve.  People's activities and tools adjust and are readjusted in relation to each other, always attempting and never quite achieving a perfect fit" (p. 53).  This indicates that it is through a certain disconnect that we achieve balance and, thereby, progress.  How may concepts within Sorting things out:  classification and its consequences, contradict such assertions?  How can we heighten our own awareness and act in such a way that we are coevolving rather than conforming or categorizing?

3)    Turchi claims, "The most profound question of our existence cannot be answered through a mere collection of concrete evidence; at some point...each of us reaches a border of the verifiable world, and every one of us leaps.  A great deal of what we know, we know only through our imagination--and that knowledge is crucial to our lives" (p. 92).  How do Tufte's ideas in Beautiful Evidence both reinforce and, perhaps, contradict (depending on perspective) this understanding?  How did this concept come to play in your creation of memory maps (whether for your Rowan map or other recent mappings)?

4)  Throughout ias09, we have learned to use tools that support the movement of information.  With consideration to the benefits of these applications as well as what may be compromised, how could you reconcile the concerns Brown and Dugruid discuss in The Social Life of Information? --To what extent is social interaction integral to the transference of information (keeping in mind that how we define and understand said interaction is also evolving) and how, in our use of these technologies, do we inevitably reinforce the metaphors that construct our understanding of reality?  What are we ultimately accomplishing?

     I have become increasingly interested in the role that technology has in constraining art. But when I became the artist, and had to work within the constraints of an unfamiliar medium, my academic curiosity quickly vanished, and I was left in intermittent fits of frustration. While my response to Fontstruct is probably borne more out of lack of typographical skills than it is with a problem with the program, the fact remains that building a font is a fairly difficult process.

     The first step to designing my font with Fontstruct was to first be a pencil sketch showing what I thought the font should look like. I didn't like this idea because I was afraid that I would be unable to translate something I drew onto the program. So, I just started playing around with Fontstruct.



     I started at the top of the alphabet and began working my way down. I was having trouble getting used to Fontstruct's limitations-- I found making curved lines of any type difficult. So, I tried to work within the framework I was provided with.

    But then, I ran into a problem: a clear lack of consistency. You can notice that the B is smaller than the A and the C and that some of the letters are just not recognizable. So I kept working.



You can see the difference between joefont2 (which was a clone of joefont1-- long story) and joefont3, which is much more similar to final product than was joefont1. The biggest difference was the size of the font. Initially, I was making my fonts around 4 or 5 blocks high, which was much too small. Then I experimented making the uppercase letters eight blocks high and lowercase ones four blocks high, but then I read in Lupton's "Thinking With Type" that the x height should be slightly more than half of the tallest uppercase letters. So, I adjusted the sizes again.
  

   But things weren't so simple. While I was deciding how large to make my fonts on Thursday night, I began having problems with Fontsruct. The page would load, but the Fonstructor would not. I had to remake the font almost entirely from scratch because the fonts were too small. This was frustrating at first because I felt as though I was throwing five hours of work away. It wasn't that bad as I was able to quickly re-assemble my font learning tricks I had learned from trial and error. Though I was no pro, I was getting much better at using Fontstruct.

     After spending so much time with Fonstruct, I thought I was seeing penguins on the page. So, I decided to make my font look like penguins. At the time, it didn't look like a stretch. If you look closely, you will notice that all of my letters have "eyes" that make the letters appear that they are looking at you. That is why I called the font "Vigilance".



This is what my font looked like just before the final pass. Notice how the lowercase "t" looks funny-- I had it dipping below the line. I don't know why I did that, and I fixed it for the last pass. I am also notably missing punctuation marks. Writing a sentence without punctuation marks is difficult, so I added them as well.



     I really like how Fonstruct allow you to type with your font. I think it provides the user with a better sense of whether the font is usable or not. I think my font at this point was usable, though not ideal.

     I spent some more time working on vigilance, polishing out the rough edges, adding punctuation marks, and checking for consistency. I am pretty pleased with the final product. Though a few letters did not turn out quite right, I am happy with the results overall.




     In addition to designing a font, our class was also charged with designing a color palette. I couldn't find a photo I was happy with to use as an inspiration for my palette, so I played around with Adobe's Kuler a bit.

     The application conveniently places a color wheel within easy reach to experiment with colors in real time. I enjoyed moving the points on the wheel around, and seeing which colors seemed to go well together. Then I came away with a palette that I liked. It is pictured below.




     I played with the wheel until I found a combination I was happy with. Why did I stop here? For some reason, these colors all seemed to go together. When you look at the color wheel, it actually makes sense.

   



My base color, as evidenced by the extra ring, which falls in the purplish side of the wheel, is matched almost perfectly by the olive color directly across. Any color that lies directly across from another color is said to be its opposite, and thus complimentary.

The Teal-like color I used is similar, and just a shade or two lighter than the light teal which lies closer to the center of the wheel. The ruddy color lies directly opposite the light teal. My eyes told me these colors go together because they are related, whether opposite or highly similar.

     I will never look at typography the same way again. It is difficult to remain consistent, original, striking, and yet follow good practices. On top of all these factors, it's important to remember that we are also working within a new medium (in this case Fonstruct) which has its own set of limitations.

If studying about typography in my years as a design student taught me anything, it taught me that on the whole, over the years the basics still hold. The typefaces we use today are all based off of ones that were designed generations ago. Why reinvent the wheel? Why redesign letterforms that have worked so well for so long? We work best with what we find familiar.  The computer has taken over our desk's top, but what does it do? It replicates a desk! Our desktops are covered with files, folders, and pictures, just like they used to be.

It is for that reason that I love looking at how science fiction thinks the computers of the future will change so dramatically, including the typography used on those computers. Over the years, while taking notes in class, to write faster I developed a way to write that forms each letter with only one line that mimics these science fiction based typefaces, while still being understandable.

Using fontstruct, I was able to craft a version of this typeface that is very close to this typeface, but due to the limitations of the platform, ended up only close to the typeface as invisioned, so let's consider it a "beta release". I've named it MINIMAX, because it does the maximum it can with the minimum amount of lines.
download here
view fontstruct page here

This has been a enlightening and challenging class.  The books we read lead way into fascinating discussions that have caused me to re think many preconceived notions I have about; metaphors, images, comic books, categorizing, the list goes on and on.  Now that the semester is coming to an end we find ourselves looking back over all we have learned.  These questions are designed to try to help us get an overview of the semester.  Hopefully they will help in our discussion. 

1)      I am sure that we each learned a great deal for all of the books that we read for this class.  But if you had to chose, which do you think had; the biggest impact on you, caused you to make foreseen and unforeseen connections, helped you to grasp an unknown concept or see something in a new way, etc?

 

2)      What connections or ideas are present from author to author?  What concepts do you think that the authors would agree about?  What do you think that they would disagree about?

 

3)      When working on the final project for this course, were there any concepts from the reading that you focused on specifically?  (Of course we all tried to pay attention to the lessons of the books but was there anyone that influenced your project in particular?)

 

4)      After using Twitter and the IAOC blog for the past few months has your opinion changed about these forms of communication?

5)      During the first few weeks of class we attempted to identify possible information ecologies within Rowan.  Now that we have read the remaining books and completed the map project do you still agree with what we had originally said?  Are there any other ecologies that we missed?

 

6)      Do you think that the information on your poster presentation could be considered beautiful evidence? If not why? Is there anything that could have been done differently to make it more so?