Forgot your username or password?
Paradoxically, even though graphic arts is one
of my unmitigated passions, I am not a very good observer of the visual
world. I give images a once-over, and, unless they grab me, I move on.
In fact, even if they grab me I move on. I only skim the surface of art
magazines, design exhibitions, photo portfolios and museums shows. Yet,
my short attention span (a mild case of what is clinically referred to
as “Attention Deficit Disorder”) is a critical asset. When you are in
the communication business, as I am, an ability to quickly “get the
picture” is a plus.
But how do we see what we see anyway? How do we decide what to ignore in
our fluctuating field of vision? During a recent visit to the Louvre, I
got to think about how we navigate the surging sea of visual
information. The cause of my musing was—appropriately—a painting with a
spectacular nautical motif.
I was typically jogging through the museum, merely glancing at one of
the world’s greatest art collections, when one painting attracted my
attention. Not the painting actually, but the crowd gathered in front of
it. Dozens of tourists, their digital camera raised in the air, stood
motionless in front of The Raft of The Medusa, apparently
mesmerized by the sight of the condensed image of the huge canvas held
captive on their small screen. In a spirit of dissent, I decided to
stop, sit down, and actually look at the painting with my very own eyes.
The detailed painting by famed 19th century painter Théodore Géricault
shows a desperate party of shipwrecked men clinging to each other and to
their makeshift raft. A representation of an actual event that took
place a couple of years earlier, the scene is both horrifying and
fascinating. The center of the painting is occupied by a heroic tangle
of male bodies—half of them corpses—in various state of undress. You
want to ogle while at the same time avert your eyes to avoid being an
involuntary participant in some gruesome homo-erotic act of voyeurism.
At first I was bobbing on the surface of the image, as adrift as the
raft itself, clinging to details in an attempt to focus my attention
somewhere. Géricault’s Medusa is loaded with so much daunting
pictorial information—ropes, body parts, pieces of canvas, waterlogged
garments, scraps of wood, shadowy figures, and more body parts—I felt as
if the huge painting was luring me to look closer, to come within
inches of its vanished surface. But why so many confusing details, I
wondered? Was Géricault’s intention to make viewers feel seasick?
Since the Renaissance, painters have been known to use details the way
mystery writers use clues: to alert viewers of some impending twist in
the plot (re: Da Vinci Code!). In The Raft of The Medusa,
it seems, the details act as decoys, as if to lure you away from the
focal point of the painting. That point, it turns out, is a faint speck
on the horizon. Just a smudge really, it is unmistakably the silhouette
of a distant ship. In fact, two of the raft’s survivors are shown atop a
pile of broken barrels, waving torn pieces of garment in the direction
of the barely visible vessel, hoping to attract the attention of its
Obviously, the discourse here is the dialectic relationship between
attention and distraction. Will the rescuers spot the raft lost among
the swells? And, will we, the viewers, spot the rescue ship lost among
the details of the painting? In more general terms, how do we know where
to look? Columbia University art historian Jonathan Crary, author of
the cult book The Technique of The Observer (MIT Press, 1992), and Suspensions of Perception (MIT Press, 2001) considers The Raft of The Medusa
emblematic of a moment in our culture when the way we look at images
underwent a major transformation. Indeed, concerns with attention and
distraction can be traced back to the beginning of the 19th century when
Géricault was painting his Medusa masterpiece.
Unlike earlier paintings with religious or allegorical subjects that invited viewers to ponder and daydream, The Raft of The Medusa
solicits your attention, requiring you stop, focus, shut off the
peripheral world and actively process visual information. Though
classical by its style, the painting is modern because its topic is
newsy, timely, true-to-life. For this reason, it is not a subject of
meditation, but an object for popular consumption.
Paying attention, according to Crary, is a learned behavior, the result
of an economic imperative whose origins is the industrial revolution, a
period during which a vast number of workers had to be trained to pay
attention to the machines they were operating. Attention Deficit
Disorder, then, is not a physiological disorder, as the medical
profession would have us believe, but a reaction against the increasing
pressure of a system that requires we put our natural ability to
perceive at the service of productivity.
Crary’s historical perspective on the manufacturing of attention helps
explain the reason for my short attention span, and for that of many of
us suffering from information overload. Our absentmindedness is a
defensive technique, a direct reaction against a practice that attempts
to discipline the natural rhythm of human perception, characterized by
ebbs and flows.
But there is more, according to Crary. One of the side effects of this
“suspension of perception,” as he calls the state in which we pay
attention, is the amount of time we spend immobilized and isolated.
Peeping Toms instead of participants, we stand alone as we struggle to
rein in our volatile power of concentration; we are cut from the world,
often in the dark, focusing on a single set of images or sounds.
And I am not just talking about being stuck in front of a television set
or a computer monitor, or hooked to an iPod, a cell phone, or a
blackberry. The way most tourists behaved at the Louvre was evidence
that even in a situation that encourages people to drift from room to
room and from painting to painting, the pressure to pay attention
insulates us from the very world we have come to see.
Some unfortunate visitors were starring at paintings with a blank
expression on their face while listening to audio devices; others, as
docile as schoolchildren, were scrutinizing the works of art to see what
their guidebooks or their guides told them to see; and still others,
riveted to one spot, were snapping digital pictures of whatever was in
front of them. Each individual was alone in a private world, too busy
consuming information to look around and partake in the often cathartic
experience of shared art appreciation.
Understanding this isolation factor might help us solve the so-called
ADD crisis. Crary points out that one of the things that triggers
attentiveness—and its backlash, ADD—is sensory impoverishment in the
peripheral vision. So, the solution to communicate with
easily-distracted people might require more connectivity and complexity
all around, rather than attention-focusing gimmicks that cut people off
from their surroundings. Some writers, for instance, report being more
productive in noisy surroundings than in the silence of their room. And
kids often tackle their homework more efficiently with the TV turned on.
Maybe distraction is not a bad thing after all. Instead of trying to
grab the attention of an audience and hold it captive with bold graphics
or stunning visuals, why not offer richly detailed pictures with lots
of intriguing clues and ornate frames to boot?
Imagine designing something as chunky and full-bodied as Géricault’s Medusa?
One minute you’d walk to it, the next you’d step back. One minute you’d
squint, the next you’d scrutinize. You’d focus on the middle before
letting your gaze wander over to the edges of the picture. Like a
sailboat taking advantage of every current and every breeze, your
awareness would be allowed to navigate freely on the sea of information.
Chances are you’re more than familiar with the “traditional” eight-hour workday. While it may be arguably one of the most common rituals throughout society, it’s not necessarily the most productive one. In fact, hardly any of history’s greatest minds adhered to this ideal. The lesson here is not to quit your day job, but to learn how to work around it to maximize your creativity.
Section: Inspiration -
professional development, advice
Remember when summer vacation meant three months of care-free days? The AIGA Baltimore board members remember, too, so we’re taking this July off for some much needed R&R. We'll see you in August, though!
There are three general types or client/designer relationships: boss/worker, friends and partners. All three types have their place, but only one of them offers the potential for truly great design to emerge.
New York Times designs imagine yesterday's stars using social media
Posted by Emily Gosling
5 days ago from
It's Nice That
Quiksilver Pro Puerto Escondido 2009
Taking a Vacation
July 01, 2015
Designer (Mid-level) – Von Design Company
June 24, 2015