Peanuts Kill.

Because, Helvetica.

    I'm a huge fan of typography. Naturally, when I got to Solomon's "The Power of Punctuation," I started nerding out. We recently read an article for the Writing Center titled, "Clarity," whose author I cannot find on the copy I was given. I was opposed to reading an entire article on grammar and punctuation. Mostly, because I have grown up in extreme privilege when it comes to these ideas. I was raised in a home where English was a first language, and grammar was second-nature. It's something that came naturally, so I never had to explain why, I just had to do it because it looked right. 

   Then, I became a tutor. 

   Holy shit, I became a tutor and all of a sudden I was being asked to talk to these English Second Language students who wanted explanations and I didn't know how to talk to them at all. I couldn't explain the grammar I was using, simply because I didn't know how. Luckily, with some experience and guidance, I figured it out. Also... here is this awesome link: Grammar Bytes! This is an awesome resource for grammar and punctuation -- and it explains it in a way that...you know...is understandable. 

   Let's get to the fun stuff. Typography. How does it work? Is it effective? When do we need images? The image above is very basic, simple typography. However, everything was calculated, down the space between letters, to the distance between the letters and the white frame surrounding them. Below, we see a *humorous* typography image with specific branding implications. If the image wasn't there... would we still get the joke?

   Here, an example of 2-D printing. Still cool, but slightly less *savvy* and significantly more hipster.

                                   

   Then, the implications of GIFs come into play. Now, this isn't a GIF, cut imagine if it were. These letters were hung on strings from a tree branch, where they were set free to move, tangle, and confuse. But, what does that add? What meaning or relevance does it bring to an otherwise insignificant phrase?

   The next two images show a more classical approach to typography, but with a significantly more modern twist. Images are added, but the images are specifically text-driven. Do they add to the typography? Does the meaning change, or is it just more visually pleasing? Ponder forth, young grasshoppers.

Womanly Woes

 
   Wysocki -- Doug, you told me I would like her for a reason. I love when my majors crossover.

   In Photography, we call it "modern," "abstract," "organic," "edgy," "blended media." In Writing, we call it "multi-modality." My mom, an art teacher, calls it "Mixed Media." Wysocki calls it dehumanization. While I agree that it is women's forms and/or bodies that are often made the subject of advertisements, art, media, writing, etc. and all its various forms of objectification, I would push back and say that it is not only women. Obviously, we are in this constant state of give-and-take when it comes to feminism. It's about the equality of the sexes, yes, but when it comes to topics such as imagery, we (as a society) tend to focus on the female form.

   However, there is trend I'm not sure we are all aware of that is happening in photography and art. These modalities, or mediums, or whatever you want to call them, are all becoming extensively accessible due to technology. At the touch of a button, tumblr and pinterest have placed thousands of artists' images in our grasp. With it, has come the movement of abstraction. We have dissected the human being to an image. We have changed it to a form, a silhouette, a blend of colors, a shape and a texture. Yes, some may argue that this is dehumanization. I call it "art." I know its cliche. I know that Doug will push back, saying he doesn't get it. But, that doesn't stop the fact that I think its beautiful. Of course, I hate the way that women's bodies are portrayed in the media -- but I hate the way that men's bodies are portrayed too. I think its too easy for us to see a picture of a woman's breast (like that pictured below) and say its objectification. We've been programmed to think/say that. If she were holding her breast, or touching herself provocatively, I may disagree, but I think that its beautiful for us to be able to see the human body in pieces and parts and allow our imaginations to see the rest.

   Jamieson's article just made me mad. Not because of what she said, but because of the content of the article. I am a smart, out-spoken woman, dammit! And I am not "squeaky!" In fact, I'm quite sure that a number of people (probably those in this class) would call me anything but. I've been called many things, but squeaky is not one of them.

   End rant - Enjoy these images of dehumanization. And try to see them for "art." Then, feel free to pick them a part.