Our latest reading assignment is Anne Wysocki's "The Sticky Embrace of Beauty", from Writing New Media.
Let me start by saying that with all due respect to Dr. Wysocki's doctorate and status as a published author (compared to my associate's degree and ... I guess that's it), this article reads like stereo instructions. I found the structure well nigh unassailable, and the varying text effects and seemingly random illustrations only compounded the problem. On the other hand, I see in her writing a sentence structure much like mine, only much more complex, which gives me hope for my own future.
In truth I don't really know what to say here. The article is a lengthy analysis of how we perceive certain elements of design, all sparked by the author's apparently strong reaction to an advertisement that barely registers with me as interesting, let alone important. Her discussion of aesthetics relies heavily on Immanuel Kant, who, with due respect to Mr. Kant's status as a timeless philosopher versus my status as an unsuccessful blogger, I disagree with entirely. I find the idea of beauty as a universal to be gibberish. Seriously - I wanted to use a more diplomatic word, but that's how it comes across to me. The cliche 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' isn't a cliche for nothing. I didn't find much of the article resonating with me.
To prevent this from being an entirely negative reaction, I would like to note one aspect of the article I agreed with. At the risk of completely missing the point, of course, it was comforting to have someone - someone who teaches design, no less - point out that while Williams' rules are very useful to teach students the basics of design, The Non-Designer's Design Book lacks any explanation of the why of the rules. While the size of the volume prevents much in the way of depth, the rules are presented in a vacuum, which limits their usefulness considerably.
We're supposed to come up with examples illustrating the text we've just read in these posts, but a critique of this nature doesn't lend itself to examples beyond the ones used in the text, so I'm not entirely certain how to work with that aspect of the assignment. About the best I can do is to relate that in the course of this reading, I frequently found myself flashing on the notion of Quality as presented in Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The book is a lengthy narrative devoted largely to a means of dissecting concepts as balances of form and function, and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in such things.
Finally, since the internet is after all the size of a grape, I would like to apologize to Dr. Wysocki, should she find herself reading this - I assure you my position is nothing personal. As supporting evidence I offer the fact that I don't know you or anything about you, other than your title, which I had to find via Google. For what it's worth, my belief of beauty being in the eye of the beholder means I'm quite certain someone else will - indeed, has - found your analysis quite profound.
(If Immanuel Kant is reading this, however, I would say only this: Aah! Zombie! Run!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you found the illustrations random, given the author's argument that form is *part of* content ;) Do the illustrations detract from the credibility of the argument in this way?
Although much of the chapter did not resonate with you--why, for example, might Wysocki be concerned about an image that you find unimportant--I think you two may find points of connection in your aversion (?) to Kant's concept of universal beauty.
Whereas you want to stick to the cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" (is that right?), Wysocki wants to move beyond that notion of individualism and address issues of subject position, interpellation, and cultural formation in the construction of "beauty." In this way, she and you both seem to reject the possibility of universal beauty.
You hit right on a key aspect of the critique: Williams' "rules are presented in a vacuum, which limits their usefulness considerably."
I am interested in hearing more about Pirsig's "balances of form and function." Were you just stretching for an example, or would you really have more to say about that?
Not sure what the last paragraph gets you. I think you can make a generous and well-supported critique of an argument without going down ad hominem lane. If you find yourself feeling like you have to apologize to a writer for your response to his or her work, that may be an indication that you could revise/strengthen/reconsider your response.
Maybe you ended on an apology because you started by saying the chapter reads like stereo instructions. Maybe it's an issue of tone?
The construction "with all due respect" is rhetorically tricky. It can be like when someone says "I don't want to hurt your feelings BUT...[insert hurtful statement here]"
It can come across as disingenuous.
Please keep in mind, though, my position as an audience for your blog post: I know the author personally and respect her work.
It took me a few hours to get through the chapter and I found myself having to reread sections *several* times (like stereo instructions?) Is that a sign of complexity or "unassailable structure" or...?
Reading experience aside, I do think her critique of formal approaches to design is important to consider. Wait, did I just make a form/content distinction?
meaning--the chapter can be written any which way because it's the ideas that matter
ReplyDeletethat's what I meant by "did I just make a form/content distinction"
The fact that you do know her is the primary reason I included the apology - it's always tricky to tell one of your professors you disliked the reading they've selected, but dozens of times more so when they've already mentioned they know the author. Further, the fact that you do know her increases the probability that she'll find herself reading this some day, and I really am not striving to take an adversarial tone. I tend to come off kind of abrasive when I don't like something ("stereo instructions"), and this was my method of adjusting - that's not intended as an insult, but it is the most apt analogy that I can come up with.
ReplyDeleteA secondary reason is that, not to put too fine a point on it, this article left me feeling stupid, or at least uneducated. This was the reason for my inclusion of the 'due respect' lines, stating up front that I quite possibly am just ignorant of the finer points of such in depth critiques. (Hence the 'due respect' being pointed at the comparison of our education/credibility levels.) I think the writing here is complex to the point of being impenetrable. This might be a flaw in my understanding, or a flaw in the writing, or both, and since I have an inherent bias towards thinking I'm right, I figured it was only fair to disclose that I might just be totally off base.
While I see what you're saying about the representation of the illustrations as connected to the text in the midst of them, I just don't see what purpose they serve. It's distracting. The article was difficult enough without needing to dodge around floral wreaths, or follow the text when it without warning trails off into the margins. I get the point she was trying to make about the bordered page of academic analysis, but the illustration of the problem didn't work for me terribly well. I'm inclined to wonder if they might have been more interesting in the book, but since I could only check the article out at the library for one hour, that meant I basically had to photocopy it and take it home, so I was reading a copy of a copy, at least one of which was made on some fairly old machines, which has an obvious negative impact on any visual effects.
I read Zen and the Art over a decade ago, so I would need a refresher before I was prepared to hold forth on the philosophy of it, but what I recall is the lengthy discussion of the concept of Quality as Aristotle considered it, and the various aspects of same, in the course of presumably fictive narrative about life, motorcycles, and the after effects of electroshock therapy for personality disorder. It makes for a fairly compelling read.
It is worth noting - and this is something I meant to include in the original post before I got derailed - that it may be way too late anyway. Design is moving even further towards the separation of form and content, with the rise of CSS serving as a prime example, and as a new generation of designers learns that from the get-go, it's going to influence even further in that direction.
I think you should actually read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." It would only serve to increase your hate from him, because even if you do agree, it's debatable whether the difficulty of the read is justifiable.
ReplyDeleteHi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI found your post very interesting to read and I can completely agree with you about Kant. I found he idea of beauty to be extremely dissatisfying. I can literally say I had to pause and re-read when I read that his idea of beauty MUST be universal. On the other hand I'm a bit confused why you didn't like/ agree with Wysocki's ideas. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit more? All I successfully gathered was that you found it uninteresting and unpersuasive.
Thanks!
Point taken about me knowing the author personally ;) Have you ever had a prof assign his or her own book in class?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say to Beckah? She wrote: "On the other hand I'm a bit confused why you didn't like/ agree with Wysocki's ideas. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit more? All I successfully gathered was that you found it uninteresting and unpersuasive. Thanks!"
Your following quote was key, key, key, key for me, as you are neither stupid nor uneducated!
"this article left me feeling stupid, or at least uneducated... (Hence the 'due respect' being pointed at the comparison of our education/credibility level)..."
We've talked in class about how a writer imagines an audience and how the writing carves out a space for that audience to occupy in the course of engaging with a text. I think your "secondary reason" is a great example of that rhetorical dynamic. There were barriers to you getting into that space, some of which were created by the page layout--speaking of form/content ;) I love how you talk about needing to dodge around floral wreaths! I like the physical metaphor.
I also thought this was an important point--
"I basically had to photocopy it and take it home, so I was reading a copy of a copy, at least one of which was made on some fairly old machines, which has an obvious negative impact on any visual effects."
We've been talking about writing in a digital age. This is the first mention of photocopiers.
David - Thanks for the recommendation, but I have plenty of hate already. I think I'll skip that one. ;p
ReplyDeleteBeckah - I don't know that I would say I disagree with her ideas. My main problem with the article is the presentation of the ideas. I got from the beginning that she feels the various methods of design analysis are inadequate for certain needs, and I can't say I disagree. After our (rather awesome) class discussion I'm left with the impression that she's arguing we've abandoned content to obsess entirely about form ... but I couldn't tell you what she proposes to do. I see that there is a proposal - I think - but I don't know what it is. I don't see how it ties to Kant ... I'm not even sure what her opinion of Kant *is*. I thought she agreed with him - David seems to think she disagrees. This goes back to what I was saying in an earlier comment about feeling inadequate to the task of reading this particular bit of prose, but I'm not entirely certain the problem is me.
You know, I doubt this will be a popular claim, but I think this article could have benefited dramatically from a good proofreader. Let me give you one example: "Instead, those adjectives are simply and matter-of-factly stated, and so a reader could take from the book that those adjectives are not contingent, that they are neutral in their effects - that they have no effects other than the creation of organized layout -, that they should apply anywhere at all times, that they are not (that is) values."
Maybe that's just a typo, and I'm being overly snarky, but based on the rest of the article I really think that the decision to follow a dash with a comma is intentional, and even if it's not, the fact that it seems to fit in is a problem. I'm frustrated by this, because I overuse appositives and parenthetic statements in my own writing, and I struggle with it because I know that if I let myself abuse them too much, it makes the end result unapproachable to say the least. That's what I see happening here.
There's a certain irony in having so much trouble with the form of an article about the separation of form and content, but from the position of the person having the trouble, said irony is difficult to appreciate.
Dr. S - I took Psych 101 at SUNY Plattsburgh longer ago than I'd care to remember. It was taught by two professors who put together the textbook themselves, but I don't think they had *written* any of it - it was a collection of case studies. I actually liked that, because we got the book for something like $20, which was their cost, and used everything in it, because the book was put together each year at the same time as their lesson plan. I'm also taking Dr. Whelehan's ANTH 150, which uses one book she co-wrote.
ReplyDeleteThe floral wreath thing was the most obvious aspect of the visual issues, but the weird bits where the text ran off into the margins or had random linebreaks were equally problematic for me. The built-in highlighting was especially bad in my opinion, because I can't decide if it was intended as "this part is really important, so pay attention", or a tacit acknowledgment that the article is so confusing the important bits have to be made to stand out.
As to that last, I'm amused - sort of - that I'm the person who seems to be bringing up outdated technology (punch labels, typewriters, blurry copiers). I was delighted today to find that my Mac has Pico available through the terminal - I guess I'm just oldschool (i.e. old).
I think it's hard to come up with a common vocabulary about topics like beauty or what draws a reader/web user in. I mentioned facebook because it draws in users by exploiting the natural human urge to look at our friends (and not say just phone them or read text about them). It exploits the urge to see their face and then sells advertising around it - not saying that is bad. Just saying it works.
ReplyDelete