Skip

The History of Visual Communication
January 29, 2008 4:53 AM   Subscribe


 
This looks awesome, wolfdog.
posted by shothotbot at 5:05 AM on January 29, 2008


I stopped reading at "Wikipedia defines visual communication as:"

Unfortunately, that's in the first paragraph. Just because your students write like that, doesn't mean you should.
posted by exesforeyes at 5:10 AM on January 29, 2008


Mmmmm---dark gray text on black background, subtly communicating "you don't want to read this stuff."
posted by hexatron at 5:27 AM on January 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


I stopped reading at "Wikipedia defines visual communication as:"

And not only that, he leaves the words in at the start of the quote, so we get: "Wikipedia defines visual communication as: 'Visual communication is the communication of ideas through the visual display of information.'"

Maybe spend a little more time on your verbal communication next time.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:23 AM on January 29, 2008


Well, he definitely likes Wikipedia, because the Printing Press chapter appears to be largely plagiarized from there. I think it's especially funny the way the dashes in the first sentence didn't paste correctly, so there's little question marks instead.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:42 AM on January 29, 2008


It's the history of Western visual communication, with a barely perceptible nod to Asian art sometime in the 6th century.

What about the adoption of Hangul in Korea, creating an alphabet that has slowly replaced a logographic system? The conversion of mainland China to simplified characters? The amazing and brutal evolution of the big-character poster during the Cultural Revolution? The modernist synthesis of Western and Eastern aesthetics in Japanese graphic design? The effect of the mobile revolution on everyday written communication in these countries?

I respect the author for his effort, but it's blithe summaries like this that remind me of everything that pissed me off about Art History in college.
posted by xthlc at 6:44 AM on January 29, 2008


her effort, rather.
posted by xthlc at 6:45 AM on January 29, 2008


Hmm. Insipid yet interesting. Quaint. It's disturbing that Art History always manages to be presented as such parlour fluff, smothered under a patina of refinement, and dispassionately authoritative. Visual isn't to be studied under glass anatomically, it's to be argued over, stained, denounced as heresy, as propaganda, cut up , merchandized, and worshipped as absolute truth.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:30 AM on January 29, 2008 [2 favorites]


Visual ^Communication^ isn't


I gnash my teeth at the exclusion of cinema from a narrative of progress that leads to computer graphics.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:33 AM on January 29, 2008


I enjoyed that site a lot! Thanks Wolfdog.
posted by nickyskye at 2:43 PM on January 29, 2008


There are some amazing images collected in there.
posted by romanb at 11:54 PM on January 29, 2008


« Older Thanks for the inspiration, Jeremy.   |   'A mind once stretched by a... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post