October 30, 2006 at 8:46 am · Filed under Uncategorized
I’ve been doing a survey about people’s perceptions of the “personality” of evolution. Below is one of the responses I received. I’m glad I got this question because I thought a lot about this and I really don’t know what the “correct” method would be.
gabe - maybe it’s just me but I got all the way to question 25 and then gave up. I just don’t understand your questions.
survey participant
My response:
yeah… Starting with question 25 I attempt to address people’s perceptions of the “evolution alternative.” It’s not supposed to make a whole lot of sense for those of us that agree with evolution as an explanation because our conception of the alternative is usually termed “creationism.” For fundamentalists, “God’s truth in the Bible” is all there is. Evolution is just as wacky to them as “God’s truth in the Bible” might be for you and me.
It’s my modest attempt to control for the nature in which language is used in the internal discourses surrounding these ideas. I’m not as interested in how evolution’s proponents see creationism as I am in how they perceive fundamentalist views. Likewise, I’m curious to see how those that do not believe that humans descended from earlier species of animals view “God’s Truth in the Bible.” My thought is, if you can empathize with someone or something, you can understand them and yourself better.
cheers
gabe
October 29, 2006 at 8:15 am · Filed under Uncategorized
I was recently compelled to comment on a post I ran across on the A&D+ blog. It picked up a release from boingboing about an artist Binh Danh who has elegantly made artworks using the patterns created in leaves during the processs of photosynthesis .
Though the images and constructions are intriguing and may be the first time used in the context of contemporary art, the technique was not likely “invented” by Danh. Howard Gest of Indiana University recalls how the technique was developed by Hans Molisch around the same time that Gregor Mendel’s notions of inheritance were gaining acceptance (Photosynthesis Research 30: 49-59, 1991). Molisch’s “starch pictures” demonstrate the process of photosynthesis and can be created by staining the starch granules (1914, 1920; cited in Gest 1991).
Following Gest (1991):
Place a Geranium Plant in darkness for two days to deplete the starch reserves. Then, remove a leaf with its attached petiole from the plant and place on a black cloth moistened with a dilute solution of baking soda (to provide some CO2 for photosynthesis). Sandwich the leaf and the cloth between two glass plates with the petiole protruding and immersed in water. Expose the leaf to a high intensity image for at least an hour. In order to reveal the pattern of starch granules produced by photosynthesis, the chlorophyll and other pigments can be extracted in a beaker containing boiling 80% alcohol. The leaf can then be stained with iodine. The result is an image for which an analogy is created between silver granules and starch granules.
The trick that Dahn may have figured out is how to fix the images. Photosynthetically-produced images have a tendency to fade after awhile. If he has figured it out, I hope he publishes the techniques somewhere.
For more information visit:
‘On the production of Photographs in Foliage Leaves’ by Hans Molisch (1914) *pdf (via http://jollysocratic.blogspot.com)
Pictorial demonstrations of Photosynthesis by Hangarter and Gest (2004) *pdf (via http://jollysocratic.blogspot.com)
Roger Hangarter’s plant projects page
Bacterial Films and Mutated Grasses @ semeiotica
October 27, 2006 at 9:36 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
What is the relationship between an emotion or effect on the viewer and the cinematography used to create it? How are personalities created on film?
In this exercise students were asked to identify the camera placements, angles, and movements as well as the lenses and lighting that could be used to create a particular effect. I gave students lists of personality traits as their starting point. In our analysis of films we’ve typically done the reverse- where we identify the effect or emotion created by particular techniques of cinema.
The personalities traits I gave students are among those identified in Dimensions of Brand Personality by Jennifer Aaker (Journal of Marketing Research, 1997). The general categories included excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Students examined 3-4 traits in small groups before presenting their results to the class. Here are the results (page links out).
October 24, 2006 at 9:07 am · Filed under Uncategorized
I spent last week at Elsewhere. This was a skeptical undertaking on my part because I was unsure how the experience would relate to my thesis project and to the deliverables I need to finish in the upcoming weeks. I have also been skeptical of educational endeavors that have vague goals or lack explicit activities that will support the attainment of those educational goals. This doesn’t mean that the trip lacked these things- only that I had to make a big stretch to relate them to me. I felt like I would be closed to new experiences if I had stayed behind. Plus, I despeately want to find some sense of what expert-like process entails in the art & design community. So I went. Generally I make every effort just to observe or interact with others’ processes.
This experience did have a lot to offer, but I think it would had a better effect on me earlier in my educational sequence- i.e. when the notions of ordering and cataloguing things and artifacts had greater significance to my research practice. I also felt closed off from the world, trapped in a closed system of objects and signifiers. That is, to a degree, the point of the residency, but my goal is to explicitly deal with existing social problems and the systems that constrain and define them in the “real” world.
Nonetheless, the opportunity for reflection and heterotopia does offer unseen possibilities for “mental recombination.” In that sense, some casual gleanings from long-forgotten biology and science texts yielded some important pairings of images, text, thought, and presence.
Since I have been working explicitly on how to re-represent evolution, the connections made at this particular juncture were beneficial. They provided an uncommon breakthrough that connects 3D structures with time and conventional two-dimensional representations. Perhaps even a new visual language will ensue…stay tuned…
October 10, 2006 at 8:24 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller, The Muriel Lake Incident, 1999, Wood, audio, video projection and steel, 72 1/2 x 90 1/4 x 62″. All images courtesy of Luhring Augustine.
(…for BOMB magazine. I’ve just linked it here of course.)
Janet Cardiff’s work is a precedent that I’d like to emulate.
Some of her work might be characterized as augmented reality- where images or multimedia overlap with real space and the viewer’s experience of space. My experiences with the work have been transformative- such as spennding time in the upper floors of PS1 in Queens, NY shortly after 9/11 roaming among the speakers voicing “40 Part Motet” as the sun set over Manhattan.
October 10, 2006 at 8:02 am · Filed under Uncategorized
This is a working outline for my thesis project. If you would like to know more, please contact me.
I. definitions
II. reasons
III. process/timelines
IV. written thesis outline
V. brainstorms
I.
What exactly is a brand?
A brand is:
• The sensory; emotive, and cultural proprietary image surrounding a company or product.
• An assurance of quality, making selection worry-free.
• A significant source of competitive advantage and future earnings.
• A promise of performance.
• An enhancement of perceived value and satisfaction through associations that remind and
entice customers to use the product.
• Arguably, a company’s most important asset.
(from TechnoBrands: how to create & use “brand identity” to market, advertise & sell technology products by Chuck Pettis. New York : AMACOM, c1995.)
Rebranding and Repositioning
Rebranding is the process by which a product or service or idea developed with one brand or company or product line affiliation or organizational affiliation is marketed or distributed with a different identity. This involves radical changes to the brand’s logo, brand name, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. It usually results in the repositioning of the brand and/or company. It may just involve merely superficial changes. Rebranding can be applied to either new products, mature products, or even unfinished products. The process can be done purposely (for example as a result of a deliberate change in strategy), or result from unplanned, emergent, or reactive dynamics (for example after attacks by well-funded, clearly targeted creationist interests).
Often, rebranding is necessary when one company acquires another, along with its products. For example, Evo-Devo, now a part of the Evolutionary Biology “line” was first know as Developmental Biology prior to synthesis in the early 1990’s. Evolutionary Psychology is one example of an extension of evolutionary theory that remains cautiously regarded in the evolution community and thus maintains a tenative relationship to classical evolutionary biology.
In marketing, positioning is the technique by which marketers try to create an image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product, brand, idea or organization. It is the ‘relative competitive comparison’ their product occupies in a given market as perceived by the target market. In this case, “evolution”
Positioning is something (perception) that is done in the minds of the target market.
Re-positioning involves changing the identity of a product, relative to the identity of competing products, in the collective minds of the target market.
(adapted from the wikipedia entry on rebranding)
Why branding is important:
Brands reflect consumers’ self-concepts
• Thoughts and feelings about ourselves and what we express to others
• Possessions that make up our sense of self or character traits (e.g. high concept in film)
• We express ourselves through brands that reflect actual and/or desired personalities
(from lecture notes by Professor Andy Gershoff, University of Michigan Business School)
II.
GOAL: Gain “market share” and Reposition the “Evolution” Brand Without Losing Brand Equity.
Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005. After 20 years of public debate, the public appears to be divided evenly in terms of accepting or rejecting evolution, with about one in five adults still undecided or unaware of the issue.
(Miller et al. Science Vol. 313, 11 Aug 2006)
Why: Cultural, ethical, and environmental consequences….
At a time when evolutionary biology is increasingly important in medicine, agriculture,
and environmental science, antagonism towards evolution has the potential to negatively
impact the development of sound public policy about our economic and environmental
well being. More broadly, the divisiveness of the debate promotes distrust of scientists,
reduces support for the funding of basic science, and undermines science education at all
levels. Given the unarguable importance of a strong scientific infrastructure for solving
the diverse problems faced by humankind, making progress on the evolution-creationism
controversy should be a high priority for individual scientists and scientific societies.
(Pigliucci et al. 2006. Countering the Wedge: A multi-pronged, multi-year strategy to oppose creationism and intelligent design in the science curriculum of public schools)
III.
Process path (deadlines in parentheses):
1. Define segmentation: who are the groups to focus on (September)
2. Discover motivations; identify factors affecting decision-making process (internal, external, etc) (September-October)
3. Identify personality traits (if possible) that are associated with “evolution” relative to “religion” (October)
4. Define desired or target personality trait(s) for “evolution” (October)
5. Relate attributes (already defined by “Evolution and Society” whitepaper) to personality traits (late October)
6. Design to incorporate personality traits with attributes (late October-February)
a. Science for design
b. Design review/augmentation focus groups
7. Thesis exhibition/distribution (March)
8. Written thesis strategy document (April)
a. Context and process of the project
b. Rebranding strategies
9. Intervene in decision-making process (not within thesis scope/post-MFA stage)
10. Distribute to segment via associated medium (post-MFA stage)
11. Assess outcome (post-MFA stage)
IV.
Working Thesis Outline (written chapters)
1. Introduction: boundary work: semi-permeable membranes
2. Fields: disciplines and tensions
3. Assumptions: cognitive bias; relationships between art/biology; artificial selection
4. Specialization: genomics, evolutionary biology
5. Methods: social semiotics; applications of cognitive bias; art & design
6. Concepts & Myths: connections; identifying the systems of relationships (carnival, nursery,
chapel, lab); displays; outcomes
7. Applications: cognitive justice; public perceptions (rebranding)
a. Evolution, evolutionary biology, The Society for the Study of Evolution
b. The Genome
Thesis Schedule and Deadlines (from grad handbook)
These guidelines pertain mostly to the written portions of the thesis. No guidelines except those with asterisks pertain to creative work. My amendments to the sequence are in italics.
End of fourth semester MFA committee selection.
End of fourth semester Thesis proposal (End-of-Year Review committee).
After fourth semester Focused work begins.***
Beginning of fifth semester Presentation of thesis proposal to thesis committee and re-negotiation of thesis requirements and expectations.
Mid fifth semester Outline of the thesis to committee Chair. (beginning 5th semester)
Include all sections as described in Format requirements below.
Two weeks Outline comments returned from chair.
First week of February Thesis first draft to committee Chair. Include
all sections as described in Format requirements below. (beginning January)
Two weeks First draft comments returned from chair.
First week of March Thesis second draft, one copy to each committee member. Include all sections (with illustrations/ figures/tables/animations/video sequences/sound-bites) as described in Format requirements below. (Move to Feburary)
Two weeks Second draft comments returned from committee.
Middle of April Thesis final draft to committee Chair. (April 1st)
One week Final draft suggested revisions returned from chair.
V.
Initial brainstorms…
1. Student blogs: by grad student researchers and/or post-docs; focus on process; keeps
public and advisors informed; builds writing, visual, and web dissemination skills
2. Bumper Stickers: public visibility and affiliation
3. Art contests: what is the diversity of visual answers to “evolution”?
4. Media lobbyist: Screen writing contests
5. Brand management: how does demographic change affect the perception of evolutionary
biology?
6. Clearing site for evolutionary biology the brand…maintains affiliations and linkages
7. Involve stakeholders in positioning of evolution in relation to society- NOT JUST
EXPERTS from the societies!
