All three articles brought something new to the table. Dondis has definitely the most concise explanations toward the information that is proposed. Whether it's the way we receive visual messages, "representationally, abstractly, or symbolically", this sort of frame work seems to be where Bang gets her theory from. Molly Bang shows abstract shapes, and attaches reason as to why their is an emotional weight to them. As humans, we seem to place ideas of our world into the images we see, such as gravity, symmetry, or even common phrases such as, "he's in the corner". These ideas can give certain tensions to an image no matter how abstract they may be, and the spatial element of visual communication is a key component. Shore on the other hand, tends to work with actual photographs, and talks about the four components that make a photograph: flatness, frame, time and focus. All of these dimensions show that a miniature world exists within a photo, and depending on how these elements are conveyed, will have a cause and effect on the photo.
From what I understand, with visual composition, there are different ways in conveying meaning. Photography, and visual images can go for more of the abstract, thus conveying meaning through the rhetoric of images. Tensions, emotions, gravity, framing, are all ways in which a picture can tell a story, on the other hand, words perform rhetoric through sentences, and the act of being told something. An image however can only be shown to a viewer, but not given a script for the symbolism. Thus the two modes perform differently in their respected medium.
Knowing how to convey meaning through the use of emotion will be important. I never knew that certain shapes and spacing can cause such an internal feeling when looking at such abstract images. Dondis says, "Vision defines the act of seeing in all of it's ramifications". By attaching emotional weight through the subliminal placement of our posters, we'll hopefully be able to convey meaning of some sort.
No comments:
Post a Comment