Symbolize & Summarize

            Symbolize and summarize. This is the essence of Saul Bass’s work, using simple images and capturing the idea of a movie, a short film, even a corporation in a logo or a few seconds of running credits. Born in the Bronx of New York, Bass lived seventy-five years before passing away of non-Hodgkins lymphoma disease, to be remembered as one of the greatest graphic designers with a career spanning five decades.

            After being awarded a scholarship to attend Brooklyn College, Bass has named two motivators frequently: Howard Trafton from the Arts Students League and Gyorgy Kepes from Brooklyn College (Meggs). Kepes introduced him to both the Bauhaus style (a post-war design that favors simplicity) and Russian Constructivism (an avant-garde movement dedicated to the distortion of modernism). Both are lessons in minimalism and they would arguably have influence over Bass’s style being described as reminiscent of Soviet commercial design in the 1920s (Zimmerman).

            Movie posters, title sequences, iconic logos, these are just a few of the things Bass has influenced over the years. Some of his biggest names in both posters and title sequences include Carmen, the Man with the Golden Arm (what really put him on the map in 1955) the Seven Year Itch, Anatomy of a Murder, North by Northwest, Psycho, West Side Story, the War of the Roses, Goodfellas, and Casino. He has made posters for the Shining and Schindler’s list, although the latter poster went unused.

His logos include the Bell Telephone Logo, AT&T Globe, Continental Airlines, Dixie, and United Way. The sixth AT&T logo created by him once boasted a 93% national recognition rate. Just like his famous title sequences of scrolling lines, the logos themselves show repetition and clean lines that make them extremely iconic. His most prominent collaborations were with the famous directors Alfred Hitchcock, Otto Preminger, Stanley Kubrick, and later Danny Devito and Martin Scorsese.

            Not only does Bass hold the titles of graphic designer, visual consultant, but he has also directed several commercials (Kodak’s “Searching Eye” for the 1964 New York World’s fair), a documentary titled Why Man Creates that would later win an Academy Award, and finally his own feature film Phase IV in 1974. His most famous storyboard collaboration was of the infamous shower scene in Hitchcock’s Psycho (Zimmerman).

            His style is undeniably unique, using simple images and best known for his cut-out designs in title sequences and hand-drawn graphics. Using clear pictures, broken type, and bold lines, he is able to capture the one symbol that represents the essence of the product he is designing for, be it a movie or a corporation. In fact, this unique clarity and insight is best represented through his corporate design work. Bass once described each firm as a person, with its own unique aura and personality that needs to be represented in its logo (Zimmerman).

            Delving deeper into some of Bass’s most famous title sequences allows a viewer to see the complexity behind each of his designs—the cut out arm of the Man with the Golden Arm symbolizes more than a direct representation of the title.

            This movie is depicts a then taboo subject of a heroin addict’s life and recuperation. Although the film’s famous actors (Frank Sinatra) could have easily been used in the poster to draw attention, as most would have done during that time, Bass consistently refused to let the actors speak for the movie; rather the art did. In NotComing.com, website dedicated to Bass’s work, Leo Goldsmith describes the golden arm as a “bent and tortured appendage, reaching out for either redemption or a fix” (Goldsmith). The arm itself not only symbolizes the character’s addiction but also his skill in card playing. Again, Bass has found a singular symbol to depict multiple meanings.

            Working again with Hitchcock, the famous title sequence of North by Northwest was also designed by Bass. Lines enter from both sides, forming what look to be like railroad tracks (a prominent theme in the movie). They finally form into a grid-like image (seen above) that turns into a skyscraper reflecting the street below. The lines not only represent directions, depicted again by arrows in the typography, but the text of the actors names scroll across the screen like the cars in the street. Another representation is the final image of the chaotic city below makes it more probable that a case of mistaken identity (the plot of the movie) could occur (Gilligan). 

            This is a perfect schema for Bass’s title sequences—simple and clean lines are used with text only reading the names of actors, directors, and the title, and yet it prepared the audience for what is to follow. It is a true testament to letting the movie and the art speak for itself; something that has gone out of style even in recent times. In fact, Bass was the first to create such interesting title sequences that he is partially the reason they allowed them to run in the first place. Normally, projectionists were instructed to pull the curtains after the title had showed because of how boring the initial credits were until the Man with the Golden Arm (Meggs).  Title sequences even being showed now owe their creation and ingenuity to Bass.

            One of the last title sequences that Bass produced was for Casino, the Martin Scorsese picture starring Robert De Niro. Similar to the Goodfellas opening, which described that it was based on a true story then a scene of the three main characters, and then finally showed the title, both are Bass’s most famous Mafia movie title sequences. The first scene here shows Sam “Ace” Rothstein getting starting a car and thus setting off the car bomb. As he spirals into a psychedelic hell (pictured above), the viewer gets a glimpse of what is to happen to Ace during the movie—his initial dramatic entrance in an expensive pink suit symbolizing his climb into Vegas’s casino scene via mob connections and his spiraling descent into flaming hell. Again, Bass captures the basis of the movie in the first twenty seconds.

            Having such a classic talent for recognizing the essence of a product and being able to construct it graphically using few lines and simple images makes Saul Bass one of the most prominent graphic designers of our time as well as our parent’s time. Fifty years of commercials, credits, films, and posters by Bass will hopefully influence more designers to minimize their typography and pictures and let the work they are representing speak for itself.

Bibliography

Gilligan, Beth. “Notcoming.com | Titles Designed by Saul Bass.” Notcoming.com | Not Coming to a Theater Near You. 2005. 29 Mar. 2009 <http://www.notcoming.com/saulbass/index2.php&gt;.

Goldsmith, Leo. “Notcoming.com | Titles Designed by Saul Bass.” Notcoming.com | Not Coming to a Theater Near You. 2005. 29 Mar. 2009 <http://www.notcoming.com/saulbass/index2.php&gt;.

Meggs, Phillip B. “Six Chapters in Graphic Design: Saul Bass, Ivan Chermayeff, Milton Glaser, Paul Rand, Ikko Tanaka, Henryk Tomaszewski.” 1997. 29 Mar. 2009 http://www.designmuseum.org/design/saul-bass.

Zimmerman, Paul. Saul Bass on the web – beta. 2005. 29 Mar. 2009 <http://saulbass.tv/&gt;.

Typography Analysis

For this assignment, I chose a cover page for an article, about a 90s-band-gone-indie from a music, film, and culture magazine entitled Paste (February 08). Although it isn’t anywhere online, it’s fairly simple to describe: three film strips run horizontally across a yellow page spelling out “Beautiful Beat: Nada Surf Rides on” in all capital letters. In between each film strip are the words “Nada Surf managed to parlay a dopey one-hit wonder into a credible career,”,”switching from a major label to a beloved indie and gaining a considerable fanbase.”,”Now back with their fifth LP, Lucky, they’re done trying to please anyone besides themselves.” The strips themselves are transparent, with pictures of the band caught in the first, the second becoming blurrier, and the third finally just showing streaks of colors. All of the letters done on this page are capital, including author and photographer name, in a smaller size on the third strip.

In total, there are two fonts are used and six sizes (although the film strips also have their own type that say “Fuji RHP III 29,” and it lends to the credibility of the photo strip. The bigger and bolder letters that introduce the title of the article are clear, and being put against the background of the photos going “faster” depict the title actually “riding on,” like the band is said to be doing in their career. It is also fitting the last segment in between enhances the band “being done.” By the bottom of the page, you can no longer see their faces in the film strip and it helps to enhance the image of them being past what people care, and even past the view of the reader.

As there are two different things going on vertically (line 1, line a, line 2, line b, line 3, line c), the eye is at first overwhelmed with both sets of texts, not really focusing on which one to read. I saw the letters in between easier than if I read the actual title, and it would have probably been too exhausting to read the storyline in the huge, transparent text. On the other hand, the biggest letters are in the middle, depicting the band’s name on top of the hazy photograph of them. The top line, in smaller capital letters reads “Beautiful Beat:”, and it almost animates the page even more, the strip seems to be ‘beating’ as it continues flashing down the page. 

Although there are only two fonts going on, there are a lot of sizes and three styles: purple clear, and yellow on top of a yellow, almost burnt page. The images on the film strips help to portray a moving design that is also (not coincidentally) the topic of the band’s movement. It works very well as a cover page for the article, and still held my interest after 10 minutes, but once you start to realize the movement of the page and film as you read down, after about a half an hour of looking at this, I’m starting to feel sick.

Helvetica Movie Notes

(1) Should type be expressive? Must you write the word “dog” in such a way that it represents a dog? It makes sense that the answer is no. In the same way, does putting a joke in Comic Sans make it funnier?

(2) Helvetica (1957) came about because there was a need for a typeface that could produce language in an intelligeble, legible, reasonable, clean, yet modern way. If it is so clear, readable, and straightforward, must it be applied to each topic? What if the topic itself is not meant to clear and straightforward?

(3) Computers have nothing to do with better design, that is inherent. All they can do is speed up the work, not the creativity. Is that why Helvetica is used; because it’s neutrality does not coincide with the human creativity aspect of say, a poster? Is this typeface what helps separate the computer from the person?

(4) Is Helvetica the preferred typeface because it is the closest to perfect readable personal writing? If not, why isn’t the most popular style that which most closely resembles the actual (clean, legible) writing of a person?

(5) Why is Helvetica named “the swiss typography;” why is it not named for its characterstics (such as Comic sans), such as Clean, Simple, Neutral, detc. Has it remained Helvetica because of the Swiss tradition, and if so, does America  have any typeface (that we could be proud of; not stars and stripes word art)?

(6) Someone talks about the smoothness of the letter that is still human; aren’t we as children taught to write in cursive? Why do we not use a clean looking cursive type face if curve and smoothness is what we’re looking for?

(7) Although Helvetica has clearly improved typefaces and certain ads, as well as invited people to discussion, are there any people who, when Helvetica came out, felt an aversion to it and how many of those refused to use it?

(8) Carnal empathy of the human–we don’t know it’s there, but we miss it when it’s gone. Does or can this really apply to a typeface? It seens vaguelydull.

(9) The Helvetica survey she (I cannot remember the woman’s name)created (based on the Regan election) is actually terribly inaccurate (she admits to having no data whatsoever when she composed this).

(10) The man that says how boring Helvetica is, and the fonts that are shown post his comment (almost a more indie version), seems to be more human-like, more life-like, as if somebody had actually written it instead of it being typed up quickly on a computer. Although I agree that this kind of typeface seems more interesting, but the Helvetica, the Times New Roman, the Sans Serif of our times seems to give more credibility to the information. It leaves the reader to interpret the context versus the typeface, a concept that most people in the movie expressed. Which is more preferable in an educational setting, in the music industry, in our new information age, etc, or does there have to be a difference?

(11)  There is a certain argument that saying it is more difficult to design a typeface for a certain musical cover, for a certain poster defining a certain argument, etc. Does the creativity of the object (movie, cd, artistic poster) then define what kind of typeface you should use; then again, the more creative the project is, shouldn’t it be able to speak for itself and thus use Helvetica? This seems like a repetitive question and comment made throughout the movie, with differing opinions–cleanliness in language so that the idea itself could communicate or the typeface of the language speaking for it. Which do you prefer?

(12) Is it possible that the typeface SHOULD be different from Helvetica because when we read a typeface, we really are only able to use one sense? Because we can only see, not touch, not smell, not taste the language, shouldn’t the typeface be as interesting as it could be to draw our attention?

(13) One comment was that the more restrictions there are, the happier the designer was. Does this mean restrictions to overcome, or the overall structure should have more restrictions so again, the content makes its way through more clearly?

Rhetorical Project

Romanian Ad & American Ad

I took a slightly different approach to this assignment and instead picked two cultures which I am both familiar hoping that I can compare and contrast what would work in both societies and what would not in a more informed way.

First, we have the American ad for the Dodge Caliber:

The bottom line reads “It’s anything but cute.” This would work well in a Western society because of the cliche often observed in movies, cartoons, and other mediums. It is possible that it is an American idea to ‘goof off’ at work’, even though this copying of the back of the car also lends it an odd and unmistakably uncomfortable air of sexuality. Either way, to put this advertisement up in Europe or South America or Africa wouldn’t work. It works well for the audience it is designed for; we understand the joke behind it and we also understand the language. But to others, “cute” is not a word to really describe a piece of machinery in the first place. It raises the question that if it is not cute, then what is it? Dangerous? Lazy at work? Sneaky? These could be answered by people to whom the ad is directed to; people who work in offices or know the general bias of what office life is like. They may see this is as a play on their own jobs and thus be able to connect to it. Instead of Berger’s idea of “envy,” they may see this car as “one of their own.” This wouldn’t work the same way in Romania, for example, although there are a fair amount of office jobs, the practice of copying something ‘naughty’ on the copier machine isn’t a common idea. (Maybe it’s the communist era still lingering).

Next up is an ad from Romania, one from an animal adoption center.

In the small box on the bottom right hand corner, it translates to “A dog will love you as you are. Adopt one.” This little terrier is following Bush, which is clearly a poke at our past president. Although this ad is older than our recent election, it could work just as well for a liberal or Democratic (or sane) audience in the West before Obama was selected president. It does, however, define the European attitude in two ways: first, that the Bush presidency was not well taken to (and this is coming from people who executed their dictator ten years ago), and second, the ad promotes an empathetic stance towards animals. It’s a funny irony; to poke fun at a person while promoting love for an animal. The way it is presented is also relatively simple; unlike the previous ad, it requires no photoshopping or editing, just a small caption in the corner. The picture speaks for itself, as opposed to the American ad which left a bit of allure with the ‘cute tagline.’ 

On the other hand, going back to the ‘abstract’ theory, the first ad does leave room for different interpretations while the second pretty much lays it all out on the table. But both take similar approaches to advertising–they use something completely unrelated to promote their cause or product. The car commercial uses office antics, and the animal shelter uses Bush to promote the adoption of dogs. This tactic works well for both ads; the difference just happens to lie in their audience.

Watching, Waiting, Dreaming

Instead of just one, there are three pictures that make up an entire image that come together to form one powerful statement: peace. Three powerful and well known men stare back: Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Their portraits are drawn in what looks like pencil and pen, but exquisitely detailed and accurate. Below their faces, in plain and capital letters are three words: watching, waiting, and dreaming.

            The author of this poster is trying to send a message using three role models that represent serenity and harmony, three men that have fought for justice and equality in history. The adjectives associated with them calm the reader into a transient state; their faces are calm, the Dalai Lama has a hint of a smile on his face, and Martin Luther King, Jr. really does look like he’s staring off into a brighter future. This ideal of peace is signified through their faces and through the actions described.

            Several messages can hit the reader at the same time; should the viewer watch, wait and dream? Or should the viewer think what is going on in the world is not fit for what these three men have fought for? They have watched, seen violence and hate, waited through wars and discrimination, and dreamed of a better world. Have we as people, as viewers of this illustration and as authors of our own world, produced the future they deserved? Maybe the author isn’t sending a message so much as he’s asking a question.

            The design of pencil drawings and simple block letters is simple because the ideal of peace itself is simple; the people and their backgrounds bring the complexity to the design. Each come from different religions and their own times of strife; some have faced religious problems, violence, and discrimination, but they have all been patient through their tribulations and still appear so in their portraits. Choosing such well-known men is also part of the clear design; no matter what part of history they have come from, they have all fought for the same thing. Thus the design compliments the ideas and questions the author wants to arise in the viewer; simple but complex, in the past and in the future.

Blog Definition: LifeHacker

Life Hacker

 

For most of my online time, I follow a series of blogs that are all conveniently linked to each other. Lifehacker, my latest rage of the moment, is the best to describe for this purpose because of its popularity, well designed page, and actual useful information (as opposed to, say, Jalopnik; nobody reads about cars anymore). The theme of www.lifehacker.com is basic tips on how to make your life easier, including free Mac and PC downloads to share, how to organize your time better, and new years resolutions you should avoid because you’ll never be able to keep them, just to name a few. Their own catch line is “tips and downloads for getting things done,” and they really do a very nice job.

            Granted, it’s not quite as humorous as some of the other blogs connected to it, but the format is the cleanest. The most popular or newest four or five stories are displayed on top, along with an advertisement; to the left you have the other blogs associated (Jalopnik, Gawker, Jezebel, etc), in the middle are the posts in more detail, and finally to the right the latest comments can be read connected to the posts in the middle. The design is nothing too extravagant; being both simple white and green, the only thing that really pops up are the pictures or advertisements shown on top. It’s calming in that I don’t have to try to chase and exit one of the scrolling pop-up ads that follows you as you click down the page.

            The content is also fairly well done, and when you click on one of the posts, a few organized pictures show up, along with clear font, and a white background. I might be biased here, but I’ve never been one for the semi dark gray/pink background with the little hearts and stars falling down. At the bottom of each post, people comment with suggestions or their own opinions on the tips involved. Several links related to the subject can also be found near the bottom of the post.

            Keeping this in mind, I tend to agree with Webster’s definition, but it lacks something. It’s like calling a door a piece of wood that has a circular knob; it would be missing the entire purpose of what the door does, that is to be an entrance from room to room (I know that’s not how Webster would define a door, just equating the two definitions). I much prefer to think of a blog as a website that either focuses on a specific topic or is based on personal experiences, with access not only for other people to read it, but to comment and suggest their own input. It’s like one huge Facebook “wall” devoted to a particular topic. It also allows the freedom of anonymity while sharing ideas or thoughts that would otherwise be too sensitive in regular conversations. It’s really an open source guest book, at a hotel called the Internet, where everybody signs his or her name after staying a while. Even the dates are included.

Album Cover Design: Ramones

RAMONES

 

The Ramones self-titled debut album cover is among the most memorable of all album covers. Four solemn, grungy, arguably homeless teenagers with black leather jackets and torn jeans peek out under ragged, black hair and sunglasses. Their band name is above them, in simple white block letters. The background is probably an alley on the wrong side of town, half rotting bricks and half graffiti. Their scowling faces remind you that they don’t care about you, whether you buy this album, whether you like their music, or whether they’re about to get mugged in that sketchy alley. In fact, they’re unbelievably bored with everything around them.

            It’s love at first sight. Primitive, black and white, stark, everything a teenager in the 70s (and arguably today) wants to be. It’s not just the air of “whatever” they portray, but the idea behind it. Not one of these men? teens? beggers? seem to have a decently fitting piece of clothing. Nothing is proper about them, and yet the comfort they exude, this almost lewd and inappropriate suaveness is intimidating and attractive. It makes the viewer crave to know how they can be so comfortable with the way they look. Could it be possible that their music is so good it doesn’t matter that Didi’s emactated belly is sticking up above his jeans? Or is their music just as they are—free of glitter and that shiny, clean, annoyingly poppy feel that the Beatles so proudly radiated just a decade before them?

            This album cover challenged everything that was attractive at the time, from music to fashion to attitude. In a way, it’s a reminder of the Beatles’ white album, clean and simple, but ironically more so. The Ramones didn’t care enough to make a statement. Their raw attitude, their own unwashed faces are enough to get the point across. “There’s no need to be so artsy about it,” they seem to be scoffing at the Beatles.

            The best part is how well the album cover represents the actual music. It’s gritty, it’s raw, it’s black and white and right in your face. And the listener feels this intimidation right from the moment they see the cover—the Ramones are saying, “Listen, if you don’t get this, and you won’t by the looks of you, well we don’t really give a ****.” And it is right at that moment that the listener so badly wants to be a part of what the Ramones stand for—confidence when there is really nothing to be that confident about. They make it seem so simple; like all you have to do is listen and look. It’s all there in black and white.