Option C: Storytelling plays a vital role in the presentation of information, if done effectively and ethically, according to Yau. As you think about your own visual design project, what story would you like to tell about your focal topic for your audience? How might you design this project? What information may be useful and what is the most effective way to present it? How do you hope to make this story compelling through visuals?
Yau’s Introduction and First Chapter of his book were both informative and fun to read. One aspect of his writing that I found especially intriguing was his point that we need to let our brains find the pattern and trends in data presented to us. This was an important note for me as I begin to think about and plan out my infographic. I want my design to tell an obvious story through the visual designs before one even reads the text. This makes it more pleasing to the viewer and easier to understand. I want to incorporate wedding rings, parents and a child in between them, and a graph about the historical trends of divorce. This, and the colors I choose, will help to represent what my topic is about: divorce. Another thing the author said was that these visuals do not always have to be graphs but can also be art that taps into our emotions. Since my focal topic is divorce, this is definitely pertinent to my topic. My hope is that the parent and child aspect of the design will do this, evoking sympathy. Another point that Yau has is that how it is presented is the determining factor if people are going to remember it or not. Obviously, I want my information to be memorable and therefore I must pay attention to the visual design just as much as the text itself. By incorporating pathos through emotional images I hope to make it impactful.
Into the Wild
Topic: The ideologies communities have that Chris breaks throughout the film (“ideologies live on because we perpetuate them in our discourses and in the ways in which we build and structure our world (physically and socially)” – here they do not)
- Money – burns money when is completely opposite to our beliefs… most people work for this and save it and treasure it
- New car – rejects nice items when normally people love getting the newest things especially for free
- Social security card – burned government form of identity
- Family – leaves family without saying much, people normally believe that family is who you should stick with/trust/depend on
- New name – Chris to Alexander Supertramp: usually people stick with their birth name and keep this as their sense of self
- Getting a permit to kayak- does not do this: breaks rules the community has that people normally follow
- Personal hygiene- constantly dirty which is not really accepted in society, those that are homeless and unkept are outcasts
- Job- creation of 20th century & doesn’t want one
- Google: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
- Our book: a set of presuppositions that influences most everything – people’s family lives, their political choices, their intimate and professional relationships” (185/86)
Upon doing a peer editing session in class today on April 7th, I received, thankfully the feedback that I am headed in the right direction. Those who looked at my paper said that they liked the structure I have set up, and that I do a good job weaving the background story together with the picture’s details itself. They also liked some of the specific observations I made, such as how the doctor is sitting shows it is the “calm after the storm.”
One thing that they noticed, and that I need to change, is the way that I word some things. To be exact they say it is “funky” sometimes. For example, “As a doctor in Poland, a country that believed heart transplantation to be impossible, he was against the majority in deciding to try the transplant once given the okay in August of 1987.” I think that to reword this would be a good idea because it will make it sound more clear and thus highlight my point in a better way. I may change it to say, “Rigela is a doctor in Poland, where the majority of people believed a heart transplant to be impossible. Once he was given the “go ahead” for the surgery in August of 1987, he had many skeptics.” Another example is when I worded something strangely so it made the doctor seem like the surgery was successful because he was a smoker, but I fixed that immediately!
I plan to read through to make sure everything sounds more smooth before submitting a final copy!
This photograph of Dr. Zbigniew Religa was taken after a 23 hour heart transplant, depicting a tired Religa watching the vital signs of his patient. As a doctor in Poland, a country that believed heart transplantation to be impossible, he was against the majority in deciding to try the transplant once given the okay in August of 1987. When he finished successfully, and the patient felt better than ever, he was the first to accomplish this in his country.
“I never let him out of my sight, never turned my back on him,” he says. “This was the payoff.” (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/multi4_interview.html)
Religa was also the Head of Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic in Zabrze. The patient’s name was Tadeusz Zitkevits and he actually went on to outlive the doctor, who had lung cancer from his habit of cigarette smoking, proving the surgery’s success. National Geographic released this photo as one of the 100 most important pictures in history after American photographer James Lee Stanfilnt captured it. Stanfilnt was originally looking for an image that would show the critical state of Poland’s free health-care system, and he had bonded with Religa while being a quiet being in the surgeon’s operating room. Both the patient and the photographer attended Religa’s funeral in 2009.
Things that make the image have more meaning, help to narrate a story, and add drama:
- Religa’s colleague sleeping in the corner
- Blood on the ground
- Mess of tangled cables
- Outdated equipment
- Dimmed lighting
- Subject still on surgical table unconscious
- Small, unprofessional looking room
- Looks like the “calm after the storm”
- Gaze- no one is looking at the camera, two are unconscious and the other seems to be preoccupied and unconcerned with the photographer
George, the kisser, and his now wife, Rita, were on a date to the movies when they found out that the Japanese had surrendered. George, then 22, was a Navy quartermaster on leave from the Pacific. He apparently had seen a lot of action, he said, and was nervously waiting to go back. Leaving the theater, beaming, they went to a bar where George and Rita drank. They went to Times Square, and when George saw a women in a nurse’s outfit he remembered watching with awe as the nurses worked on the patients of war, so he kissed her. The woman he kissed was actually a dentist assistant, named Greta, and George said he was too drunk to even remember the kiss. Rita said she was never upset about it!
The photo was originally conceived as a magical fleeting kiss, showing the happiness of winning the war. Today, we know that the woman, Greta, did not actually like the kiss nor was she a nurse. The photo became an icon for how differently the story was viewed then versus what the actual truth behind it was.
This photograph brings your eyes straight to the kiss as the center of the photo. This is a moment that is stopped in time amongst several people moving in the background. The people in the photograph seem to see the kiss as well and take note of it. The sailor and nurse outfit help to create meaning for the photo- that it is of two people involved in war celebrating the fact that it is over.