Artifact

Because my post this week involved framing, I wanted to look at the ways frames affect price in a less traditional sense than framed paintings. The above image is a photo of Fannie May candy in a special holiday box. As I've written about before, I work at Fannie May and am therefore very familiar with price and how prices change depending on something as simple as a box.

Candy is traditionally packed in simple white boxes at $22.99/lb. However, if a customer decides they want their candy "framed" by a decorative box such as the one in the photo above, the price of the box jumps from $22.99 to $24.99. Interestingly, we do not charge extra if we wrap boxes for customers, which frames the candy differently than a simple white box. There are probably reasons associated with payroll and labor hours for why decorative boxes are more expensive--but it is additional labor for associates to wrap boxes as well, and the price does not change. During holidays, it can be an additional cost for gift wrapping elsewhere.

Another example of a price increase due to how a product is framed is with our chocolate roses. A chocolate rose is regularly $4.49, but a chocolate rose that is wrapped in cellophane and tied with a bow is $4.99. Again, this takes little to no effort and minimal amounts of material, yet we charge extra because it is a more attractive way to "frame" the product. Again, if we did not offer roses wrapped in cellophane and tied with a ribbon and a customer happened to ask us to do that, we wouldn't even think twice about charging them, just like we don't charge extra to gift wrap for them. However, according to the corporate office, an attractive chocolate rose is worth 50 cents more than a plain one.

Again, as mentioned in the previous post, framing causes others (in this case, consumers) to interpellate and decode items differently. Something that is framed attractively is more costly than something that is not, and I've never had a customer question that fact--it is simply an accepted fact in our society.

Frames

Something that I have always taken for granted in design was framing. As the textbook states, framing is very ubiquitous. As Lupton and Phillips state on page 101:

"Frames are everywhere. A picture frame sets off a work of art from its surroundings, bringing attention to the work and lifting it apart from its setting. Shelves, pedestals, and vitrines provide stages for displaying objects. A saucer frames a tea cup, and a place mat outlines the pieces of a table setting."

These are such commonplace objects that I never even considered them to be frames. Something that we discussed in class that I found interesting was the expense of framing a painting or photograph. As we discussed in class, the intricacy and expense of a frame can speak volumes about what is being framed--it can even change the amount the framed material is worth. We discussed invaluable prints being professionally framed with hundred (even thousand) dollar frames, as well as original, expensive pieces of work being framed with cheap frames from the store. The way something is framed can change the way it is decoded entirely.

The chapter discusses interfaces as a kind of frame--buttons on a TV, toolbars on a software program, etc. The authors write on page 101:

"The buttons on a television set, the index of a book, or the toolbars of a software application exist outside the central purpose of the product, yet they are essential to our understanding of it. A hammer with no handle or a cell phone with no controls is useless."

I found this passage fascinating because I never would have considered an interface (like a hammer's handle) to be a type of frame--but now that it is brought to my attention, it makes sense completely. Even the ways an image is cropped can be considered a frame, even though there is an absence of traditional frame or border that acts as a frame, meaning that even the lack of a frame can be a frame.

Framing, in the traditional sense, not only ascribes importance to the material being framed, but it even denotes to others what that material is worth to the person that has (or does not have) the material framed. If you were a visitor in somebody's home who had several unframed paintings propped against the wall, you would either think they haven't had a chance to frame them yet, or that the paintings simply held no value to the person you were visiting. Framing denotes importance in many ways.

Layers, Transparency, and Hierarchy

One of the most powerful design principles that we have read about so far is layers. Photoshop uses layers, and they can be very effective design choices. It is easy to add or remove them, and the addition or removal of even a single layer can change a creative work immensely.

Something about layers that caught my attention in the reading was the following passage, found on page 142 of Graphic Design: The New Basics:


"In everyday life as well as in films and animations, multiple stories can unfold simultaneously. A person can talk on the phone while folding the laundry and hearing a song in the background. In films, characters often carry on a conversation while performing an action."

Layers, then, are a natural part of life, so no wonder they cross over into our creative measures. Transparency, another design principle, plays well with the principle of layering. With transparency, layers can overlap without full opacity, therefore adding hierarchical meaning to the images and text as well as creating a less "blocky" layer. By a "blocky" layer, I mean similar to a magazine collage, which has transparency that cannot be altered by means of computer software.

As the book states on page 147:

"Transparency and layers are related phenomena...a viewer thus perceives the transparency of one plane in relation to a second one. What is in front, and what is behind? What dominates, and what recedes?"

Again, this brings in another design principle--hierarchy. The pieces that are readily seen, larger, brighter, and more opaque generally catch the viewer's attention first, and are therefore interpellated as being more important in the image.

Artifact

In class, we chose postcards to analyze given the design principles we read for the week. My postcard was an advertisement/invitation to the Illinois Shakespeare Festival. The most noticeable part of the postcard was the woman in the center in full Shakespearean makeup. Even though she was the most evident item to a viewer of the postcard, she was not necessarily the most important, for the postcard used three of the design principles (layering, transparency, and hierarchy) which subtly stated otherwise. However, the transparency was not the most effective (nor the most obvious) design principle in use.

Besides the background (the first layer), and the model (the second layer), there was at least one more layer present. This layer featured gold text (the textual invitation) and a gold and blue layer of design in the bottom left corner. This graphic, in my opinion, was merely present to add flair and creativity to the design. The graphic featured curled lines, reminiscent of the model’s curly hair. This design covered the lower left side of the model pictured—the gold was opaque and the blue was transparent over the model’s skin. I did not see a reason for this transparency besides making the design interesting.

The layer of text also covered the model, but not much of her. Mostly, the text covered her hair, showing that this was the most forefront layer. The text was opaque, not transparent. Though the model was the focal point for the viewer, the text was the most hierarchical item of importance. Without the text, the viewer would not know what the purpose of the postcard was—it would merely be a pretty picture of a pretty model.

Also included in this layer was a small Shakespeare Festival logo in the bottom right corner. Again, this was an opaque layer that semi-covered the model, also showing its hierarchy of importance. Again, without this logo, the postcard would have no meaning—it would be an invitation, but for what? Though it is more important than the model pictured, it is much smaller than the text in the upper left corner—therefore in the design hierarchy, it is more important than the model, but less important than the actual textual invite.

This image is a similar postcard design but does not include the text or Illinois Shakespeare Festival logo. However, you can see the opaque gold graphic against the blue transparent graphic.

Artifact

While I was watching the Bears game today, a certain commercial caught my attention. It can be viewed at the following youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62PTmoFjEmQ

This commercial fits in with what we were talking about in class a couple of weeks ago--the use of sex appeal to acquire the gaze of the opposite sex, as well as the use of sex appeal for same-sex empowerment. It is obvious that, even though this is a woman's product, the marketing in this advertisement is geared toward men. Though women do watch sports on TV, it is a general assumption that the majority of the viewers are male, therefore the timing the commercial was shown at and the station it was shown on is integral to the analysis of the ad. Though everybody knows that "sex sells," and nothing really shocks me anymore, I was shocked for a brief second. Because of this ad, I don't think I would ever buy Reebok shoes. It is evident by the commercial that Reebok's interest lies in reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than producing high-quality, comfortable, versatile running shoes for women.

This advertisement sparked a rhetorical discussion with my boyfriend. I argued that this commercial might persuade husbands and boyfriends to purchase these shoes as a gift to their wives and girlfriends because the commercial may lead them to believe, "if she wears those shoes, she will look like that woman." This is obviously untrue, but the fact that the holidays are coming up is another reason why this advertisement is kairotic. As a woman, I do not feel empowered by this commercial, but rather, I feel isolated. If the commercial had mentioned other aspects about these shoes other than the ways in which they (might) tone my muscles, I would think of Reebok as a much more credible company. Instead, I am annoyed by the ad. Since when are running shoes about toning muscles? It is not the shoes that does that work, but the exercise itself.

Also interesting to look at are the comments on the youtube video--there seems to be a lot of hatred toward what some of the users dub "feminists". Several users say that the marketers are smart to use the method that helps sell their products. It may be a smart marketing strategy because it has been proven to work--but is it ethical? Just because someone rhetorically analyzes the advertisement and explores both sides doesn't necessarily make him or her a "feminist." (On the same token, the title "feminist" doesn't have to be negative.)