Notes on Campaign designs

Scholz & Friends for BUND
Every 60 Seconds:f2333021288885-562feaee8a521

“Using endangered animals caught between the minute hand and hour hand on clocks to remind readers that every 60 seconds a species dies out.”

  • being crushed, very morbid imagery of the aftermath comes to mind
  • screaming in pain/fear
  • time cannot stop, their situation cannot improve if donations aren’t made
  • using a parent and child creates empathy
  • people understand the innate desire of survival, especially that of a child


TBWA\Hunt\Lascaris for Endangered Wildlife Trust
Looking at every _____ left in _____ :


  • contrast of image size and white space show how little are left
  • also shows how many there could be in the vast white space
  • gives a count at the bottom of each poster, having a precise number adds to shock factor too
  • shows the species living their life,  audience able to see what should be saved


Ogilvy for WWF
What will it take before we respect the planet? :


  • vandalism contrasts heavily with the overall image
  • using a cute face/face of a mammal increases appeal to humans and therefore more intriguing/disgusting
  • can be very clever if used in areas with heavy graffiti
  • the starkness of the background creates worry/fear for the animal friends


Alexander Nedelev 
It’s not a game anymore:


  • using a widely known character/layout would attract general attention
  • “pac-man” is a literal consumer of, in this case, forests
  • brings reality to the video game metaphor by providing facts of the deforestation
  • one forest icon remaining in the stage easily represents the eager consumption
  • again bringing the reality of there being a bigger shortage of forests


Lowe Bull for Anti-animal cruelty league
Stop the Abuse:


  • horrible weather = horrible situation
  • able to understand the strength that goes into a goal kick
  • able to fear the pain the dog would go through
  • simple metaphor for the animal being objectified and seen as something free to harm


We have created a new application for London Legal Support Trust’s Walk event, it’s a redesign of the 2015 application that exists only in Apple store.

The features that are included in this is:

A donation page, make donations throughout the year so it’s not limited to only one event or time period.



A map, it has information about other events in the area which will happen in future, and zoom in/out to see everything else that’s happening in different locations.


Camera mode, this is a easy way to take pictures, save and upload them to the Newsfeed to share with everyone else.



The Newsfeed is linked to Twitter, so it shows all the tweets/images with the hashtag #walkforjustice or #LLST to have everyone linked together and create a sense of unity.


Analysis of Will Eisner

In this lesson we were looking at how people can use the environment to create a narrative. To start this off, we looked at a Superman product packaging, on it was a graphic image of Metropolis. Analysing this, we can see that it’s a very clean and modern city, very much similar to Superman. He is very clean cut and social, in the way that he doesn’t hide himself in contrast to Batman which is the next example we looked at.

For Batman, we looked at a comic book cover with his profile nearly full page, with crime alley “inside” his head. The colour scheme here was completely different to Superman’s, it was a lot more gritty and gothic, used a lot of dark shades, and there was also a long intimidating shadow of a person we don’t know the identity of. This is an accurate reflection of Batman, very dark and reserved, usually works in the darkness of the night.

We moved onto looking at Spiderman, who is based in New York, so no fictional city, the reason for this is possible promotion, or that people relate to the area/character more easily, the artists have a better point of reference to draw the comic, but mainly as other characters within the Marvel universe live in the same area, the chances of crossovers are much higher.

Here we started to look at Will Eisner’s novels, my group looked at “A Contract with God” and the  way he used the environment to create storytelling. It starts off with buildings that look very unhappy, as the whole narrative generally is. There’s heavy rain which changes the grain direction in the buildings from horizontal to vertical, I would say this was done to show the impact of the rain which could easily be showing depression bringing people down. There’s a wall which continues down the side of the page, however is involved in two separate panels, and in one panel there is no full to them, giving the idea of daylight (so a frame of time). Then the next one increased in fill, letting us understand it’s the same building but different frame of time. It also used non-diegetic light, to bring attention to a holy book through this metaphorical means.

Looking at more interesting narrative via backgrounds, we looked at one Krazy Kat comic that I really found creative. It starts with the main element vanishing, in this case it’s the brick disappearing so the mouse cannot throw it. This means the mouse has no purpose in the comic and vanishes, when this happens the background changes slightly, and this continues throughout the comic until the main characters have gone and the environment is completely different to how it’s meant to be.


Imagine a World without Photography? What’s the first thing you think of?

I’ve asked this question to a range of people over the course of several weeks, giving them time in between each time I asked.
Now remember that I haven’t uploaded it.
The responses were broad and interesting. I’ve taken notes on the things we wouldn’t know much/anything about/have.

(?) means unsure on if it’s valid
I’ve categorised it by subject matter:

Biology –

  • Human anatomy (?)
  • Animal species + physiology
  • Plants
  • Microscopic organisms
  • X-rays
  • Underwater photos
  • Nature – animal kingdom, landscapes

Physics –

  • SPACE, who cares about anything else but space
  • no picture of Earth or other planets

Art –

  • would become a requirement alongside English and such
  • maybe wouldn’t be impressive anymore?
  • More people would be able to do hyper realistic drawings
  • Paintings done more, large art pieces could only be seen by those in the area

Socially –

  • more theatre than cinema
  • theatres would be more advanced in special effects
  • cinemas only have animated films
  • no youtube
  • no vines
  • no social pressure on people living up to beauty standards
  • lost memories
  • no selfies
  • harder to catch criminals
  • no paparazzi

Environmentally –

  • no cameras on phones (saving resource)
  • studio production of movies wouldn’t be as expensive (creating props, studio sets)
  • no images of the earth in terms of resource depletion

Media –

  • Would have different plots in movies where they discover some dude in a photo and are all OH SHIT
  • no Chris Evans
  • no shocking images
  • first black women to space was inspired by Star Trek
  • robot vision (eyes generally being cameras) would be purely sci-fi

Graphic design –

  • Leaflets/brochures
  • billboards
  • business cards
  • book covers
  • food menus
  • packaging
  • posters
  • websites
  • advertising

Holding Text: (Un)creative Writing in the Digital Age Lecture

Kenneth Goldsmith is the main author for this topic, he said that creative writing is decades behind art/music. I can agree with this partially but not completely, I think writing is just as adaptable since it can be enjoyed throughout any time period. It just depends on how each medium is used, since if Martin Creed did this lightbulb piece in written form, it wouldn’t be impressive in any way, and being turner award winning would be a joke.

It’s really fascinating, Kenneth’s “Why I Am Teaching a Course Called “Wasting Time on the Internet”. He starts off by stating surreal artists created their work by being in a “daze”, being conscious enough to paint on a canvas however not so much that they’re questioning what it is exactly that they paint. Then wonders whether there will be sleepy philosophers who can do the same thing, which turns out to be a possibility what with the internet, and how people have become more dazed as a result. On the internet, there’s so much unspoken information, we just look past and not consciously read it, however it could have been taken in and worked at in the brain, subconsciously. He describes the internets language as “perfect raw material for literature”. Meaning that as people are very distracted, and there is so much content out there, we are able to create so much from the material we access on a daily basis.

Then moves onto talking about his course that he holds in the University of Pennsylvania with 15 creative writing students, they will sit in a room silently for 3 hours while surfing the web each week. This is to encourage the time wasting of going on the internet, to have the students drift off into a state which they enter a dream space and try to create written works.

The lecturer then talked about dada poetry; this is using words, rearranging them to create a different thing altogether. This means the rearrangement takes new meaning and ownership, even though it’s made from someone else’s words. David Bowie used this technique in his songs. We also created our own poems from surfing the web and making what we can. I had very limited access as my phone couldn’t connect to the Wi-Fi and I only had 2 (partially) preloaded webpages to work with:

No new messages
Log out to study
Add compilation videos to presentations
Process reports and unbind
unbinding the reports done wrong
no new messages on Tuesdays crimes
new private message

7 years on and it’s faster and better
don’t repeat the past
hate modern society

it claims there’s friends for everyone
some people without brains do a lot of talking
fucking kiss ass
real life betrayed people
times have changed
oh how times have changed

Bleached places Lecture

This one felt quite Meta, in the way that it makes us aware of “unreal” these places are which we go to. It can be either on a daily basis, or just every so often and just not thinking about it at all.

The lecture started off by Greta talking about simulations, in this case NASA simulations which helped to train for certain situations like building crates or practice landings. Simulations bring real life into a virtual experience which obviously isn’t real. However in the end they didn’t even need it, later on they discovered that the moon isn’t very dangerous… but good to be prepared I say. We also watched a video created by the University of Southern California’s Interactive Media Lab to bring more attention to Syria and their situation. It’s titled Project Syria, as journalists were not paying attention they had to create an accurate simulation.

I wish more places were able to create a video like this, to give the viewer the most realistic experience possible to understand what’s happening. The video almost feels like you are there witnessing the events, and the talking near the end of the video is directed towards you. It gives a very personal feeling, which would invoke a response of emotion from the viewer. Well, that’s the idea of it so Syria can get the help they need. Simulations are really interesting in the context of this topic since it’s a fake reality about real things in life. Then there exists a reality where it’s fake, a non-place.

After that, we were shown some clips from eXistenZ, a movie about two people basically hopping in and out of a game which feels very real, then the male protagonist has trouble figuring out what’s reality and what’s not. In one scene, he created a gun out of bones from a meal. In another, you see him questioning what’s happening, what’s become of his life and questioning this woman who is the one who roped him into the whole ordeal. I loved these scenes since the first one shows the creativity you would need in playing video games, I play them a fair amount and thinking different helps in not getting stuck a LOT. I feel like the whole movie is just a literal message on how people can get addicted to this fake reality because it’s more pleasing than real life. Video games are essentially a simulation of an alternate reality, as it can create a sense of wellbeing or even gratification which people don’t receive in real life, people get addicted.

Which then goes onto Disneyisation:

‘Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation.’ Jean Baudrillard

I agree with this. Disneyland is never advertised as a magical real place that you can escape to, everyone knows that it’s all for fun and is actually more real than LA, since it acknowledges being a theme park. However I think Los Angeles can be real and fake, depending on the location. Places like Casinos and such are definitely fake; they blast fake lights and take away sense of time. Same with shopping malls, they have extra oxygen in the vents to make people feel more alert. This now brings in McDonaldsiation, which is to make you buy food but leave so more customers can enter. This is why the seating areas are said to be more uncomfortable, and why drive-through are great.

Through constant simulation of places making things better, or more interesting, people lose interest in everyday life. These things are such a common occurrence; it only becomes weird if you think of its basic principles, or when you no longer have it.

Finally discussing airports, they all feel the same. I can only agree with this if it differentiates a very expensive airport from the less. They can start to feel like a non-place, but people do have memories there which bring some personal experiences into it. While in a supermarket, the only personal thing about you is the credit card you pay with. You start going on auto-pilot because there’s nothing to really interact with. It’s all the same.

At the end of it, we had to write a letter describing a place that we were in to someone. Each person was given an image:


we could either work with it or think of something else. I decided to take it literally by being ant-sized on this seating area.


Pose! “That’s not me” Lecture

I really enjoyed this one; the content was really interesting, mainly because it had a fair amount of figuring out photographs, which inspired a lot of questions. The main topic is basically photography and how we relate to it.

First, the lecturer, Mark, asked us what we thought was happening in an image of a group of people looking upwards. Of course they were all looking at something, and it was correct! It was the launch of Apollo 11. Then we looked at the first photograph and camera created. During this, the question of “what is a photo” came up, and someone replied “a photograph is just a photograph”. I can agree and disagree with this.

Then looking at how photographs were done in the Victorian era, although we didn’t know it. He asked us what the image below is:


If you’re unaware, it’s a device to hold people still while having their photo taken as it took a while, so they were propped upright in order to have a non-creepy blurred image. Which is also why no one is smiling since holding a smile would be hard to hold and kill your face. Then we got into creepy territory. The pictures people took of their children when they had died, held them up right and opened their eyes post mortem. This way, they’re able to have a picture of their child since they wouldn’t move, but it’s a memory of them. People were thinking about why they did this, it does have weird vibes but that was the norm back then. If they had easy photographing systems, they wouldn’t do it. It’s the only way they can remember how they looked.

After this, we were asked to do a one minute portrait challenge. I felt too awkward for it, and if we were using the camera obscura, I would be very blurred. I didn’t like the feeling of someone looking at me for a full minute as I stayed still; I mean that’s just very unnatural.

Now for the selfies:

selfie no 1

We were shown this image of Obama taking a selfie with two others. Didn’t think much of it, just thought they were having some fun, no biggie.

selfie no 2

Now the next photo had Michelle Obama in frame, clearly doesn’t look happy. I felt confused since she’s generally a fun person and does amusing things (look at her on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon), so why wasn’t she joining in? Some people thought she was jealous as he was taking a picture with another woman.


people thought she was jealous as he was taking a picture with another woman.

This third picture reinforced that last idea, but then we learned of the context. David Cameron, Helle Thorning Schmidt and Barak Obama were taking a selfie during Nelson Mandela’s memorial service. Learning that, I completely understood why she looked annoyed and sat in between them and Obama. It just reminds me of the selfies people take and post on Twitter on how good they look at a funeral, or even taking a selfie with their deceased relative in their coffin. It’s incredibly disrespectful and it boggles my mind that 3 grown adults fundamentally do the same thing.

Looking more into selfies, we looked at the first ever one done which was by Robert Cornelius. It’s called a self-portrait in this case, and on the back was written “the first light picture ever taken”. Mark asked what the difference between a selfie and a self-portrait is. They’re both controlled in the sense that they portray a certain thing about us within it, but for me: self-portraits are more personal, and more than a picture taken with a phone with the right lighting and filter. But then I wonder if a collection of selfies could be a self-portrait? I mean if each one represents a certain thing about you and you throughout the years to show growth. It would be more accurate than one image of you.

Finally we were asked to take a series of pictures of ourselves. The first one was an un-posed self-portrait, that’s hard to do since being “un-posed” is a pose. Then to take a picture of ourselves when not aware, again hard to do since even if you set up a timer and such, after forgetting about it your subconscious could still remember. So you would act differently than usual. Now, had to take the most posed selfie, people did duck faces or looking at the camera at an angle, so on. Then to take a picture of someone taking a picture of themselves, one posed and another un-posed. It was getting really meta. After thinking about these tasks, the difficulty level of actually achieving it. Then we saw a collection of photographs.

Then learned the context to them, Dicorcia took these images of people in New York with each person unaware of it happening. He achieved an un-posed series of photos. I really like and dislike this since it’s a violation of privacy, having a picture of a stranger in this way, I understand that he couldn’t have told them beforehand but surely debriefing them wouldn’t make the photos lose meaning.

It’s a pretty broad topic since you can delve into it in different aspects e.g. psychological, anthropological, etc. Which makes it all the more interesting; photography has a really huge impact on life which people can take for granted sometimes. The whole lecture has made me think about photographs and selfies in a very different way.