i'm in between soccer games right now. i'm the coach for one of my son's teams, betcha didn't know that. with that said, it's been a very busy week, and somehow i managed to squeeze in time for my history class. our third essay, "Fighting the Image Wars," by steven heller kind of threw me for a loop. i'm not sure what his intentions were, but more than anything, i felt i was reading a world history report. perhaps that was his purpose. in the end, i agree with his position and admire his place in graphic design criticism, but in my paper, i'm pretty sure i came off too negative. perhaps i was searching for the relation to graphic design too closely or maybe it was the fact that i didn't sleep the night before (ok, maybe an hour catnap) or maybe it was that i wrote it while eating breakfast at Denny's by myself early thursday morning. i don't know why i always have to order the sausage. bleh.
in summary, the essay is about whether or not the people should be restricted by our government to view certain images from sensitive arenas (such as war). and if gov't has control over it in the first place. and is it the editor's responsibility for what gets filtered to the people? are they hiding the truth... for the people's sake? for the government's sake? or just for grotesque's sake? i got caught up on the title, questioning his term, "Image War." to me, it's more about a revelation than a war. more times than not, the truth hurts. how long can one be protected from that.
my pdf write-up is attached //:here. i apologize if it comes off negative. i'm really not that grumpy.