Linking languages: Realigning design vocabularies [Editorial]

A crowded gallery, a theatre in the round or the backroom of a local pub can become more than a destination. These spaces are transformed when a group of people come together to share an experience, whether it is to view a display of Enlightenment curiosities, a representation of the pit of history or the history of the Canadian nation. Each space contains an event, which is designed, planned for, shaped and presented, to impart some mediated experience. Much of the vocabulary we use to describe the elements and principles for shaping the scene are a result of inherited assumptions made popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The challenges that have evolved with technologies have exerted tensions and pressures on some of the vocabularies we use, in order to describe the organization of scenes. Our relationship to the world is framed by our exposure to ubiquitous experiences and technological interactions. Our vocabularies and languages to describe technologies and discoveries maintain a static language even when a visual organization influenced by an ‘Ap’ icon is drastically different from those of the early industrial age. While our aspirations for creating artwork that challenges the world as it is, remains constant, our conception of what constitutes effective expression has changed.

A crowded gallery, a theatre in the round or the backroom of a local pub
can become more than a destination. These spaces are transformed when a
group of people come together to share an experience, whether it is to view
a display of Enlightenment curiosities, a representation of the pit of history
or the history of the Canadian nation. Each space contains an event, which is
designed, planned for, shaped and presented, to impart some mediated experience.
Much of the vocabulary we use to describe the elements and principles
for shaping the scene are a result of inherited assumptions made popular
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The challenges that have
evolved with technologies have exerted tensions and pressures on some of
the vocabularies we use, in order to describe the organization of scenes. Our
relationship to the world is framed by our exposure to ubiquitous experiences
and technological interactions. Our vocabularies and languages to describe
technologies and discoveries maintain a static language even when a visual
organization influenced by an ‘Ap’ icon is drastically different from those of
the early industrial age. While our aspirations for creating artwork that challenges
the world as it is, remains constant, our conception of what constitutes
effective expression has changed.

Archived with thanks to Scene