At last I looked up some photographer that Charles mentioned in class. I anticipated great photographs since he said something about them as a one-frame movie. Brilliant capturing of a moment and narratives in one image?
Wee gee's work was not really my taste. I also looked up Robert Frank's and Diane Arbus's works. I was surprised by the fact that I recognized some of their works since I've seen those images here and there way before. Back then It was a bizarre photography to me─well it is still. I liked Robert Frank better. They were less extreme, but still interesting.

Wellfleet, Massachusetts, August 1962
One of my favorites among Robert Frank's photographs. Even though it's a US flag, at first it reminded me sort of an angelic figure. I don't know what to say about the newspaper article. I just noticed it..emm..

I have always thought photography is difficult to understand and usually boring. I have been impressed by many well-taken photographs, and I know I can't take such a great photo so that I respect and admire photographers' work. But the impression did not last longer.

I was indecisive to choose between 2d and 4d medium, but now I know that even a one frame photo can be more than massive information of motion graphics. I just need to find the way that will suit my work.

Print magazine has arrived~ In fact it has arrived since last week, but I was little busy with my assignments and didn't have a time even to carelessly leaf through. Few days later Nov/Dec volume also has arrived. I'm very excited to look over them.

I was glad to see all the samples of special papers and prints. I just love to collect such things. In Nov/Dec 2005 issue, there were collected images and information about 2005 Regional Design Annual. It seems that the Print collected designers' works all over the USA. I should read them in detail after my final is over. Almost two weeks are left.

Though I've read some of the letters from readers(?). A reader who seems to be the Non-Designer, who had to design a few things for his company, sent a letter that is a refutation of someone else's letter in previous issue. She─Karmela F. Lejarde was the name, so I'm just assuming it is she─quoted one who compared the design profession to that of a surgeon and wrote: "Empowering non-designers/artists with the secrets of design is not just harmful to our careers; the ensuing result would be a bloody mess." One who wrote that sentence seems to be he.

She criticized him for exaggerating the metaphor. Then She talked about how it's often occurring in these days─the reality in today's tight and multitasking marketplace as she described─that non-designers designing for their companies. She said, as the person who is in the position of hiring and firing designer, she will hire a person who is willingly take time to teach what could be call the "secret" of designing and share the whole sources of working.

If that is the reality then I think it is right to do so.
Well, before that, I don't know whether the methods and computer skills are really a secret among designers. In fact, in the world that most information is shared within the internet environment, nothing is secret. One can learn all the program manuals and even get a pirated version of programs online. I don't oppose to share the knowledge with others.
Yet It's kind of a sorry feeling since if non-designers learn more about the skills and program, then it may cause the less need of a designers work. I don't know..

I'm glad that I finished my presentation, somehow :p
I am poor at speaking in orderly manner with developing my thought. There were things I missed that I was going to say. I'm going to write those down here instead.

What I mainly thought about was the differences between art and design, which was also my starting entry of this journal. In addition to that self centered activity vs. problem solving part, I questioned whom design and art are for. Of course art is mostly for oneself. It could be for self PR or for the pleasure of creating something by oneself, sort of the feeling of playing god. Even the political art it is to reveal one's feeling and statements on some events, artists' feeling.
Design is mostly for the client when it’s related to branding and merchandising. Informative design would be for audiences and readers. Design seems to have a purpose and to be the service for others. Since it is for others I think design is about how to compromise within the choices of different emphasis, and to get the best solution.

Speaking of a purpose, I've heard many times that art cannot be practical. When we were taking First year programs, 2D, 3D and 4D studios, some teacher even told students that their work should not be usable in real life. For example, in 3D studio class, some students had to create a conceptual chair, and I think I heard the story of their instructor told the students that it should not be able to sit on. Are you kidding? Chairs that can't be sit on? But since the purpose of that project was to explore the forms of 3D, not to make a chair. The difference between the craft and art seemed very slight, but perhaps it isn't?

If artists look down on designers then that would be because its commercial side, involved in marketing and so on. However, there was an art for a profit, too. Commercialized art also criticized by many artists as an example of Thomas Kinkade. But I think, though it's not merchandised as Kinkade's prints and paintings, at some points somehow artist has to sell one's work to make living. Well, I've seen an artist─she was my Research Studio instructor─who gets fund from an organization or a museum to do the projects and installation. It would be difficult to do so.
Anyway in some way the distinction between the art and design has been blurred. In some way they are similar. Then what would be the benefit of criticizing one another? Neither is perfect(?)