Rationale

The subject I chose was LGBTQ+ discrimination. Although LGBTQ people have legal equality in most ways, there is still a lot of casual (and dangerous) homophobia and transphobia in our society. True equality would mean that there is none of this. I focused on the emotional damage that verbal discrimination and microagressions cause. My aim was to make people who say things like ‘that’s so gay’ realise that it can be very harmful.

I showed the emotional impact of this with scale and colour, by portraying these phrases as a dark mass of attacking magpies cornering or surrounding the small, vulnerable LGBTQ birds. I used birds to make it New Zealand specific, and because birds can represent freedom (when alone), but also a violent swarm en masse. I used traditional ink drawings of the birds and words to create a scratchy, aggressive feel. The black splatters on the version with negative space have connotations of graffiti, or even blood splatters, which can both be violent. Colour is also an important part of both designs – the only colour in each design is the birds, which are brightly coloured in Pride flag colours, and create the main focal point. The rest of the image is black and white, the harsh contrast is aggressive and antagonistic.

The headline “They’re just words” is a contradiction to the visual aspects of the poster, therefore it becomes another part of the discrimination – those who say that discriminatory language doesn’t cause any damage are just adding to it. The headline in the other poster is a more complimentary headline, which emphasises the effect that it has on LGBTQ people. These both, combined with the image of the small cute birds being attacked, appeal to the viewer’s emotional response (pathos), and the tagline on the second also adds a statistic about suicide as a logical means to persuade the viewer.

----------------------------------------

I have both a physical workbook, and a digital workblog here: http://layamrihiwehiworkblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Final detailing

I changed the tagline type to bold italic to make it clearer, and made the leading slightly smaller on the first two lines of the headline because the gaps between letters were a bit too big.

(edit on Tuesday: I also, after printing, realised I spelt result without an S. So I've sent a fixed version to the printer, but I'm not sure if it's too late....)

I just chose between which version I liked best of these - I like the italics because it has more emphasis?

But otherwise I'm happy with them and didn't have anything to change. 

Poster wall

They both stand out pretty well with the black and white contrast - especially the one with lots of white space.

Type refining

For independent and during class I've been refining the type. I added a black fade down the bottom to make it more readable, as well as moving some of the white text in the illustration slightly to make a few of the birds more visible - because I had feedback that they were starting to get a bit lost.

a more asymmetrical version? I think it doesn't quite look right in comparison to the centred image.

tried moving the type down a little- this is too much though. I quite like the italic type though?

--------------------------------------------

With this one, I changed around the headline a few times

Removed the extra line - this fits in the space better

-or a more direct headline?

this is probably too simplified - the gap above the text is a bit too big.

Interim 2

Over the weekend I  developed my concepts more, and explored type. I came up with a few favourite ideas that I printed in A2 size. I like them all but I'm worried the ones with the giant birds are too similar to the others because i've used the same image for the words and splatters? But I also would quite like to use it.

I put the last two up for the interim presentation.

My feedback was generally very good, they're visually striking and portray my concept well. The silhouette is striking, and perspective/birds eye view on the second one is good. Some people thought they were a good example of the same idea in two different layouts, though still a little stylistically similar maybe. Was suggested I could take the words out of the bird silhouette in the first one? and that maybe the birds in the second are a little lost/ too covered up by the words. The headline in the first is maybe a little too long, and on the second one it's a bit lost. But they liked the text in general.

Also a comment that the words in the bird in the first one are upside down - but I did that on purpose, so that they read towards the small bird rather than off the page, and also so they're seen as scribbly words first, and don't take over the headline too much in terms of what you read first.

I will continue to work on typographic detailing and refining the headline/tagline a little maybe, as well as details on the images.

Design Refinement

Make/Critique

I printed out my concepts at a2 size and we looked at them all as a class, and talked about how they could be made better with fundamental design principles. I put up these two concepts (I wanted to do more work on them but I've not been feeling well). I definitely need to think more about the fonts, and I'm also still not quite happy with the text. I think the first one needs some rearranging, so the text is not just shoved in the bottom. I might add more birds layered behind the others, too, for more impact? The second one also needs to be more polished and clear - especially the words within the birds, which still aren't obvious.

what does each element bring: rainbow bird - represents LGBTQ community, as well as freedom and is small/cute/colourful  - good, unique, want to protect it. black birds/magpies - bad, sharp and pointy and evil, black and white of the background: straight people/homophobes/discrimination etc

what does combination say:  homophobes attacking LGBT people, violence, etc

how does arrangement effect meaning: the attacking, black birds use up most of the space and are traping the rainbow bird

what is the tone/atmosphere/mood:  kind of harsh, with the blocky shapes? the graphic-ness is to the point

FADPS: contrast - colour vs black and white, also just the black and white in general, movement - dynamism of the birds, a bit of rhythm in the birds as well. and scale with the big black birds and small rainbow one.

Heirachies: the rainbow colour of the small bird immediately draws your eyes to it, especially with the dynamism of the black birds. The text is kind of an afterthought, and I need to work on making that better and more connected visually

negative space: there's negative space around the birds, but for the most part the whole poster is used up. that is kind of my intention though, giving a trapped feeling etc.

cropping:  I've dne some on my workblog.

what does each element bring: birds same as above, but also the small ones are various different pride flags and arranged in a heart - the whole community. There are words (slurs/homophobic language etc) within the birds, representing the discrimination, the text 'they're just words' as a contradiction, what people say, which is obviously untrue because discriminatory language is extremely harmful.

what does combination say: similar to above; the magpies are swarming the lgbtq birds, trapping them in the centre. there's more of an impression of there being hundreds of them, that it's a swarm. Combination of the headline and image is a contradiction

how does arrangement effect meaning: trapped in the middle, viewed from above  making the small ones seem small and vunerable.

what is the tone/atmosphere/mood: dark, scary, trapped, direct (with the text)

FADPS: contast - dark birds/colourful birds, movement /rhythm - the black birds repeating around and pointing to the centre, and scale - the small birds in the middle

Heirachies: again, eyes go immediately to small birds because of colour and dynamism

negative space: not much, but it's supposed to be trapping.

Intro to style

Make/Define/Critique

For independent study I continued ideating and developing my concepts, as pictured below. We had a lecture about style/concept, and then in small groups talked about style and connotations and how it can add to/change the concept.

Then we paired up and discussed each other's posters. We mostly talked about my 'they're just words' one, since that's my favourite. Ruth thought the message was clear, though didn't immediately understand what the caption meant - because when printed out the words on the magpies are quite hard to see. I will make them a bit more obvious, probably. Also had some feedback that maybe the  white gap between the birds is too big - it almost seems as if there's a barrier, rather  than them being very vulnerable like it's supposed to be. Also I should add a tagline maybe?

Word + Type

4/8/16
Ideate/Make

In Thursday's class we talked about image/type relationship, as well as tone of voice. We worked together in pairs to try out different verisons of our type in different tones. I've been finding it very hard to come up with any words that work directly and succinctly  so this was quite difficult, but one thing I tried which seemed to work okay was sarcasm, like the Tui 'yeah right' ads. I still don't think this quite works, though. I will continue to work on words and concepts for independent study.

Interim Presentation

Initially we presented our four concepts that we made for independent study in a group of four. I used my suit one from last week as well as three new ones:

In a group we decided which one was the strongest: they liked the suit one the most, and thought it was the clearest.

Then we went around everyone's work and wrote on the critique sheets.

People recognised that my poster is about "LGBT inequality", "homophobia/transphobia etc", and said that the central issue was recognisable "after a slight bit", and another person said that it was with the text but otherwise not sure.
They said the jackets helped show the message that it's about the workplace, and also have connotations about the closet. The rainbow is an obvious indicator of LGBTQ pride. Someone mentioned "the purple one" was  not as clear: it's the bisexual flag so I guess people don't know that as well. The other ones are the asexual, aromantic and trans pride flags which I doubt most people recognise as well either, but I feel like if they're by the rainbow flag people can assume they're other pride flags.

People thought my specific issue was: fear of coming out because of homophobia, being closeted because of discrimination etc, and someone also thought I was saying it's harder for trans people to come out (because the trans flag is the one being hidden), which is true - I put the trans flag as the closeted one because trans people face more discrimination, though I am commenting on general lgbq discrimination in the workplace as well. Considering both of the comments, I guess that works well? for people who don't know much about lgbtq issues, they see that it's about general discrimination and get that message, and someone who knows more about lgbtq issues will see that it's about those who are more marginalised within the lgbtq community as well.
Someone also commented that the text (1/3 of lgbtq new zealanders remain closeted at work, which I mostly erased so that people will not just look at it first instead of the image) helped make obvious the specific issue and that I should keep it. I wonder if I can make it more succint, or something that doesn't just specify what the image already says.

discussion and rapid ideation

Critique/Ideate/Make

In class we critiqued our poster ideas from independant study - I had two (below). They thought the suit one worked well, though there are a variety of ways I could make it simpler or more succinct/subtle. The butterfly one is more ambiguous - they weren't sure if it was good or bad. My intentions behind it were: the rainbow is a subtle shadow/rainbow reflection thing & it's about not assuming people are straight just because straight is considered 'default' or they 'look like it' (the caterpillar part being b&w). I like this idea still, but maybe it needs something else added? maybe it the other butterflies were pointier? We discussed forms of rhetoric and how to use them in our concepts.
We also did some rapid ideation, which helped get a few starting points for some concepts, and worked on developing ideas a bit more.

Ideation

Understand/Ideate

For independent I continued researching my topic (I've decided to stay with LGBTQ) and various related symbols.
In class we did some more brainstorming in groups, then used random input to make some quick poster concepts. I'm not sure about mine yet, I will need to do a lot more concepts before I get something I'm happy with, but it's definitely a helpful way to get lots of different ideas for the posters.

Debate and Brainstorming

Understand/Define/Ideate

We held our debate, which went quite well. It was easier being on the against side since most people agree that NZ is not inherently equal. We then made brainstorms in groups about different aspects of inequality, with visual aspects too, to help decide on a direction for our work. Then we split into pairs to make two posters of an idea. Evie and I decided to choose the wage gap (gender wise). They get the point across, but aren't particularly interesting, or NZ specific.

Introduction

Understand/Define

We were introduced to the topic, and looked at some poster examples and discussed them in groups.
Then we got into our debate groups, and sorted out what we are going to research. Our group is doing against (aka NZ is not equal) and I am going to focus my research on LGBTQ issues (gender identity and sexuality, etc) because I spend a lot of time in lgbtq oriented online spaces, follow lots of lgbtq activists/organisations on social media, and am pretty much the president of massey wellington UniQ and not straight myself - aka I already have a lot of knowledge about the topic(s).