THE BOMB THAT WAS THE CRIT
right. THe method of distribution came across really well and had a really good reaction. I definitely want to stick with this. However, as the crit moved on the message seemed to became more and more unclear to them. This is a massive problem and whilst I was mentioning my difficulty of making the image work and look nice, their relevance was questioned.
I think the images need to either relate or not be used at all. I need to clarify a more defined point of what I want to persuade rather then natural functional design in general. As I like the method so much I thought I should concentrate on this itself. Functional Design and the persuasion of using this to persuade designers to include functional things more in the inspiration.
I need to delve into some statements of why this is good and expand into some engaging quotations which I could even use themselves on the lenticular structure.
My whole intuition of what is good is seeing the function-finding it and absorbing it and seeing it in a different perspective.
This is what the lenticular method does.
surely now I can apply this bone to anything. I have the statement of "SEEING THINGS IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE" and I have the perfect method of distributing this as I am allowing them to see things at different perspectives.
What do I want to apply? What from my research can I apply? Or is it something entirely different?
No comments:
Post a Comment