“The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively-- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?”
— Frank Zappa
I think this “grammar of frames” uses the word too loosely. A frame is more than just a constraint, it’s what denotes the boundary between the subject and the world it is contained in.
Brands don’t have a frame. Brands are not the art used to identify them. I think of brands as reputation, trust, and emotions connected to a company. The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements.
I use ideas to mean the non-material. You can hear a song, see a logo, touch packaging. I consider a brand to be akin to a company’s reputation. It exists solely in people’s hearts and minds.
I thought the word that was used too loosely is "grammar" ... where's the grammar? Is is just a play of words? (since it seems this is by an ads company called "grammar", although it requires some effort to realize that, I'd say).
I read it as a (somewhat pretentious) application of this definition of grammar: "the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique", where the technique is 'framing'. Whether there's any actual meat here about principles of rules is another question.
> Brands don’t have a frame. [...] The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements.
Ideas are framed in the facts, context, beliefs and assumptions that surround them and lead up to them. Even though the article defined frames at the top as visual rectangles, the rest of text mixes in unambiguous uses of the social sciences definition of the word ‘frame’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
For example “What is art? How is it made? Where does it belong? Context changes meaning. Frames change the way we think.”
The article is freely mixing the two definitions, hopping back and forth between them. I haven’t decided if I like it or not. It might be considered conflating two different things. But I think that’s their very point, and in art and literature, as in advertising, metaphors and suggestions are useful and common. You might even think of this article as a framing that visual frames are as important as social frames, which is an idea that makes a great story for ad firms that are good at and depend on selling visual ads.
I was excited for the same reason. I explored neo-davidsonian semantics last year in the context of graph grammars. It would be great to get back into that project.
>This comment is confusing. I thought good visual design implies both utility and aesthetics?
No, it implies utility first and foremost. Aesthetics are a secondary concern.
At least in many design theories. There are other theories where it's art of art's sake, or where utility plays second fiddle, by I don't think they're as popular - with either design experts, or even more so the general population.
In any case, this fails in both utility and aesthetics - the latter except in the sense that it goes for aesthetics.
The site is just showing off the ability to move colorful shapes as you scroll. There's pretty much zero information on it. Just some "hire us, we'll make your branding awesome" blurb at the end. It's an ad piece for a studio.
The bright yellow color for nearly everything is great until they show a urinal, and what appears to be a big yellow drop coming out of pipes below one...
Funny. It's a perfect example of what it does. The text leads you through demonstrations of their CSS design tech. It's a variation on the "you just proved bus stop advertising works," ads for bus stop advertising, and then managed an HN front page hit.
Framing and re-framing are a kind of writers magic. I understand what this is. Odd to lead with it for a brand, but maybe they're courting a particularly meta-sophisticated customer?
23 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 55.9 ms ] thread— Frank Zappa
I think this “grammar of frames” uses the word too loosely. A frame is more than just a constraint, it’s what denotes the boundary between the subject and the world it is contained in.
Brands don’t have a frame. Brands are not the art used to identify them. I think of brands as reputation, trust, and emotions connected to a company. The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements.
on a side note, i’m surprised this post is being upvoted, the design seems pretty antithetical to the HN ethos.
Ideas are framed in the facts, context, beliefs and assumptions that surround them and lead up to them. Even though the article defined frames at the top as visual rectangles, the rest of text mixes in unambiguous uses of the social sciences definition of the word ‘frame’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
For example “What is art? How is it made? Where does it belong? Context changes meaning. Frames change the way we think.”
The article is freely mixing the two definitions, hopping back and forth between them. I haven’t decided if I like it or not. It might be considered conflating two different things. But I think that’s their very point, and in art and literature, as in advertising, metaphors and suggestions are useful and common. You might even think of this article as a framing that visual frames are as important as social frames, which is an idea that makes a great story for ad firms that are good at and depend on selling visual ads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_semantics_(linguistics)
and also Gärdenfors' conceptual spaces, which is more modern and has some neurophysiological basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_space
OP, sorry for hijacking the thread
A perfect example of how design can triumph over reason.
I agree that the page is in the realm of decorative towels when it comes to utility.
No, it implies utility first and foremost. Aesthetics are a secondary concern.
At least in many design theories. There are other theories where it's art of art's sake, or where utility plays second fiddle, by I don't think they're as popular - with either design experts, or even more so the general population.
In any case, this fails in both utility and aesthetics - the latter except in the sense that it goes for aesthetics.
Framing and re-framing are a kind of writers magic. I understand what this is. Odd to lead with it for a brand, but maybe they're courting a particularly meta-sophisticated customer?