In the article Designers go to the Fair 2, We hear abour Geddes proposal for a plan that is one of the leading examples of the emerging interactive design of the 20th century.Marchand however lends a particularly negative slant to Geddes efforts, using words like, manipulation, trickery, and deception to describe his efforts to fully immerse the audience in the experience. Geddes was ahead of his time in his efforts to provide more than just a simple viewing experience for these potential consumers, because now thats is what certain retail stores are trying to offer, more than just shopping, but a retail experience.
Does Geddes go to far? or did he just do an extraordinarily good job designing a unique experience? A designer can create a persuasive visual argument but people still have the free will to form their own opinions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell done Hannah.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if he goes too far...He had the bones of the project prepared to launch one way or the other didn't he? At the last minute, Goodyear dumped him when he was trying to do the same thing he ended up doing with GM. He's very clever.
Gebbes found a way to incorporate what he really likes to do (Theatrics and model making) with what had to be done. Eventually his brain came up with a way to combine the two. And as far as GM is concerned, Sloan must have liked him as much as he liked Harley Earl. This guy was radical and passionate, but most importantly he knew how to give the people what they wanted: entertainment and show.
(My first comment was the same but after I posted it, I saw a BOAT load of spelling mistakes: ooooops) (^_^)~***
I really liked the quote in the article, "The thrills of Coney Island with the glories of Le Cobusier" because it summed up for me the idea of pushing an agenda through entertaining and captivating an audience.
ReplyDeleteWhile Futurama was a visionary way of having audiences move through the exhibit instead of viewing it from a distance, I think it is less "share our world" and more "hop on our conveyor belt and join our assembly line" because visitors still were controlled by the spectacle while sitting in the chair and having their periphery vision blocked off.
GM needed someone to hide the fact that they really just wanted people to buy their cars, and Bel Geddes wanted to make an industrial opera (or something?), somehow these two aims worked together. I think Marchand's assesment is fair, it was trickery. Geddes' theatrics exploited peoples dissatisfaction with the present by promising a better future. is it morally reprehensible, sure, but it worked.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that the words "manipulation, trickery and deception" were used to describe the experience. Today that immersion in the experience - whether false or not - is something people expect and would probably resort those words if they feel left out of the process.
ReplyDeleteIt's an illusion of inclusion and Geddes designed a unique experience which coincided with that aim.
Does anyone else find it sad that Bel Geddes' original obsession with designing a "perfect" city of the future came from an advertising campaign? That Shell just wanted to seem forward-thinking, however had no interest whatsoever in actually using any of Bel Geddes' ideas. It was clearly a succesful campaign, and in that sense cannot be knocked, but I felt a twinge of sadness over the fact that today we are so incredibly "locked in" to our extremely flawed, inefficient and unsustainable infrastructure, particularly the plight of the automobile and related congestion/pollution.
ReplyDeleteI digress..on to the design.
I did not get the same derogatory slant from Marchand; the fact is that Bel Geddes was versed in the trickery, drama and deception necessary in the theatre world. I don't think any single individual today with any level of awareness towards advertising could claim that marketing campaigns are in any way unmanipulative and unreliant on drama/flair. Designers rely on colors, forms and interactions to subtly play on our emotions, reactions and sensibilities in order to create a lasting impression. They must be dilligently in control of every single aspect of their work - every element has an exact place in relation to every other element in order to create the desired outcome. Isn't this exactly what Bel Geddes was doing?
*to expand on my first paragraph above, I would like to say that I find it unfortunate because perhaps if we were to put more active thought into long-term city planning on a scale similar to Bel Geddes, perhaps we would not be running into quite the same problems we have with aging and unfit infrastructure that plagues us today.
ReplyDeletePS - I don't know if anyone else was as captivated by the description of the original Futurama, but here's a link with a 5-minute video documenting the installation :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/15-12/ff_futurama_original
Yeah, I agree many observances in Christin's post.
ReplyDeleteIt is a brilliant manipulation providing entertainment to heighten consumer experience, hope, trust, and firmness of indviduality.
Having 'the function of industry as an integral part of the nation's social and economic life' which ultimately places the trust of the populus in the hands of prvate companies to imagine the future instead of the government.
This reminds me of a program I heard on the CBC about interface technology and the relationship between inventive dreamers/designers responsible for non exsisting technology of the future and inventive dreamers/scientists probing of plausble possiblities.
rational and irrational.
I think Geddes' exhibit was brilliant, regardless of the author's swift conclusion of what Futurama failed to do. The entire ruse was to transport the viewer into a utopian world: this was evidently successful. What I think Marchand fails to accommodate into his argument is the inherent need for idealism and, shall we say, dreaming. Was it really a flaw in Futurama that billboards were removed and slums nowhere to be seen? Just imagine how different the story would be had Roald Dahl decided to put a dentist office in Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of creating a narrative that involved the user, it was indeed very Modernist to limit the viewer's range of sight, and force a particular narration upon them. However, most people are content to follow a specific, defined narration, regardless of how advanced and free flowing our Internet culture is. We still watch movies, we still read books, we still obey our mentors/teachers/parents, or what have you.
Anne, I heard heard that program aswell, and the article reminded me of it. Christin brought up some excellent points, isn't this just good advertising? It certainly got GM a lot of attention. I don't think Geddes goes too far, and as Khuyen points out, if GM is sharing their Utopian vision of the world, does it not make sense there would not be a single slum or billboard? If it is their subjective vision of the future I would expect every car on the road would be a GM.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I find the idea of "having 'the function of industry as an integral part of the nation's social and economic life' which ultimately places the trust of the populus in the hands of private companies to imagine the future instead of the government" (to lift from Anne) to be remarkably astute. With large lobby groups fighting for their own interests shaping many of the decisions made by our government (ie. the massive seal cull on Sable Island which has no basis in good science) is a depressing reality. That Geddes saw this coming might be prophet-like, he was certainly coloured as a genius leading the masses (of GM and the public) towards his ideal future.
I'd agree with a few others in that I didn't find Marchand to negatively portray Geddes's tactics. Words like manipulation and trickery have negative connotations, but Geddes’s did use these devices… in a smart and theatrical way.
ReplyDeleteAnd, it’s those theatrics I find so interesting. The article talks about how Sloan wanted something that was going to catch the public’s attention through imagination; something beyond merchandising and the old time “this is our factory”/ “here is how a car is made”.
In a way I want to applaud GM at that time for taking a chance and investing in Geddes’s idea (his, over 7 million dollar idea). The concept of using entertainment to sell a product is pretty genius: giving the audience not the product, but an experience that positively reinforces the company’s image (much like those Old Spice commercials).
well said Clair! It's amazing that GM took such a leap of faith!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I just wanted to encourage everyone to check out the link Christin posted, which is a short documentary looking at the Futurama exhibit. It's pretty great.
ReplyDeleteI love old documentaries like this, I always find the language so funny: "Every forward outlook reminds us that all the highways of all research, and all communication, all the activities of science, lead us onward to better methods of doing things.”
The entire notion of manipulation is defiitely true when you define it as trying to get another person to feel a particular way or behave in a particular way. As soon as we are trying to "get something to happen" it's manipulation. The question for me is are we explicit about it or are we pretending it's not really happening? Being transparent about it is a more values-based approach.
ReplyDelete