Inspired by the article Realism in interface design [via], I started to contemplate on our symbols we are very familiar with, but rarely are aware of their origins. Of course, they are obvious origins, otherwise they wouldn’t have established such a firm root in our culture(s).
And in my normal manner, I started to question them.

Take for example, the arrow. A line and a triangle, signifying movement by pointing a direction, quite often two-dimensionally, by assuming a start point and a destination. The origin is quite simple; you take a long straight twig, sharpen its one end, apply acceleration, it goes in the direction you point it at, it kills an animal, you get food. The sophistication of the arrow for hunting has then formed the current symbol.
Now imagine a culture, or a species, which hasn’t evolved in such a manner. How would they signify movement?

What I came up with, is quite simple and, I hope, unambiguous.
I assumed the species in question has stereoscopic sight, so that it at least has a concept for perspective. With perspective, moving objects may appear larger or smaller, depending on its distance to the viewer. I again assume that the culture’s (or a creature of it) default grasp of movement is from left > right. It could be just as well left < right, I just picked this for the sake of familiarity. I also assume they are moving only latetally (on the ground), so it can't be up-down.

Further points;

• the critical point in the communication is ‘me’
• the system is only two-colored; a simple tool can create a filled or an empty figure
• ‘me’ is black/filled, because it’s heavier, has more contrast, etc. so it’s higher in hierarchy.

The basic structure is a signifier of movement, if one would imagine the smaller circle to be approaching the viewer, by two frames of the motion. The circle doubles itself in size, and their distance is parallel with tangets of a 30° inclination.
These numbers have no larger meaning, I only found this to be symmetrical and harmonic. Although, isometric projection is often displayed as a 30° inclination to the horizon, as in many games, so it has an easy connection with perspective.

I also thought about our + and – -symbols. Obviously + has two lines, so it’s more, and – is less. But less than what?
Therefore, the spherical symbols could also substitute these. The black circle is again the basic component, and adding a smaller circle on top you naturally add. Here I assume the culture has gravity, so by adding simple objects to a whole, you stack them on top of each other. The less-symbol is inverted because of aesthetic and semantic reasons; they are easier to discern them from each other, and less is the opposite of more.

Lastly, I came up with entry- and exit-symbols, which have the same visual and semantic structure as the above.

These symbols were also heavily influenced by an awesome webcomic named Rice Boy.

In a very odd and strange dream I saw last night, I came upon a thought inside the dream of a movie, that would have a “dynamic” plot. In other words, the plot of the movie would change every time you watch it. We could potentially possess the technology for accomplishing this.
Then I started searching for similar content, because this would hardly be such a unique thougth.

Turns out, there isn’t such a great deal of information of this.
Of course, what this needs is
1) a powerful AI to decide when to change plot, to what, in every plot turn.
2) Either a) a great deal of pre-produced content to replay at will, or b) a very powerful AI (or several) to produce the content as the movie runs.

I’m not thinking about interactive movies, what I’m looking for is more like procedural or emergent.
Everything starts with computer games, and what is called non-linear gameplay, where the player has eg. geographical or narrational freedom (like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Fallout series or Assassin’s Creed)

A new milestone in emergent narrative is the game Left 4 Dead and its AI Director, which changes the gameplay in a way that suites the current state in the game (changing the difficulty, amount of ammo, supplies etc).

Something other I stumbled upon in this search was a Markov chain. From Wikipedia: [A Markov chain is a sequence of random variables X1, X2, X3, ... with the Markov property, namely that, given the present state, the future and past states are independent.] [A Markov process, named after the Russian mathematician Andrey Markov, is a mathematical model for the random evolution of a memoryless system, that is, one for which the likelihood of a given future state, at any given moment, depends only on its present state, and not on any past states.]

In essence, the movie at point T1 (time) will have a plot turn to A1, excluding the other alternatives, which can affect the ending. At a further key point, the plot will change at T2 to A2, and thus excluding further developments that are dependent on A1.
I’m a visual person, so I drew a small figure to understand this.

Here is naturally only one possible beginning and seven different endings, depending on how the plot advances.

The technical limitations are beginning to diminish, because an emergent movie needs a lot of filmed material, a point which is kinda moot, given the thought how many hours of footage the clients do not see. I guess it wouldn’t be that hard to film multiple variations of the same scene.
And if it wouldn’t be accomplished with live-action actors, computer animation nowadays is very powerful (if Disney/Pixar wouldn’t use it as a money-printing device with the same dull one-liners and the same goddam fish).
I a sense, animation would make a more powerful impact, with much more possibilites than pre-recorded footage. Key points would be truly random.
The only limitation is naturally the narrational AI running everything, and there’s not coming anything out, maybe in a decade.

Still, a fascinating idea. Imagine a horror movie which surprises you at every time. Or what will happen when the bad guys do actually win.

Participating to a Livejournal wallpaper meme with my previous wallpapers, as far back as I can remember, chronologically backwards.
(free for taking, I’m feeling generous)

[personal photo]

[personal photo]

[Can't remember, google 'earth orbit' etc.]

[Carina Nebula and the dying star Eta Carinae]

[In the shadow of Saturn]
Interesting fact: the spot near the main rings on the upper left side. That’s our home.

[Saturn in blue and gold]

[Middelgrunden, source gone]

[Range Murata: RE:Futurhythm]

[Trigun Maximum 1 p.100]

My new lamp <3

I think I’ll continue with this series. There are so many logos to analyze, so many ads to insult.
This time I want to admire OP’s (Osuuspankki) new ads’ simplicity and play on words.

[rauhoitu, rauhoittaa]
To calm down

[rahoitu, rahoittaa]
To finance

The other sentences are Need for money? and It’ll get fixed/be allright.
Source: [1]

I’m taking the liberty to write a more ranty post, so this doesn’t include any works of my own. I’m just so frustrated at three images used in advertising/promotion that it makes me angry, and this is a good medium to spread frustration.

 
Part 1

The first image that I came upon was an ad of Unicef for it’s Ole hetken äiti (Be a mother for a moment) where you are supposed to pay them money with which they will save the starving African children and the world etc.

But in reality it’s saying “give us money and we will give you an illusional feeling that you get to be a mother, while never actually seeing your “baby”“.

This just takes advantage of not-so-hormonally-balanced lonesome women who wish to have a baby but can’t get one, be it a teenager with baby fever or an older woman who’s gone beyond the point of getting one.
So they will get the warm fuzzy feeling that they can have someone to love and be loved in exchange. For money. With nothing to receive.

Obviously I don’t know how individual females will react to this ad, but this is the feeling I get. This ad wouldn’t have been made, if it didn’t have a special demography or strategy.

The ad actually says “Right now at this moment there is a child who needs his mother. No one is embracing him, not wiping off his tears and gives a hope of a better tomorrow. He squats on a street hungry and tired. At nights he nestles in his newspaper he found. No one is tugging him up, reads him a bedtime story, or gives him a good night kiss. He closes his eyes, he remembers his mother’s face. He wishes that tomorrow, when he wakes up, his mother would’ve come back. And she would never die again.“

I mean jesus christ. The story goes on and on with the whole volume of the mother’s figure in the picture. They should get a fucking prize for that story.

Part 2

The other ad which got my blood boiling was the ad for Pelastakaa Lapset Ry (Save The Children Org.) which uses a cute child as a background, and a message dialogue which is very much like the one in OS X’s Aqua-theme.
Are they trying to be hip and trendy and appeal to the youth by an iconic and familiar layout? So why the cheesy [Save] and [Don't Save]-buttons?

A message dialogue is recognized as an issue, a problem, which has to adressed immediately on your OS in order to continue on the task at hand.
Your task at hand in the street is your everyday life, or walking. The message dialogue gives you an issue which has to be adressed immediately, so you get the feeling you have to choose one or the other, otherwise you can’t continue.
Saving will cost you money, not saving will cost you karma points.

Instead, removing the [Don't save]-button gives you the option to ignore the message altogether, because you never have only one option, you can always ignore stuff. But the dialogue does not have a [Cancel]-button, so you can’t ignore it. Save the children or be a monster.

But in the end, this is only about saving yourself. If you’re the philantrophist you want to be, you wouldn’t need ads to tell you what to do. This is the same things which makes you “aww” when you read from the newspaper that 700 people have died in a landslide in India. And then you turn the page.

Part 3

The third image is not really an ad at all, just a promotial picture for The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series from some newssite.

Those who know their semiotics, or the basics of visual communication, the most basic composition of a picture is triangular. This makes the image more dynamic, moving, interesting. There are leading lines or elements which are subtly formed triangularily, old paintings help with this with extended arms, gazes at specific characters etc.

The picture in question is rather genially composed:

I don’t know about you, but I’m a generic man, and the things that interest me in the context of pretty women are not so hard to guess, so my trail of sight went a bit like this:

First a cute girl, gun, tits, ass, nice older girl, tits, and oh, someone John Connor, who is stading behind the other important elements involved with in the series.
The main character wasn’t John Connor, they were Summer Glau’s tits and ass.

[EDIT] Okay, I could do some use and actually analyze the denotative side for those who are interested.
Glau is holding a very big and a smaller firearm, so she obviously is shooting often. Heady has only one small firearm, so she shoots, but not much. Just to make a point. Dekker obviously doesn’t have to shoot, so he doesn’t hold on to anything.
Glau is facing right to “open” the picture onto the right and also facing Dekker, who she is guarding. Also her ass is in clear view. Heady is standing in front and with her back against Dekker to protect him. She leans to the center of the picture to “close” the composition.
Glau is in a stance to give her movement, also is Dekker, and he’s walking towards the viewer from the back, to “face his future” or something.
Glau looks straight into the viewer, maybe to challenge them. Her eyes have strong make-up to catch the first glance of the viewer (contrast). Dekker is also watching the viewer a bit challegingly, but also mischievously, or rebelliously. Heady looks a bit askance, can’t figure out why.
The lights are highlighting Glau’s breasts and ass, also Heady’s breasts. Dekker is highlighted from the both sides symmetrically to emphase the center position.
Their clothes have the same color for aesthethic purposes, the light at the back could maybe signify a bomb, a sunrise (hope) or the future (sci-fi always has flashing lights).
And a lense flare. For the coolness.[/EDIT]

Epilogue

But surprisingly, yesterday I noticed an ad I actually like.
It was Valio’s ad about their main product line; milk.

The denotative side (what you see) shows a high-key closeup photo of milk with different things one ususally sweetens it up with, here strawberries.
The connotative side (what it says) is actually very subtle and honest, almost innocent.

It doesn’t tell you “buying this will make you happy/beautiful/popular“, it just wakes a craving for a very traditional form of sweetness, which has always existed in you.
And the minimalist layout is very aesthetic.

Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]