Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
tionally realistic imagery. One may find several
other ways to pretend there is different actuality
or reality disguised by camouflage, for example,
the camouflage artwork of Bev Doolittle. Craig
Reynolds (2011) designed an abstract computation
model of the evolution of camouflage in nature,
“The 2D model uses evolved textures for
prey
, a
background texture representing the
environment
,
and a visual
predator
. A human observer, acting
as the predator, is shown a
cohort
of 10 evolved
textures overlaid on the background texture. The
observer clicks on the five most conspicuous prey
to remove (“eat”) them” (Reynolds, 2011, p. 123).
One of the proponents of Op art Bridget Riley
(2012) shows movement on still canvas. Consider-
ing that “Camouflage can be thought of as visual
warfare,” the Ohio State University Department
of Theatre and the Advanced Computing Center
for the Arts and Design produced in 2011 “The
Camouflage Project” (http://camouflage.osu.edu/
camouflage.html). Also, in his camouflage art
an artist Liu Bolin (2010) turns himself into the
invisible man. Inspired by how some animals can
blend into their environment, Bolin uses camou-
flage principles to create his art.
There are many camouflage restaurants blend-
ed with the surroundings or pretending they are
something else by applying unusual decor. Also,
hundreds of hotels defy convention, hosting quests
in the cars, aircraft, in a prison, a lighthouse, a
treehouse, underground, underwater, on the top
of cranes, and in other unusual places.
As a summary, when discussing pretenders
and misleaders we may think about their look,
functionality of the product and its effective-
ness in terms of cost, maintenance, or ecology,
messages it conveys, joy, fun, and emotions
they evoke. We may ponder why the pretenders
and misleaders are so ubiquitous and what kind
of needs they satisfy. Maybe, they quench our
inclination toward spontaneous playfulness. If
so, we may seek advantages of applying them
in communication, product design, and in
instruction. We may use their ludic - relating
to play or playfulness properties to entertain,
evoke attention, emotion, and curiosity, and
thus enhance the attractive qualities of a prod-
uct or motivation of the learner. With cognitive
approach to mental imagery, one can include
pretenders as tools to visualize a concept and
create image representation of it. Thus, we
may make pretenders, misleaders, informers,
and multitaskers a tool for instruction, as well
as the product design and it's marketing; they
convey both emotion and poetry, and make us
aware of the artistic context of material culture
of the products.
CONCLUSION
Meaningful messages may be conveyed in product
design with the use of pretenders as the carriers
of hidden messages; they refer to visual practices
in design and visualization. Analysis of hidden
messages conveyed by pretenders, misleaders, in-
formers, double-duty gadgets, and multifunctional
tools may be discussed as cognitive reflections of
the real world, and also possible communication
tools. The same applies to the importance of prod-
uct design aesthetics in marketing, architecture,
and visualization.
Camouflage, which could be understood as
the disguising forms, patterns, or coloring that
enables to blend with the surroundings may be
seen somehow related to the concept of hiding
messages through pretending. The existence of
camouflage in art and social vents makes us
aware of the artistic context of material culture
of the products.
REFERENCES
Berens, R. R. (1999). The role of artists in ship
camouflage during world war I.
Leonardo
,
32
(1),
53-59. doi:10.1162/002409499553000.
