Re: virus: Now for something completely different -- My Thesis

gary dickson (g_dickson@rocketmail.com)
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:39:03 -0700 (PDT)

---"B. Lane Robertson" <metaphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The organization of these ideas according to the
> pattern presented by the meme formed an organized
> defense against the threat imposed. The
> organization of ideas according to the pattern
> presented also led to a form of automatic
> "drawing" by which I went into a state of trance/
> mystification and drew a graphic design which (I
> assume) was a representation of the defensive
> structure, an "anti-body" clothed in behavior and
> recorded in the design itself.
>
> I can't say if the design protected me from the
> meme. In one sense of the word, the design was a
> direct result OF the meme. I DO assume that a
> graphic design (as a superior organization of
> ideas) can create a resistance to "inferior"
> memetic designs. As for creating an anti-body
> which has a continued effect on the mutative (or
> viral) tendencies by which a meme might
> degenerate back to a previous developmental
> stage... I suppose this seems likely (as the
> previous behaviors of the evolutionarily inferior
> meme have also *evolved* to a point at which they
> might mimic the design of the superior meme... in
> response to its introduction).
>
> And, I suppose that my difficulty with your
> proposal is in the distinction between virus,
> meme, and *antibody*. I would say that the
> graphic design is either a meme or an antibody and
> the deconstruction of this design (by which the
> design elements might be tested) would result in
> viral mutations of the design. As such, their
> memetic viability would be tested-- as regards the
> applicability of the design elements to the stages
> of the development of design... and the strength
> of these consecutive stages in the development of
> the design would determine if the design, as
> originally conceived, was truly a memetic ideal or
> if it were a reaction against another meme-- if it
> were, in the second case, merely an antibody.
>
> As such, the "viral" component of a design is
> contained in its disorder rather than it's
> order... that or in its "generalizability" to
> other applications (which seems counter to the
> intent of design in the first place).
>

There are a few things here that must at this point be clarified

First -- Graphic design is often confused with illustration. I
suspect that is part of what has happened here. Graphic design is
generally commissioned by another party, person or business. Any one
(or a series/set/system) of these would be concidered "graphic design"
-- packaging, posters, books, booklets, brochures, corporate identity
systems, web site. This is by no means an all inclusive list but I
hope that you get the idea.

Secondly -- and probably more importantly, CLARIFICATION -- my thesis
is that graphic design is always at least part of the sticky outter
casing and *sometimes* part of the memetic code itself. The sticky
protein shell of a virus is how it attatches itself to a cell. This
shell, in the case of a biological virus, is not a part of the genetic
code within. In the case of a mind-virus the sticky casing (graphic
design) is most effective if it actually incorporates some of the
memetic code. Examples are the best way I can think of to clarify what
I mean by this --

1) The exterior of a book, magazine, booklet or brochure is so
interesting in appearance that you pick it up off the store shelf and
thumb through it, reading bits and pieces, possibly infecting yourself
with memes contained in it. The most effective design would tie the
cover design into the subject matter contained on the inside -- thus
the design becomes part of the code infecting your mind.

2) The interior layout/design of a book, magazine, booklet or brochure
is done so well that simply thumbing through it provides a great deal
of pleasure. You end up reading and possibly becoming infected with
some of the memes contained therein. This design also in its most
effective form would somehow be realated to the subject matter and
thus become part of the viral code (memes).

3) A poster, regarding some subject which you might normally not be
interested, draws your attention simply by its aesthetic appeal. You
are drawn in and spend a few minutes looking at it, maybe even reading
it -- possibly becoming infected.

4) A good logo is one that (a) catches peoples attention, (b) sticks
in their minds, and (c) is somehow reflective of what the company it
represents does or stands for. Notice here how a, b, and c related to
the descritions in each of the previous examples.

5) Almost all other graphic design such as packaging, corporate
identity, etc. would work by the same basic principles as 1, 2, 3, and
4.

Not all graphic design is actually part of the memetic code contained
within the product. Sometimes design may simply be slick, flashy, or
trendy and be completely unrelated to the contents. This is not "good
design"!

I hope that this helps clarify things a bit (and not just confuse them
more).

Gary D.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com