Jim Drogan initiated a conversation here, and because my response is long and I think including some links would be helpful I’m posting rather than adding another comment. I enjoyed reading through your ideas on visual communication Professor Drogan. It encouraged me to read a little about pattern recognition in various places online, and to try and connect these thoughts with what we do at BLSCI.
My understanding of pattern recognition (which is pretty limited) is that it involves using statistical models to classify or categorize large amounts of information. I think the interesting thing about it is that the ‘meaning’ then comes from the pattern itself, not the individual pieces of information that are being communicated. Which seems like a useful way to deal with such massive amounts of information but also leads me to ask if we are then required to change our ideas of what effective communication is.
I think to some degree, yes. On the one hand, things like accuracy and clarity are still important. But effective visual communication probably can’t stop there, because more ‘affective’ qualities are what catch people’s attention amidst information overload. Of course, many times in our work with students, we are addressing pretty basic ways to improve communication. But many of them are still very affective and visual. Stand up straight, don’t swing your arm like that, use natural gestures. Or, don’t use yellow and red together in a Powerpoint slide–it hurts the viewers eyes! All these things serve to keep the audience’s attention.
If these more qualitative elements of communication have become increasingly important, I also think it suggests that talking about ethics is important. For instance, in your document, you use the image that BLSCI has incorporated into the invitation for the Symposium this Spring. When Mikhail first showed that image to us at the institute, we had a conversation about the fact that it was an image from the 1950s of all white men in suits standing around a desk. My first thought was ‘yikes!’ That is not particularly representative of the world these days, especially not Baruch and CUNY. But that was exactly his point, to use an image of ‘the old’ to raise the question of whether there might be “New Rules” and thus the need to debate “Convention and Change in Communication.”
The document I posted was concerned about recognizing a pattern and moving quickly to action. The thesis being that unless we act, the pattern would be of little use and therefore one should be concerned less concerned about how the pattern would be produced.
Your comment regarding producing the pattern warrants further treatment. More thought is also required about patterns that we don’t easily recognize. Interesting stuff, this.
Sophisticated mathematical models and high-speed computers are not required to produce meaningful patterns. Your mention of “…image that BLSCI has incorporated into the invitation for the Symposium this Spring.” is an example of this.
The symbol for last year’s symposium is a pattern that I, despite Mikhail’s best attempts at explanation, have never been able to recognize (in the sense of finding the meaning).
I very much buy into the notion that new rules for communication are not only required, but need to be accommodated. The younger generation never asked the older generation if SMS was within the rules.
Perhaps our views of communication are too tethered by tradition and bias.
Reply to James Drogan
Jim is referring to the image of two people navigating a labyrinth in conversation we used for the program and posters for the 6th Symposium. Here’s a link.
Reply to Mikhail