MX: Reading Response II: Cinema

The language of cinema is inherently embedded in the language of the interface. Even comparing the two raises many important considerations for web designers, and how they should think about the worlds that they're giving life to. Thinking about a website in terms of cinematic space made me realize in a more concrete way (that now, thanks to the reading, I can articulate), that websites are constructed realities, that they are "windows" (as the reading purports) into worlds that we've constructed for our audiences, in the same way that movie sets and the language of cinematography serve as structural and narrative elements. Considering this, web designers should then ask themselves "What kind of experience am I creating for my user?" "What environment do I want them to feel as though they're suspended in?" and specifically for the design of portfolio sites: "What cinematic backdrop do I want to create for my work? How do I want users to interact with my work, what environment is best suited to the interpretation of my work?" On a more subjective level, this reading synced really nicely with my Constructivism and the Bauhaus class, referencing many Constructivist artists, and specifically Vertov's Kinoeye, a fantastic exploration of the semantics and expressive possibilities of the semiotic language of cinema and perception.

In any case, these are all important questions that I'm working to solve. In my interaction model, Im encouraging a kind of quilt of imagery that users are navigating through in the same way one would navigate a more dynamic slide-projector. To me, the website is transparent. The interface, hopefully is transparent. The work is the emphasis. However, in doing so I'm now wondering what the grid has to do with my work in general. I'm also wondering how the connotations of the quilt will affect the perception of my work. Is this interaction congruous with my design? In some ways yes. I'm enchanted with simplicity, logic, rationality, and order. The grid is an obvious component of this. What I'm wondering more about, perhaps, is the transition from one piece of the grid to the next. Is the space divided between the two frames? Does it merely wipe? Or is there a more poetic or appropriate way of transitioning? In the language of cinema, I'm simply moving a fixed-perspective camera through a checkerboard, flat environment. Is dimension appropriate? Is perspective important? Is grounding it in a more physical reality more important? Or is this abstraction pertinent to my work?

So this reading did for me what any good class related reading should do. It raised more questions than I'm comfortable with.
Back to the drawing board!