I am a complete music-lover. I love listening to almost any kind of music and bollywood songs are somethin that always attract me. I love venturing into listening to never heard of songs and figuring out if I like them.
But since the past few years, I have feel that the industry is facing some serious lack of talent. There are rarely any songs I come across that are really worth an "ear". You may be able to dance to them, but listening to them happens to be a bad idea most of the times.
There is no doubt about the fact that there are a few lyricists who do a brilliant job, but nevertheless, they cannot make up for the "sleazy" lyrics that are entertained in the industry. One of the songs that I recently came across that "convinced" me to write this article was "Dum Maro Dum" - The new version or may I call it the "Deepika" gig.
Honestly, the lyrics are horrendous [which i honestly feel is an understatement]. They are just ridiculous and "cheap". I agree that "rebel" is the point, but there are always different ways of portraying it. Just like the way I mentioned in my previous article "Role of the media", it depends on the person who is writing the song as to how to portray the message and I am convinced this was not the definitely the best one.
It also becomes inevitable to compare the song to the old "Zeenat" version. That was about rebel too, but very "sensibly" put across. If you blame at the kids being "matured more than their age", this is what we are feeding them with. Just dropping clothes off a popular face's body, one cannot cover up for irresponsible lyrics.
I started off writing this article about how the lyrics were sleazy, but in the course of writing, I feel they are irresponsible. Kids are what you bring them as, and this is exactly what we are feeding into the younger generation. So we should either take charge, or not complain about the way they are.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Looking for a greater concern
"Hike in the fuel prices? No issue. Thanks to Morgan A.E.C ... " [Not sure what the company name was :) ]
This was a hoarding that i saw put up on my way to office today. It really led me to some deeper thinking and introspection. Is it that the only issue people have the with the hike in fuel prices is the "money"? Are we really driven only by the glitter on wealth? Are finances our only concern?
I definitely realise that it is a marketing strategy and they are trying to find a selling point for their product. Nevertheless, it does bring these questions to my mind. There are very few people who see fuel prices as a dithering environment or lack of resources. What they think of is the actual "cost" in monetary terms. "Ecology", "eco-friendly" etc. have started seeming to be mere words to flaunt for a greater public without a real thought put into it.
That brings me to the other side of the coin- people who over-use the "eco" term without really keeping into consideration the real cost factor for the masses. A lot of designers I know or have seen are raving about their eco-products. The media appreciates this effort as a step towards an eco-friendly living. But a step by whom and for whom. Its just a few may be. The products are so heavily prices that a common man - the one who forms the majority in the world - can never afford it. I agree that eco-friendly products may be more expensive but it shouldn't be placed in a way that a person with an average income cannot afford it.
The real challenge is to promote "green environment and lifestyle" to the masses. Why do we have green products mostly in accessories that are a product set for the slightly more "well earning" crowd. Fancy bags, Lamps, Swanky home accessories, etc. dont fit into a common man's mind set.
A person earning little also buys his child a bag for school. But he cannot afford 4-5 different bags for a different day. Then why dont we make such utility bags at a lower cost? Its easy to design for the rich and target an affluent audience, but why dont a lot of designers take up the challenge of designing for the average?
No matter how many efforts are being made to promote green living, it brings me back to the idea "Eco-friendly is for the rich". I am forced to think about this idea!
Our society has become so "money driven" that money is as important oxygen. But we miss the point that the increase in the money is not getting us more oxygen. It is probably decreasing it! Sustainability and wealth should never be dependent - atleast not directly proportional.
This was a hoarding that i saw put up on my way to office today. It really led me to some deeper thinking and introspection. Is it that the only issue people have the with the hike in fuel prices is the "money"? Are we really driven only by the glitter on wealth? Are finances our only concern?
I definitely realise that it is a marketing strategy and they are trying to find a selling point for their product. Nevertheless, it does bring these questions to my mind. There are very few people who see fuel prices as a dithering environment or lack of resources. What they think of is the actual "cost" in monetary terms. "Ecology", "eco-friendly" etc. have started seeming to be mere words to flaunt for a greater public without a real thought put into it.
That brings me to the other side of the coin- people who over-use the "eco" term without really keeping into consideration the real cost factor for the masses. A lot of designers I know or have seen are raving about their eco-products. The media appreciates this effort as a step towards an eco-friendly living. But a step by whom and for whom. Its just a few may be. The products are so heavily prices that a common man - the one who forms the majority in the world - can never afford it. I agree that eco-friendly products may be more expensive but it shouldn't be placed in a way that a person with an average income cannot afford it.
The real challenge is to promote "green environment and lifestyle" to the masses. Why do we have green products mostly in accessories that are a product set for the slightly more "well earning" crowd. Fancy bags, Lamps, Swanky home accessories, etc. dont fit into a common man's mind set.
A person earning little also buys his child a bag for school. But he cannot afford 4-5 different bags for a different day. Then why dont we make such utility bags at a lower cost? Its easy to design for the rich and target an affluent audience, but why dont a lot of designers take up the challenge of designing for the average?
No matter how many efforts are being made to promote green living, it brings me back to the idea "Eco-friendly is for the rich". I am forced to think about this idea!
Our society has become so "money driven" that money is as important oxygen. But we miss the point that the increase in the money is not getting us more oxygen. It is probably decreasing it! Sustainability and wealth should never be dependent - atleast not directly proportional.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Role of the media
Media, in my opinion, is one of the strongest and the most influential industries in India and across the globe. There are no two-minds about the fact that it has brought in a lot of awareness in the minds and the mind sets of the people but there are very few who really look into the split side of the powers of the media.
There are just more than a few questions that come to my mind when I watch a news channel or read a newspaper.
Why do I prefer reading only the gossip columns of the newspapers?
With time, I realised that my interest in any form of news gradually decreased. And this was marked by the "Godhra kand". Amidst all the chaos, I was gearing up for my 10th board exams. My exams got postponed and I was so well geared that I got fed up of reading the same syllabus again and again. So I switched to watching some TV. News was pretty much the only things getting aired then - Local or national. I noticed that there was violence shown all the time. Even if nothing big had happened, the news channels would air the same footage again and again through the day to give an impression of high-scale violence. It started making me feel that it was more of staging somethings and feeding violence into a person's mind more than authentic journalism. [By authentic journalism, I mean Journalism that is targeted towards spreading awareness and not violence. It would mean that it is more than just a money making business. A stand that is carefully taken so that you dont convey a biased opinion to your audience]. News eventually started feeling very repulsive. It seemed like it was just a well crafted story rather than an authentic experience/information. Gradually, I started feeling that gossip columns were more real. They did what they were meant to do and did not pretend to be real or authentic. As superficial as they are, they are still just "gossip columns" that are merely a "believe it or not" thing. [That might have gone all over the place, but the subject I was addressing here had a very varied context.]
That brings me to my next question.
Why is our journalism promoting violence and feeding it so deep into people's minds?
May it be the 9-11 footages or footages from the recent catastrophe that struck Japan, I dont really remember seeing a lot of dead bodies. Those were violent images but not smothered with blood. That is what I would call an intelligent piece of information. There are kids who see/follow newspapers/news channels and from an artist's point of view, I firmly believe that you can depict the real picture without being literal.
I have seen a lot of Indian media people covering deadbodies, people smothered in blood, bombed bodies etc. Is that really essential? In order to say that there was an attack that happened, do we really need to cover the body of the person who was stabbed? What is it that media is trying to feed into the viewer's/reader's mind? Is it really the information that they want to convey or are they just trying to feed our minds with sheer violence and a resultant baggage of hatred?
Ah! That was a lot of introspection for now. See ya later :)
There are just more than a few questions that come to my mind when I watch a news channel or read a newspaper.
Why do I prefer reading only the gossip columns of the newspapers?
With time, I realised that my interest in any form of news gradually decreased. And this was marked by the "Godhra kand". Amidst all the chaos, I was gearing up for my 10th board exams. My exams got postponed and I was so well geared that I got fed up of reading the same syllabus again and again. So I switched to watching some TV. News was pretty much the only things getting aired then - Local or national. I noticed that there was violence shown all the time. Even if nothing big had happened, the news channels would air the same footage again and again through the day to give an impression of high-scale violence. It started making me feel that it was more of staging somethings and feeding violence into a person's mind more than authentic journalism. [By authentic journalism, I mean Journalism that is targeted towards spreading awareness and not violence. It would mean that it is more than just a money making business. A stand that is carefully taken so that you dont convey a biased opinion to your audience]. News eventually started feeling very repulsive. It seemed like it was just a well crafted story rather than an authentic experience/information. Gradually, I started feeling that gossip columns were more real. They did what they were meant to do and did not pretend to be real or authentic. As superficial as they are, they are still just "gossip columns" that are merely a "believe it or not" thing. [That might have gone all over the place, but the subject I was addressing here had a very varied context.]
That brings me to my next question.
Why is our journalism promoting violence and feeding it so deep into people's minds?
May it be the 9-11 footages or footages from the recent catastrophe that struck Japan, I dont really remember seeing a lot of dead bodies. Those were violent images but not smothered with blood. That is what I would call an intelligent piece of information. There are kids who see/follow newspapers/news channels and from an artist's point of view, I firmly believe that you can depict the real picture without being literal.
I have seen a lot of Indian media people covering deadbodies, people smothered in blood, bombed bodies etc. Is that really essential? In order to say that there was an attack that happened, do we really need to cover the body of the person who was stabbed? What is it that media is trying to feed into the viewer's/reader's mind? Is it really the information that they want to convey or are they just trying to feed our minds with sheer violence and a resultant baggage of hatred?
Ah! That was a lot of introspection for now. See ya later :)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Few issues that people may face while writing
As my blog is correctly titled "Dappled Thoughts", you can definitely expect random things coming your way. I have been doing some article correction lately as a little help to a good friend. Reflecting on how things have been in the past couple if days and also on my past experiences of article checking, these are a few things that I feel cause a problem in putting forward good content:
1. Some people tend to do a lot of reading, which is a very good habit I feel. Getting thorough with the topic is a great way to go. But when they need to really reproduce their content out of it, all the information seems to flow out in one go. This causes, what I would call it as, a "brain choke" [the antonym of "brain drain" maybe]. Elaborating on this phenomenon, what happens is that at the very beginning of the article itself, the writer gets overflowed by the info and wants to put everything in the very first part. As a result, the segregation or the sequencing of information doesn't really happen. This, in my opinion, leads to a very cluttered article and also at times, an article that is very poorly punctuated.
2. This brings me to my second point - Poorly sequenced/articulated articles. With the information heavy in the head, the writer some time tends to flaunt all he knows in one article. I am very carefully choosing the word "flaunt" here because I personally feel that a good article about a subject need not essentially cover everything about the topic. It could contain a few bullet points about it but in a way that whatever is conveyed is conveyed very clearly. It is great if you can put across all the information, but not at the cost of the clarity of the subject. Information beyond need or understandability is a mere clutter and leads to the disinterest of the reader.
3. This is an issue which is an extreme end of the first point. At times, one doesn't really have enough information - due to lack of willingness or sources. Either ways, the writer tends to make all the information he has too stretchy. I have read a lot of content that makes me feel like the writer is merely "beating around the bush". After reading an article that feels as long as an eternity, there is almost nothing I gain out of it.
4. Another problem I see people facing is that they don't like to read their own articles. Once they are done with writing, they just want to let it go. That is something that the writers should really see. When you read your own article (i.e. if you do, which I think you should), you should read it twice and from two different points of view. First is from a writer's point of view. Tighten you content and get rid of any errors that might exist. Second is from a reader's point of view. Any product should be reviewed at from a user perspective. This is applicable to articles too.Read your article and see if it really catches your attention. Ask yourself if you are persuaded to look further into the topic you have just written about. This might be a good feedback session for your content.
Well these were just a few points I thought of writing down as they came to me. I shall add in more as and when they strike me.
P.S.: In case that this post is one of the things mentioned about, please pardon me and also, do let me know. Its something that was very impromptu and I was keep on posting it as an almost involuntarily written article and not as finished content.
1. Some people tend to do a lot of reading, which is a very good habit I feel. Getting thorough with the topic is a great way to go. But when they need to really reproduce their content out of it, all the information seems to flow out in one go. This causes, what I would call it as, a "brain choke" [the antonym of "brain drain" maybe]. Elaborating on this phenomenon, what happens is that at the very beginning of the article itself, the writer gets overflowed by the info and wants to put everything in the very first part. As a result, the segregation or the sequencing of information doesn't really happen. This, in my opinion, leads to a very cluttered article and also at times, an article that is very poorly punctuated.
2. This brings me to my second point - Poorly sequenced/articulated articles. With the information heavy in the head, the writer some time tends to flaunt all he knows in one article. I am very carefully choosing the word "flaunt" here because I personally feel that a good article about a subject need not essentially cover everything about the topic. It could contain a few bullet points about it but in a way that whatever is conveyed is conveyed very clearly. It is great if you can put across all the information, but not at the cost of the clarity of the subject. Information beyond need or understandability is a mere clutter and leads to the disinterest of the reader.
3. This is an issue which is an extreme end of the first point. At times, one doesn't really have enough information - due to lack of willingness or sources. Either ways, the writer tends to make all the information he has too stretchy. I have read a lot of content that makes me feel like the writer is merely "beating around the bush". After reading an article that feels as long as an eternity, there is almost nothing I gain out of it.
4. Another problem I see people facing is that they don't like to read their own articles. Once they are done with writing, they just want to let it go. That is something that the writers should really see. When you read your own article (i.e. if you do, which I think you should), you should read it twice and from two different points of view. First is from a writer's point of view. Tighten you content and get rid of any errors that might exist. Second is from a reader's point of view. Any product should be reviewed at from a user perspective. This is applicable to articles too.Read your article and see if it really catches your attention. Ask yourself if you are persuaded to look further into the topic you have just written about. This might be a good feedback session for your content.
Well these were just a few points I thought of writing down as they came to me. I shall add in more as and when they strike me.
P.S.: In case that this post is one of the things mentioned about, please pardon me and also, do let me know. Its something that was very impromptu and I was keep on posting it as an almost involuntarily written article and not as finished content.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The design mini-travelogue
In years that have passed, the concept of design in India has evolved greatly. Back in school, design to me was nothing more that something that involves both art and logic. But with a carefree yet confident attitude, I dived into it with a hunch that this was what I was meant to do.
To cut the long story short, I graduated with a much more developed idea of design and with the words of wisdom that said "To say that I was born to do this would be dramatic, but I am happily stuck with it now".
I graduated as a Professional in Product and interface design. The most valuable thing that this field gave me was flexibility and adaptability. A "never to say no to anything" attitude was what became an inherent part of me. So from being a "product" designer and doing bamboo lamps, I switched to doing mobile and software interfaces and now into web interaction/usability and even graphics at times.
But this strange journey has retained my belief and even made it stronger. Design is definitely an exquisite combination of creativity and logic. As a graphic designer, I go crazy on the web layouts and making things fancy and appealing but the usability professional in me tones things down onto a more logical ground to make things more user-friendly.
To cut the long story short, I graduated with a much more developed idea of design and with the words of wisdom that said "To say that I was born to do this would be dramatic, but I am happily stuck with it now".
I graduated as a Professional in Product and interface design. The most valuable thing that this field gave me was flexibility and adaptability. A "never to say no to anything" attitude was what became an inherent part of me. So from being a "product" designer and doing bamboo lamps, I switched to doing mobile and software interfaces and now into web interaction/usability and even graphics at times.
But this strange journey has retained my belief and even made it stronger. Design is definitely an exquisite combination of creativity and logic. As a graphic designer, I go crazy on the web layouts and making things fancy and appealing but the usability professional in me tones things down onto a more logical ground to make things more user-friendly.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Prototypes I
Prototyping:
initially i tried using printed weaves as seen on the top part of the cube. But it proved to be a little misleading in terms of the appearance and effect. so i tried using actual material or something that could simulate similar effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)