It’s been a fortnight since my last post, which means that I’m off to a slow start. Firstly, thanks to Xander for any traffic he threw my way, and to Danu (who also just launched his new blog) for reminding me that the more I think about what I’m going to write, the less likely it is that I will *ever* post anything.
So two or three semi-complete drafts (which may never see the light of day) later, I was midway through reading a post on Danu’s temporary Facebook blog about his ‘take’ on Los Angeles when some of the thoughts that have been running around my brain for the last few days bean to cement themselves. To quote, if I may…
“LA is thick with the silent labouring of millions of people each trying to be more successful than everyone else. And if they can’t do that, then at least make it look like they are. The result is bizarre and like a movie - a plausible, some would say more pleasing, version of reality so long as you stay inside the frame.”
If you know me, you probably also know I’m a fairly emotive person, I endeavour to feel my way through things, and so often I trust my initial reaction. For me LA was interesting to visit, but I never quite understood what the hubbub was all about. And yet, Danu’s perceptions are so succinct. I never understood the city because I was out of the frame. I made a judgement on the basis of an initial reaction and didn’t revisit it later to seek out an alternate frame of view.
Anyone who has spent moments behind the viewfinder of a camera, still or film, will know that the perfect shot is often so produced there’s nothing real left in it. Only an expression of what is perceived as real chosen from a very specific angle with the intent to convey something precisely. And yet, our collective psyche is bombarded with these images minute to minute, engineering a generation that is more opinionated and constantly demanding. We are always asked what we think about something and although I’m not aloof enough to suggest there was ever such a thing as pure objectivity, I still long for the days (if they ever existed) where fact meant more than opinion.
But what does this all have to do with first impressions? On Friday last week I installed Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. I was appalled by the direction the Mac BU at Microsoft had taken the application and I lamented the seeming lack of thought that had been put into some of their decisions. My first impressions almost had me uninstalling the app straight away because I didn’t like something Microsoft had done. They’d changed the Word icon and it didn’t suit me.
Why such a strong reaction? In the lead-up to the release I’d seen plenty of very attractively designed pieces put out by their team, I was even looking forward to having a play, and yet when one thing didn’t fit the way I’d forethought it out, it was cast aside. I’ve even written the first paragraph of a blog post about how much I hated those icons and the needless eye candy in the new release.
(Let the permanent record state that Microsoft are, at present, eye candy crazy as were Apple about 4-5 years ago. They’re playing catchup in a new world they don’t understand and are making themselves look worse at every turn - Vista anyone? But I digress, more on Microsoft another day).
Having looked at the icon, and the packaging a little more, the new icon is growing on me. Just like some of those songs that are on high rotation in the Top 40. Does this mean I actually like it, or should I just trust my first reaction like I did with the Rhianna’s Umbrella.
I’ll have to get back to you on that one. Eh eh.
[EDIT] In an ironic twist, I spent the better part of 5 minutes looking for the Umbrella video to link to this post - I didn’t like the one with Jay Z in it, but apparently it was the only version. Resentfully I started watching it… and guess what? It’s growing on me.
Luke | 
02 18th, 2008| 