Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject:	Re: FLASH: The best Flash site ever? (A minority view)
From:	David Gary
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:10:27 +0100

Len Harrison wrote:

> If your workday Web surfing is monitored, then Bob Schmidt's post could
> cause problems for you. You might have to explain how you saw this. That
> shouldn't be too difficult if your job is or includes Flash development, but
> would be an insufferable pain. There should have been a disclaimer added. On
> the other hand, IMHO, if big brother is watching you so closely, it might be
> a good idea to find another employer. I'd think long and hard before
> sticking with an organization that did this or any one of several equivalent
> practices that equate to distrust of and spying on their employees. Your
> choice and your life and your mileage may vary. But if you are raising this
> point hypothetically vs. personally, it seems a weak cause for outrage. As
> does the "some people will be offended" ploy.
>
> It's true that this site is nowhere near as complex nor as interactive as
> the one it claimed to top. It may even be true this is <almost> spam.
> However, I think there are some good things here that raise it above a
> "design that is quite average and with nothing new to it". The moral outrage
> seems excessive and excessively PC. It is even possible that Bob Schmidt
> was actually expressing his honest opinion.
>
> The original site is an excellent and innovative use of Flash which provides
> a bit of a facelift to a hoary game genre that has been mined exhaustively
> from Colossal Caves to Sierra's variants with many mutations in between and
> after. While graphically excellent and a definite treat for those who like
> such things, there is a certain heavy slowness to it only partially
> alleviated by the anime-like storyline. This quality increases exponentially
> the longer you are stuck in the same puzzle. One can imagine a person being
> overcome with tedium. Possibly not you, but someone. Maybe Bob Schmidt.
>
> By contrast, the other site is an adrenalin pumper, whether nor not you are
> particularly attracted to or excited by its product. It is this very
> characteristic that makes it a successful piece of work for its purpose IMO.
> It moves VERY quickly. The realization and thematic use of the logo, the
> horizontal lines which throw out the text, the font style, the simple but
> effective use of transition sounds, and the way the number 5 turns into a
> design element, all work together to serve the designer's purpose: here is
> the future of Web porn. Heck, I practically believed him. The feature list
> pulses by so quickly you *almost* register the elements but have no time to
> analyze any one before the next one moves through. So you tend to just take
> them in without thought, believing you will have time to consider it at the
> end. Which, of course, you don't, making this aspect of the piece nearly
> subliminal. The quick fade-throughs of the three .jpgs provide an
> intentionally brief and provocative view into what lies within.
>
> The drum machine loop is undeniably trite, to be sure. Fortunately the work
> ends when it does because the loop could not bear another repitition. The 5
> vector images at the end of the piece are the big letdown, however. The
> designer is trying for a tie-in to the 5 in FF5 when, in all probability the
> 5 simply exists for the sake of alliteration. There's no easy solution here,
> but the road taken is weak and a bit of a cop-out. The figures are static
> and generic. Only one of them has even the semblence of existence as
> anything but would-be stock art. The designer would have gotten much better
> results from any frustrated 14-year-old male with passable drawing skills.
> He might have mined bathroom walls for truly original treatments as well.
> There are also a number of alternative creative paths to tie-in the 5 motif,
> ranging from the obvious to the surreal, including an obvious but surreal
> take on the obvious. Each of these would require risk, however. And this
> designer, although competant and clever in his or her use of the medium for
> commercial effect, is not a risk-taker. It is this aspect of his or her work
> which prompted the comment quoted above, and this which keeps this piece
> from fully realizing the artistic impulse which so obviously motivated it.
>
> Truly one wonders, though, what there is to be so offended by here. We have
> the use of that most ancient Anglo-saxon F word in the logo -- the url
> itself is disguised by initials and so will probably pass your big brother's
> watch if he doesn't employ a current bad-site list. And if he does, why
> doesn't he just screen these? Is he TRYING to trap you? There is a warning,
> if you noticed, in the title bar before the Flash loads, so there is time to
> back out if you are of a mind to. Other than the repeated use of that word
> in the logo, there a three .jpgs of partially-clad women which come and go
> rather quickly. That's it for "objectionable" content unless you count the
> mannequins at the end. Which you'd never reach if you were truly offended.
> The rest is just suggestion and pulse-pumping animation. And not much
> suggestion. So why are people so irate? Perhaps even I have underrated this
> work. Perhaps it so perfectly catches the ambience of sex merchandising (the
> above mentioned weaknesses may well have been intentional) that people react
> to the sense of the pruient, even when the substance is not there.
>

So wada you sayin'?

-DG-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an
email to list-manager