Words I hate « canalside view. “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language… let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Genesis 11: 5-7 Activation. You mean events, right? Align. Same as agree. Just sounds neater and tidier. Analytics. Anthropology. Awards. Brainstorm. Co-creation. Community. Consumer. Content. Conversation. Crowdsource. Curate. Data. Dead. e.g. Deliverable. Digital. Engagement. Essence. Equity. Fans. Filmic. Gamification. Ideate. Influencers. Insight. Integration. Learnings. Leverage. Lightweight. Listening. Loyalty.
Marketing. Messaging. Mission. Monetize. Onion. Own. Overwhelmed. Participation. Personality. Pyramid. Positioning. Reach Out. Relationships. Research. ROI. Segmentation. Social. Storytelling. Strategist. Synergy. Temple. Test. Transmedia. Trend. TV. Underwhelmed. Utility. Validate. Viral.
Vision. Workshop. We call ourselves communicators. We are awash with marketing doublespeak. And lot less self-serving bullshit? 4 Ways To Know If You're Making Content Or "Culturematics" A Culturematic is a small machine for making culture. We use them to create new messages, new memes, new products, new services. We fire our Culturematic into the deep space of an inscrutable future and wait to see. Most will keep going. But some will phone home. Ah, we say, there’s something out there. Culturematics have created some of the most vigorous innovations.
They have helped invent Fantasy Football, reality TV, community in Greensboro, Alabama, Burning Man, ROFLCon, the rebirth of SNL, Wordle, the Ford Fiesta Movement, Gatorade’s "Replay" and Twitter. Here are (four) properties that define something as a Culturematic. 1. Culturematics capture our attention. Culturematics can also prove catchy because they have an inherent drama. 2.
Is there anything vaster than the vastness of the heavens? Someone on the SETI team (and I wish I knew who) had the good idea of making the world’s biggest problem tidy and bite sized. The poet Frank O’Hara wrote a series called Lunch Poems. 3. 4. Le skeuomorphisme : raccourci sémiotique vintage. Déniché par Sébastien il y a quelques jours, le concept de skeuomorphisme (du grec skeuos – l’outil et morphe – la forme) est passionnant.
Il désigne la forme d’un objet nouveau empruntée à un objet ancien. Une image vaut 1000 mots, aussi, les exemples sont innombrables : pensez aux corbeilles sur nos bureaux d’ordinateur, aux boutons sur les sites web, aux enjoliveurs d’auto à rayons, aux icones de la plupart des programmes informatiques (l’e-mail ou les dossiers), les effets vintage appliqués aux photos d’Instagram ou d’Hipstamatic… Une quantité incroyable d’objets réels ou virtuels doivent leur design à des artefacts anciens et identifiés. Cela illustre parfaitement le fameux effet de diligence, postulant que les usages de chaque nouvelle technologie commencent toujours pas s’inspirer de celle qu’elle remplace : les wagons de train étaient dessinés en forme de diligence, la photographie a commencé par imiter la peinture, la télévision filmait des pièces de théâtre…
Hemline index. The theory suggests that hemlines on women's dresses rise along with stock prices. In good economies, we get such results as miniskirts (as seen in the 1960s),[3] or in poor economic times, as shown by the 1929 Wall Street Crash, hems can drop almost overnight. Non-peer-reviewed research in 2010 confirmed the correlation, suggesting that "the economic cycle leads the hemline with about three years".[4] Desmond Morris revisited the theory in his book The Naked Ape.
See also[edit] Men's underwear index References[edit] Jump up ^ Tamar Lewin, The hemline index, updated, International Herald Tribune, October 19, 2008Jump up ^ See also Henrietta Prast "Fashionomics", Wilmott Magazine, June 2005, who cites Paul Nystrom in his 1928 monograph, The Economics of Fashion as the source of the theory.Jump up ^ Claire Brayford, "The Hemline Economy", Daily Express, February 13, 2008Jump up ^ Marjolein van Baardwijk, Philip Hans Franses (2010).
How Cute. Think of great art, and great adjectives come to mind. Art, we tend to assume, should be "overwhelming," "beautiful," and "sublime. " In real life, though, and even in museums, those emotions are rare. Most of the artworks and objects which surround us are weirder and less exalted: They're "cute," rather than beautiful, "zany," rather than sublime, and "interesting," rather than overwhelming. Sianne Ngai, a professor in the Stanford English department, has been thinking about these "ambiguous" aesthetic categories for years, in essays with titles likes "Merely Interesting.
" In an interview with Adam Jasper about her upcoming book Our Aesthetic Categories, published in the art and culture magazine Cabinet, Ngai explains why, exactly, we find the merely interesting so interesting. In a way, Ngai says, the most striking fact is that these equivocal and ambiguous sorts of objects are everywhere.