With the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator, more and more people are getting into aviation—and that’s awesome! It also means that many people, new to aviation, are faced with the daunting task of using modern avionics and glass cockpits.
And that begs the question, do these avionics actually have a good user interface? Or rather, do they simply replicate patterns that pilots are used to.
Look to military aviation, for example, and you’ll see a convergence into heads-up displays. Rather than having advanced avionics that end up distracting the pilot and forcing her to look down at the instrument panel, HUDs allow the pilot to continue keeping her eyes at the sky. The goal is to distill the information into its most useful form for decision making, to provide situational awareness, and to reduce pilot workload and let her focus on more important tasks.
Bringing this ideology into the general aviation space might have a profound impact on the way pilots train and fly.
During my flight training, I purposefully learned and used “old-school” technology to the extent that I could: standard steam gauges, paper sectionals, VOR navigation, and no iPad running ForeFlight.
Certainly there is a safety component that warrants being trained in old-school methods and techniques—and I’m all for it. Ultimately, avionics shouldn’t become a distraction from actually flying.
The word “meritocracy” has come into vogue lately. It seems that our societal ideals that promote ability and equality of opportunity are more so being questioned—not necessarily on principle, but in practice. Bringing these ideals to fruition in a tangible manner will always result in some controversy, because by definition meritocracy creates inequality. But how that inequality perpetuates itself into dynasties is being exposed, for example, in college admissions, among others.
More and more, a college degree is becoming a prerequisite to jobs, not because of the skills or education that it supposedly provides, but because of the cultural capital that it does.
On the tyranny of meritocracy, Michael Sandel summarizes:
We should focus less on arming people for meritocratic combat, and focus more on making life better for people who lack a diploma but who make essential contributions to our society.
We should renew the dignity of work and . . . We should remember that work is not only about making a living, it’s also about contributing to the common good.
This is made more true each day that the COVID pandemic drags on. It is increasingly clear that society is completely dependent on people that we would otherwise like to sweep under the rug. Instead, let’s take this opportunity to reward them with more than just recognition as “heroes” that keep our world turning.
Recently, during a meeting with the Worcester Free Care Collaborative, it was announced that the organization is looking for new logo submissions to overhaul their current identity branding. Though I haven’t done anything like this in quite some time, I thought it would be great to write about my artistic endeavor and perhaps hearken back to my original posts here on this blog. After all, this blog has thus far been called “Visual Rhetoric.”
Being familiar with the work that the organization does is certainly a major benefit in designing an identity that fits its mission and communicates its ideals in a simple and clear manner.
The first step, of course, is to come up with a list of important concepts or ideas that might be included in the logo. One of the first logos I had come up with for the newsletter, “Dispatches from the Worcester Free Clinic Coalition”—back when the organization had that as its name—I used the letters as is. This was a look inspired by Proto Magazine, which has a similar style.
The letter “W” and potentially the others as well
Something to tie the logo to the City of Worcester
A “softness” that represents a welcoming connection to the community
An air of “authority” to represent the organization as a center for health
I searched Dribbble for inspiration, and most of the inspiration examples are from various artists that uploaded their work there.
I really wanted to include a heart as a motif that symbolizes the City of Worcester and its place as the “Heart of the Commonwealth.” I first learned of this at WPI, where it is also featured in the school seal. The symbolism of the heart lends itself perfectly to the medical nature of the Worcester Free Care Collaborative, which will hopefully make it easy for patients and the community to make the connection to health care. As a result, I settled on having a heart in the logo quite early on. This helped narrow my focus when doing research into other designs.
The second design was an attempt to recreate the clean “wfcc” logo above, but integrate a stethoscope into the letterforms. However, it was thrown out pretty early on, simply because it wasn’t aesthetically pleasing. I think it would have been challenging to make the lines flow well without having an area where the lines extended beyond the unconscious limits of the logo shape. It just didn’t work well.
Initially I was hesitant to go with a vibrant and colorful logo because I wanted it to seem somewhat reserved. This is a medical organization after all, and it’s important to communicate its serious nature. Simple lines can help with this, but go too simple, and it becomes “minimalist.” This type can easily be associated with tech startups—not something that I necessarily wanted.
However, I liked the idea of including a stethoscope. It succinctly introduces the idea of medicine, even to those who are uninitiated. It’s a common trope, but in this case, works well. When playing around with it a bit more, I immediately recognized the potential power of a stethoscope and heart combination. The heart, obviously represents the physical human heart, but it also represents the City of Worcester. Double symbolism there! Totally on purpose!
I realized that the stethoscope could form the other part of the “W” when layered on top of the heart. However, I felt that the “W” part wasn’t as easily visible, so I decided to fill it in with a contrasting color.
Enola Holmes is a rare example of a film in which having a female protagonist is genuinely essential for the the strength of the film.
Frequently, modern films have “adjusted” their protagonists for the obsequious purpose of “wokeness,” and unsurprisingly this type of film always falls flat.
In stark contrast, Enola Holmes showcases a counter example, where Enola has a depth of character that easily rivals any other adventure film. In fact, I think that her character is the entire reason that this movie works so well. And it does so masterfully, against the grain of the typical style of female protagonist:
Enter, stage right: the Strong Female Lead.
She’s an assassin, a spy, a soldier, a superhero, a C.E.O. She can make a wound compress out of a maxi pad while on the lam. She’s got MacGyver’s resourcefulness but looks better in a tank top.
Acting the part of the Strong Female Lead changed both who I was and what I thought I was capable of. Training to do my own stunt work made me feel formidable and respected on set. Playing scenes where I was the boss firing men tasted like empowerment. And it will always feel better to be holding the gun in the scene than to be pleading for your life at the other end of the barrel.
It would be hard to deny that there is nutrition to be drawn from any narrative that gives women agency and voice in a world where they are most often without both. But the more I acted the Strong Female Lead, the more I became aware of the narrow specificity of the characters’ strengths — physical prowess, linear ambition, focused rationality. Masculine modalities of power.
Certainly, Enola Holmes still leans into the trope of the strong female lead. She has an unconventional upbringing that imbues her with the skills necessary to fend for herself—most definitely at odds with the traditional limitations of a feminine education. Despite this, I can understand why the filmmakers decided to do this. From a dramatic perspective, the limitations of women in society prevent female characters from easily—and key to this is, without suspension of disbelief—going on the classical dramatic adventures.
It’s difficult for us to imagine femininity itself — empathy, vulnerability, listening — as strong. When I look at the world our stories have helped us envision and then erect, these are the very qualities that have been vanquished in favor of an overwrought masculinity.
Enola Holmes, however, is not just a man in a pretty women’s body. Instead, her femininity is central to her ability to accomplish her goals.
We as the audience are treated to her authentic perspective. We are treated to her emotions—a glimpse into her thought process. It’s well executed too, breaking the fourth wall that really helps bring the audience closer in a way that feels very modern, despite the period genre.
The inherent limitation that society imposes on women become obstacles that drive the plot forward and provide unique challenges to overcome. But the way she breaks free isn’t through brute force. Holmes, at times, operates within the limitations, using them to her advantage.
Enola is at least partially the stereotypical “strong female lead.” But her character is well-balanced with strength and intellect in a way that is uniquely hers. Still, in popular American cinema, there is a dearth of films that represent female characters without the unconventional upbringing and masculine strength. This is an area where Bollywood does an exceptional job—Gunjan Saxena and Shakuntala Devi are good examples of this—where a female lead highlights her personal struggles in a way that is entirely unique to their character. It would be nearly impossible to substitute those characters with men and have the story work.
This is the type of filmmaking and storytelling that I think modern films should aspire to.
“Enola Holmes,” by Harry Bradbeer, September 23, 2020.
My initial takeaway from his message was that physicians have the opportunity to be in an exalted position in society where they can quite easily come across a wide range of people in a way that few other professions can. I took this to mean that physicians have an opportunity to broaden their own understanding of the world around us and the people that inhabit it.
But I think a deeper meaning than that. Rather, I think he means that through their experiences, physicians can learn to not judge others. Gawande invites us to instead look at others more fully and with nuance. Ultimately, we may not understand them, but that’s okay.
Chris Hadfield supplements this message extremely well:
We’re all students of the human condition, whether we mean to be or not. And as we get a little older, we gain a little perspective. I think what we’re truly getting at is a collective understanding of where we are and what it means. And the where we are is the part that we could share the best. What it means is an individual choice, but the more people you meet, the more you understand what battles people are fighting, the more you see the commonality of the human experience itself.
Movies and film are such a visceral art form that combine so many senses. They guide us through this journey of emotions, some that the authors intended and some that they didn’t and were instead made through the unique experiences and interpretation of the individual viewer.
But there are a lot of other art forms that share this journey of emotion—music, painting, dance, writing, to name a few.
But, for me, I love movies because I love the art of making them. It’s not a solitary effort, but rather quite collaborative in nature—working with a team to put this vision together. I love the blend of the technical and artistic elements that are necessary. It is an art form that gives you a lot of freedom, but also comes with just as many limitations to work within.
All of these in combination are why I love movies.
Typing is a severely underrated skill. Over the years, I’ve come to find typing well has served me extremely well because it enables me to use a computer more efficiently and effectively. Being able to write down my thoughts faster than I can writing by hand makes creating content much more enjoyable and, in fact, encourages me to write more.
I think Ali Abdaal does an excellent job of summing this up in his video: