Author: Sahil Page 6 of 16

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.

1. The letter “W” and potentially the others as well
2. Something to tie the logo to the City of Worcester
3. A “softness” that represents a welcoming connection to the community
4. 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.

My final logo submission is shown below.

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.

Brit Marling

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.

Brit Marling

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.

Dossier

“Enola Holmes,” by Harry Bradbeer, September 23, 2020.

“I Don’t Want to Be the Strong Female Lead,” by Brit Marling, February 7, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/opinion/sunday/brit-marling-women-movies.html

“The Drama of Flight, One Radio Call at a Time,” by David Mamet, February 1, 2019. https://www.flyingmag.com/drama-flight-one-radio-call-at-time/

Dossier

“The Clear Night Sky Over India and China’s Hostile Border,” by Raghu Karnad and Anmol Tikoo, September 19, 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-clear-night-sky-over-india-and-chinas-hostile-border

“How I Took a Picture of a Galaxy,” by Johnny Harris, August 3, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKDe094o-Q8

“A Primer to Astrophotography, by Destin Heilman, n.d. http://www.stellarsolace.com/primer.html

When I last wrote about Atul Gawande’s words, I thought I understood them well enough. However, in retrospect I realize that I now have a deeper understanding.

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.

Chris Hadfield

Dossier

“Curiosity and What Equality Really Means,” by Atul Gawande, June 2, 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/curiosity-and-the-prisoner

“Moving Away from Nosology,” by Sahil Nawab, June 16, 2020. http://www.sahilnawab.com/blog/moving-away-from-nosology/

“Chris Hadfield – Lessons From An Astronaut – PART 1/2 – | London Real,” by London Real, February 7, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Rn3e_czoE

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:

Working with actual 70mm IMAX film cameras? Cave diving? I can’t wait to see Ancient Caves.

Today, we are making history just as those in the past. I don’t think we realize this often enough. I was reminded of this while watching Hamilton among the masses when it was released online. While originally extremely limited due to its theatrical nature on Broadway, now that it is available to the common folk, it is no longer a status symbol of the upper class.

When I was a new student at Yale in 2015, everyone on campus was talking about the Broadway sensation “Hamilton.” “It’s amazing,” a classmate told me. I had never been to a musical. Neither, as far as I knew, had anyone from my hometown. I searched the internet for tickets: $400—way beyond my budget as a veteran enlisted man attending college on the GI Bill.

So I was pleased this month when “Hamilton” became available to watch on the streaming service Disney+. But now the show is being criticized for its portrayal of the American Founding by many of the same people who once gushed about it. Is it a coincidence that affluent people loved “Hamilton” when tickets were prohibitively expensive, but they disparage it now that ordinary people can see it?

In 2015, seeing “Hamilton” was a major status symbol. In 2020, it doesn’t mean much. The affluent are now distancing themselves from something that has become too popular. [. . .] Once something becomes fashionable among the upper class, aspiring elites know they must go along to have any hope of joining the higher ranks. But once it becomes fashionable among the hoi polloi, the elites update their tastes.

The upper classes are driven to distinguish themselves from the little people even beyond art. This explains the ever-evolving standards of wokeness. To become acculturated into the elite requires knowing the habits, customs and manners of the upper class. Ideological purity tests now exist to indicate social class and block upward social mobility. Your opinion about social issues is the new powdered wig. In universities and in professional jobs, political correctness is a weapon used by white-collar professionals to weed out those who didn’t marinate in elite mores.

[. . .]

To understand the neologisms and practices of social justice, you need a bachelor’s degree from an expensive college. A common refrain to those who are not fully up to date on the latest fashions is “Educate yourself.” This is a way of keeping down people who work multiple jobs, have children to care for, and don’t have the time or means to read the latest woke bestseller.

Rob Henderson

The idea that college serves as the entry to the “middle class” is key, but depends on your definition of middle class and upper class. This issue is rife with nuance. Especially because these definitions change over time and vary from person to person and situation to situation.

There are a few definitions that I think are particularly useful. Elizabeth Currid-Halkett describes the modern elite as people who “signify our class position by reading the New Yorker, acquiring elite college degrees, buying organic food, breastfeeding our children, and, of course, listening to podcasts. . .” This group of people are not necessarily defined by wealth, but by “cultural affiliations.” Imagine, as Currid-Halkett points out, a professor of literature at an elite university. They would likely earn less than a plumber running their company, but few would argue that the professor is not an elite member of society, despite the lack of wealth. Rather, the professors wealth is in cultural capital.

This definition by cultural capital includes working professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, or anyone trained at an elite university. However, these people still trade their time for money. An alternative definition of upper class includes those whose money works for them, such as entrepreneurs and executives. This is not to say that they don’t put in hard work, but rather once the hard work is done, they can let their business or earnings continue to grow without further effort. These individuals would rarely be considered middle class by any definition.

Because it is independent of education, this definition lends itself more broadly to the idea that college has now become an entry to the “middle class.” Today, a college degree has become a prerequisite to even entry-level positions. There are fewer and fewer careers where a non-college graduate can rise up the ranks. As a result, college has become a large barrier for many to move up to the next social rung. Douthat argues that for all classes, the rungs of the social ladder have moved further apart.

As society continues to change, we can look back in history to better understand how we got here, and perhaps where we will go in the near future. In the past for example, the elite aristocracy was not defined necessarily by material wealth, but by land ownership, family heritage, and social status. Extremely wealth merchants, for example, would not be a part of the upper class even if they had more wealth than the aristocracy. Elites were defined by their leisure activities; they had the time to pursue artistic endeavors, completely unencumbered by a need to work.

Contrast this with the midcentury idea of elite, the wealthy businessmen of America, for example. These people had to work extensively and own large businesses and monopolies. They were not necessarily well-educated (though, many were), but education became a secondary factor.

Today, this idea of workaholism has gained prominence amongst the elite. They work more than any other generation of elites in the past. However, not every type of work qualifies. Rather, only highly educated work counts.

The middle class, however, is slightly different. College is now the entry to the middle class ideology. The experience shapes the individual towards having a middle class thought process, mannerisms, and social structure.

We can only guess what the next generation of elites look like.

Dossier

“Letterheads: social media and the end of discourse,” by Sarah Jeong, July 10, 2020. https://www.theverge.com/21320338/letter-harpers-writers-free-speech-canceled-social-media-illiberalism

“‘Hamilton’ Loses it’s Snob Appeal,” by Rob Henderson, July 14, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-loses-its-snob-appeal-11594746441

“How Whole Foods, yoga, and NPR became the hallmarks of the modern elite,” by Ezra Klein, November 14, 2019. https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2019/11/14/20964420/whole-foods-yoga-npr-elite-ezra-klein-elizabeth-currid-halkett-inequality

“Dear Liberal Arts Students: Seize this Moment,” by Jennifer Senior, July 12, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/opinion/liberal-arts-college-covid.html

“The Meritocracy Trap,” by Daniel Markovits, September 10, 2019.

In our rhetoric courses, we were taught about the “aggregation of discourses” that define a particular field. This rhetorical concept might seem quite abstract, especially in modern times where it is less pronounced. Essentially, the aggregation of discourses refers to the total conversation between experts, for example within their books, scientific papers, or articles. Within these pieces, the experts address one another and build upon each others ideas. This is an important concept, because these discourses have a deep influence on the ultimate direction of any given field. To be a part of the discourse signals a level of expertise and acceptance within a field and is held in high regard.

In many fields today, especially outside of the sciences, that role is filled by others, such as podcasters, YouTubers, and reporters. These are the people that most often are entrenched in public discourse, or rather, communicate to the public the dialogue between experts that often occurs in more austere forms. This “act of interpretation” is left “solely on the viewer, which leaves it exposed to an unprecedented vastness of minds” under the veil of objectivity and democracy.

There used to be something called the public intellectual.

A class of thinkers — mostly writers with prestigious degrees and academics with a knack for writing — set the Discourse. They told other people what to think, or rather, they told the unwashed masses what was going through their own heads lately. These disclosures were taken with great seriousness, even if they tended toward rambling, incoherent, or obvious. From there, the educated and those who wanted to be seen as educated would pick and choose the opinions they wished to align themselves with. It is through this process that politics were created, refined, and rehashed. (Indeed, the phrase “Overton window” was popularized by them.) This was part of what it meant to participate in the public sphere.

[. . .]

When societies remake themselves, it doesn’t happen because of a handful of pamphlets (or a hashtag or two). Just like the opinionating class first used social media for its own ends, Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press existed for centuries — printing religious pamphlets, sermons, and Bibles — before it began to undermine religion’s monopoly on public life. And the printing press is only one piece of a picture that includes a scientific revolution, religious strife, industrialization, and economic exploitation. Similarly, our current cultural moment is happening against a background that can be best described by that cartoon dog sipping coffee amid a house in flames.

Sarah Jeong

While pamphlets themselves might not directly instigate social change, it can be surprising how much of a difference they do make. These documents—whether in the form of a traditional pamphlet like Common Sense by Thomas Paine or A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift, or the form of a blog post or YouTube video—end up providing a spark that can mobilize the public towards a unified goal. After all, that is the power of human language, to bring people together and share ideas and concepts, including social structures.

We often forget that the historical narrative often omits the emotion from such events. Remember that, for the people living in the moment, this was a revolution that they were making. These were real people with real struggles and no idea whether they would succeed. The pamphlets anchored their emotions and channeled it towards a specific goal.

Dossier

“Letterheads: social media and the end of discourse,” by Sarah Jeong, July 10, 2020. https://www.theverge.com/21320338/letter-harpers-writers-free-speech-canceled-social-media-illiberalism