The Grammar of Frames | Hacker News Reader

The Grammar of Frames

thegrammarof.com

23 pointsdvaun23 comments

Wow, what an incomprehensible site..! Not much information, probably only a paragraph or two, spread over a dozen pages.

A perfect example of how design can triumph over reason.

I think that the site is trying to visually demonstrate different framings

and fails miserably

This comment is confusing. I thought good visual design implies both utility and aesthetics?

I agree that the page is in the realm of decorative towels when it comes to utility.

>This comment is confusing. I thought good visual design implies both utility and aesthetics?

No, it implies utility first and foremost. Aesthetics are a secondary concern.

At least in many design theories. There are other theories where it's art of art's sake, or where utility plays second fiddle, by I don't think they're as popular - with either design experts, or even more so the general population.

In any case, this fails in both utility and aesthetics - the latter except in the sense that it goes for aesthetics.

“The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively-- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?”

— Frank Zappa

I think this “grammar of frames” uses the word too loosely. A frame is more than just a constraint, it’s what denotes the boundary between the subject and the world it is contained in.

Brands don’t have a frame. Brands are not the art used to identify them. I think of brands as reputation, trust, and emotions connected to a company. The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements.

I’d argue that your last statement is a false dichotomy. art, logos and ads are arguably all ideas in themselves.

on a side note, i’m surprised this post is being upvoted, the design seems pretty antithetical to the HN ethos.

I use ideas to mean the non-material. You can hear a song, see a logo, touch packaging. I consider a brand to be akin to a company’s reputation. It exists solely in people’s hearts and minds.

I thought the word that was used too loosely is "grammar" ... where's the grammar? Is is just a play of words? (since it seems this is by an ads company called "grammar", although it requires some effort to realize that, I'd say).

I read it as a (somewhat pretentious) application of this definition of grammar: "the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique", where the technique is 'framing'. Whether there's any actual meat here about principles of rules is another question.

> Brands don’t have a frame. [...] The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements.

Ideas are framed in the facts, context, beliefs and assumptions that surround them and lead up to them. Even though the article defined frames at the top as visual rectangles, the rest of text mixes in unambiguous uses of the social sciences definition of the word ‘frame’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

For example “What is art? How is it made? Where does it belong? Context changes meaning. Frames change the way we think.”

The article is freely mixing the two definitions, hopping back and forth between them. I haven’t decided if I like it or not. It might be considered conflating two different things. But I think that’s their very point, and in art and literature, as in advertising, metaphors and suggestions are useful and common. You might even think of this article as a framing that visual frames are as important as social frames, which is an idea that makes a great story for ad firms that are good at and depend on selling visual ads.

Given the use of the term "grammar", I was expecting an article on Frame Semantics [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_semantics_(linguistics)

thanks , this is relevant to Rosch's prototype theory I've been reading on recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory,

and also Gärdenfors' conceptual spaces, which is more modern and has some neurophysiological basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_space

OP, sorry for hijacking the thread

This is not too surprising, since Rosch and Fillmore were both at Berkeley when cognitive linguistics took shape there.

I was excited for the same reason. I explored neo-davidsonian semantics last year in the context of graph grammars. It would be great to get back into that project.

thanks for mentioning, just googled "neo-davidsonian semantics" and stumbled upon this very interesting seminar on syntax-semantic interface: http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/courses/incsem-12/

Yeah, Saarbrucken is a renowned place for comp ling.

Funny. It's a perfect example of what it does. The text leads you through demonstrations of their CSS design tech. It's a variation on the "you just proved bus stop advertising works," ads for bus stop advertising, and then managed an HN front page hit.

Framing and re-framing are a kind of writers magic. I understand what this is. Odd to lead with it for a brand, but maybe they're courting a particularly meta-sophisticated customer?

The bright yellow color for nearly everything is great until they show a urinal, and what appears to be a big yellow drop coming out of pipes below one...

What is said there might be interesting, alas I will never know, for I gave up when my finger started to hurt from the seemingly endless scrolling.

I'm a simple engineer, I like content, frames are superfluous and distracting, with that web page being a perfect illustration.

All I can see is a blank page. That means needlessly excessive use of javascript. Is that really needed? Why?

The site is just showing off the ability to move colorful shapes as you scroll. There's pretty much zero information on it. Just some "hire us, we'll make your branding awesome" blurb at the end. It's an ad piece for a studio.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com