The Major Project Report by Sergio Trujillo

THE MAJOR PRO JECT REPORT Sergio Trujillo PĂŠrez MA Graphic Branding and Identity London College of Communication University of the Arts London 2012

INDEX

INTROUCTION

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

DEFINING LIES

UNDERSTANDING LIES

LYING BRANDS

VISUAL DECEPTION

BRAND PROPOSAL

CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF IMAGES

APPENDIXES

KAFFEE Colonel, I have just one more question before I call Airman O’Malley and Airman Perez: If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would he be in danger, why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base? JESSEP Private Santiago was a sub-standard marine. He was being transferred off the base because-KAFFEE But that’s not what you said. You said he was being transferred because he was in grave danger. JESSEP Yes. That’s correct, but--

KAFFEE You said, “He was in danger”. I said, “Grave danger”. You said-JESSEP Yes, I recall what--

KAFFEE I can have the Court Reporter read back your-JESSEP I know what I said. I don’t need it read back to me like I’m a damn-KAFFEE Then why the two orders? Colonel. Why did you-JESSEP Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.

KAFFEE No sir. You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn’t have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel? JESSEP You little bastard. ROSS Your Honor, I have to ask for a recess to-KAFFEE I’d like an answer to the question, Judge.

JUDGE The Court’ll wait for answer. KAFFEE If Kendrick told his men that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, then why did he have to be transferred? Colonel? Kendrick ordered the code red, didn’t he? Because that’s what you told Kendrick to do. ROSS Object!

JUDGE Counsel. KAFFEE And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose. ROSS Your Honor-JUDGE That’ll be all, counsel. KAFFEE You had Markinson sign a phony transfer order-ROSS Judge-KAFFEE You doctored the log books. ROSS Damnit Kaffee!! KAFFEE I’ll ask for the forth time. You ordered-JESSEP You want answers? KAFFEE I think I’m entitled to them. JESSEP You want answers? KAFFEE I want the truth! JESSEP You can’t handle the truth!

INTRO DUC TION Fig. 1. Previous pages: Dialog from the movie “A Few Good Men” (1992). Directed by Rob Reiner. Fig. 2. Opposite page: Frame from the movie “A Few Good Men” (1992). Directed by Rob Reiner.

In the 1992 American drama film “A few good men” (based on the homonymous play by Aaron Sorkin) the character of Col. Nathan R. Jessep, portrayed by Jack Nicholson, tries to conceal a high-level military conspiracy by lying under oath during a murder trial. Under heavy pressure from the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps Daniel Kaffe, played by Tom Cruise, Jessep eventually succumbs and admits being the one responsible for the crime; nonetheless, before doing so, he voices what is considered to be the signature catchphrase of the film: “You can’t handle the truth”.

Colonel Jessep lied for multiple reasons; not only to conceal his involvement in the murder of a fellow Marine and therefore avoid being sentenced to prison, but also because he thought it was the best thing to do for his country. He lied to protect himself and to protect others at the same time. He even lied to cover up his previous lies. He lied because it was the easy way out, but most of all he lied because he was aware, to a certain degree, of one of the greatest truths of all time, and what I consider to be the only certain one: we can’t handle the truth.

Fig. 3. Opposite page: Visual exploration of the concept of truth.

The truth, as an absolute entity, is too big and complex for us as humans to handle. According to Brooke Harrington (2009), we merely produce a version of the truth, a perception of reality. This perceptive handicap has direct implications on the counterpart of lies and deception, being that if we cannot agree on what is true, we cannot hope to agree on what is false. As a result of this epistemological problem, “we are still grappling – after thousands of years of inquiry – with basic questions about what constitutes deception and how it should be evaluated, morally and ethically.” (Harrington, 2009, p. 1).

The subject of lies and deception is delusive and controversial in nature, but it is this nature what has captivated philosophers and great thinkers for so long, and what attracted me in the first place. I became fascinated with the basic questions that Harrington implies: What exactly are lies? How do we use them? Why do we use them? What do we lie about? What is the relationship between lies and deception? How often do we lie? When is it morally accepted to lie and when is it not? Why do we need lies to begin with? More than anything, I was strongly drawn to the idea of creating a brand that would challenge the common perception of lies.

To confront these inquires I needed to, first and foremost, understand what a lie is, and what exactly does lying implies. I started by looking at the already existing research, gathering the thoughts of renowned authors on the subject, and the conclusions reached by them. Once I had a general understanding of my chosen topic I felt compelled to approach it in a more personal level by analyzing my own relationship with deception; perhaps if I cannot handle de truth I could at least handle my lies, and hopefully gain a deeper insight on the subject by doing so.

Additionally, I was intrigued by the presence of deception within the branding and marketing environment. If I wanted to create a brand that revolved around lies, I needed to be aware of the current relationship between branding and deception, and the intricate way in which this relationship affects consumers. Finally, questions related to my graphic background were also being tackled. What does a lie look like? How can I lie visually? When is a visual piece deceiving? What are the benefits of visual deception?

The report at hand covers my journey through the realm of lies, from my early interpretations and graphic explorations to the proposal of a brand that would use lies as the core component. Although I have tackled most of my inquiries, a couple of them have remained unresolved. It is important to note that, where great philosophers and thinkers have failed to converge I cannot hope to succeed, but I can hope to answer the question that has shaped this project, and incidentally the one that has been the hardest to approach: how to re-evaluate the use of lies?

Fig. 4. Above: Visual exploration of perception.

AIMS & OBJEC TIVES Fig. 5. Opposite page: Playing card.

Challenge the common perception of lies and question the moral preconceptions of deceit. Get a better understanding of the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x153;lieâ&#x20AC;? and of our need for lies and deception. Explore the concept of visual deception. Evaluate the role that deception plays in branding. Develop a brand that could be deceiving without being dishonest.

DE FINING LIES Fig. 6. Opposite page: Pinocchio, fictional character created by Carlo Collodi.

Defining both the concept of lies and deception is not an easy thing to do. Deception in particular constitutes a very elusive concept to approach, and the multiple proposals vary across disciplines, time periods, and cultures. A unified definition is complicated to achieve because a lot of issues play a constant role within the world of deception. Notions like truth and trust are inevitably linked to it, and they have to be taken into account when exploring the subject at hand. However in spite of the historical and cultural differences there is a broad agreement that deception can occur without any intent or deliberate falsehood (Harrington, 2009).

Lies, on the contrary, are a little easier to work with, since the definition is less ambiguous. Charles V. Ford (1996) defines to lie as: to assert something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive, or to create a false of misleading impression. According to Ford (1996) this definition contains three major components to understand lies. The first one is the statement of something believed to be untrue by the liar, the second one is motivation, and finally that it does not specify the use of words but rather the inception of a false impression.

Fig. 7. Opposite page: Boundary between reality and make believe.

I find the fact that Ford touches the subject of belief vitally important. In a lie it doesn’t matter what the truth is, besides we aren’t capable of knowing the whole truth anyway, it matters what the liar believes in. This means that “the misrepresentations of a psychotic person are not considered to be lies because the person believes them. Nor do we consider honest mistakes or statements made on the basis of misinformation to be lies” (Ford, 1996, p. 24). What really matters in a lie is the story behind it, our perception of the truth. On the other hand, I partially disagree with Ford in the aspect of motivation. For a lie to be a lie it has to have some kind of intent, but Ford says it is an intent to deceive, which I find to be a little inaccurate and restrictive. The purpose to deceive is not always present in a lie. Lies that are meant as a joke are the perfect exception to the rule; they have the intention to make the listener laugh or entertain him, and the deceiving factor does not play a role in them, or at least is not meant to. I believe lies aim to get a reaction and that reaction is not always deception.

Fig. 8. Opposite page: Boundary between reality and make believe.

The final point of this definition deals with lies that are nonverbal in nature. Communication is not confined to the use of words, and we also communicate by a variety of nonverbal means, including the emotions displayed and symbolic gestures (H.G. Johnson et al. 1975). “Just as one can use words to deceive, one can also use nonverbal channels of communication to deceive” (Ford, 1996, p. 33). During the exploration of the subject of lies I have found that nonverbal and verbal deceit work together most of the time. We tend to aid verbal lies with the use of nonverbal ones.

Even though the definition of lies that Ford proposes seems to be simple enough, it does lead to some fascinating paradoxes. “Technically, one may deceive even while telling the truth and lie without deceiving.” (Ford, 1996, p. 45). It all depends on the factors of belief and intent previously discussed. For instance, it is possible to tell the truth and yet have the intent to deceive, which is known as palter; or incorrectly believe something to be true and deliberately state the opposite, which would be actually true, in an effort to deceive (Ford, 1996).

Some other authors find it necessary to extend the list of components that a lie requires to be considered a lie. According to Pamela Meyer (2010) cooperation is essential for lies and deception. Lying is a cooperative act, explains Meyer, and a lie has no power by its mere utterance; its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie. If we have been fooled it is because we wanted to, because we accepted to believe the lie we were told, and we trusted the liar. The cooperative act that Meyer mentions does not require the presence of two participants, since we are easily capable of deceiving ourselves.

The concept of self-deception would seem inherently contradictory. David Sherman (2009) argues that self-deception requires one to believe and not believe at the same time, which would end up constituting a motivated irrational belief. To achieve self-deception we have to make ourselves believe what we know we do not believe. Joan Didion states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;self-deception remains the most difficult deception. The tricks that work on others count for nothing in that very well-lit back alley where one keeps assignations with oneselfâ&#x20AC;? (1968 cited in Harrigton, 2009, p. 11).

Although the concept of trust is not present in the proposed definition of a lie, I think it is necessary to explore it in order to comprehend why are we so susceptible to deception. Guido Mölleginr (2009, p. 138) describes trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”. According to Möllering (2009) the relationship between deception and trust is an ambivalent one. Trust always involves a leap

Fig. 9. Above: Ambigram: Deceive.

of faith, which opens the door to deception; but at the same time, it bestows a moral obligation on the trustee, which reduces the threat of deception.

Fig. 10. Opposite page: Relationship between deception and belief.

There are occasions when we purposely take the leap of faith that MĂśllering talks about despite the fact that we know we are going to be lied to. In other words, there are some lies that we are willing to believe without feeling entirely deceived. According to Harrington, the main characteristic of these lies is that we suppress our disbelief (2009). We accept them because we want to be fooled, or because there is some sort of agreement between the participants. Harrington also explains that the boundaries around these areas of authorized deception vary considerably by location and time period, or even within the same society at the same time (2009).

Ultimately, lies are a ubiquitous phenomenon (Ford, 1996). They are not as closely related to the truth as one would think so. Instead, they rely on belief and intent. They are the means to an end, and that end is not always deceit. They work on others as well as they work on ourselves. They are filled with paradoxes, just as our human nature. They are part of the interface between a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal world, composed of fantasies, and perceived realities; and external world, consisting in shared beliefs or reality (Ford, 1996). In the end, lies are just an open invitation to believe.

UNDER STAN DING LIES Fig. 11. Opposite page: Cover of the notebook used to record my lies for a period of three consecutive months.

Ian Leslie says that “lying is anything but straightforward” (2011, p. 3) although I disagree. Lying is easy and direct, and we are incredibly good at it. However, explaining why we lie, how we lie, what we lie about, when we lie, and what is our relationship with the act of deceiving and being deceived, is a completely different story. “It is impossible to understand human society, or even to understand yourself, without first understanding deceit” (Leslie, 2011, p. 4) and in order to understand deceit I had to take a closer look at my own lies and self-deceptions.

To better comprehend the questionings previously mentioned I decided to keep a registry during a period of three months of every lie I said or physically expressed. I am certain that plenty of lies evaded my watch, but it is because we are so used to lie that we end up doing it almost automatically. With the purpose of giving these writings some meaning, each lie was accompanied by a small sentence describing the context in which the lie was used. By the end of these three months I came up with approximately two hundred and twenty lies that told an encrypted story.

The first thing that struck me was the amount of lies that ended up being written in the diary. I was aware of the fact that human beings lie on a daily basis, but I could never imagine how much we really lie, most of the time without even noticing it. I do not consider myself to be a deceiving person, although the diary I kept seems to suggest otherwise and that is without taking into account the lies that escaped being registered. In fact, I come from a familiar, cultural, and religious background that condemns lies and encourages honesty, so why do I lie so much?

Ian Leslie states that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the ability knowingly to deceive, and to detect deception, is uniquely human, and it plays a part in every relationship we have.â&#x20AC;? (2011, p. 4). Our social interactions are filled with lies because life in society is a very complex thing. We use social lies, commonly known as white lies, to lubricate interpersonal relationships; they convey little intention to deceive, and primarily serve to respect the sensitivity and dignity of others (Ford, 1996). Consequently, one of the main reasons why we lie so much is because our social nature requires us to do so.

A great number of the lies I wrote within my diary fell under the white lie category, but most of them did not. As a result I started to wonder about the reasons behind the lies that are not meant as social lubricant. What else compels us to lie? Ford says that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;motivation is often a complex blend of conscious responses to reality issues and unconscious factors that may reflect underlying conflicts.â&#x20AC;? (1996, p. 88). He also proposes a classification of lies that I found extremely helpful for deciphering the motivation behind each of my recorded deceptive behaviours.

Fig. 12. Above: Inside pages of the notebook used to record my lies for a period of three consecutive months.

Pathological Lies

Defensive Lies

Social Lies

Humorous Lies

Aggressive Lies

Altruistic Lies

Charles V. Ford, M.D.

Fig 13. Opposite page: Graphic representing the quantity of my recorded lies and their classification.

According to Ford (1996), lies can be classified as: white lies, humorous lies, altruistic lies, defensive lies, aggressive lies, and pathological lies. White lies are the social conventions previously mentioned. Humorous lies are those aimed at amusing the listener. Altruistic lies are the ones that do not benefit the liar but someone else. Defensive lies are those told to protect ourselves and others. Aggressive lies are told in an effort to hurt someone else or to gain some sort of advantage. Finally, pathological lies are the ones we say just for the sake of lying.

The classification that Ford provides helped me sort out the rest of my recorded lies. It made me realized that lying is a very personal phenomenon, and that the reasons behind each lie are intrinsically attached to its context. It is all about the stories behind the lies, and the story behind the liar. We lie because we want to get along with others, because we want to have a laugh, because we care about someone else, because we made a mistake, because we are angry, or even just because we can. We lie because we have the certainty that after each uncaught lie there is always a reward.

Our existence as human beings is complicated, and we lie because of it. We do not have all the answers, and we are figuring things out as the days go by. Leslie says that “our need to keep in touch with reality exists in tension with an equally strong need to make up stories that aren’t true – and to believe in them.” (2011, p. 335). Without the first need we could not get on for long with our environment or with each other. Without the second one, we would not have the imaginative reach that has driven all human progress (Leslie, 2011). Lying is, after all, just another mean for us to survive.

As I classified my lies depending on their category I became aware of a very interesting phenomenon, one that in spite of seeming obvious it had never occur to me up until that point, the lies I had written reflected my personality. There is a good reason of why this phenomenon occurs, lies reflect human nature because they are intrinsically bound to basic human emotions like joy, fear, greed, or doubt. However, upon further research I found out that it might be the other way around. We might be writing the story of who we are, or who we wish to be, with the lies we tell.

The playwright Alan Bennet remarked that, to be yourself is a baffling injunction and perhaps what it really means is pretend to be yourself (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p. 333). In addition, the sociologist Erving Goffman pointed out that the line between stage acting and real life is alarmingly fine. In Goffman’s view, we are all actors who have half-forgotten that we are acting. “Most of the time we play a double game, aware that others are performing for us and yet believing in the performance at the same time” (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p. 333). Accordingly, we use lies to write the character we want to be in this play we call life.

Fig. 14. Above: Ambigram: Believe.

Fig. 15. Opposite page: Deceiving mask.

Eventually, it became apparent that the relationship that we have with the lies we tell is much deeper and personal that what I originally had in mind. Each and every one of us sets the boundaries of what we lie and what we do not lie about. Moreover, the lies we tell work as the mask we want the rest of the world to see us wearing. They are our shield and our sword at the same time. Perhaps we should accept the fact that we need them and use them with equanimity. In the words of Wallace Stevens, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The final belief is to believe in a fiction which you know to be a fiction.â&#x20AC;? (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p. 335) The act of recording my lies became a cathartic experience, but the fact I could re-visit them once written, and immerse myself in the play I had already performed was exhilarating. I was able to look at the lies I said, and the stories behind those lies, from a different point of view; which helped me understand why lies and deception play such an important role not only in my life but also in the lives of all. Perhaps to achieve the final believe that Stevens mentions we just need to look at our own performance form the viewpoint of the audience. 33

LYING BRANDS

Fig. 16. Opposite page: Placebo.

Once I finished exploring my personal relationship with lies, I started to wonder about the role that deception plays within branding. I have always had the impression that brands are really good at lying to us consumers, but I was not sure of how they do it, or why this practice does not trigger brand rejection. Are we as consumers aware that we are being lied to? Do brands actually lie? Is branding somewhat similar to the accepted lies previously discussed? Are brands able to be deceptive without being dishonest? Do we not care if we are deceived or not by the brands we choose?

The first thing that occurred to me was that brands are not able to tell the absolute truth. To cover every possible scenario or outcome triggered by the use of a specific brand is impossible. As a result brands tell only a part of the truth, the one they find convenient. In other words, brands palter. According to Rory Sutherland (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p. 274), â&#x20AC;&#x153;modern branding works as a form of placeboâ&#x20AC;?. The job of branding, says Sutherland, is not only to communicate information but also to create symbolic value, for which consumers are willing to pay.

Consequently, if we believe that wearing a certain brand of trainers will make us better athletes, then we will pay a higher price for them; and we may actually perform better as a result (Leslie, 2011). We trust the brands we believe are going to deliver the promise they made, and by trusting them we might end up fulfilling the promise ourselves. What happens then with the multiple deodorants that promise to turn adolescent boys into girl magnets but never do? Do we believe that this scenario

As a matter of fact, we are. Leslie says that, “It is often assumed that people buy things solely to gain material satisfaction; but they are also paying, knowingly and willingly, to be deceived, in a mentally and emotionally stimulating way.” (2011, p. 276). We pay to be deceived because we like to dream about achieving the promises that the brands make to us. For the sociologist Colin Campbel, “the modern consumer is a selfdeceiving dream artist, with the ability to create

might happen to us? Are we paying for a fantasy? Are we paying to be deceived?

an illusion which is known to be false but felt to be true, an illusion that is woven around the object of desire.” (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p 276).

Brands are as guilty of lying to us consumers, as we are of lying to ourselves. Besides, if they get us to believe in the lie, then it is not a lie anymore. It does not really matter if we believe the promises that brands make us, it matters that we fantasize about them. In addition, I believe that just like we construct ourselves with the lies we tell, we construct ourselves with the brands we choose. The truth status of most brands is like that of fiction; both the brand and the consumer generally understand that a little deception, or self-deception, is good for us (Leslie, 2011).

Fig. 17. Above: Lying brands.

VISUAL DECEP TION Fig. 18. Opposite page: Typographic Waste

While I was exploring the subject of lies and its relationship with branding, I started to wonder how could deception be represented within the printed media. How could I visually lie? Lying is not only a verbal phenomenon, and we use a great number of physical gestures to deceive through a non-verbal conduct. Likewise, there are a multiple ways in which visual artists have managed to fool the eye of the beholder. After some research and experimentation, I decided to brake up the possibilities for visual deception that I found into three categories: content, shape, and format.

The category of “content” refers to the written information, quantitative and qualitative, within a visual piece. The most obvious way to visually deceive would seem to be by displaying incorrect data. Exaggerated facts, altered polls, fabricated surveys, inaccurate information design pieces, and stories that would be considered as works of fiction are included within this category. Strictly speaking, the message that the visual piece is trying to convey would be the lie that is being told. The “content” itself is what creates disinformation.

On the other hand, any visual tool that is used to trick the eye of the spectator was included in the “shape” category. Optical illusions, false perspectives, visual effects, photographic filters, ambigrams, double meanings, and so on and so forth, fall into this division. The core message is not necessarily the deceiving factor, but the way in which this message is being portrayed. In many cases, the message is only readable thanks to the deceiving manner in which it is being presented. The “shape” itself could be a message evolving another message.

Finally, I decided to include inside the “format” section all the production techniques that serve, to a certain degree, as a way to deceive the user. Security inks, special papers, cut-outs, folds, popups, tear lines, or any other artefact that could conceal the main message were considered as part of this division. The “format” section deals neither with the message nor with the way it is represented, but with the medium chosen to deliver it. These production techniques either hide or distort the message, and they require some interaction from the user in order to read it.

Lying is a cooperative act (Meyer, 2010) and I would add that it is also an interactive one. Interaction is particularly important when dealing with non-verbal means of deception. The ways in which deception is achieved within the graphic media might be used not only to conceal or distort the message but also to provide a way to discover it. To become aware of the message the beholder most read between the lines and be willing to participate in an interactive game. The game itself is the continuous and contradictory dialogue between deception and discovery.

Fig. 19. Opposite page: The Sun Sets Sail by Rob Gonsalves

BRAND PROPO SAL Fig. 20. Opposite page: Internal page of one of the books proposed for “The Public Liebrary”

One of the principal objectives of this project was to create a brand that could be deceiving without being dishonest. To fulfil this goal the proposed brand needed to be as straightforward as possible, especially because the concept behind it revolves around lies and deception. It needed to be brutally honest about the subject at hand, and to communicate a very simple and unbiased message: we all lie so get over it. This message became the main idea behind “The Public Liebrary” a brand that would take a look at the lies we all tell from a right down the middle perspective.

Furthermore, I wanted to infuse “The Public Liebrary” with the sense of catharsis that I got from writing my lying diary, as well as the feeling of discovery and wonder achieved by revisiting the written lies and reading the stories behind them. As a result, I decided to shape this proposed brand as a huge confessional, a place where the users could share their own lies and see the lies of others. In essence, “The Public Liebrary” would be a gallery of lies, a collection of stories, an escape valve for our deceptive behaviours, and a community of honest liars.

The name “The Public Liebrary” derived from the idea of a communal compendium of lies. It suggests a place where lies would represent the resources commonly found in regular libraries. These resources would be made publicly accessible not only for reference but also for borrowing. “The Public Liebrary” would not be a physical space per se, but a virtual one; and the users would be building the collection themselves. They would be both authors and readers of their own lies,

Even though “The Public Liebrary” would be accessible for anyone who wants to contribute to the project, it primarily aims to relate to middleclass and open-minded people. Bachelor students majoring in any kind of art or graphic subject, hipsters, bohemians, and young people that are not afraid of taboos or with interests that go against what is regularly considered as established are the perfect audience for this project. Everybody lies so everybody is invited to share their lies, it is just a

performers and observers of their own deceptions.

matter of being intrigued about this invitation.

In “The Public Liebrary” the users would submit their lies online, along with a story and a picture for each of them. The story serves not only to put each lie into their specific context, but also as the medium through which users would be able to channel the regrets, fears, doubts, aggressions, occurrences, hopes, desires, and reasons related to them. The picture that accompanies every lie would paint the perception of each liar for the reader to see. It would help link the lie to a specific situation in a specific moment of the liar’s life.

Fig. 21. Above: Still from the proposed webpage for “The Public Liebrary”

To watch a small animation of the webpage in action please refer to the CD included within this report.

Fig. 22. Opposite page: Interior pages of the books proposed for “The Public Liebrary”

Every lie is permitted in “The Public Liebrary”, from funny to aggressive ones. There would be no moral judgements or self-righteous attitudes, just a blunt reflection of our lying nature. Moreover, “The Public Liebrary” encourages users to lie; it is okay to do so, it is human, we all do it, and you are not alone. They could even lie about the lies they are submitting. Every lie is accepted as long as it comes with a story and a picture. In addition, the more the users lie, the larger the collection gets. The larger the collection gets, the more users it could reach.

The lies submitted online would also work as a platform for the development of a series of small printed books. These books would make use of some of the deceiving artefacts described in the previous chapter for the purpose of enhancing the feeling of deceit and eventual discovery experienced by the reader. Additionally, they would reinforce the conceptual link between the name of the brand and a regular library. They would give the user of “The Public Liebrary” the opportunity to build a physical collection of lies aside from the virtual one.

A set of values and characteristics were established for “The Public Liebrary” with the intention to relate even stronger with its audience and shape the personality of the brand. These values and characteristics were essential to define core internal and external aspects of the brand existence; aspects like how it looks, speaks, and acts. The following definitions describe the brand personality of “The Public Liebrary”, and they also help set the tone of voice for every interaction that the brand has with its target audience.

Fig. 23. Above: Promotional poster for “The Public Liebrary”

Opposite page: All definitions: The Free Dictionary by Farlex. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Emotive:

Inspiring:

1.- Tending or designed to arouse emotion. 2.- Of or characterized by emotion.

1.- Tending to arouse or exalt.

Intrusive:

Inclusive:

1.- Intruding or tending to intrude.

1.- Taking a great deal or everything within its scope; comprehensive. 2.- Including the specified extremes or limits as well as the area between them.

Reassuring: 1.- To restore confidence to. 2.- To assure again. 3.- To reinsure.

Inquisitive:

Straightforward:

1.- Inclined to investigate; eager for knowledge. 2.- Unduly curious and inquiring.

1.- Proceeding in a straight course; direct. 2.- Not circuitous or evasive; honest and frank. 3.- Free from ambiguity or pretense; plain and open.

Insightful: 1.- Exhibiting insight or clear and deep perception. 49

Finally, the visual elements for “The Public Liebrary” were defined and developed in accordance to the brand concept, name, and personality. These visual elements had to convey the message that lies are neither outrageous nor obvious; they are elegant, subtle, and quite difficult to detect. A proposed logotype was designed with the intention to allude somehow to the subject of lies and deception, and relate to the idea of a regular library. Additionally, a very minimal colour

A halftone filter was applied to the hypothetical images submitted online by the users, and employed throughout the webpage as well as within the books, to give the impression of a distorted reality. The stories behind the lies were displayed using a typewriter font with the intention to portray the illusion of a written confession and resemble a paragraph of an old book. The catchphrase “Share Your Lies” was coined in order to generate buzz and excitement,

pallet was selected in order to play on the notion of black and white lies.

but it also ended up working as an easy and intriguing way to explain the project to newcomers and possible users.

“The Public Liebrary” is all about the act of sharing lies. It represents a new way to deal with our deceptive nature, and hopefully a way to accept this nature of ours. It proposes to address our deceptions rather than evade them, and promotes the notion that lies are always useful, no matter if they end up being harmless or harmful. It advocates lying just for the sake of lying, and borrowing the lies of others for our own purposes. But most of all, “The Public Liebrary” is an

Fig. 24. Opposite page: Logotype for “The Public Liebrary”

invitation to look through the peephole of our lies and discover just how wonderful they can be.

CON CLU SIONS Fig. 25. Opposite page: Inside page of the notebook used to record my lies.

Col. Jessep was right when he said that we can’t handle the truth; it is too complex, too messy, with too many branches filled with endless twists and turns, it is too grand for us to understand. Lies on the other hand seem simpler, more real, more tangible, and more human. Hannah Arendt remarked that, “our ability to lie – but not necessarily our ability to tell the truth – belongs among the few obvious demonstrable data that confirm human freedom.” (Cited in Leslie, 2011, p. 334). Perhaps it is not only that we cannot handle the truth, perhaps it is that we do not want to. We prefer lies because they are liberating and infinitely more useful.

Sharing our lies and deceptive behaviours will provide us with the opportunity to re-evaluate the use we give to them. It will help us understand that lying is less related to morality than it is to survival, and we need lies and deception in order to survive. Honesty is a virtue, but I believe that acceptance is a greater one; and we cannot begin to accept each other without first realizing that we are all the same, we all lie. Perhaps the truth will not set us free after all, it might be the lies we tell the ones that will.

BIBLIO GRAPHY Cheung, V., 2012. Hands On: interactive design in print. Hong Kong: Viction:Workshop Limited. Farlex, Inc., 2012. The Free Dictionary by Farlex. [online] Available at: <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/> [Accessed 4 October 2012] Ford, C. V., 1996. Lies! Lies! Lies! The psychology of deceit. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press. Harrington, B. ed., 2009. Deception: from ancient empires to Internet dating. California: Stanford University Press. Leslie, S., 2011. Born Liars: why we can’t live without deceit. London: Quercus. Martin, C. ed., 2009. The philosophy of deception. New York: Oxford University Press. Meyer, P., 2010. Liespotting: proven techniques to detect deception. New York: Saint Martin’s Press. Möllering, G., 2009. Leaps and lapses of faith: exploring the relationship between trust and deception. In Harrington, B. ed., 2009. Deception: from ancient empires to Internet dating. California: Stanford University Press. pp. 137 – 153. Seckel, A., 2004. Masters of deception. New York: Sterling. Sherman, D., 2009. Self-deception, deception, and the way of the world. In: Martin, C. ed., 2009. The philosophy of deception. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 82 – 103.

LIST OF IMAGES Fig. 1. Dialog from the movie “A Few Good Men” (1992)

Fig. 7. Boundary between reality and make believe.

Source: http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/afewgoodmen.txt