The frame started its history accompany with the image. It shifted its form from the spatial environment, virtual image, spatial object, and once again into the spatial and time-based environment.
In cinema, it is possible to speak message through the narrative or by actor’s line. The narrative consists of the movement of the shot and changing the scene, and linear timeline. In design, rhetoric leads a role as a speaking person. Meaning of the term rhetoric “the art of using language so as to persuade or influence others.” It could be a colour and a form which contains information about the speech. As soon as the move from concept to visible manifestation is made, and especially to a manifestation as highly organised as a timetable, then the means used become rhetorical. Another definition of rhetoric might be tried, the art of directed communication – directed, that is, both internally to organise the material communication and externally to persuade an audience. Moreover, rhetoric in design can be delivered by another form/medium. To persuade or influence, narrative and rhetoric are shifting the form ‘frame’ as a directed vision. As the frame guide the order of the image in the comic books or traditional Egyptian wall painting, it implies the order of the event and strengthens the message, as narrative and time does in the cinema frame.
Technologies open narratives and make the construction of navigatable and immersive narrative environment. Now, each frame does not shows fixed and decided narrative, but exchangeable and discovered. Now, not only viewers gaze moves, and subject in the narrative’s movement influence message. However, The movement of the UK’s government shows that the frame could make two separate stories into one. The frame in the Youtube channels applied cinematic language, for example, ‘cinema mode’.
The impact of the frame, I believe, is not only limited within the interface but also individual laptop screen. The narrative or rhetoric is already made to some degree and the user opens their device up. The physical frame is not playing a role as a spatial environment that configuring the image. Expanded physical frame space, such as multi-user, distributed, mobile, ubiquitous, wearable, mixed reality, increasingly broaden the range of experimental representation.
On the other hand, within the interface, which is controlled by system and operators offered imagery inhabited information spaces, ‘typical results are self-reflexive products where the ideological underpinnings of their commercial stratagems remain unchanged (Shaw, 2012)’. No matter how much new digital technologies seduced the user with an enhanced image, ‘they tend to promulgate reactionary paradigms of the cinematic experience and of societal engagement with new media (Shaw, 2012)’. This comment can be interpreted in a way that, this is the time to design language at interface should be studied toward a new type of the language.
The cinematic imaginary dominates screen world. However, the distortion of the experience derived by the physicality of the frame, the immateriality of the new media, and old design language is greatest ever before. The messages easily become perverse and misdelivered. The noise of the language widens the creativity of the imagery. However, we should wisely distinguish between noise and distortion.
Shaw, J., 2012. New-media art and the renewal of the cinematic imaginary. Technoetic Arts, 10(2), pp.173–177.