Author: arianna.candioli

Mattia Pavanello – Differenze di genere nelle campagne di comunicazione sociale (2013)
Mattia Pavanello – Gender Differences in Social Communication Campaigns (2013)
Politecnico di Milano – Master’s Degree in Communication Design

1. The thesis

I chose Mattia Pavanello’s Master’s thesis, which explores how men and women are represented in social advertising and how visual communication can reinforce gender stereotypes.

The research is based on 91 international social advertising campaigns published between 2007 and 2012. The author analyses them across seven categories, including violence, health prevention, human rights, environmental issues and education.

The thesis is structured in seven chapters, moving from theoretical research on communication, gender and advertising to the analysis of the campaigns and, finally, the practical project: a proposed online archive where users can explore and compare the collected material.

2. Critical evaluation

Design quality and innovation

One of the strongest aspects is the systematic approach to visual analysis. The author looks beyond the overall image and examines colours, composition, lighting, body language and visual stereotypes. Comparing male and female representations makes patterns visible that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The idea of collecting and comparing social campaigns is interesting and useful. However, the innovation lies more in the organisation and accessibility of the research than in the development of a completely new visual language.

Independence

The work shows a considerable amount of independent research. Collecting and analysing 91 campaigns and developing a detailed system for comparing them requires time and a clear methodology.

Structure and communication

The thesis follows a logical structure, moving from theory to research and then to the practical outcome. The analysis sheets make the collected information easy to compare. However, some theoretical sections are quite long and descriptive. A stronger connection between certain theoretical concepts and the actual analysis could make the argument more focused.

Scope, accuracy and literature

The amount of research is impressive, especially considering the 182 individual analysis sheets. The documentation is detailed, although the large amount of information sometimes makes the work difficult to navigate. The visual material is carefully organised, but some inconsistencies in writing and presentation could be improved. The bibliography includes relevant authors and books on communication, gender studies, advertising and usability. The online sources also provide useful references, although a more consistent use of academic references would strengthen the scientific foundation.

3. Evaluation of the practical project

The practical outcome is a concept for an online archive that allows users to explore campaigns through different filters: what the campaign communicates, who is represented, where it comes from and when it was published.

I think this is a coherent response to the research. The archive transforms a large amount of information into a visual tool for comparison. The interface is documented through layouts and screen proposals, although the thesis does not demonstrate a fully developed and tested digital product.

Overall, the project is relevant and well connected to the research, but I would have liked to see more evidence of user testing and a more complete demonstration of its practical use.

4. Overall assessment

What I appreciate most about this thesis is its ability to make something normally difficult to recognise visible. It shows how colours, poses and visual choices can communicate stereotypes, sometimes without us even noticing.

Its main strength is the extensive research and the clear system behind it. Its main weakness is that the theoretical part could be more focused and the practical outcome could be developed further.

Nevertheless, I consider it a solid Master’s thesis because research, analysis and design work towards a common goal.

5. What I take from this for my own thesis

My own thesis direction is currently “How can visual communication explore what words don’t?”

What interests me in Pavanello’s work is the idea that visual elements can communicate meanings beyond the explicit message. A gesture, a colour or a particular composition can express something that is not directly written or explained.

I would like to explore this relationship further, looking at what images, visual systems and non-verbal elements can express when words are not enough.

From this thesis, I also take the importance of building a clear research method before starting the practical work. At the same time, I would like to experiment more with the visual outcome itself, allowing the design to become not only a way of presenting research, but also a way of exploring and discovering something new.

Note: AI tools were used to translate this text into English.

Looking back at this semester, the thing that interested me the most was moving from theory to experimentation.

At the beginning of my research, I explored how objects communicate through perception, semiotics and design. This time, I tried to observe what actually happens when people interact with objects.

The Looking Beyond workshop was probably the moment I found the most meaningful. Seeing the students transform simple objects into something completely different showed me in a concrete way how much a personal perspective can change the meaning of what we see in front of us.

The questionnaire about the three objects also allowed me to observe how everyday objects can become connected to memories, experiences and personal interpretations.

At the same time, this journey also helped me understand some difficulties. During different moments of the research, I felt stuck, unsure about which direction to take or how to transform this topic into something broader. Rather than finding a final answer, this experience helped me understand what I am truly interested in exploring and what feels less connected to me.

I do not think this topic will become the starting point of my thesis, but it remains an important part of my journey. It taught me the value of observing what we often take for granted and creating opportunities to see objects, and the world around us, from different perspectives.

Creating this concept map helped me organize and connect the different topics I explored during my research. Since the map is a general overview of the subject, it allowed me to identify relationships between concepts that I had initially considered separately. 

One of the main insights I gained is that communication is not a one-way process: objects do not communicate only through their function. The meaning of an object is created through the relationship between the object, the user and the context in which it exists. This made me realize that communication is not fixed, but changes according to perception, experience and interpretation.

I found the connection between perception and affordance particularly relevant because it shows how design can guide actions and behaviours. 

Another interesting aspect was with Watzlawick’s communication theory, especially the idea that “it is impossible not to communicate”. This principle can also be applied to objects: every designed artifact communicates something through its form, materials and presence, even when this communication is not intentional.

Since this concept map is only an introduction to the topic, many aspects could be explored further.
In particular, I would like to explore how different people interpret the same object and how personal experiences influence meaning.

Overall, this exercise helped me develop my research question further. I am still interested in how objects communicate, but I now want to explore more specifically how design choices influence perception and how people create meaning through their interaction with objects. 

This research helped me see everyday objects not only as functional products, but also as active elements of communication!

Looking at the answers collected, I had confirmation that objects are not interpreted only for what they are, but also for what they represent.

The cup remained mostly connected to everyday and personal moments: breakfast, coffee, a small ritual of calm. The keys, instead, led to more symbolic interpretations: not only an object used to open doors, but a symbol of home, independence and responsibility. The chair, perhaps the most open object, collected very different interpretations: comfort, work, waiting, loneliness.

This experiment made me notice once again that an object is never perceived only for what it is. Its shape can suggest something, but meaning takes shape through the person looking at it, through the memories and experiences they bring with them.

I was also surprised by how little is needed to transform an ordinary object into a story.

I collected different answers for each object, and here I present three of the most representative ones: the ones that better show the connections, images, and stories that emerged around each object.

First object: Cup

First impression

“Breakfast!”

“Coffee”

“The morning, the beginning of the day”

Memories and stories

“It reminds me of a daily moment of calm.”

“I imagine my day that is about to begin.”

“It reminds me of the ceramics course I took in France, where I tried to make a cup for the first time.”

Second object: Keys

First impression

“The song by Gianni Morandi and Jovanotti ‘Apri tutte le porte’”

“I take my keys and leave the house”

“Did I lock the door?”

Memories and stories

“They remind me of home and the garage, but also of the workplace.”

“I imagine that the more keys someone has, the more responsibilities they have, and probably also an older age.”

“I imagine all the doors they have opened and closed, every new beginning and every return they have accompanied.”

Third object: Chair

First impression

“So uncomfortable”

“Office, homework and duties”

“A comfortable, bare and anonymous object”

Memories and stories

“It reminds me of an unfinished chair.”

“I imagine waiting in a doctor’s waiting room…”

“I imagine a child rocking on the chair while trying to concentrate.”

To continue exploring the topic of my research, I wanted to observe what happens when different people encounter the same object.

I chose three objects from my everyday life: a cup, a set of keys and a chair. Three common objects, present in everyday life, but able to evoke different memories, images and stories.

I created a short online questionnaire asking participants to look at the photographs and answer three simple questions:

• What is the first thing that comes to your mind when looking at this object?
• What or who does it remind you of?
• What story do you imagine behind this object?

Through these questions, I tried to observe three aspects: the immediate perception of the object, the connection with personal experience and the way a possible meaning is created.

In the next blogs, I will collect the answers that emerged and observe the different stories created around the same objects.

When I organised this workshop, I simply wanted to understand how the students would look at common objects and what they would be able to imagine starting from familiar shapes.

The objects were the same for everyone, but many different stories were created!

Some students started from the shape of the object, others from an idea or an image they already had in their mind. A detail could become something completely different depending on who was looking at it.

This activity confirmed something that I am exploring in my research: the meaning of an object is never completely fixed. It does not depend only on what the object is, but also on the person looking at it and the experiences they bring with them.

I would definitely do this workshop again! I was surprised to see how quickly the students were able to move beyond the function of the object and imagine new possibilities. It also created a new curiosity for me: what would happen if I did the same exercise with adults?

One thing I would improve is leaving more space for randomness in the choice of objects: instead of giving everyone the same objects, I would let each participant pick different ones, creating new and unexpected combinations.

The most interesting part of the activity was exactly this: there was no right answer, every object could become something different!

Below are some observations that emerged during the workshop…

I noticed two different approaches:

• some students started working immediately, with very clear ideas
• others needed more time to observe the objects and let themselves be inspired

Some objects led different people towards similar interpretations, probably influenced by their shape:

• screw → drill
• pine cone → tree crown
• shoehorn → slide
• glove → bird

When an idea appeared, it often created a feeling of satisfaction: the object started to become something new.

The activity was experienced as a moment of:

• relaxation
• involvement
• concentration

The first transformation seemed to be the easiest one to find. Often, after completing an idea, imagining new interpretations required more time and creativity.

In the attached PDF, I collect some of the works created by the students during the workshop!

In everyday life, we are surrounded by objects that we know so well that we almost stop really looking at them. An object becomes familiar, loses its ability to surprise us and remains simply what we think it is.

But what would happen if we tried to look at it with different eyes?

From this question, the workshop I created with some middle school classes in Egna, a town in South Tyrol,, was born. During the period when I worked at the school as an Italian substitute teacher, whenever we had some free time, I enjoyed proposing small creative activities to the students. Luckily, my colleagues were also enthusiastic about the materials I prepared and welcomed this activity with pleasure, giving me the opportunity to experiment!

The goal was to explore how objects are perceived and reinterpreted, leaving space for creativity and imagination.

I presented the students with a series of common and random objects, printed on a worksheet, and asked them to cut them out and transform them through drawing. The task was not to represent the object as it is, but to try to see what it could become.

A glove did not have to remain just a glove. It could transform into a character, a fantastic creature, a part of a new body, or something completely different.

Through this simple activity, objects stopped being only functional objects and became starting points for new stories. Their shapes, details and visual characteristics opened up different possibilities, depending on the perspective of the person looking at them.

This workshop connects to my research: if the meaning of objects comes from the encounter between what we see and our experiences, what happens when we leave space for imagination?

In the next blogs, I will collect some of the results that emerged from this experiment and the different interpretations that the students gave to the same objects.

During International Design Week, I participated in the workshop PLAYS! with Emilio Leonardo.

One of the sentences that accompanied the workshop was:
“Playing is a serious way to imagine other possible futures.”

The activity explored play as a tool for knowledge and imagination, not only between humans, but also in relation to animals and non-human systems. Through scenarios, roles and collaborative processes, we worked on the possibility of seeing the world from different perspectives.

One of the exercises proposed was “A day in the life of…”: choosing an object and imagining a day in its life.

The inspiration came from the work of Max Degtyarev, who tells the everyday life of a bench through an illustration showing what happens around it during different hours of the day.

Looking out of the window, I chose an object that we often see without really observing: a street lamp.

And this is how the story of Giorgione was born.

A day in the life of… Giorgione, the street lamp

Giorgione starts his day when most people are about to finish theirs.

As the sun goes down, he slowly opens his eyes and turns on. From that moment, he stays awake until sunrise, while the city around him changes rhythm. During the day he stays silent, almost invisible, but at night he becomes one of the few fixed points for those passing by.

His life does not follow real schedules. He always stays in the same place, while everything around him changes: people running, bicycles passing, seasons changing.

Giorgione observes.

He sees people coming home late, someone stopping for a phone call, someone leaning against him for a moment.

Sometimes someone gives him a little tap, almost as if he was an old friend.

Dogs are also part of his everyday life. He sees many of them passing by and, regularly, someone decides to leave their mark at his feet.

To stay on during the night, Giorgione needs electricity. He does not drink, he does not eat, he does not move, but he completely depends on the energy that keeps him awake and ready to illuminate those who pass by.

It is not an easy life. He is always there, in the same place, while everyone else moves. Even when he is turned off during the day, someone continues to interact with him and this sometimes makes his resting time more difficult.

Maybe the hardest part is being far from others. The other street lamps are his family, but they are often only distant points of light across the city.

And yet, every night, when he turns on, Giorgione goes back to doing what he does best: staying still and accompanying the movement of others.

This exercise felt particularly interesting because it allowed me to change perspective: instead of observing an object from the outside, I tried to imagine what the object itself would see.

A street lamp is no longer just a functional element of the street, but becomes a silent observer of everyday life.