Month: February 2022 (Page 1 of 6)

Something that really struck me from the Futurist Manifesto by Marinetti is that so many people want to glorify war.  In the manifesto, Marinetti mentions that “we want to glorify war”, and he also mentions patriotism and contempt for women.  As I was reading all that I thought, wow, that sounds a lot like the contemporary far right extremists in our country.  I think it is so incredibly sad that many people choose not to glorify peace.  Why would anyone want life to be more violent than it already is?  Makes me think of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, who did several really famous performance art pieces to glorify peace.

Also in the Futurist Manifesto, Marinetti states that he wants to “demolish museums and libraries”.  I think that is so obviously a colossally bad idea, because if one forgets the past, one is bound to repeat the past.  I mean, my god, what was Marinetti thinking?  This whole manifesto comes across quite petulant and immature to me.  And I don’t know how it’s a good idea to glorify manufacturing cars etc. and then also want to destroy things like museums and libraries and undermine the foundations of venerable towns.  What fun would it be to drive those cars through desecrated hollowed out cities and towns?

I also did not care for the Constructivist Manifesto by Rodchenko et al.  Their whole stance against art and focus on technology is lame as far as I’m concerned.  Why can’t art mix with things like science and technology?  For one thing, they each can be used for combinatory play, one for the other, which can be extremely useful for unlocking new ideas in either.

There is a dynamic of thrill coming from all three short manifestos as the rise of new technologies changes the way of life. By the mere introduction of the automobile and the train, you can visualize the excitement felt by Marinetti in The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism. I was enthralled by his many descriptions such as “a great sweep of madness” and “death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely.” They reminded me of adrenaline rushes or anticipation towards something dangerous and innovative. He speaks about speed and velocity which are part of the characteristics seen through the artwork during the Futurism period. Along with speed, other characteristics mentioned are violence and destruction. This thrill of advancement sounds like a drug as Marinetti speaks about how people are “thrown into the future” and from that exposure old seeming things such as books and museums should be destroyed. This reminded me of the book Fahrenheit 451, in which books were destroyed due to new technologies and ways of communication. It was deemed no longer needed.

Lissitzky also refers to books as an example of how it has changed due to advances in technology. This is an interesting point because books started out as references and had to be printed/copied. Then the growth went into the involvement of stories and storage of historical information. Lastly, physically books become less useful as information is provided through the internet. Lissitzky predicts our “dematerialization” to bring us something new such as the internet. The internet becomes our world’s book where we get information and communicate from. While books become less used, they still exist in our time. This brings the question, will we ever stop needing books or will they always exist alongside the new way of communication we may advance to, just like they do now?

Rodchenko, Stepanova, and Gan’s manifesto is a little different. It is written similarly to that of a poetic structure. They acknowledge the changes from new technologies and they question the individuals involved in the process. First, an individual exists who sees a “square” and an individual exists that does the “plane.” This reminds me of the saying, in which, “saying one thing is not the same as doing that one thing.” This is one of the reasons they consider themselves as doers by referring to themselves as constructors, engineers, or organizers. Instead of using a simple square or a line, using a grid and planes follows the role of advancing to new ways. This type of organization and incorporation of technology can be seen in Rodchenko’s graphic design work. There is variety in typography, geometric shapes, and usage of grids to organize or “build” the design as if it was for a building/car.

The authors of these essays envisioned technology as having the potential to rule the whole planet. For instance, Marinetti (n.d.) stated that rather than turning to history and seeking a unifying factor in the great names of historical events, the diversity of future cultures must and should be founded on the transformative aesthetics of the machine speed battle. On the other hand, Rodchenko et al. (1922) say that the future would be so fantastic and simple since everything will be automated. The writers of these pieces speculated on the role of technology in influencing global conflict. Through technology, individuals will be able to create a variety of weaponry that will aid them in defeating their adversaries during the conflict. Additionally, they imagined that technology would impact almost every element of life, from transportation effectiveness and reliability to dietary and healthcare availability, sociability, and creativity.

The artists expected the art and design that would follow by employing creativity and imagination that provides comfort, conversation, and encouragement to their neighborhoods and offers thoughtful critiques of the political, economic, and societal structures, encouraging communities to engage thoughtfully and take steps toward social progress. The writers can forecast the future of art and design by observing how people react to offered concepts on embracing social changes.
What common views do these authors share?
The authors of these articles have a common view on social change. The authors of these three articles believe that there will be advancements in technology in the future where people will enjoy the benefits of technology.

The writers’ views on the development of imagined art may differ. For instance, Lissitzky’s (1926) painting illustrates that throughout time, various versions on the same topic are created around the innovation, sometimes more sharply defined, sometimes more flatly defined, but rarely achieving the initial force. On the other hand, Rodchenko et al. (1922) and Marinetti (n.d.) both support the development of art and design innovation.

These texts relevant to the present are the evolution of technology and i innovation’s most problematic element of these articles is that they were published many decades ago. Therefore, they may not be resourceful when relating to the current world.

The readings demonstrated authors who each have different envisions for the future. They each had some sort of new rules which they believed should take over the rules that they were living in or with. All three authors also seem to have an interest in using some sort of technology for the future of design. Although I was a little confused with the first reading “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism ”, I was able to grasp the idea that the author isn’t interested in the past or past achievements but rather what achievements can be done for the future. The author stated,” Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?” The author thinks that looking at the past is useless and that focusing on the future and what can be done with it is where the main focus should be. As for the future, some ideas the author seems to emphasize are the use of automobiles, railways, and factories or industrialization.

Unlike the futurist and the first reading, the second reading seems to show the idea that looking at the past and reflecting on it is important. It is important because people are able to use their previous knowledge as a foundation and will be able to build on it with the new things that they learn or are learning. Unlike the futurists who really only really think about themselves and the beauty of their art. The constructivists are opposite where they work with the public and for the public because it’s really the public needs that lead the direction of their work. Rodchenko stated an interesting quote, “Work for life and not for palaces, temples, cemeteries, and museums. Work in the midst of everyone, for everyone, and with everyone.” It goes to show that the constructivists are with the people and among them.

Marinetti and the futurists believe in the future and in the new possibilities that the modern technology will bring. For this reason, Marinetti in his manifesto affirms that poets and the poetry need to abandon old myths, religious themes, and the tradition of the past, which are represented by the museums, defined the cemeteries of art and of the genius, to completely embrace modernity and reality. The world outside the museums is pulsing of new energy and producing constantly through new inventions of speed and the automobile. According to Marinetti, as the speed cancels time and space, the same must do the poetry. The new poetry will convey passion and violence to provoke and wake the instincts and the energies of the readers up.  

In Rodchenko manifesto the artist thanks to the new technologies becomes the engineer of the future. He doesn’t relax with the new inventions, but he uses them to change everyday life and produce something for the society. The artist is not a dreamer anymore and he doesn’t create in his imagination, he creates a mug, a catalogue, boots for himself and for everybody. “Technology becomes the mortal enemy of the art”, where the artists are no longer slave workers of the traditional art and its rules. They create something that can be used for everyday life and not just admired and observed in museums. 

El Lissitzky analyzing the evolution of the book in “Our book”, trusts the future inventions and technology evolutions which are pushed by the needs of the society, where the mass becomes the commissioner, bringing to the dematerialization. As we see the dematerialization of the communication from letters to telephones to the use of the radio, also the book was subject to the evolution of his forms according to the events, for example it becomes a poster in the years of the revolution and then through the photography and the collaboration with painters gave birth to the visual poetry realizing that the faster channel was the eye more than the ears (“the book’s facilities for expression take many more forms”). Moreover, he states that the shape and form of the book hasn’t been changed yet (probably because it didn’t reach yet that last state that is followed by the evolution) but he is quite satisfied with the fact that what it is inside the book, the design of the inside of the book reflects the evolution of his time. Furthermore, he underlines the importance of being in close contact with worldwide events and the progress of social development to be able to finally give a new effectiveness to the book.  

Even though Marinetti, Rodchenko and El Lissitzky, they all promote the revolution of the poetry and art eliminating the rules of the past and have full confidence in the evolution of the technologies, they have different purposes. Marinetti purpose of the poetry is to show the beauty of the new technologies, to express the excitement, the energy and the violence of the artists promoting a war to destroy the religious and traditional ideas but also promoting a violent change in the society, a revolution. He wanted to take advantage of the new technological achievements for revolutionary purpose, for examples he uses the printing press to print in different formats that better would express the fervor and energy of his messages, persuading the reader. In Rodchenko and El Lissitzky works we can sense the exuberance and the desire to create something new in opposite to the past but with a mild tone and with the purpose of contributing to the everyday life and to the society. In particular, they wanted to eliminate the past to create new space to new ideas and new fast and exciting forms of art. Their works expressed the dynamism of the modern life, solving the problems of the modern life analyzing the modern materials. Constructivist artists were not focused on the composition, but on the construction. 

As Marinetti, Rodchenko and Lissitzky embraced the modern technologies of their era, nowadays designers are constantly learning about new softwares and updating their skills to go hand in hand with the modern society and current technologies to express themselves. For this reason, I am curious about the evolution of the design in the next few years where computers are getting faster and computer screens probably will be substituted by 3d glasses and we will be able to see advertisement or probably read books not actually printed but virtually projected. In Rodchenko point of view, artists were not supposed to focus on expressing themselves but serve the society. Nowadays designers are socially responsible whenever they design something. The concept of using art and design to change the world is not new. 

The lectures “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism” (Filippo Tommaso Marinetti), “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group” (Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan), and “Our Book” (El Lissitzky) talk about his point of vision of the irruption of new technology in society and the changes into the art world and design. All three authors romanticize the new technology because they see technology as a tool to make real their ideas, change society, and break with the past rules. 

In the text “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group”, Rodchenko empowers technology and states the new roles of the artist that uses the technology as a tool. He wrote

“We didn’t create technology.

We didn’t create man.

but we,

Artists yesterday

constructors today,

1. we processed

the human being

2. we organize

technology

1. we discovered

2. propagate

3. cleanout

4. merge

previously—Engineers relaxed with art

now—Artists relax with technology”.

Rodchenko says that the world is not the same, therefore the world of art and design is not the same either, it’s becoming more rational, functional, and useful. Everything tends to move forward and leave the old ideas and rules of the past.

El Lissitzky also talks about technology and how this can change the books and our way of communicating. He talks about the dematerialization of our way of communication. He gives as an example the letters that use paper, envelopes, ink, etc., and then comes the telephone to make it easier to communicate with other people. And this happens with the internet and smartphones. I suppose that El Lissitzky would have liked to see the evolution of our form of communication that we have now. At the beginning of this century, everything needed a cable to function, now we have smartphones with long batteries durability (unless you have an old iPhone like mine) and maybe in a possible future, we can communicate with implanted microchips or something similar. And now with the idea of the metaverse, it seems that it is not even necessary to be in body present to be at parties, meetings, etc. I believe that if technology and other factors (such as political events or historical events) are capable of changing society, the rules of art and designers must also change.

The authors of these readings had negative opinions of their futures. They were really discouraging as an artist however true. As we continue in time the materials we use and the process we use to develop art and design have been lost. All though it might be viewed as a positive thing that we are making advances in art and technology the history and the importance of the process of creating art have decreased. This is the view of the author El Lissitzky, in “Our Book”; he emphasized his sadness for the future of art and its inventions. He uses the invention of the easel, as an example, although it was once used to produce art it is nowadays not effective. To me, however, it is simply not true, although there are more digital artists in this age there are still traditional artists like myself that keep to the traditional method of producing art. Although it might be expensive, the final piece that you create makes everything worth it. Lissitsky also talks about the future of the book, in his opinion; although all other inventions in art have lost their effectiveness, he sees a positive future for the book. The book despite advances in technology is still stable in the society we live in today. Many designs the books digitally however, there is an influx of people reading books, magazines, and more in print.

In “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism” by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti,  he envisions a positive future for himself. One where his invention would have an impact and where he would create a new movement. A movement where their creations would create a stepping path towards the future and where it would have an impact on a broader scale. The futurists look towards the future in a positive light and look forward to the changes in art and technology. They don’t look back on the previous advances or achievements but rather look for a bright and influential future. The Futurists are interested in creating a brand new image or future based not on the past advancements and histories but rather a future where they start a new, where there are new advancements and different ideas. This is also seen where the author even states “When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts” (Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 2,3).

Lastly in the reading by Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, and Aleksei Gan, “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group” the authors viewed their future in a positive light. Unlike the Futurist who looked forward to a new era and a new generation, the constructivists were focused on themselves. They viewed themselves as the stepping stone or blueprint for society and inventions. They created so many aspects of society, they created something out of nothing and more. To me they were putting so much emphasis on the things they have done for society and even the things they didn’t create, they had an influence on; They ” were /are the beginning”. They also viewed technology in a negative light; they thought that technology was the enemy of art. To be honest I’m on a balance with that one; even though I understand how inexpensive and easy digital art is; and how much more digital arts out there than traditional; I can appreciate digital art. However, in my opinion, I feel that traditional artwork takes skills and more effort.

The authors in the readings seem to have different visions of their futures, but they all have innovative ambitions that start their debate in graphic design. They believe technology will play an important role in shaping the near-term future. The future of technology is always realized with the help of engineering work, and the author’s background most helps them participate in the arts. Technology help solve book design’s problems. Because of the high standards of German technology, they have succeeded in realizing some of our book ideas in 1920. Art used to have a system of inventions that were considered special and important at the time, but over time it was seen as an exhausting subject before future improvements. These artists expect that art and design will come out in creative ways, as most artists make montages, that is, they piece together photos and inscriptions that belong to them and then reproduce them with photos. These authors share a common outlook on life that no longer makes sense in their minds but makes sense in their books. They have theories that commonplace others don’t exactly make, they look at matters and think of what would make it better. They may disagree with work that is described as fotopis (painting with photos) and consists entirely of images from other photographers, it’s not just art, it’s photography. Elements of these texts are relevant for the present are people are satisfied with a piece of work, some may not be interested and may express it on their face, and some may be quite the opposite. For example, “the Vortex Group published its work at war, large and basic, almost entirely in block letters; today”(El Lissitzky , page 28), this person characterizes all modern international print. The element in question has to do with politics. His problems manifested in the exhibition design. With Lissitzky’s problem in marrying a political to an avant-garde art vividly recollects a similar difficulty among the Neo-lmpressionists. Paul Signac, in rejoinder to this crisis, theorized:“The subject does not matter, or at least is only one of the parts of the work of art, not more important than the other elements, colors, drawing, composition. When the eye of the proletariat is educated, the people will see in the paintings something else besides the subject.” (cite)

References

https://www.artforum.com/print/197207/el-lissitzky-the-avant-garde-and-the-russian-revolution-37496. (n.d.). essay.

El Lissitzky, Our Book (1926)

Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan, Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group (c. 1922)

Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism (1909)