According to the authors, the sort of possibilities that they each envision for their immediate futures is being able to see a complete change of rules compared to how they are currently living. For instance, during the time period that they are living in (early 20th century), the avant garde artists were always know for creating works of art from rules and regulations. Always doing to expected requirements when it comes to art. For these authors, when it comes to visualizing the future, the possibilities are there. It makes them idolize what the future would be like. Wanting to be able to have a complete set of changes from what they normally do would make them feel even more better about themselves. In terms of visualizing the roles that technology would play in shaping the future, the authors hope that technology can help benefit them even more that would make their work memorable.

The elements from the text that would most likely be relevant for the present is the ideas that the artist have, the futurist, the constructivists and technology itself. The reason why I believe these four would be the most relevant in present day is because in a way, we still live with rules that are completely different then the 20th century. Rules that the authors would love and wish they had during there time period. As we have many different kinds people with their own views, when it comes to futurist and constructivists, we have people who falls into either one of them. With technology being more advanced, we’re able to do so much with them especially as an artist where we’re able to learn more about art, finding artist, etc.

With that being said, based on the readings, the elements that are the most problematic are both futurist and constructivists. The reason why these two elements are chosen is because they are polar opposites to each other where both of them can be dangerous too. For instance, those who are in the belief of futurist are the ones who aren’t society and are in favor of creating a new image to their liking. Those who are in the belief of constructivist are the ones who are for the people and society in general. The reason why these two are the most problematic is because there isn’t any balance for both sides of the team. What would it be like to become a futurist where you remove yourself completely from society and create a new world? A world that benefits to your own likings? Wouldn’t that make you an individual God? It’s almost like as if you’re in a completely different dimension where you have the ability to change just about everything. Having too much power to that extent can be dangerous especially when it’s given to the wrong people. What about a constructivist? Being part of society where you can help contribute to it. Perhaps to the point where nothing you say matters anymore? Being able to create something different without society’s approval? Perhaps who want to make a difference and want creative freedom where you can express yourself and reach out to people? Well too bad because you have to ask society for permission first. In a way, constructivist is big brother in disguise. Regardless of which side you’re on, there is always going to be something ugly about it despite it having its own good intentions.