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.