Month: February 2022 (Page 2 of 6)

I read “Who we are: Manifesto of the constructivist group”. Basically, this document was the first one where the ideas of constructivism were briefly formed (a deeper explanation of the constructivism theory was given two years later in a book by Alexei Gan called “Constructivism”). In his work, Gan proposes a complete break with the art of the past, which had bygone historical eras (primitive culture, handcraft, and capitalism) to come to a culture of labor and intelligence – the era of high technology. 

This idea mirrors with rows of the manifesto: ”previously—Engineers relaxed with art now—Artists relax with technology”. 

In general, constructivists positioned themselves as dreamers, artists, and engineers of the future. They were a beginning of a new era, it is they who created elevators, aeroradiostations, boots, a catalog. They are everyone – and yet, they are no one. I think, by these words they meant that every person can join a constructivist community. Constructivists are kind of scattered among the people. Constructivists thought that people before they were creating some junk–poetry, paintings, novels, or imagined themselves as geniuses while creating elevators or radio posters. However, Constructivists wanted to be concentrated on new elements, routs, things, they should experiment. So, I think, their focus was on functionality, rationality rather than beauty and esthetics.

Immutability and mutability of the sign was something I found really interesting about the Saussure reading.  Immutability of course means no one specific person, nor the society at large, can at will change the language.  Although I must add, wouldn’t it be so cool if we could?  We could as a society vote on changes we want to make to the English language.  Now that would probably get ugly fast, but how much fun it would be!  Mutability refers to how the language changes over time due to changes in the culture at large.  For example, I believe the Oxford dictionary gets a few words added to it every year, based on new trends in the language as a result of changes in the culture.  It’s also crazy to think about how different the English language was just 200 years ago.  In the grand scheme of things, 200 years is not that much time.  So it’s awesome to think about how much language will surely change over the next 200 years.

The fact that Japan still uses abacuses, which I learned in the Lupton/Miller reading, is crazy to me.  I think that is such a wonderful juxtaposition of the ancient with the modern, because they are paired with electronic calculators.  I also think it’s fascinating that some numeric systems from certain tribal cultures are based on our hands and feet.

Why are some cultures so much more advanced than others?  This is a question I kept thinking about throughout the Lupton/Miller reading.  And why are some economies so depressed while others are buoyant?

Reading all three articles has developed questions and concerns through my mind. In the first article, The Futurist Manifesto mentioned, “As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.” The area that the author lives during that time period, the area has become more urban, filling up the place with factories.

Also, the authors use metaphors, personification, and similes as if they were writing a poem and I felt I was reading one. I had to read between the lines in order to understand what they were saying. The first article reminded me of gentrification because there were lines where the author mentioned where people who live in the area weren’t pleased with the new technology that’s been developing. For example, ” Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat, and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.” A community wasn’t satisfied with urban areas taking over landscapes. This will have a huge impact on having animals go extinct, making rent go high, and people will migrate to another area.

The second article Who We Are was an interesting “poem.” “We didn’t create technology. We didn’t create man. But we, Artists yesterday, Constructors today…” The author mentioned past days are when we were creative but today we analyze every single detail of today’s technology. Artists were not intimated in technology because it wasn’t a huge thing till now, till you find out that you can do so much with high-tech. Now, we have to be part of the community that uses technology to keep going forward for the future.

The manifesto is a beautiful thing of the past, what was once a declaration of the deepest, and rawest ideals and emotions of a person or body of people has now been replaced by the mission statement on the about us page. Equal parts biography and threat, the manifesto was a powerful tool for people to get their point across. While The Constructivist Manifesto, and Our Book are a far cry from the bombast of the Futurist Manifesto they both share common themes. 

While going through these readings some common themes stuck out to me. First, and probably most important among them was the desire by all authors to look to the possibilities of the future. All three authors having seen the romanticization of things as they are, have grown tired with doing things as they are expected to be done. Instead all authors are looking to rewrite the rules and rise to new challenges of their times, refusing to be stuck in the glory of previous creators. Secondly they all look to use new technology not to duplicate past victories of their forefathers at an accelerated pace, but to create totally new work that would leave their mark on humanity. 

The Futurists while not directly referential to specific technologies were more about a forward thinking ideology. It seems to me that their passion was less about how they were going to express a new vision, and simply that they were, regardless of what tools were available to them.  The Constructivists on the other hand were excited about all the possibilities new technology brought them. For the Constructivists their passion lied in meeting the demands of the day the best way they could. They believed that the machine was the key to creating useful works by stripping away the romance of the artist and giving unique form and function to new ideas of the day. The Constructivists, acknowledging that it is not the needs of the artists or creators but the needs of the public that dictate the direction of their work. Within this ideology is the concept of dematerialization. 

Dematerialization, is the opposite of materialism. It is a reaction of the public’s desires and the needs of the market to deliver goods in a more efficient manner that leads to the evolution of mediums. This paired with innovations in technology bring us the metamorphosis. I find the concept of dematerialization being conceived in the early 1900s to be extremely interesting. Dematierialization is  arguably at its apex right now. We stream movies and music, we have kindles and even video game makers are selling their consoles ( the box which you play the games on) without disc drives. This weekend I saw a Reddit post about a guy who purchased a $200 special edition boxset of a video game. The boxset contained a figure and a steel-book case for the game, but the case for the game didn’t actually have the game within it. Instead there was just a code which could be redeemed on the Playstation network to download the game. I imagine the Constructivists would be thrilled with this progress, but I am curious as to how they would perceive our current machine lead lives. Would they be intrigued and overjoyed about how algorithms rule our lives? Furthermore, I imagine the Futurists for all their gusto and fervor for tearing down institutions would be furious at the idea that anyone let alone an algorithm would dictate to them what they would need to do to spread their message. 

While the Futurists and Constructivists have a lot in common where I believe they part ways is the aims of their messaging. The Futurists are egotistical, their aim is not to contribute to society but rather to tear it down and remake it in their image. For The Constructivists it’s all in the name. Their desire to is be useful, removing their egos and desires from the work and instead wanting to push the boundaries for the benefit of the public. It’s not about what the constructivists need, it’s about what society needs. 

While I disagree with the anarchist, and anti-female sentiments of The Futurists I can’t help but feel like there’s something to what they’re saying. In our current society I feel like there’s an over-reliance on nostalgia. 20 years from now what “vibe” will generation alpha be trying to evoke? A 2022 vibe is nothing more than remixed 2002 vibe. so will 2042 vibe be a remix of the remix? How long can we go sampling the works of others before we have to create something of our own that exists for the present? Is that even possible now? 

I feel a bit of unease with the worshiping of the machine that The Constructivists do. It echos that uncomfortable corporate speak so many modern corporations love. Getting us to separate our emotions from our work in the name of progress is fine when the machine is incapable of controlling us without us realizing it.Couple algorithmic manipulation with corporate jargon and how long before something like Metamates doesn’t sound ridiculous to the average person. Life is for more than being useful.  

Amongst the two readings, Language is something that forms a way of communication between individuals to come to some form and way to have understanding. Language can be produced, translated, mimicked in many forms such as gestures, speech, symbols etc. The distinction amongst languages and what’s considered proper would be more of a universal/common form of understanding, as per example roman numbers on a clock, tally marks, the basic use of numbers, etc. Another very universal language example is the symbol of a lady silhouette and man silhouette outside of restrooms to signal what gender facilities it is for. Symbols are related to language because its forms a visually communication for people to understand. Language plays a big role in design because it translates things within many ways and forms a ways to communicate amongst and across a large audience.