Author: Calvin Garcia (Page 2 of 2)

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past, what was once a declaration of the deepest, and rawest ideals and emotions of a person or body of people has now been replaced by the mission statement on the about us page.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.  

Language is a collection of signs (drawn characters) signifiers (sounds) and signified items (items being written or spoken about) being given a relationship to one another by people. This relationship is one that forms organically to meet the needs of the people who are utilizing the language at their present time and place.

 Language unlike any other form of communication cannot be manipulated by the people who are utilizing it. It is both at the whims and not at the whims of the people of the time. It is a collective effort (albeit passively) to create language, because unlike signs or symbols, language is difficult to manipulate, and is largely an inheritance. In the text that was provided Ferdinand De Saussure says that where a language comes from is almost irrelevant. It is almost impossible for someone to say that a word (sign) is meant for one purpose, and that you must use it for that purpose, due to the amount of time necessary to manipulate a language and to get others to adopt that terminology. However, a symbol (a drawing) due to its wider universality can act as sign, signified and signifier all at once. 

Signs, signifieds, and signifiers do not exist solely in the realm of the written and spoken word. Throughout history symbols have stood in the place of all three of these concepts. Take for instance the male or female symbols outside of bathrooms. They utilize context, and prior knowledge to tell you “men go into this room, and women go into that room”. There is also the universality as a symbol such as the stop sign, which is utilized internationally. 

Design utilizes the often unconscious knowledge we all have of signs, signifieds, and signifiers. and can play with these assumptions using them to communicate deeper concepts than any one of these 3 things can do alone. Design brings signs, signifieds, and signifiers to a new level, often making  signifieds of the signifiers and signs creating even further depth within a piece. 

Design particularly visual design escapes the limitation of linear time necessary to convey a message. Design Often assumes that people are taking in a whole image, and that there are various elements to the image all working separately but together at the same time.  Good design manipulates the senses, and is capable of often sending the viewer on a circular journey. An advertisement almost assumes that you are entering the image from a variety of angles, and that the viewers may not all share the exact same cultural and contextual assumptions. 

As time passes and the world shrinks, we as a species share more and more context. Our understanding of one another grows, and we collectively create new signs, signifieds and signifiers, which allows us to make things that can be universally enjoyed and understood regardless of borders. 

Sorry for the low quality video. Like a fool presumed that Apple sold the new imac with a webcam that is higher quality than one from 2002.

Here is a link to a few gag comics I made for The Strangler.

https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/the-strangler-/list?title_no=260696&webtoon-platform-redirect=true

images of the pictures I held up in the video

According to the authors of the texts provided, a common theme between the two texts seems that design is more than just art. Design is not just the creation of beautiful things, but the creation of beautiful things that as they apply to everyday life. Design concerns itself with the problems of the day, be they social, political, or environmental. Design is unlike any other form of art because it is not completely about expression. 

Design is different than other creativity because it has purpose other than stroking the ego of the creator(like painting, drawing, music, and sculpture can). That’s not to say that there are not auteurs who seek to gratify their egos or express themselves within the world of design, but with design’s purpose being to convey a message or create an experience, the field is not set up for the artist to come in and gratify themselves alone. Bruno Munari says “Culture today is a mass affair, and the artist must step down from his pedestal and be prepared to make a sign for a butcher’s shop” by using their craft to create things for society the auteur becomes useful rather than self pleasing. 

The most important tasks facing designers today however is not the pressure created from within, but externally. The designer must face an onslaught of demands for the times in which they exist. The designer is expected to know a vast array of technologies, and carve out a unique niche for themself in a place where the lay-person also wants to do the things they want to do, the “prosumer” . As if being assaulted on all sides weren’t enough designers must also give deep thought to theoretical and philosophical problems of the age. 

Part of what a designer must do is create what doesn’t exist. To do this a designer must think about social, political, and environmental problems that as of the present moment for said designer have no answer. It is on the designer to use their skills to make the world a more livable place for all, altering what exists already to be more harmonious with its surroundings, or creating something from scratch.The designer touches thousands of lives with their contributions, and often these contributions go totally un-noticed.