Author: Michael (Page 2 of 2)

What is the future of design and technology as a whole? Is there a difference between artistic expression and analytical engineering? Is it possible for them to coexist in a symbiotic relationship? The three manifestos that I read today aim to answer these questions with give different interpretations. Firstly lets talk about The Futurist Manifesto gives a macho vibrato interpretation of the future of design. He aimed to focus on war and violence demolishing museums and libraries in focus of on the beauty of struggle and grit. There is an opposition to feminism and morality because in the authors view it is seen as cowardice. Which in my opinion is appalling but very indicative of the times and the way men perceived their talents at the time.

However in the two other manifesto’s they were both speaking about the symbiotic relationship of the designer to the product they are promoting. However one was more thinking about it being a detriment while the other is focusing on it being an enhancement. For example in the Who We Are manifesto it was stated that “technology was the mortal enemy of art… we are fighting the punitive force… we are but slave workers.” Emphasizing the feeling of just being cogs of the machine on mass production and exploitation. While on the other hand in the other article Our Book it was stated that “…In this way there develops a
technique of simple effectiveness, which appears to be very easy to operate
and for that reason can easily develop into dull routine, but which in powerful
hands turns out to be the most successful method of achieving visual poetry.” Which indicates in the hands of an average person the technique of design is a simple but easy dull routine but in the hands of the designer it brings a more successful amazing work of art.

By Michael Desmangles

When it comes to language both articles give their input on its importance and its purpose. Certain language is obviously specific for its intended demographic. In the Course of General Linguistic article they discuss the arbitrary nature of signs. They continue by explaining the correlation between the signifier and the signified and the linear process of communication. The importance of onomatopoeias was also discussed to convey feeling and intent and narrow the intended message. They also contradict themselves by saying language is rooted in structure and rules and based on a system. The system in play is not always obvious and it depends on the interpretation. They explain how language is nothing but phonetical sounds interpreted by the previous generation.

However in the second article a lot of its ideas are rooted in symbolic icons to convey message. A lot of hieroglyphics and symbols are use to convey not only the content of the subject but also the quantity of them as well. The different cultures use characters and symbols to communicate thoughts. The author going so far to replace parts of the sentence with the symbols to hammer the point of how important the graphic components are to conveying the idea. Their purpose was to inform of the idea of graphic symbols.

My interpretation when it relates to design is how important symbols and type are to conveying a message. For example if you put one cow in the middle of a poster with nothing surrounding it but an empty barn with the text heading saying “Where are my friends?!” You can interpret from the graphic combined with the text that the cow is alone. However, deeper interpretations may talk about the meat industry and animal cruelty. Base line interpretation is the linear correlation that was discussed in the course of linguistics article where the onomatopoeia enforces a tone and a response. However the arbitrary nature of the graphic lends itself to different interpretation.

When I read the two articles there were a lot of similarities and very distinctive. It was important to understand the mindset of the designer is something that can’t really be duplicated. A lot of what was said in these articles were the designers’ abilities to balance their knowledge of technological aspects to the design and the psychological aspects. A lot of the conversation is built on the foundation that design is a language. It is there to communicate to the masses an idea, a brand, or a problem and offer a solution to the consumer to solve the problem. For example what was said in the munari design article “The designer of today reestablishes the long lost contact between art and the public…”

I am also fascinated with the second idea of social responsibility of the designer to understand what they are making may have a lasting impact on society as a whole. A lot of design is based on the notion of making a complex idea into a clear and concise tangible product. The Helen Armstrong article talks about the different eras of design and with each era had a distinct purpose to their designs. Whether that be to push a societal status quo and or to change the narrative and start an avant garde design trend. 

Finally the conversation of today’s design talks about the shift in how design can be made. How becoming a designer becomes a lot more available because of the use of technology. Which in turn makes it harder for a designer to stand out. The design world is a lot more competitive compared to earlier periods during the early 1900s where designers were for a lack of a better word pretentious.