Author: Ronald Rodriguez (Page 1 of 2)

Notes Roland Barthes

Finals Outline

The prompt for this week is an overly simple one: According to Jan Tschichold, Karl Gerstner, and Josef Müller-Brockmann, How should one design?

According to Josef Müller-Brockmann, Jan Tschichold, and Karl Gerstner they believe in the “scientific way” of design. Now by scientific way they mean by doing things with a purpose and creating grids and outlines for better structure. I believe they saw graphic design, which is by their definition problem solving solutions for the better of society, much how a scientist would look at solving a problem going by identifying the problem, looking for solutions(hypothesis) and implement those solution and try it serval times for consistence’s. They should that graphic design can be seen in a scientific or in mathematical sense.

Josef Müller-Brockmann is known for dividing and ordering graphic design into the grid of Swiss Typography. He saw the grid as a timeless method of communication. As he would say “working within the grid system means submitting to laws of universal validity.” What this illustrates is working in a grid would back up your work or the message you’re trying to get the viewer to see. He also believed in objective work instead of work from straight emotions.

Karl Gerstner and Jan Tschichold were also people that try pushing structure and really saw the value of technology as well. Karl Gerstner created the “the morphological box of the typogram.” What it is a is box divided into grids and it could be used to generate solutions typographic logo designs. Such as the letters varying from degrees of darkness to the direction of the type, the way is read and can show a sense of emotions. Furthermore, Jan Tschichold was known for the New Typography movement. With rise of the printing technologies, it gave artist more freedom when it came to type. From not using the same sans serif typeface to the way the type was placed and the direction. He defined the rejection of the classical rules of typography symmetry. Focused on size, weight, arrangements of lines , color and the photography.

According to these authors, what was missing from past art and education was the past form of art and education which is the “Academy”, actual practice and adeptness and understanding building himself up from the ground up. I reckon he means that technology does most of the work instead of being in the classroom learning the fundamentals. Furthermore, he mentions that is better that they are not isolated as modern designer and that are here to serve the complaints of society. Refining their skills working together craftsman and artist to better be a service to society.

The roles that typography and photography play in shaping a new art is the merger of both called typophoto. A combination of typography and photography. When we merge image and text in our layouts, we reference typophoto. You would see this primarily in illustrated papers or posters. In addition, to the role that language in art is how the letters are being used, written and formed. As letters can be used a form to evoke emotions. Furthermore, when pair up with an image it can send a message a form of communication, as a form of call to action.

Artists should approach the creation of future art forms by using Typography as a form of expression and finding different ways such as typophoto to push art further. Lastly, I believe Bauhaus ideas are already relevant in the 21^st century as Bauhaus try to connect the bridge between craftsmanship and artist. Furthermore, he supported and embraced technology and believes in minimalism by using lines, shapes and composition for his work.

These Authors envision a world where art would be seen something outdated and technology would take its place. What I think they mean is that art can be applied differently. Long are the days that your just an artist with no creative freedom and just making paintings or sculptures of historical references or doing masterpieces for the church. They would be other forms of art. Such as industrial design in the case of, Aleksandr Rodchenko who was an artist turned constructor/ assembler. Furthermore, the role is in helping society. It would come about in angles as Alesksandr would say or language in the case of El Lissitzky. Art would be seen in angles such as shapes like a line, grid, composition and shapes. This reminds me a lot Alfred Stieglitz and his famous photo “The Steerage”, which was seen as the first form of modern photograph because it moved on from the past of capturing a moment in time or a portrait of person and evolved the expanded to focus on modern graphic design theory such as shapes, compositions etc.… Again, moving forward not being stuck in pass with technology.

I also believe they all have similar views of moving own from the past of the artist not having a sense of voice or doing things by the books and trying to find new forms of art. Where I think they differ is El Lissitzky doesn’t believe art would just go away, instead other ways would take its place. As she mentions that technology would just enhance it and make it better such as theaters are still seen and viewed the same as before such with slight improvements or the way to read a book is still the same after these years. Theres no need to forget or cast aside the past when you can enhance it or in some cases is already fully optimized.

I believe what remains presents is the need of wanting to expand and grow. Trying to find new ways of art and don’t always worry about how the people use to do it before, and creating a new path. What I think is problematic is discarding the past and taking notes from what came before. As these people are well informed and is important to learn from the past to not make the same mistake as was done before them.

What is language? Languages can be explained in many different forms from alphabets to symbols. Language is a way to communicate doesn’t always have to with words.

What makes language different than other forms of languages is the way they are thought off. You can’t just make up a word call it something because it sounds like it would be named that. Concept and sound image are united to make words/ language. This is done for psychological reasons and their meanings are extremely important from, originating from like Latin or Greek origins, which define our words and language.

 How are symbols or icons related to language? Furthermore, there are different forms of communication like I mention before that aren’t just words. Symbols are also a form of language. Some of the first form of communication come from tally marks to keep track. And the from of grouping items was extremely important which later was expanded upon by hieroglyphs. We ended up using this form of symbols in a more versatile way unlike words. For example, the “X” has many meanings such as, X for a signature, X signals an act of selection and could mean ten in roman numerals.

How does language shape design? What does design do that language cannot? How are language and design related to one another in today’s culture? Like a said earlier it started with tally marks and putting stuff into groups which turned into a clay tablet system known as hieroglyphics, and today we have what Lupton miller calls Modern Hieroglyph. Cook and Shanosky made the man and female with help from the American Institute of Graphic Arts in 1974. But before Cook and Shanosky there was a man by the name of Otto Neurath who was Viennese, and in the 1920 made the system Isotype (International System of Typographic Picture Education). This visual language of was seen as a utopian effort to transcend limitations of Letters by using visual characteristics of typography. It was seen as new breed of the ABC.  Furthermore, Sign and signifiers employed in general communication the way you see a male figure in contrast to a female figure meaning that’s for men / woman. They didn’t need to add more details like a man sitting in a toilet of woman sitting in a toilet because the man in contrast to a woman is enough of difference to give you universal context.