COMD3504 - Section OL02 - Fall 2021

Month: September 2021 (Page 1 of 6)

Assignment 4 – Alexander Grenader

Walter Gropius, Herbert Bayer and László Moholy-Nagy all believed that the education of designers were mostly influenced by economic and social standards of the nation they resided in. In the institutions, many of them believed that the education they received were merely one-track mindsets that only taught traditional design standards  to be used for propaganda or economic purposes. The Bauhaus was created to combat that and promoted various design styles and ideologies from various parts of the world, collecting information and creating new concepts. First Director, Walter Gropius explains that “With the rise of academies, genuine folk art died away. What remained was a drawing-room art detached from life”.  This was one of the major problems of the education of art prior, as many of the individual pieces of art were cast off and with the rise of industrialism. As Gropius states “Schooling alone can never produce art!” and for good reason. Gropius states that “Quality cannot be taught or learned but the foundation of creation can be…”, once again informing people of another issue with art in several institutions. Fortunately, when artists began attending the Bauhaus, it became a creative laboratory for many intellectual minds, analysing past examples, improving their work and even making breakthroughs of new original concepts either disregarding the traditions of previous design or referencing past art styles with a sleek modern feel that appeased many.

To some designers, Photography and Typography were both types of art that are necessary to be used in the art world. Bayer claims that “Typography is a service art, not a fine art”, going on to emphasize the importance of lettering and how typography is the key aspect in providing language to be seen for the masses. Bayer begins to describe why many forms of Font-styles are derived from the basic alphabet of languages and how each person sees letters differently and in order to make effective designs, typographers must consider ways to “improve” the alphabet while making it legible. László, on the other hand, discusses how printing became the foundation of the new world. He exclaims that printers are often overlooked for their achievements, but left a heavy impact on the world through their countless efforts and innovations. László informs readers that typography bridges the gap of comprehension between communication and the people. Throughout his lifetime, László began to realizeEvery period has its own optical focus.”, referencing electrical signs and film being a media source that brims with potential for designers to formulate new methods of typography.  Photography is the same way, capturing moments of everyday life with the photographer’s job to give it life and meaning in those frames. Film in itself, began to pave the way for silent movies and in doing so, allowed photographers to experiment with the focus of nature, society and man in several shots or rolls of film.

While the Bauhaus became a monument for graphic designers for experimentation and creativity, ideas such as futurism, constructivism and minimalism began seeping through the roots of the institution. Many either opposed or approved of such ideas but it resulted in conflict between the instructors and the students and often, there would be a power struggle between several ideologies on what makes excellent design. Several design eras reigned over the Bauhaus and often the majority of facilities and students would promote the most effective art forms at the time, either by intensive lecture, social reform or by immediate demonstration. In truth, it is not the idea that makes impactful design but the artist themselves that have been trained to do so. It is only with a combination of basic understanding of the art form and creative execution does it make for something truly beautiful. This is the reason why design theory exists and if the Bauhaus were to be relevant to this day, a major point would be to only give the information needed to understand art and leave the progression and execution to the students whilst helping them refine their skills.

Assignment 3 – Taneisha Bailey

Author Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, El Lissitzky, Aleksandr Rodchenko, and colleagues envision their immediate futures as a hypothesis. Each gathering much observation with imagination in theory to their present-day failures and successes. Marinetti’s Idea of the future should be one filled with rebellion against everything that seemed to be vintage or outdated. He idealized a futuristic way of living with commandments that would be in favor of poetic justice and laws that have a deep disdain for feminism. Lissitzky idealizes a future connected through international technology based on photographs, designs, language, and symbolic meanings. Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, and Aleksei Gan wanted a future that wasn’t primarily technology-based. They wanted art to be creative with fewer limitations and more emphasis on the process and steps of creating constructively.

They believed technology is the cause of the lack of inventiveness concepts yet seemingly organizes and makes design/art functional for technical constructions. How technology is used for mass production and how something as simple designed as a book has stagnated in terms of today’s world. I believe that these artists and writers would have anticipated that design and art could take a preliminary approach in modernistic ways. That the future is what is happening now in the present time that would eventually influence modern artists and designers to invent new concepts to deal with outdated art and design.

Some common views these artists may share is the outlook on the future and how many forms of art can transcend into something much greater than we imagine it to be today and in past terms outlining the change. On the contrary, these authors did have ideas that were uniquely different from each other. Lissitzky, propositioned “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution.”  Marinetti made the notion that his Manifesto Of Futurism is an artistic war, with futuristic cars driven by aggression and words of devotion as weapons against the old. Rodchenko and his colleagues viewed artists as modern-day constructors whose roles are to process, organize, discover, propagate. clean out and merge.

Assignment 4 for October 5

Our next reading assignment is 3 *relatively short* texts from architects, designers & artists affiliated with the Bauhaus. They are as follows:

Walter Gropius; The Theory and Organization of the Bauhaus (1923): 

László Moholy-Nagy; Typophoto (1925): 

Herbert Bayer; On Typography (1967): 

Some ideas and questions you might consider:
According to these  authors, what was missing from past art and education? What roles should typography and photography play in shaping a new art?  What roles should other media serve? What role does language or communication play in art and design? How should artists approach the creation of future art forms?   What should education or “the academy” teach artists about their field? How should Bauhaus ideas be updated to remain relevant in the 21st century?

_______________________________
Please also note that your first 2-3 page paper is due on October 12. You are strongly encouraged to start thinking about this assignment. The question and requirements are as follows:

First Paper – Due October 12
Select a design or design object created after 1971 in which the influence of the theories considered thus far can be seen. Begin with a brief description of the object, the designer who created it, and the historical circumstances under which it was made. Considering these factors, examine the ways in which the creator was responding, directly or indirectly, to theories related to linguistics or semiology, avant-garde art movements or the psychological perception of forms (ie. any of the ideas that we’ve covered). Discuss the manner in which the design you’ve chosen embodies these theories. Provide direct references to relevant passages from our readings. Locate additional writings using library resources to substantiate your comparisons.

Your goal is ultimately to provide a critical examination, not an account of historical details.

This response will be submitted as a 750-1000 word typewritten paper, double-spaced in 12 pt. Times New Roman. Include images of the work under consideration and any other relevant illustrations. Cite all materials researched for historical context, any related writings, and image sources. All sources, references and quotations should be cited in MLA format. You’ll upload your paper as a PDF, attached to a new OpenLab Post.

Assignment 3

These authors’ beliefs are founded on a shared sense of optimism for the future. Marinetti popularizes Futurism as well as the ideas of violence, brutality, and injustice. He urges artists to celebrate conflict and instigate a revolution against tradition, shattering conventions and paving the way for a better existence. The majority would no longer be bound by these traditions and would work for the creation of a better society. EL Lissitzky and Aleksander Rodchenko, on the other hand, do not view it that way. They were all about fostering creativity in the realms of art in order to create new inventions/ideas. Lissitzky compares the book to an outdated medium in need of some reinvention. Theatrical productions have made their way from the stage to the big screen.

The artists’ perspectives on the role of technology differed. He desired everything to be quick, aggressive, loud, and violent. Lissitzky believed that once something was developed, it would never progress into a higher art form again unless society became tired with it and desired something new.

Marinetti’s themes of violence and injustice are balanced with ideals of boldness, courage, and insurrection, all of which are prevalent in contemporary art. Revolutions have traditionally relied on artists generating advertising; many artists are bold in their speech; and the bravado of artists stimulates debates about art itself, which may result in change. Rodchenko and Lissitzky wished for artists to strive for a better life for everybody by innovating and cooperating. Rodchenko encouraged artists to be experimental, and this has been true for a long time.

Assignment 3

The vision Filippo Thomas Marinetti had for his immediate future was to reject past ways of thinking and move forward with speed, machinery, and the industry. He felt people In Italy should stop thinking in the past and have forward thinking. Rodchenko believed that technology was ruining art , this is interesting because he kinda of put things in motion. I disagree I believe technology has definitely improved art in many ways. I believe technology broadens the horizon of an artist’s creativity. At the same time designers must make sure they don’t make the technology take away from there creativity and style. Lissitzky reasoned that the future of arts lay in there potential to be integrated into the world . I think he liked the idea of what technology has brought to the world, and he was truly appreciative of it. 

   When it comes to the common views of all of the authors , for the most part I believe they all like the idea of design and what it can achieve if done the right way.  There are definitely some things they would disagree on though. Marinetti wasn’t a huge fan for old ways of thinking, and believe you should focus on the future and developing new things.

El Lissitzky didn’t believe that  there was such a thing as new , he believed that new was old with a few changes to them, To him art doesn’t evolve. In the “who are we” article it talks about  how they are a new generation of artists who are advancing  their artwork with technology.

Assignment 3 – Clemson Brown

Based on the readings, each author had a different perspective on what the future od design should be and what is its true purpose. In the reading “Who We Are”, it seems in the first parts of the poem, the author initiates the idea that artists are the foundations of today’s inventions. Quoted as such, “We don’t feel obliged to build Pennsylvania Stations, skyscrapers, Handley Page Tract houses, turbo-compressors, and so on. We didn’t create technology. We didn’t create man. but we, Artists yesterday constructors today, 1. we processed the human being 2. we organize technology 1. we discovered 2. propagate 3. clean out 4. merge previously—Engineers relaxed with art now—Artists relax with technology.”. However, when you get into the last parts of the poem, it sounds like the author is giving a critique of today’s constructivist ideas. Even going as far as to entertain the idea that modern constructivism is oversaturated by the lack of creativity and invention.

There are mostly new designs of inventions that prehistorically existed, and that it’s rare to find an invention that is fresh and innovative. As quoted from the writing piece, “What’s the deal. Well, it’s simply—they were pointed out. they were announced. The square—1915, the laboratory of malevich The line, grid, point—1919, the laboratory of rodchenko but—after this The first working group of constructivists (aleksei gan, rodchenko, stepanova) announced: the communist expression of material constructions and irreconcilable war against art. Everything came to a point. and “new” constructivists jumped on the bandwagon, wrote “constructive” poems, novels, paintings, and other such junk. Others, taken with our slogans, imagining themselves to be geniuses, designed elevators and radio posters, but they have forgotten that all attention should be concentrated on the experimental laboratories, which show us new elements routes things experiments. —the demonstration experimental labora.”. This implies to me that the author wants constructivists to add more creativity and invention to the modern society.

In the very first paragraph of “Our Book”, the author has a supportive perspective on the idea of a invention versus the innovative creation stemming from an original idea. “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution. With the passage of time different variations of the same theme are composed around the invention, sometimes more sharpened, sometimes more flattened, but seldom is the original power attained. So it goes on ’til, after being performed over a long period, this work of art becomes so automatic-mechanical in its performance that the mind ceases to respond to the exhausted theme; then the time is ripe for a new invention. The so-called technical aspect is, however, inseparable from the so-called artistic aspect, and therefore we do not wish to dismiss close associations lightly, with a few catchwords.” Both artists imply likeliness towards technology being the source of new originality and design, yet it has slowly only hindered it over the course of time. This is relevant today because you rarely see a breakthrough that has massively popular amongst the globe. Even if there was, it usually is just a creative new way of handling a concept that already existed. The evolution of technology is making it more difficult for ideas that the people have yet to see.


Assignment 3

The role they imagined technology would play in shaping the futures would be that the tech was very helpful. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti founded the idea of futurism. He believed that tearing down the norms of typical design and reinstating a new design while Aleksandr Rodchenko seems to take a more analytical approach to things when he says, “We processed the human being As We organize technology and cause an impact through our lives. Rodchenko’s manifesto, it seems as though he wants art to serve a purpose and be useful to society. while El Lissitzky focused on communication. Lissitzky anticipated the growth and adaptation of communication. they overall see the impact of technology of how it impact and effect human society through communication and technology which cause them to have a pessimistic impact of the world of design & technology.

Assignment 3

The progression of design naturally comes through time and technology. Another thing that can change design is the views of artists/designers. These authors envisions that their immediate future in different ways. Aleksandr Rodchenko saw the use of technology and geometric shapes. Out with the interpretation and in with functionality. Next, Filippo Marinetti’s envision is more violence, speed, and energy in their future. Finally, El Lissitsky believed they’re future in dematerialization because of his observation of the evolution in art.

These authors lived in a time of industrialize cultures so they would have different views on how technology could play a part in their future. Rodchenko and Marinetti has a more positive on their outlook of technology and it influence their methods of designs. El Lissitsy however thinks technology helps takes the first big step, but it is not what evolves design. Rodchenko and Lissitsy acknowledge that artists relays on technology, however, Rodchenko wants them to implement it more into designs themselves by using geomantic shapes such as squares and circles. and Lissitsy view designers as very reliant on the technology and in return their art does not evolve until the next big invention to replace it.

The element of dematerializing feels so relevant today. We can this in the way we consume video/film entertainment. For example, currently we are transitioning from cable to internet for information. All we need is a stable connection and a phone. From observation, because of the transition to the web, advertisements compete even more for a person’s attention. Out of the three readings, I think the destruction of museums and libraries are problematic. These places hold secrets and answers to our past of people and other living things. I think the point of living is to learn and to destroy is what would get us back and not forward.

Assignment 3

The ideologies of these authors are based on a similarity of hope for the future. Marinetti establishes Futurism and the concepts of violence, cruelty and injustice. He calls for the works of art to glorify war and incite a revolt against tradition, destroying the norms and creating a path forward to a better life. The masses would no longer be constrained by these traditions and would push to build a better society. Lissitzky and Rodchenko don’t see it that way. They were all about creating new inventions/ideas by promoting innovation in the fields of art. Lissitzky compares the book as an old medium that is due for some innovation. Theatre has worked its way from the stage to the screen, photography has moved from simple pictures to film to digital, and the only reason that happened is that people saw a need to create them, to push the boundaries of the inventions already established and to use that to create something new. Yet all of the artists strive for a better society through different means. One wants to be fast and violent, others want to push for innovation.

All the artists had differing opinions on the role of technology. Marinetti wanted to destroy as many examples of the old as possible. He wanted things to be fast, aggressive, loud and violent in nature. Lissitzky felt that if something was invented once, it never again would evolve to a higher art form unless society has become bored of it and want something new. Rodchenko also regarded it as an enemy of art, yet understood that artists will always be there to point out new ideas or technologies, using the phrase “Engineers relaxed with art. Now, artists relax with technology” as a way of showing that artists organize technology to use for their benefit. To Rodchenko, artists will experiment, pushing the boundaries. Technology can be harnessed and used, but they must be used by people who can show new elements, routes, or things.

The ideas of violence and injustice set by Marinetti are offset with the concepts of courage, audacity, and revolt and these are present in todays art. Revolutions have always relied on artists creating propaganda, many artists are courageous in their expression, and the audacity of artists creates conversations about art itself that could bring changes. Rodchenko and Lissitzky wanted artists to work towards a better life for all, driving innovation and working as one. Rodchenko wanted artists to be experimental, and that is something that has been true for a while now. Dada was a strange art movement, and many artists where a little wild (like Salvador Dali) so its nice to see that concept still alive and well. 

Assignement 3

The reading of  “Who we are” felt like a declaration of a new era because the style of literate expression being used is impactful. The constructivism is purposefully prominent, the writer is making a statement and it is that they are a new generation of artists who are taking it to the  next level with technology. The writer’s example of everything being made of lines and grids was interesting because as they said, no one notices them until they are announced. The layout of this manifesto was interesting because there were lots of widows and widows are typically avoided in the design world but since the writers are constructivists it makes sense to have it look a bit out of the ordinary. 

“The Futurist” manifesto was very fun to read because not a single word was predictable and everything was challenging my visual imagery. I think Marinetti was very out with the old and in with the new, the futurism he described incorporates violence, youth, and novelty. This might have been a problem if it came out in the present time because it vouches for violence and that’s definitely something that is not as common as it used to be back then. I think Marinetti definitely speaks to the darker side of art and is passionate about the hardships of life. 

On the other hand,  Lissitzky believes that new is actually just old but with a few alterations with technology. Reminds us of the origins of printing and how the process before it all is part of graphic design. He Looks forward to futurism but takes it with a grain of salt because does not believe that there can exist a better version of any piece of art.. I think that Marinetti and Rodchenko might get along because they are both very attracted to the new and unordinary. I also think that Rodchenko and Lissitzky shared common views on the world of graphic design and constructivism. 

« Older posts