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.