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.