Author: Aiah Kassim (Page 1 of 2)

McLuhan in his work explains the strain technology has left on the era of our transition and the ways it influences design. It seems as though he was saying that the immediate shift between the tech-free world to the tech-run world left a mark on us, our families, job, government, etc. Since design from the start can be understood as an extension of anything, it’s completely accessible to everything and ambiguous making it harder to stand out. That causes an issue because it means that you can no longer be the only one providing your services, nothing distinguishes you from the rest. All the world’s private matters can become public with one click. The appreciation for visuals have lost meaning due to the rapidness and large intake of design and content through technology. Although technology has spread everywhere, the same classic loyalty to a position still exists. I understood this by thinking of students, who go to school for a great portion of their lives just to start another long dedicated journey to their jobs for another great portion of their lives, which is quite  miserable if you ask me. It is how the world is run and technology fosters this cycle, making it much more complicated. People have grown more distant, yet connected intangibly through technology. 

There will be no change without the use of media. I think the media’s ability to change everything as he says is a good thing. There was no surveillance back then. Receiving information through the newspaper was a private experience. Everyone lived in their own worlds but now it is so easy to be involved or at least educated on societal matters. It was mentioned before that technology connects people yet distances people at the same time, however we are more connected with the rest of the world than ever before, as technology not only provides information but also has broadened our horizons and removed the limitation of physical distance. It is true that it is more difficult to stand out as a designer, or as a creator in general, when there is so much content on the internet already, but without it many people would not have such an accessible outlet for their creations. Anyone can post their designs online, and anyone in the world can perceive it. This was not possible before technology. The entire field of digital art would not exist without it either, and digital art has removed the limitations of physical art. 

It is evident that technology has both positive and negative aspects to it, and it is interesting to think about the aspects in regards to the field of design. Yes, it has made life more complicated, and there are definitely many pressing issues with the modern day internet, but it has truly done wonders for creators all around the world. I believe the positives greatly outweigh the negatives, as technology has provided many opportunities both for design as a field and for designers individually, in addition to alleviating the many limitations of the tech-free world. Regardless of my opinion, the truth is that technology has become a fundamental part of all our daily lives and has changed our society significantly and it will only progress even further from here.

According to Jan Tschichold, typography should be more natural and allow itself to bend the rules and strict measurements that have been taught and implemented in modern typography. For instance, he believes that asymmetry has more of an advantage than symmetry does because it is more observationally challenging and would force the viewer to look at it for a longer time. Asymmetry allows for there to exist a relation to real lifes chaotic nature making it a much more symbolic and deeper piece people can connect with. As these kinds of typographic styles trend the need for an explanation of all the ambiguity rises. From what I understood of what Jan Tschichold wrote, he believes design is better when it is spontaneous and inquisitive but must not have an addition of ornaments that may throw off or cause a communication issue. 

On the other hand, Karl Gerstner is all about measurements and following the rules. So much that he cites an entire detailed method explaining how to design properly. He believes that this process is necessary in order to create a good piece. Everything must be done from within a grid and then creativity shall bloom the proper way instead of having it be all over the place with no method at all. 

Truthfully I believe that a good amount of both Jan’s and Karl’s methods could be synergized into creating an overall better method for how we should design. There is always the individual’s perspective and how their work flow works with this method because it will not be the same for everyone and I don’t believe there is only one way to go about design.

Josef mainly emphasizes that a grid is what gives the designer their work discipline and that it expresses the will to be systematic and delicately handle the art respectfully. I agree with his perspective and I think that it is beautiful to think of the method of laying out the grid as a symbol of our will and dedicated to structure and creating something with strong foundations from scratch.

Art cannot be schooled; it is something that comes from within our inner selves and merges into the oneness of the world around it. Pure creative work comes from within the visualization and conceptualization of the mind and can be expressed through the knowledge of the physical laws of statics, optics, dynamics, and acoustics all together. They would not produce proper art or feed well to the executions of the artist if not all these were incorporated. Everything that is required to produce this creativity however, such as the technicalities and foundations, can be learned in school, but art itself cannot. 

Creative fields like typography, film, and radio are produced through peoples’ deep interest and love they have for them rather than economic considerations or curiosity alone. Their work is entirely dependent upon the moment and interacting events that in turn affect the future. A painter’s job, for example, is not paid attention to and goes unnoticed, but affects the long term greatly. It has its own consequences and is the foundation upon which the new world will be built. Not only that, but every element of human creativity is at play and communicates its own message. Typophoto is the same way and is a visual representation of what can be comprehended through sight. This is a work that has gotten recognition more recently, as every era has had its own optical focus. 

Book production was an important innovation for designers because they also needed to design the covers and pages. Printing became an art and designers needed to make sure that the way they designed a book was both artistic and functional. Unlike other forms of art, such as paintings and cinema, which lose their touch over time and are representative of their times, printing was beyond that. Books transcend both space and time. They retain their effectiveness even many years later. Art forms have changed but a book will always remain a book. 

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. 

Language is a system of expression in which things are assigned names and an association between concepts and sound-images is formed. Language is distinct from other forms of communication because it is the most prominent form of communication. It is used by everyone every day, and is always everyone’s concern. It is spread throughout society and is in turn manipulated by it. Other forms of communication, such as nautical signs, religious rites, etc., involve only a specific number of people for a limited amount of time, whereas language involves everybody at all times. It blends with life and society and is conserved by society. Symbols and icons are bound to language, and language itself is a product of historical forces and heritage, it is something inherited. Therefore, symbols and icons can not be modified. They are unchangeable and resist any arbitrary substitution for that very reason. 

Saussure describes communication through signs, which is made up of the signifiers and signified. The signifier is the sound-image, which is the psychological imprint of sound and the impression that it has on our senses. The signified is referred to as the concept, which is generally more abstract. The same goes for graphic communication which is also known as writing, or written language.

The symbols that were created historically for counting were set in stone, quite literally and figuratively because the symbol for a sheep would never be used to count anything other than sheep. Having said that, design can be seen similarly because a good design will not be associated with anything other than the brand it was meant for. For example, global successful brands such as Coca Cola would never be associated with anything besides soda because it is recognizable and unmistakably Coca Cola, whereas language can be interpreted objectively because it provides no imagery, leaving the listener/reader to their own imagination. Language and design go hand in hand, design itself is like a language with no words. Design is more of a nonverbal aesthetic language that uses the subconscious mind to understand. Language is being used indirectly in design, we may understand an icon but behind that understanding was a process in which we had to have been directly able to recognize it to begin with.