Author: Alvaro Panozo (Page 1 of 2)

The concept of mainstream vs. underground is relevant in contemporary design for Heller because although the style is very well-known, designers tend to copy or steal ideas. Think about it as recycling an idea. The only difference would be that people make these stolen ideas look brand new. For example, Heller said that, “Calkins commanded commercial artists to appropriate and smooth out the edges of modern art, add an ornament here and there to make it palatable for the consumer class, and—voila!—instant allure and immediate sales.” Even though this idea works in terms of marketing, there’s no original idea, and it gets very repetitive. 

For my final project, I was going to talk about Michael Bierut, and how his work impacted the design world. The designs that I’ll be addressing fits in this dichotomy because for the pieces that I’ll mention, it almost seems as if what Heller has been saying is true. To add on, “designers can implement these same techniques to make unexpected use of both images and words. In writing, figures of speech often express ideas by evoking a mental picture. Such images help readers remember the message by casting a new light on familiar elements.” (1)

The sort of underground designs that influenced the work would be the pieces of work that the underground have produced. “Underground denizens attack the mainstream for two reasons: To alter or to join, sometimes both. Few designers choose to be outsiders forever.” In this text, they talk about how they always choose a side when designing. This shaped the mainstream by how designers always copy or renew a used idea. What’s important is that “the first function is the informative function. The role of graphics here is to impart (by definition new) knowledge, or intelligence.” (2) In terms of the future though, I feel like there will only be even more designers who copy and reuse the same idea, just as Heller explained. With that being said, many people during the 1970s were beginning a new design path, “By the 1970s many believed the modern era was drawing to a close in art, design, politics, and literature. The cultural norms of Western society were being scrutinized, and the authority of traditional institutions was being questioned.” (3)

(1)  Graphic Design Thinking : Beyond Brainstorming, edited by Ellen Lupton, Princeton Architectural Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/citytech-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3387597.

(2) Barnard, Malcolm. Graphic Design As Communication, Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/citytech-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1273176.

(3) Meggs, Philip B., and Alston W. Purvis. Meggs’ History of Graphic Design, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/citytech-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4505417.

• First question made in the reading is, “can analogical representation (the “copy”) produce true systems of signs and not merely simple agglutinations of symbols?” 
• Barthes believes that the, “mythical idea of Life: the image is re-presentatiory which is to say ultimately resurrection, and, as we know, the intelligible is reputed antipathetic to lived experience.”
• In advertising, there is always a signification
• The Panzani advertisement is a good representation of the three messages
• The message being the brand’s lingo or name and the image being the poster ad itself
• According to Barthes, the linguistic message is found in every ad in the present day.
• “What are the functions of the linguistic message with regard to the (twofold) iconic message? There appear to be two: anchorage and relay.” Barthes believes these two functions create the linguistic message.
•  “Polysemous” –  “poses a question of meaning and this question always comes through as a dysfunction, even if this dysfunction is recuperated by society as a tragedy”
• Anchorage is found in press photographs and advertisements.
• Relay is more in cartoons and comic strips.
• “In the photograph-at least at the level of the literal message-the relationship of signifieds to signifiers is not one of “transformation” but of “recording,” and the absence of a code clearly reinforces the myth of photographic “naturainess” Barthes admires photography and he states how images are captured mechanically, not humanly. Meaning we guide the machine and the machine does its magic.
• Barthes mentions how photographs are all about memory and all about “being there” and having to experience that moment.
• Back to the Panzani ad, Barthes admires the natural being of objects in the ad, it helps get the message out.
• “What is a lexicon? A portion of the symbolic plane (of language) which corresponds to a body of practices and techniques”
• Here Barthes explains how connotators can’t complete the whole of lexia, “The most important thing, however, at least for the moment, is not to inventorize the connotators but to understand that in the total image they constitute discontinuous or better still scattered traits’ ‘

According to these three designers, there is a certain way of designing. For each, every approach is different, it’s just the type of method that they use. For example, Jan Tschichold believes that using the axis grid is useless and wrong. However, using asymmetry is more convenient and it’s easier to design. Tschichold says how creating these designs take time and effort, you can’t just rush out a design and think its perfect, “It is essential to give pure and direct expression to the contents of whatever is printed; just as in the works of technology and nature, “form” must be created out of function.” From this, you can see how serious he is about his work, Tschichold also believes in pushing the new “world” of typography rather than the old one since the old world just uses past and “not appropriate” methods.

For Karl Gerstner, he believes that looking for the problem first and then finding out your possible solutions is best to get started on a design. He also really likes being precise when designing because there is no room for mistakes when you’re trying to be logical. Additionally, Gerstner uses a table when creating designs, this table is used for double checking to see if everything is in the right place. Gerstner made this table and labeled on each box a possible solution, so when he’s finished with a design, he can just check each category and see if he got anything from them, “Even so: it contains thousands of solutions that—as could be shown by checking an example—are arrived at by the blind concatenation of components. It is a kind of designing automatic.” He also uses grids, which he says helps him alot when organizing. Although it does seem very complex, he says it’s easy to use once initiating. “The difficulty is: to find the balance, the maximum of conformity to a rule with the maximum of freedom.”

Josef Muller-Brockmann was also another designer who believed that using the grid system is an important part of designing. Brockmann believed that part of a design is to show the audience how you used your tools, in these terms, the grid. “the designer’s work should have the clearly intelligible, objective, functional, and aesthetic quality of mathematical thinking.” One very important thing to note is that Brockmann’s grid is very different from Gerstner’s table. Brockmann’s grid is to be followed carefully, he is another designer who also admires precision, “Every visual creative work is a manifestation of the character of the designer. It is a reflection of his knowledge, his ability, and his mentality”. I find it interesting how every designer has their own unique way in tackling designing problems. Each one is different but it still gets the job done in terms of designing.

The possibilities or advances that the authors envisioned for their immediate futures were very difficult to understand but I feel like that was their point, for it to be a reading in which you have to think twice. The role they imagined technology would play in shaping the futures would be that the tech was very helpful. At least for El Lissitzky (1926) the high end technology was helpful in the sense of bringing a community together, it helps with resources and so much more that the people can benefit from. In terms of how the art and design was anticipated, it went in an unclear path. However, for Lissitzky and Rodchenko, it was successful. In their readings, the technology was beneficial in every sense. That being said, both of these authors have a similarity. They both share those views on technology and the only difference between them would be how they would use technology. Rodchenko says, “we organize technology”, which is a weird thing to think about, but it makes sense. I feel like he’s talking about how we are responsible, in the sense that we control what happens on the internet. The elements that still remain relevant to the present would be the art and the hunger to succeed. For Lissitzky, “our best artist takes up the problem of book design”, which signifies that designers will always encounter problems when working. And lastly, the elements that would be problematic would be how dangerous design can be when hate comes into play.

Language is more than just words, it’s a form of understanding and a concept. You associate pictures with words and understand what they mean, it’s things humans do everyday. What mainly distinguishes a language proper from other forms of communication would be the way words are used. In every language, words are used differently and that’s because every language is different. What doesn’t change however, would be the way symbols and icons are used to relate to other images. In the Ferdinand de Sausurre reading, he states, “The symbol of justice, a pair of scales, could not be replaced by just any other symbol, such as a chariot.” It’s easier for us to understand symbols because it’s a visual representation and nothing else. Which means when it comes to language, symbols and icons are international, anyone can understand it. 

Signs, signifiers, and the signified are all employed in general communication because they help when it comes to understanding a situation or topic. It’ll always be there, same with graphic communication. With graphic communication, designs will have symbols or signs that people might not know. This is when common sense will be needed to breakdown the understanding. Moving on, language shapes design by the way the designer uses it. Like Sausurre said before, “we regard the words of our language as a soundimage, we must avoid speaking of the ‘phonemes’ that make up the words”. Because we use images to describe words, our language becomes international and anybody will be able to understand it. That’s why Sausurre is so focused on making people use soundimages instead of actual words that might confuse other people. 

What design does that language can’t is having an easier understanding. In the three essays from, J. Abbot Miller and Ellen Lupton, we see a bunch of symbols and signs throughout the reading. Oddly enough, it actually helps get the writer’s point across. Having a visual representation of what you’re writing will always benefit readers. Another thing that design does that language can’t is understanding. People will be able to understand design more than a language because a design can be seen rather than having to be read. In today’s culture however, language and design are related to one another by signs you see on the street everyday, they help you better understand what’s going on and what you should or should not do. For example, the mask guideline signs on the MTA because they let you know what you need to do and it’s a simple explanation. Easy signs and ads easily have language and design working together.