Author: Edwin Fernandez (Page 1 of 2)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_Qc4Tg_ITJsm1cRlbmiFfy_K2NAU9op1?usp=sharing

Hellers concept of mainstream vs. underground is an extremely relevant topic in current design. Memes have been a thing since the internets inception, and the book The Meme of Memes: information as Objects points out, memes have been a concept that has infiltrated media. The way that companies now are embracing the internet culture is equal parts cringy and impressive. Wendy’s, for example, has a huge presence on Twitter, delivering sassy jokes, roasting other users, and even insulting other fast food companies. Then of course many other companies have begun to follow suit, posting trending hashtags on their products and wording their advertising in a similar tone to that of Wendy’s. This infiltration of the “underground” internet culture into the mainstream is just one example of how, as Heller states, “commercial culture […] depends on the theft of intellectual property for its livelihood”. 

In terms of my chosen designers work, Banksy, this dichotomy sort of exists in a smaller form. Banksy started out as a graffiti writer and then moved on to create stenciled artwork. Graffiti is highly frowned upon by authorities and a majority of people, yet it slowly moved from a public nuisance to high selling art pieces. In The Death of Graffiti: Postmodernism and the New York City Subway by Claudia Bennet, the author compares the framing of graffiti to a teenager buying pre-torn jeans, stating that “the jeans are flaunted by cliques who recognize the simulation and prefer it over the original, in much the same way as the gallery prefers spray paint on canvas to graffiti on its front door”. The same graffiti that could land Banksy in prison has slowly been turned into a significant art piece that people are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to possess. The art that Banksy once created that was a part of the underground scene has suddenly been taken out of where it belongs, “when it is relocated, it is destroyed’

Resources

López, Antonio. “Chapter Seven: The Meme of Memes: Information as Objects.” Counterpoints, vol. 343, Peter Lang AG, 2008, pp. 95–109, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980181.

Cox, William. “The Underground Film in Art.” Art Education, vol. 26, no. 2, National Art Education Association, 1973, pp. 8–12, https://doi.org/10.2307/3191828.

Barnett, Claudia. “The Death of Graffiti: Postmodernism and the New York City Subway.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 16, no. 2, Popular Culture Association in the South, 1994, pp. 25–38, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23413729.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k7HTIOMZvgfBAUCRu24dXl-CaEUAwqT5/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103508340574718638327&rtpof=true&sd=true

Does art convey messages the same way that advertising does? 

Why should we be analyzing things so deeply, looking at messages and stuff?

Does art need to be analyzed so deeply? Can it be?

What’s the rhetoric of the image? It doesn’t make sense to me just yet

Media and humanity are extremely intertwined today. Smartphones created a whole new beast when it comes to media, combining the old technologies of the past into one small piece of metal and plastic. The phone, radio (music), the access to the internet, it all created a new way of life. McLuhan even suggested that we are now in a society that has done away with the individual privacy and now everyone has become part of a mass audience (in the past, they would be referred to as the public).  Media creates new environments for people, as “all media work us over completely”. The pervasiveness of media in the personal, economic, psychological, ethical, and political, changing the mass audience’s way of thinking. McLuhan writes, “All media are extensions of some human faculty – psychic or physical”. Media can make people connect to others much easier and it can serve as a conduit for imagination and creativity. Artists have been using different media for centuries now, first the canvas and now the screen to display their work and to create.

There are hazards that encompass the media we are surrounded with. Looking at social media now is one such example. It lets people connect with each other, join groups of like minded people, or even lets us express ideas and show our lives to others. But these same virtues can be twisted to something evil. Misinformation, bullying, cancel culture, hackers. These are all dangers that are present along with the good that it brings. McLuhan has some images up of feet, wheels, eyes, books, clothes, and skin, creating a connection between them. “The book is an extension of the eye”, shows us how we can each perceive something different from the same thing. Advancements in technology has allowed for easy access to similar things. We can all laugh at the same popular Squid Game memes, we can all read the same reading assignments for class, but we all come to different conclusions, different interpretations of the same thing. In the past, wars were fought over religious texts.

“The media is the message”. By virtue of existing, different styles of media can carry messages differently. A book, for example, sometimes gets converted into terrible movies. Or a comic book can launch a billion dollar industry. Artists are the creators of media, from the Mona Lisa to a TikTok video, all artists have to choose how they want to display their work. Posters are always a good way to advertise/design/draw, but if an artist chooses to use social media, they can achieve more success if it goes viral. This is where the designers are slaves to the media. A very realistic painting can be overshadowed by a 5 second video that millions of people share with each other. There are only so many different creative avenues to use, and sometimes choosing one over the other. Designers who take on clients might only be allowed to use posters when they know that a video would be better. Media alters the environments that we live in. Propaganda was used to unite a country against another, and designers of today might have ethical choices to make when designing for corporations with a bad history of abuses or something (like Nestle and their “water is not a human right stance”, those jerks).

The Bauhaus is the pinnacle of graphic design. A school that came about from the desire to separate the “academy” from the artist in order to free their minds and nurture their inherent creativity. Walter Gropius goes into depth about the failings of older academies in the way they went about teaching about art and design. He saw them as nothing more than copies of each other and as stifling, as the artists would essentially be stuck inside the walls of their school instead of being engaged in society, actively enjoying and contributing to the culture. Art schools would focus too much on the academic aspect of art, depriving students of the experiences and influences of the real world. Gropius discussed how the ideal method of training an artist is to blend together the theoretical and the practical. One lesson would be about the principles of design and the next would be about painting. This is what schools had been missing out on.

Laszlo and Bayer both discuss the importance of typography and photography. They both agree that each one provides a very clear and communicable message or idea to the people. Laszlo suggest that type and text are both so similar in that they deliver the message in a clear and concise way, and by placing type and photo together, blends the “optical and the associative relationships”, creating the perfect way to communicate. Bayer states much the same about text, even predicting that text would be changed to conform with new media. Bayer was a visionary in the field of type, as he created Universal, an “alphabet consisting only of lowercase letters”. Both of these artists saw the importance of the two and how when combined together it remains one of the most powerful concepts/ideas to come about.  It may even get across the language barrier as Bayer suggested. The universal communication, at least in his time, was stunted by the slow process of turning type into a universal tool/concept.

As for the future, Laszlo states that typographers and typo photographers must adapt to the changes that come along. Bayer knows its’s a busy world that never stops and that by going with the flow,  new ideas will be developed or created. It all goes back to what Gropius said, that an artist needs to be in tune with the world around them in order to unlock their creative potential. All of these artists embrace the future and its technology by working in harmony with the advances of technology. Combining type and photo together is just one way that they are looking to innovate things that have been coexisting for some time. The ideas of the Bauhaus have provided the way to teach about art since its inception thanks to Walter Gropius and his vision of combining the theories of design with the manual labor needed to bring it to life. I don’t think that there needs to be any update to those ideals since it’s the bedrock of design. By actually doing the work and seeing how things come together, an artist can learn a lot about their craft, and the theory that needs to be learned won’t be so boring to sit through.

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.