Author: joseph asimeng (Page 2 of 2)

Disclaimer: I felt like each of these readings were pretty long. Yet, you the professor said they were short. Except for Rodchenko’s manifesto(Regardless if that one was a little shorter than the other 2 manifestos). I think it’s from your understanding of it, maybe someone told you that you’ll get the meanings for these reading selections. Or both I don’t know. But if someone told you, these reading pdfs are short, in which you might’ve agreed on that statement, then they’re kind of lying, from what I think. No disrespect to them. But still.

These authors were pretty hard to understand in my opinion and these passages were so confusing to me, that I’m giving it my best guess. If you don’t lower my grade because of these answers, I would appreciate it.

So, according to the 3 readings and my own opinion:

The possibilities or advances that the authors envision for their immediate futures were like this. According to Marinetti’s manifesto, he somewhat talks about society and how it was in ancient times. As if he was giving some sort of speech, to the people, he was talking to. In some sort of way. For El Lissitzky, his manifesto was referring to how inventions are and how they’re actually made. In Rodchenko’s manifesto might entail being what a true constructivist is. Which is, to him, by being a constructor. Which could be why the 2 words constructor and construct are in the word constructivist.

The roles in which they imagined technology would play in shaping their futures, would be like this. Marinetti would base it on how life should be from an ancient cultural opinion. Even as the futurist he was. Which most likely led him in living his rest of his days, until he died. El Lissitsky’s beliefs could be based on what a true inventor was. He even had his quote saying: “The cinema and the illustrated weekly magazine have triumphed. We rejoice at the new media that technology has placed at our disposal.” This means that, he really loved what technology has brought to the world. He was truly thankful to it, even way back in the day, it was evident that he still respected it. Based on that, he lived his life then died. Aleksandr Rodchenko knew the essence of being what a true constructivist meant. He had this quote to say, which was: “We didn’t create technology.
We didn’t create man. We organize technology. Previously—Engineers relaxed with art. Now—Artists relax with technology. Technology is—the mortal enemy of art.” This could mean that technology is not invented by people like anyone like myself. People didn’t form mankind into it’s masterpiece. We put technology together. Before engineers put less effort on art, probably without being lazy. But fast forward to the present, back in his time, people who express their creativity so well that are the same people who less effort on tech. So basically it’s vice versa in some sort of way. All from what he most likely, wants us to understand. Based on that, he lived his life then passed away. So in a sense, they all viewed technology in their own ways, to live their lives before they were gone for good.

The ways that these artists anticipated the art and design that would follow comes from how Marinetti is a poet. At least, that one of the things he’s best known for. He didn’t say anything about design specifically. He thinks that art in general, is something that should be hated. The reason is because he had his quote saying: “For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.” Thus proving my point, for his statement. El Lissitsky also probably also knew the art that would follow with his quote by saying: “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution.” “The energetic task that art must accomplish is to transmute the emptiness into space, that is, into something that our minds can grasp as an organized unity.” As for design on the other hand, he said his quote about it, which is: “Our best artists take up the problem of book design.” That is back when the reconstruction period happened. Rodchenko also probably knew that art and design would follow. Regarding art alone he said his quotes which are: “Technology is—the mortal enemy of art.” “We are not dreamers from art who build in the imagination.” “ships of left art.” and “irreconcilable war against art.” As for design on the other hand, he had these quotes to say: “He embraced, redefined, and elevated graphic design as an essential force in society.” He probably loved design and art so much that he was an inspiration to other people while possibly watching them in his afterlife.

The common views that these authors share and where might they disagree, comes from how they all like art and design which is something they might share. They all might disagree with each other where Marinetti might talk about life in his times. El Lissitsky talks about how to be an inventor, in the right ways. Followed by Rodchenko talking about being a constructivist. In which those things they talk about in each of their passages, could be based on their different opinions. Everyone’s different after all, so it kinda makes sense.

The elements of these texts remain relevant for the present, are from how(i guess): “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution.” “Yet in this present day and age we still have no new shape for the book as a body; it continues to be a cover with a jacket, and a spine, and pages 1, 2 and 3.” Elements that are problematic can be from(i guess): all 3 manifestos combined and how they were pretty confusing to understand for me.

So, according to the 2 readings and my own opinion:

Language is “a list of words, each corresponding to the
thing that it names,” basically broken down in the simplest way. From what Sassure said. With Lupton and Miller, they basically didn’t really say what language was. They just explained the importance of words and symbols.

The things that distinguish a language proper from other forms of communication could be from how we might have rules of how we say those things like from using english, using sign language and etc. to name a few. Lupton and Miller was talking about modern hieroglyphics with that.

Symbols or icons are related to language because it can tell anyone what anything is. It can even go back to hieroglyphics.

Signs, signifiers, and the signified are employed in general communication because from what sassure said, He basically gave an example of the words arbor and equos with the pictures about it. He also said that “I propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the/”whole and to replace concept and sound-image respectively by \signi££d^ [signifie] and signifier [signifiant]”

In graphic communication, it would make people understand what they’re being told, (i guess)

Language shapes design, to make people be like “oh i know what this means”. Probably going back to hieroglyphics and shapes in general.(I guess)

Design basically lets you create things for companies and languages can’t do that. (In my opinion)

Language and design are related to one another in today’s culture, by like putting words, sign language and stuff like that in any poster, motion graphic and those types of things. We also can talk about those types of concepts, in the ways we know how to, so that people would understand us in that way. (i guess)

Hope you guys enjoy this video here:

Based on the readings of Helen Armstrong and Bruno Munari, and or my opinion, these are my answers:

1. According to these authors, what role should design play in our society?- Design should play a big role in our society. In which, in some way, we gotta know the past to understand the present and the future. Even when Armstrong in her excerpt, started saying some things about going back to avant garde. She goes and i quote:” In the early 1900s avant-garde artists like El Lissitzky, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Herbert Bayer, and László Moholy-Nagy viewed the authored work of the old art world as shamefully elitist and ego driven. In their minds, such bourgeois, subjective visions corrupted society.” Probably because of that: “As graphic design took shape as a profession, the ideal of objectivity replaced that of subjectivity.” As for the passage from munari, he said the analogy of: “the artist must step down from his pedestal and be prepared to make a sign for a butcher’s shop”. (if he knows how to do it).
2. What distinguishes the field, or fields, of design from other creative occupations?-well when it comes to design or many of the fields within design deal with motion graphics, knowing what avant garde and neo abstract art is. You’ll also need to know what every other art style that exists or has ever existed. Which you might not find anywhere else. It’s something that being a doctor wont tell you. It’s something that being a lawyer won’t tell you. It’s something that someone with any profession that has nothing to do with design, will never tell you. Simply because design is not important for their chosen field. You don’t design anything by being a scientist, a mathematician or a broadcaster either. As a few examples.
3. Why should designers concern themselves with unsolvable theoretical questions? They should concern themselves with those questions because maybe there can be different ways to create any design. There isn’t any one size fits all approach to this, so to speak.
4. What role does technology play in shaping design? Technology has a role in shaping design, by this quote from Armstrong, in which it says: ” The technology through which designers today create and communicate has quietly thrust universality back into the foundation of our work.” Which could mean that design could have it’s own significant purpose in this world.
5.  What are the most urgent problems facing designers today? The most urgent problems facing designers today could be how some of them may be unable to express themselves. In which whatever they imagined to design, in their heads doesn’t come out perfectly, on the paper, as a storyboard or a design blueprint. It wouldn’t come out the right way, on the computer. Many design bosses rejecting design ideas to their workers. Then the employers having to tell their employees make better designs. Following the creative brief instructions in the best ways possible. Since some designers don’t always follow that rule.
6.  How, and why, is a designer responsible for solving these problems? They are responsible for these types of things because they’re the ones designing anything that the client wants. Also they should have the brain power to “tackle” these types of challenges to form them into solutions for any design task, that comes their way.