Month: September 2019

After the industrial revolution, the development of large-scale production, division of labor and commerce appeared, and the old way of life began to collapse. But people have not made new rational thinking about this new way of life. However, it has also inspired some avant-garde artists.  Like Marinetti has summed up in his “Futurist Manifesto” , the basic principles of futurism, including an aversion to old ideas, especially aversion to old political and artistic traditions. Marinetti expressed their enthusiasm for futurists in the eyes of speed, technology, and violence, such as cars, airplanes, industrial cities, because these are the symbols that symbolize the advancement of human technology and human conquering nature. After reading These authors manifestos, I realized Art as a cultural phenomenon, its changes reflect the material production and scientific and technological level of the times, and also reflect the status of certain social ideology, and have a close relationship with the political economy, culture, art and other aspects of society.

From these manifestos, I got a sense of these artist’s visions of how they anticipate the art and design that would follow. It seems to me that they expect to establish a new alliance of design and art. From the beginning of industrial civilization, industrial design and artistic creation have been artificially divided into independent professions and fields. However, they want to merge the two, They wanted Art to be no longer an abstract philosophy but as a concrete feeling. It is no longer just a kind of repetition, but a kind of creation. This is a new alliance of technology and art in design.

I feel the only place where these artists ideology intersects is futurism and constructivism in this period tried to define the form and function of aesthetics under the conditions of industrial culture. There is no direct connection between these two developments, but the terms and concepts used in both are strikingly similar. Industrial design and art have come together in many ways. Emphasizing the social role of art, eager for an ideal form that reflects the rapidly changing external world spirit. Industrial products that were not previously elegant have become the subject of painting and sculpture. The design gradually freed from the imprisonment of classical art and reflected the characteristics of industrial products. This period, futurism, etc. have all contributed to the development of modern design. Art is given to their own rationality. People no longer regard industrial design as a rude force that must be controlled but as a port of the ideal world.

The artist’s idea does diverge, in their manifestos, Marinetti denied the classical art, He thinks it is pedantic and should be Totally negated. They advocating speed, technology, movement, and violence. It feels to me that Marinetti is denying classical art for the sake of denying. However, El Lissitzky and the authors of “Manifesto of the Constructivist Group” think that art and design should serve the public and society, rather than fulfilling one’s spiritual satisfaction, as classical art has no practical function.

I respect and agree with many of the opinions of the people in the reading. Fillipo,Aleksander and Lissitzky are movers and shakers of the arts from there time Lissitzky being somewhat inspiring with his constructivism design and typography. High minded people with the same idea and view of art.
That art should be of the people for the people and not a commodity to be sold and not a shrine to pray on.

In the readings, I see what Fillipo is saying but I don’t agree with his dislikes of the institutions that help us learn and understand art. Not wanting to make art a commodity something to sell makes sense and is an idea I believe in. But to say that art should not be appreciated and look at in a historical context is crazy and missing the point of keeping beautiful works. Works of art for people true out time look at and learn from. He has a very nihilistic view of art about art. His comparison of museums as cemeteries calling arr that is hung on the wall corpses in the display makes no sense to me a person who appreciates art history. Art is not created in a vacuum ideas inspiration contemplation all comes from what we see and learn having a place to go helps us reconnect with history. His disappointment of the past is understandable but you can never say we don’t learn from it and grow to be better people.

Aleksander, Varvara, and Aleksei
They view art and the creation of art as an experiment of art as an expression and creatively is important to show new, elements, roots, thing’s an experiment. The view their studio’s as labs and they are the mad scientist pushing what art can be to be daring and innovative. Art should help create a better world and push for positive changes ” work for life, not palaces temple and museum. Work with The minds of everyone for everyone with everyone. -Aleksander
I see the displeasure of art only being for the elites something to bargain and brag over. Art just to be sold loses its purpose and can be done cynically but I will always disagree with learning about art and museums are bad for the arts.

Lissitzkys reading makes with wonder if he was alive today his head would explode if he ever saw the IPad. How can you innovate on a book make it a tablet that saves automatically where you left it off like you to definitions and video and if you are blinde it can be an audiobook or and you can keep your entire collection in your bookbag. His admiration of books I can appreciate the work that is displayed putting together a book was done by hand showing craftsmanship.

All these writers have in common the idea that creating not for the ownership of the work but to create to give to the world a question I struggle with how artworks in a communistic society? The idea of creating just to create must be freeing.

All three of these authors, living around the early 1900’s found new technologies that gave them assumptions about the future of design. At the time, things like automobiles were just invented, which completely shock the world as up until that point, they were getting around with horses and carriages. Inventions like this and the radio gave these author’s an idea that the future will be even more awe inducing with the invention of futuristic technology overtime.

El Lissitzky thought that after many years, books will be made out of plastic and can be molded to look as any shape. This potentially would have given him a new way to express his art as he could mold the book his art is within without destroying the structure of the book. Marinetti found museums to be like prisons and offensive to the average artist as the art lays in competition for each other for views. Rodchenko saw the future behind using a line point grid in design, but later saw Communism as a potential threat the future of artistic expression. While all of these artists have different views of the future about different topics, they all seemed to think the future was not going to be very successful for modern art. As books were not moldable which prevented new forms of art, museums would potentially continue to constrain artists and felt communism would not allow the fullest expression of art.

Authors Marinetti, Aleksandr Rodchenko, and El Lissitzky found that it was time for something new within the art world to emerge from the 20th century. They all shared the common interest of bringing a new style of art to their societies in order to advance and progress. They each wanted to bring, new ideas of art to form and reflect the new wave of technologies that inspired a generation of artistic movements. From the reading, I understood that they found these ways by deconstructing everything from the past and reshaping it into something new in order to create these new ideas. Seeing it more as an evolution rather than something completely out of the ordinary. The MO was to move past everything monumental like museums, libraries, etc. and bring in new and improved ideas for a future that is equal and liberated from those that oppress it and keep it from progressing itself.

In order to follow, the artists had to anticipate their art and design without allowing the outside world to bring in their ideas, that what they were doing was wrong. They had to be brave and bold in order for their ideas to be passed along. They were more focused on leaving the orthodox and embracing the unorthodox. The manifesto gave the artist a bravado to continue on with the hopes of passing this idea and no being afraid of taking the risks even if it meant putting everything including themselves at risk.

Reading the passages and each of the authors work I realized that a lot of the ideas of the authors intersected. Marinetti, El Lissitzky and Aleksandr Rodchenko wanted to intertwine and uplift the idea of technology and art within a movement. They each wanted to push away from the orthodox since it was leading nowhere and push more towards the sciences, technology and what was evident. The futuristic campaign wanted to stray away from older art and bring in a newer model of art, fashion, etc. A lot of it was about progression, innovation, and process and how they can add to the evolution of art and the world, to spring a newer and more advanced society.

1. From what I readied I believe that each of the authors had their own way to improve art. For example, one had to used art in a book cover so that it can grab people to see what’s about. After all, it was help with technology to make that possible and with this the idea of art improve with technology. As for the other author I didn’t get much until the end when it talks about futurism. The author made a list that seems like an event or something to related to futurism. In this article it say’s “ 10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.” From what a read using futurism in art can send a message saying what’s going or that this might happen later on. Lastly the last article is a poem but it seems like it talk about the change it is going on I think. I will say that in the beginning was it say’s that the process and goes on with other technology mention. However, from what I get that sense time is changing even art can change.
2. How these authors anticipated how art would change and explain in their own articles. For example, the word futurism is one of them because it talks about war and other action. After all, there was design in art to support the cause in different scenario. As for how the technology help it shows that art doesn’t only have to be drawn it can work with technology. However, most them involved with change that it’s not going to stop and see how this change can be good for art.
3. I believe that these ides where the author thinks about art intersect and where it might go. For example, one of the author talk about technology it talks about how it changes and now it is still changing. Also, how this diverges is the computers because now the artist used programs to help with digital art. However, technology is still changing and don’t know what else can change with digital art maybe virtual. As for one that talk about futurism that’s an idea that will go on no matter what because change is going to happen. With this people will diverge this change because people think what can change and how can it help the world of art or something else, Overall, change is going to happen like all these author talk about different ideas that is what cause the change. No one has one idea there are multiple ideas that people will think because change starts with us.