Back then artist didn’t use they’re full potential of bring creative artist. Bayer which focus mostly on typography complain that no was being creative for a long because people rather have it simple and not do anything about it. Not only that he found it boring that as artist people should do something about it but not a lot of people did which cause this idea simple for a long time. Another author named by Moholy-Nagy had a similar problem that people needs to be creative because he wants to grab people’s attention on creativities. He believes that also that typography can change but also photography as well in a certain way. Now we have Gropius were he takes about how that artist is being isolated by the world. He states from the reading “Lack of all vital connection with the life of the community led inevitably to barren esthetic speculation.” I believe what he trying to say that people can still be artist but they’re missing something important is missing in some of the artist work or themselves.
The idea that art is something that is involved with creation because art needs to show what it can do in the future. The argument with Bayer that typography doesn’t need to be simple but something different. So his point is that in the future try to use something different that not only help the new artist but the future artist. Another thing that is needed for the future of art is that sure getting the knowledge of art is good getting from school. However, from what Gropius argue is to see what is out there so the artist themself can grasped the meaning of art. For Gropius it’s getting the experience and exploring what’s out there. Then we have Moholy-Nagy, which used art differently by combining typography and photography into what is called typophoto. Were he is using to methods of art into one. From the three articles it talks about creativity, Knowledge, experience, and combination were these are what the future of art needs.
From Bayer point of view of typography is that people should learn that typography doesn’t have to be simple. For example, what he stated “Typographers envisioned possibilities of deeper visual experiences from a new exploitation of the typographic material itself.” Meaning it is time to be creative by using typography not just with words but to make it into a design. As for Gropius he discussed about how the academy is teaching art to the people. However, it seems that he does not like how it is because what he say’s “It shut off the artist from the world of industry and handicraft, and thus brought about his complete isolation from the community.” Which I agree because it’s true that school can teach someone art but it doesn’t bring the feeling of art. His point of view is that to become a great artist is to go out and see what’s out there to understand. Lastly Moholy-Nagy talks about being creative bring out more of an artist mind. After all, he talk about how the idea of typophoto can be used for business or politician saying to understand art is study what company your working for or what goes around today.
The ideas that is still used in the 21st century for art is typography. The reason why I feel that typography is important is because it creates a message and gives people the attention. Yes making a design to make it look pretty helps but it doesn’t show what it represents. For example, typography is used to created logos for a lot of company such as museum, company, and more. After all, by using typography there are a lot of typefaces that can be used so that there is one typeface for other design. To me typography seems important but some may believe in something else and I agree because in the end we used all the ideas for art.
