Our next reading assignment includes 3 short texts from designers who employed rational, systematic methods in their work. They are as follows:
Jan Tschichold, The New Typography (1928): Tschichold_NewTypo
Karl Gerstner, Designing Programmes (1964): Gerstner_DesigningProgrammes
Josef Müller-Brockmann, Grid and Design Philosophy (1981): MullerBrockmann_Grid_Des-Phil
Here is the question to accompany these readings: COMDTheoryFa19_6
From all of the reading, I can see defining the aesthetics and ideas form Walter Gropius, László Moholy-Nagy, and Herbert Bayer. The key elements lacking in the art of the past are productive forces, Herbert Bayer pointed out “the manual skill and approach of the craftsman were seen to be inevitably replaced by mechanical techniques. ” which mean previous artwork was limit form hand made. Right now, we can print that artwork simply.
The necessary for making art in the future is creativity and adaptability because people live in modern society, there is tons of information bombing your mind every day, you ou have to adapt to it and basic on those information to Go beyond these creations to making art. Herbert Bayer also says “the aesthetic restraint that limits the development of the book must finally be overcome, and new ideas must logically be deduced from the function of typography and its carriers.” which means we have to improve our ability to accept new things.
Walter Gropius believed that these schools were too conventional and never let the designer experience true design. The school has the responsibility to teach students how to express themselves individually. the step to be a successful designer is to create the art of your style.
The form, the rendering, is constructed out of the optical and associative relationships: into a visual, associative, conceptual, synthetic continuity: into the typophoto as an unambiguous rendering in an optically valid form. The typophoto governs the new tempo of the new visual literature. So, the visual impact will be one of the most important artistic ways in the future.
There are many things that artists have thought the past lacked and what the future holds. In olden times, the artists and designers did the vast majority of their work by hand. As many of these authors discuss, the invention of mechanical machinery aided them in their day which was not done before. Herbert Bayer felt that this trend of newfound machinery will consume the future of design and the vast majority of designers would be using it in mass supply. He figured that most books would become microfilm, and we would form a much simpler communication electronically that made reading less important. In a sense, he was right as today we have the digital age where we talk through electronic devices using simplistic emojis and short hand to speak to each other.
Laslo Baggy also felt the same way about technology of the future, that the majority of designers will rely on a trend of technological advancements. In this case, that advancement is typo photography which he believed would be that the future would utilize without end.
As for what an academy should teach designers, Walter Gropius felt that these schools were too conventional and never let the designer experience true design. He felt that schools were taught to be about boring paper work, and something like design requires an inner touch and expression that can only come out if inspired rather than as an assignment. To this extent, I agree that something as visual and creative as design should not be seen as boring, mundane work. Today, we still have some assignments here and there that are more straightforward I’ll say, but we do have a lot more freedom in our assignments than perhaps the designers of the past.
The key elements lacking in the art of the past is the freedom to express art in unconventional ways. Artists of the past were too consumed with following the rules of that the ones before them set. Because of this art became to rigid fixed on an objective view on art. Also because of the language barrier, art from different countries couldn’t be expressed well to the common masses that didn’t indulge themselves in foregin art. This excluded people except for the ones in the higher echelon of critics for those certain types of art.
What is necessary for future art is the ability to express what one is trying to get across but to not fall into exclusivity. There needs to be a universal connection. Because of communication becoming more international, art cannot just be catered to one area or group. Also, another necessity, would be to take what the past had built up and mold into your own. Meaning craft your new ideas while still grounding yourself in the inventions of the older generations. This will create a balance in art. It will mix the previous notion of purity, giving it structure and promote forward thinking.
The academy should teach the students how to work on I believe that the academy should teach artists the value of making art universal. This will lead to a system that makes use of different cultures and provides a language that all can understand through the medium of art. Today we have something like this expressed through the internet and social websites.
In the passage written by Herbert Bayer he touches on the idea of Universal Communication. He states “for a long time to come we will accept the existence of different languages now in use. this will continue to pose barriers to communication, even after improved”. I find this statement very pretentious. I don’t believe it is as simple to say we “accept the existence” of these different languages but we more or less respect the existence of these different languages. Behind these languages carries a lot of culture and emotion. To discuss it so matter-of-factly or just as a faze in human society does not shed light on how grand these different languages are.
Though, I do agree with him on the first move towards universal communication have been made by artists and designers. What could not be solved verbally has been solved visually. The problem with language when it comes to communication, it is not universal itself. Phrases, phonetics, context, etc have all been formed into this large homogeneous mass in which just knowing the words isn’t enough. You have to be present and willing to learn.
I personally believe that the sole purpose of art is to communicate the abstract. Abstract concepts and executions used to explain abstract ideas. It helps to send messages of the intangible, such as thoughts, feelings, emotions. Things we all possess and are hard to confuse. When someone displays an emotion, such as anger, their expression, demeanor, and attitude have already expressed that to you before words. Something that can’t always be translated by words, but by being shown.
Some key elements that were lacking in the art field of the past were individuality and having the space to be creatively open as well as the process and production. They were so consumed with the orthodox that it hard for them to break free from it. They also lacked reproduction and the change of ownership. In the text, Gropius shows that typography of the past was not preserved as a Bauhaus aesthetic idea but more of a theoretical approach to the instruction that was not practiced. Moholy-Nagy also partakes that past art lacked the right amount of technology in photographic effects and purity of linear effects since there were no printing machines. Bayer argues the same claim in regards to that of traditional art and how it lacked the aesthetic approach of mass production of media due to the lack of special tools of typewriting, and machines. The insufficient provision of these materials that are major components and so critical to the process of creating art really did damage to the elements of production.
To me, the necessity for making art in the future is to still have a connection to the past in terms of elements but also creating a new idea that will be ahead of its time. It’s more of a feeling from within that artist to receive. Bayer in the text said that typography doesn’t need to be simple but encouraged that is should be different. He wanted to help artists from whatever time. In the text, I was able to read about Moholy-Nagy and his views on typography and how every printing press would have to possess a block-making plant as it lies in the photomechanical processes. In my opinion, art is something that must continue and be preserved because of its one of the things that live on forever. This idea or view within a piece of work that lives forever will help history and future generations. It is also important to still have a connection to new ideas and the advancement of the world as it changes every second. To be aware of the surroundings and changes happening every day globally in order to grow.
Academia should teach artists how to express themselves individually. I don’t think art should always be drawn from or have a certain connection to something other. The more individualistic art becomes the more individuality and fresh set of ideas submerge. It will help with the advancement of humanity as well as the brain. As well as being honest. Criticism goes a long way and is very healthy because it helps you grow as an artist to become stronger and more insightful. The world is changing rapidly and modernity is everywhere so its important to have those sets of artistic values in order to navigate within the art world.
Typography, color, and hierarchy are still used in the 21st century. Typography is one of the key ones because you can constantly play with it and reinvent, depending on the environment of a place as well as the time in which you’re living in. When it comes to color it has the ability to shape the mood of the environment and plays with our brains differently. Hierarchy is my favorite because it comes to play with the aesthetic of my designing process. Hierarchy is so important and elemental because it is what attracts the viewer and what you’re usually graded upon.