From the readings, I learned that art in the past lacked the unique characteristics that might differentiate it from the contemporaries through time and space. I think that traditional art lacked reproduction and change of ownership. I learned that Gropius shows that topography of past art did was not preserved as a Bauhaus aesthetic idea of the theoretical approach to instruction was not practised. Moholly-Nagy also indicates past art lacked sufficient technology in photographic effects and purity of linear effects as there were no typesetting or printing machines. Similarly, Bayer argues that traditional art lacked the aesthetic approach of mass production of print media due to the lack of machines and special tools of typewriting and copying. I believe, the lack of these critical components affected the art-making process and could have created gaps in understanding the history in the modern world. Hence, these key elements ought to continue being implemented in future art.
Art is a continuous phenomenon that is crucial and mandatory in the future. I can contend that there will be a need for architecture to design different objects and mass production of print media from the classical era as well as the preservation of history. As I read Moholy-Nagy views of typography, I noticed that in the future, every printing press would have to possess a block-making plant as it lies on the photomechanical processes. Hence, I believe that the art will help to continue preserving the history for future generations while also helping modern society to understand the changes happening globally. I believe also art in future will also help to preserve cultures of different people that will be crucial in studying history.
I believe that the academy should teach the artist about their field due to the changing world of art. The modern world is leaving away traditional art and embracing the modern one is schools. I have grown to see rise in technology that is shaping art from photography, painting, recording and designs. I think that Gropius through Bauhaus influence wanted to reunite the applied art with fine art in the desire of pushing back beside the creativity mechanism in reforming education of art. I conquer with Moholy-Nagy and Bayer that in modern art, designers and artists should operate in a market-oriented culture and adapt the Bauhaus philosophy of a new era. I have also seen a shift in market with current generations and I believe they also need well designed and connected emotional arts, hence, there is a need to understand different types of markets in academies.
In my opinion, the idea of writing and art designs are essential as fine and applied art since they dictate the nature of color, contour, shape and geometric of architecture Also, typography of constructivism has envisioned the visual experience of printing and sculpture, oil painting and design through computer-based programs. Moreover, digital technologies have also emerged where one can take photographs, design them, and apply different theme colors depending on the event or environment. Hence, I am confident that ideas of nature, color and architecture of the arts should continue in the digital age of the 21stcentury.
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.