Year: 2019

In Lupton Miller’s piece ” Counting Sheep”, he discusses, as it states, “the history of written numbers” when counting came from such a simpler time, when simplisticness was needed. Things such as counting animals one by one using objects instead of using abstract numerical values. The time of using abstract values such as Roman numerals comes from the need to access a greater audience of value ,such as 10,000, but not counting one by one. The abstract values we use today were made to represent abstract values. This not only applies to numbers but social values and economical.

By the 19th century more values started to be explored other than numbers like lines, shapes, colors. This is around the same time social and Design focused Revolutions started to appear. These same explorations moved both these centuries forward. The use of these abstract objects became representations of what we believe. Things such as, social justice, social disparity, economic injustices. Though, these values just don’t stop there. As time moved forward objects and animals also became sources of representation. Pushing our ideas forward and accessing a greater plethora of people due to technology providing a greater audience.

The values we hold dear today stem from the values our ancestors held dearly today. The accomplishments of the past are not forgotten but built upon and improved. The values that have survived are not obsolete but they are absolute. Their form changes but their purpose doesn’t.

To be rudimentary is to be the bare basics of a principle that structures the more advanced levels of said principle. On a general level, it is almost always important to understand the basics of something or you can never master that skill. It is impossible how to do BMX bike tricks if you can’t learn to keep your balance. You cannot program the next big video game without learning how coding works. However, Designers have a possibility of actually skipping over the rudimentary level design and still succeeding. This is because most design, nowadays, is subjective and while the structures and styles of the past can help, they are not required to make a solid design.

But that just brings up the question once again, if we don’t need the rudimentary level, why do we still need to understand it and the history behind it? As the texts discuss, design had morphed from idea to idea as time went on. When art was first conceived as an form of expression, it was considered just to be a way of the rich and wealthy to immortalize themselves forever. The idea that design was based around egocentric greed and commoners were not welcome into the more closed off and high class society. As time passes on, design took a more commercial approach and reached the major population rather than just the rich upper class. However, the text notes that while designers had the ability to be designers, they did not really think like designers. In the 50’s, designers seemingly made designs that lacked emotion, self expression, and a form of identity. In the late 60’s-70’s, the more corporate aspects of design were fading out for a more creative direction, one that gave the designer a ‘voice’ in their designs. The progression of design afterwards toward today expanded on this approach to design, adding more of a free, limitless ability to design of their choosing.

Even after all of that history lesson, the question has still not been answered. Rudimentary design and design methods of the past are important because they teach the basic foundation of design back when design was in a much simpler state. Now that we live in a society that has access to a software that makes designs on many of our devices, it becomes much more complicated to make a proper design without understanding what has structured and defined a design throughout our history. As common as the idea that everything has been done before is, it is one that is true in almost every aspect of the phrase. It is important to understand the history of design to understand what you made in relation to past styles of design. Going on the idea that no design today is completely original in principle, it is important to know the inspirations that formed your design and if your design is too similar to those inspirations. Overall, rudimentary design is important in every aspect because it is holds all the principles we learn as modern designers and structures the foundations for designs to delve into more complex structures in the future.

When looking at these readings what struck me was the ongoing discussion and changes in the evolution of graphic communication.  Looking at the different systems throughout time from the simple to the complicated we can see the development of these systems were often times built on the foundations of the past. Not by copying but by utilizing the techniques , theories, and ideas to form new ways to graphically communicate.

We can see cases of this happening throughout all of human history as Lupton and miller state “ The production of tokens appears to have ceased around 3100 BC, when a system for graphically recording the spoken language was emerging in Sumeria.  The new script retained some symbols from the older token system, but a basic conceptual change took place.” (pg27) Another example of this can be seen with the abacus being replaced by the Hindu – Arabic system of numbers.  The invention of the symbol Zero helped the Hindu -Arabic system to essentially become the “numerical equivalent of the alphabet”(pg31) which led to its wide acceptance.  This is another example of how graphic communication built on rudimentary methods was relevant for a contemporary information system. 

The idea of modern Hieroglyphs brings us to a new understanding of approaching graphic communication for our ever-changing world.  As Lupton and miller state the new system called “isotype“ created a universe of people, places , objects, and actions, the International System of Typographic Picture Education” (pg41) that was meant to be easily identified.  These were flat silhouettes that helped provide a language of public information.  The main example used was the man and the woman symbol seen on public restrooms.

Looking at these readings we see that perceived to be long obsolete writing, accounting, or printing techniques are actually a guide or blueprint on how graphic communication in our modern world can be handled.  We can then use these theories and designs as a model for evolving communication for the future.  Not only can this be applied for a language of public information but also in the programs and tools used buy modern graphic designers. An example is the  Adobe suite uniting graphic designer’s around the world with digital tools that come from real world techniques adapted for our modern computer driven age.  These are only tools though it is up to us to use the theories learned from the past as Lupton and Miller state “Otto Neurath Could serve as a model for the graphic designer of the next millennium, the language worker equipped to use design and theory as tools for unearthing new questions and constructing new answers.”(pg44)

What I took from these texts concerning rudimentary methods is that they rely heavily on interpretation. Interpretation does not care much for culture, the meaning would change dramatically during the course of time and it’s original meaning would be forgotten. On the other hand, modern design is based on perception. As Lipton Miller says in the reading ” “Perception” refers to the subjective experience of the individual as framed by the body and brain.” (pg 62) This means that perception encompasses all the senses, rudimentary methods and concepts only encompass intellect and do not care for what the symbols mean or their impact on the group of individuals that use them.

I don’t believe that writers shouldn’t concern themselves at all with “long-obsolete writing, counting, or printing techniques.” These techniques are the fundamentals, the building blocks of what design is today. They act as a skeleton for design and are used to convey information in a simpler way. This doesn’t mean that designers should imitate the old, but it should act as a frame of reference. Design should be a combination of both interpretation and perception. It should not ignore the meaning behind the pieces and should capture the senses it uses to convey information, nor should it stray away from objectivity completely in it’s pursuit to stimulate the intellect.

 

I believe that new ideas come from the harmony of objectivity.and subjectivity. It also comes from the creation of the simple into the more expressive. Subjectivity allows one to perceive the art work at face value and let it envelop our being. We are able to take in what we see and express ourselves through that medium. The objectivity comes to explain how the creativity is created, it is based on what goes on behind the scenes. It does not change based on mood or emotions. This is the root of what fills our eyes and what brings forth that emotion. It represents the physical aspect of art. The materials, rules and technique used to make a piece. Without this, the piece would have no form or structure. A fundamental in what breathes life into it. 

 

When it comes to rudimentary communication methods and their relevance to contemporary information systems always find a way to connect to the principles of communication design because they are one of the basic principles of communication design. When I first heard rudimentary I automatically connected it to its definition which means lack of or lacking basic principles. Communication design was a lot more different a couple of years back. When it came to the basics of the foundation of design one of its top priorities were to still find its way to connect to its present as well as its future. You don’t want to create something that is half made or still in the process you want to be able to expand on this principle that is limited.

Contemporary designers usually have this motive to create something that is very in “the now” or in other words what is mostly being acclimated towards in terms of audiences etc which could work but shouldn’t always be so heavily relied upon. Contemporary designers should concern themselves with long-obsolete writings so they can conceptualize and have a stronger backbone to their designs not just for themselves but in order for them to explain. When you are able to explain your designs to a broader non-artistic audience you are successful in the field of communicating this idea especially when you are able to do it proficiently. You always need a reference but being able to drawback to the basics always helps you as a designer because your process is more organized and well placed this applies to counting and printing techniques as well.

The texts provoke ideas where you are able to expand and make more out of something less. Some facts and details from these texts and creating design strategies and which I think is the most important because I personally have issues with it is including less of yourself in these designs, strategies, texts, etc and more of who you are making them for. In order to connect to the audience, you need to put yourself in their shoes and find ways to succeed. There is strong psychology behind the design process of creating content for consumers that provokes ideas for creating new design strategies.

 

1.From what I think that people that used rudimentary method sounds like those who used it brag about their work and how this style was used back in the day. In the article it say’s “ In their minds, such bourgeois, subjective visions corrupted society.” Meaning back then since there wasn’t any internet people could go up to people but brag about there work and showing what they done. Now that the Internet is here this method is not used as it was back then. After all, the used of the Internet it helps explore the idea of graphic designers to see what they can do with their work. I believe sense that there wasn’t too much of art that cause people to look more but now people can look and think what they can do with their art.

 

2.I feel the reason why designers concern they of long obsolete skill is maybe to remember how it all started and how it improve in modern time. Also, it could be that maybe designers are looking more into how the old techniques may help with some of their own ideas. For example in the article it states “ Such designers see the client’s message as the central component of their work.” From what I think that even though the designer client tells them one thing the designer has to come up with at least ten ideas to show. After all, in the real world it isn’t where here is one lets get started no it’s where as artist to show something different even some of the ideas were used back then it can still be used now.

 

3. The strategies that the designer come up with is stated in the article were it say’s “ Graphic designers must take note and consciously position themselves within the prosumer culture…” Meaning to make sure to understand what there doing and what are they going to create. Another strategies are that sense designers used computers they created a protocol so they can work with certain software. Not only that if the designer is told by the client of what they want. The designer would create resources that can help for what they want to design.

 

I have learned that the designers have been developing modeling of graphic designs from authorship to anonymity-based work. This has led to the evolution of different models and therefore changed every aspect in graphic design. The avant-garde found their work on impartial communication as opposed to designers who used authorship means to communicate Like from the readings, I learned that the Swiss designers turned the ideals of the avant-garde into the grid style, which had a personal interpretation perspective. Today, as a designer, I have experienced the application of the old avant-garde style in graphic design as many clients seek for clear communication using graphics.

I have understood that simple and clear language is critical in modern technology systems. The importance of simple language in graphical designs is to ensure that information reaches the target group in a clear and precise way Although I and my colleagues would argue on differing perspectives on interpreting Swiss-style graphic design, I have realized that such arguments in the past led to changes in the taste to avant-garde technology.

In my design career I am more concerned with avant-garde technology which involves long counting and writing. This is to ensure 100 percent correct interpretation of the artwork, unlike the Swiss style, which is hard to interpret. In the new technology, I have experienced limited time to do a design strain one to understand an artwork. Therefore, modern technology calls for the clear statement of graphic design for easy interpretation of the work.

From my experience I have found that designers who are creating specific content for specific functionality are provoking the change of the art strategies. There is a conflict that imagination and creativity might be lost due to graphic authorship. Graphic authorship was a traditional method used by the avant-garde artist. The modern world is in fear of diminishing creativity as compared to advancing technology and the future destiny of graphic designs.

 

 

In this reading, I was able to really dig into what this book will be all about, I thought overall it was a very precise and specific way to speak to us readers.  I appreciate the simple language. Moving on to what I got from the text, it captured my attention on how these writers/ designers see the way in which art and design have taken shape throughout the course of the centuries. Mainly what I read about was “what is the true meaning of design?” There are many theories on what design should mean and how graphic work should be perceived.  One of the quotes that I completely agreed within this introduction was the idea behind “prosumerism” , which ties into the idea behind Collective Authorship, and how design is beginning to become a concept that absolutely everyone is into, and the idea that everyone out there is basically calling themselves designers. So I agreed with this statement in particular “what services and expertise do designers have to offer in a prosumer market?” I couldn’t help but ask myself what can I bring to the table, what will separate me from everyone else? Because if everyone now wants to design and call themselves creative designers then what makes me any different? The paragraph ends by stating “Graphic designers must take note and consciously position themselves within the prosumer culture or run the risk of being creatively sidelined by it.” 

Another topic discussed briefly in this introduction was the idea behind seeking a bigger targeted audience. This goes into the the discussion about social responsibility, stating that designers are now looking deeper into the roots of our society and are socially and artistically coming up with ways to make a statement through designs, its not about satisfying a client  anymore its about creating a change and letting consumers and everyone else know where the designers lie in terms of justice or injustice. One of the statements were ” Designers are actively engaging their societies politically and culturally, increasingly thinking globally inside a tightly networked world.”  Just the other day in my communication design 2 class we were discussing how social issues have become part of the design and how people can really connect with designers work through just visually seeing a compelling piece.

The introduction also makes a lot of references to older theories of design and how some of our modern-day perspectives tie into ideas from time periods such as avant-garde or the Bauhaus. Also how some meaning of design connects and contrasts with influential designers such as El Lissitzky, Wolfgang Weingart, Josef Muller-Brockmann Paul Rand, and many more.

Down below are all of my notes/ questions that I wrote down while reading this text, I tend to always do this to all my book /readings I normally call it having a discussion with my readings!