Communication Design Theory

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.

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 21^stcentury.

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.

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.