Author: Kenny Siu (Page 2 of 2)

This article describes the intention of how these authors of manifesto insight on the future and how technology affects design. These manifestos are rather futurist biased which is why the way they speak in their manifesto is rather aggressive and out of nature for some people. The main purpose of this article was to show the desire of design being used by  technology , and how it is being used.

For Marinetti’s manifesto the invention of technology has caused him to believe that traditional use of design and art have no uses as more inventions of technology are being used. He also mentions how Marinetti and the people before them are considered scrap for the new generation to take over and to do better than what they can do.  Rochendiko believes the past method of use of design now considers old and the new system of design is what meant to be used in the future. These jobs are not considered artistic for Rochendiko and others but rather the job of designing such things are more constructivistic than artistic. He also mentions that it is a bandwagon people jump on when it comes to.

Our Book from El Litisizky explains that technology holds more power than it would usually do for design and it is taking over what used to be  the traditional design that has been used for a couple of decades. It wasn’t that much of an importance to me as it does not relate to the designer today since we use both traditional and technology based design and I don’t believe any of them are going to fall off anytime soon.

 language are signs or symbols associated mostly on the spectrum of understanding are now considered as a system for design , there are many forms of language that it is considered different from communication. Language plays a huge different role in design , if we’re doing a design without any language or communication, then it’s a meaningless design with no backstory. By adding language in  our design it gives a huge emphasis on the meaning of our work. With design it would play the role of client and designer, without the language the communication between the client and the designer would plummet down the drain. Symbols and icons are in ways communicating  between one another through a literary or pictorial icon without it there would be  language and communication barrier with the sender and the person receiving the message.  It also states in the article with the course of general linguistics that having a multiple set of icons and symbols gives a clear communication of what we consider a language , with design it would do the same, just having a single of picture and just few set of words won’t be enough, it would require more information with many set of symbol and language to give clear communication on the design. The one that stands to me for the strategy of design is to mix language and symbol together to give a proper design. With the symbol itself it is not usually clear without its message. Lumpton Miller describes the use of combination with text and symbol to give the design a third meaning. In the end I believe both the use of  archaic numbering systems or rudimentary signage has been commonly used in the past and present, but it seems to be quite essential for design today just like icons and symbols they also play a role in design are creatively used for many purposes of design. While not commonly used in design , it is a great addition to the design process and in a way makes certain designs much more distinguishable compared to others.

From what I got from both article is that Armstrong explains the early signs of post-modern graphic design , it was shown that early designer like  El Lissitzky, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Herbert Bayer, and László Moholy-Nagy did old art as very egotistical and demeaning as for modern art and truly believe design should be more functional. Over time art such as avant garde would be made to show the modern design as more of a neutrality based design. Armstrong did tell the designer of today that the ideal between neutrality and objectivity that is still impossible to find which one is better.

         From this author’s viewpoint he wants much of a universal connection of design that the design done by the designer has an impact of universal language that needs to be expressed through the design itself, another role he wants in modern design is the social responsibility being held by the designer. The design has to impact other designers and the community around them to be considered a powerful design. While designs are shown to be more technology based the role us designer plays are based on the creative mindset of each individual designer , designer has to think for themself what they think is best for others.

          Munari on the other hand believes that daily use of technology made the impact of design much more vibrant compared to the old traditional design from the past. The progress of time with design led to the result of technology used design that we use today, although past design has been used for the very purpose of influence to modern design. Which leads to what I believe would be the most universal issue with design today, which makes the problem that we modern designers have to solve that are not easily answered,but as an individual designer you have to figure out over time. What makes this a lot different compared to different fields would be the result of having to make a design for others without the drawback of following a strict rule , but be expressive and creative from the mind to create a powerful imagination of ideas for the design. If there is truly an problem with modern design is the limitation of originality of design and how to make such design much different from other. With so many design it would be soon in the future where there’s no originality with our design as a whole.