Author: Sherard Quow

We have used forms of language for centuries. We use it to communicate with others daily in order to conduct some form of business to move around in our world. In the first text, it says that language is “a naming-process only—a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names.” It does state that there is something already wrong with it. It does not state that pictures could be used as well to define language and assumes that ideas are already in people’s brain when saying the words that make the language. Back then in the old days, they used to draw pictures to tell what is something, defined in their language. Obviously, it has evolved now into more advanced stages, but it was the way of communication, I think when it does come to communication though, it is the way it is carried out that makes a difference.

Communicating with one another is easy. When we design for others, it communicates many things. It can be simplicity, comfort, boldness, movement, and so on, We design to solve certain problems. Maybe we do not realize it, but we have to learn what needs to be good communication before we start drafting what needs to be the “language”. In an excerpt from Lupton Miller’s text, it talks about using tally marks to define what to count — what to score. Before we got to that, it was needed to know what has to be communicated first. If I am counting how many rocks are in my hand and I want to keep a marking of how much is there, now I have to decide on a probable solution — a designed solution. If I did not know language yet, I might point or use my fingers as a score in order to keep count. Now I have communicated to myself how much is in my hand. If I wanted to tell someone how much rocks is in my hand without them counting as well, I can show them my fingers and say in many ways than one that “this much” is how many rocks are in my hand. Now through the communication, we have used a certain language attained by the thought process and ideation phase in order to draft out a designed solution. I can use my fingers as language to communicate to others how much is something to keep a score. This is what I have seen language being developed to over the course of time.

When we go out into the world, we see signs everyday. There are simple signs and there are complex signs. These all derived from something and somewhere. Before the idea pops into our brain to speak and use language to communicate what is there, someone did that for us back then. The icons had to be drafted first, knowing that in order to communicate with each other, icons had to match the language needed to make the phonetic sounds we hear today. Things had to be written as an alphabet in whichever language in order to make the best sense of what needed to be said. Language and graphical communication go hand-in-hand and come in different forms. However our brain processes it is the solution we make to what they started with. The design elements have derived from centuries of trial and error in my opinion. But without this trial and error, we would not understand how these icons work. We got to thank our ever-evolving history for that one.

From what I am reading, Armstrong is speaking to the fact that when graphic design began, anonymity was the key factor. Many artists did not want to let their name get into the way of their artwork. They felt it could be an “egotistical” thing. I can see that back then as the author described, they wanted the work to speak for itself. Around this time, avant-garde was the art that went against the grain and the work that deviated from the mainstream narrative. Maybe during this time as well, WWI (World War I) was on the horizon with its propaganda art and the artists did not want people to think one way as opposed to having multiple opinions on the same artwork.

Munari describes design for the artist as something to change with time. For Munari, you have to design with the intent to include life’s daily challenges. The time of designing for certain minds to wander are not applicable in his mind as it was for artists before his time. You must adapt and work with the times to succeed. When looking at his thoughts of the designer putting their stamp on something that would just be functional, he contrasts from Armstrong. I think he understands how something would function, but if not put with the proper psychological design element, no one would readily peak an interest. This could be understood that even if you wanted people to interpret the abstract or complex work created, the purpose has to show through the design element — the personality. This could be argued as Munari’s “authorship” — something that Armstrong and others debate in the other reading that it might not be the way.

When I look at design today, there is a cry for culture shock and in-your-face moments. There are experiments that occur when things need a different turn — away from the normal phases of design. There is also culture acceptance. I think many artists create works for aesthetics and for fortune. The generation we are in is the “instant gratification” one. If I am bored today, I want something new tomorrow — that is how it goes. We do have technology now where it has shaped the way people craft their artwork. Where back then it used to take weeks and months to have a creation, it can happen in one hour. Has this dissipated the way artists are connected to their work? One can argue that point. What once was taking care of each stage of the creation to combine it and have it all put together is now someone flashing through Pinterest and figuring out the work in one take.

Honestly, I am not here to say it is a bad thing. Technology has made life easier. We have our Adobe Creative Suite and Affinity to help us work better and design amazing works. I can’t despise that. There are people who will. As Armstrong said using Manovich’s words, there is “hybridity” and “remixability” going on in our design world today. Is there anonymity though? There still can be. Is there authorship? Lots of it. The tried method of anonymity combined with technology today gives way to copycats. Many designers create only for their work to be taken as someone else’s. The copycats say “NO ATTRIBUTION REQUIRED” until attribution catches up to them. This anonymity starts to vanish when we have advances in technology. I have personally seen my friends (who are designers) get their work copied. This is where authorship comes into play. Maybe authorship is the way for certain designers to stay secured and not to make a statement these days. When it comes to theories in the design world, it is up to the individual to challenge them. Maybe it gives way for a better understanding of their own design lane. For me, this can be a constant, philosophical debate. Engagement is key though for continuous breakthroughs I (or an individual) might not spot right away.