Communication Design Theory

In the reading about Aleksandr Rodchenko, he envisions the world as technologically advanced. The quote, “Previously- Engineers relaxed with art; Now- Artists relax with technology,” means before engineers relied on art work to define their next move, whereas now Artists rely on software to predict the future. Lissitzky envisions that new century should go above and beyond what has already been made. “Yet in this present day and age we still have no new shape for the book as a body.” This quote has an impatient tone as if he is telling us to not sit on our asses and actually use our brains to work. From the Futuristic Manifesto we see that they have envisioned a more industrial and more modernized approach for the new century. Not to focus on the past but to focus on the future inventions because they felt they were encapsulated by the baroque period. “we want to demolish museums and libraries, fight mortality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.”

Rodchenko hoped that the process of announcing would continue and that constructions would not stop. Lissitzky says, “the expressive power of every invention in art is an isolated phenomenon and has no evolution,” but this has changed. They want us now to break through limitations and progress what has been done already. So that the idea of it does not fade into the background. The Futurist Manifesto states they want to take the dangerous route of rebellion.

The idea of Lissitzky seems to be that when one thing ends or advances, something else begins to be advanced. This is closely related to Rodchenko’s idea on art evolving us to be able to take on the future. Futurist Manifesto goes against the other readings but not entirely. Compared to Rodchenko, I expressed that the art was evolving us to be able to take on the future. Futurism makes us take on the future entirely in one hit. Thinking beyond what has been already expressed within the art movements. The same thing with Lissitzky, they are willing to start somewhere to end with progress that can be continued. Futurism takes a stronger approach by diving into it head on and don’t look back.

In the readings the shared idea was that technology would come to improve designs in multiple ways including efficiency and our ability to evolve already made creations which shows that these designers had incredible foresight for their time. In the modern day every thing we have now is an evolution of what we had before. Firsts there are Tv’s before that radios and before that books ect. just as they predicted but not everything that they discussed remained true. in the reading “El Lissitzky, Our Book (1926)”  he discusses how books are an invention with no evolution and will always stay the same as everything around it changes and evolves but the reality is that books have seen some of the most evolution of anything man made creation. There are now books made entirely of pictures, audio books and even digital books I feel like maybe Lissitzky’s definition of a book prevented him from seeing what a book could actually become.

A points of discussion that end up happening into the modern day was in  “Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism (1909)” where Filippo discussed the use of  technology for the advancement of military power which is more prevalent now then it’s ever been in modern day U.S our military retrieves some of the most funding in the country and other major national superpowers simply paling in comparison to us. I feel if we spent in other parts of the country as much as we do in the military there’d have been more major breakthroughs in departments like health and education.

With this knowledge that’s shown to us in these readings it’s surprising that we don’t look at them as ways to direct how we making development in technology and instead simply look at them as discussion points for what ideas people have had. I feel if more people with power looked at these through a more critical lens then perhaps more advancements would be made to help people instead of just evolving for the sake of commercialization and profit.

Reading over the different excerpts I found that the idea of innovation became increasingly common, in Typophoto the writer laments the past use of type and looks forward to a new innovative realm where video reimagines the role of typography in the world. Gropius’ “The Theory and Organization of the Bauhaus” goes over the more educational side, the  way in which they go over how limited experience can stifle creativity, and that the designer needs to understand and experience many things in order to be proper. In “On Typography” the writer goes over a mesh of both, the new diciplines of designers, as well as the horizon that is new media.
What does this have to do with us, how does it relate to what we’ve already learned? The sources are a bit old, we know now, especially from reading some of the “Graphic Design Theory” book, that some of their ambitions fell flat, the new era of design either did not come or did not come as fast as they thought, the new era of design and type a universal system of communication, didn’t pan out, however it’s hard to reject how with the biological and scientific approuch that some of these articles take, that their push could simply have been premature rather then entirely misguided.
We know that type and books are taking on weirder roles today, more niche roles, why not have an entire book written in those paragraph fragments, ink must be getting cheaper, why not darken the page of a very large book up a bit? While the status quo of an industry is hard to break, surely, it can only be a matter of time,perhaps we can be the ones to push it? The question might be how, not for some delusions of granduer where the world is forever changed, but for the real and humble goal of better communication, and ease of comprehension? How could be bring that about?
Perhaps as art directors or even as freelance artists people could get together and work on a project, a book of poetry in a new typographic layout, or a large book in the darkened pages, maybe try for a cross between a book and a photo album using typophoto? I’m not sure, but these excerpts bring out an optimism and a creativity that I can’t help but indulge.

Advanced technology can help build a better future. Each generations technology is becoming more advanced but some technology can to be build for violence. In the readings, “Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism (1909)”, the author wanted to used advanced technology for mass destruction. On number 9 of the author stated that “9. We want to glorify war – the only cure for the world – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman”. Number 10 he also stated that ” We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice”. To me looks like he want to destroy important places for humans being and create more war.

The readings, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan, Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group (c. 1922) The author believes that advanced technology could help the world in peace. According to the article, Rodchenko was an a constructor, an assembler, more engineer than artist. Rodchenko collaborated with his wife Varvara Stepanova on some of his projects, One quote that caught my attention, was ” Artists relax with technology ” I can relate to this quote because most graphic designers bring their art work come to life by using technology.

The excerpt, “El Lissitzky, Our Book (1926)” the author explains that El Lissitzky  predicted continuing of the dematerialization of society. Each generations a new technology is develop and becoming more advanced. On the first line of the article, the author said “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution”. In my thoughts I think he means every invention that was created has its own time period from closer to the next we invention. The invention of phone, television, computer, and radio is occurring in our society as we speak and can be considered as dematerialization.

After the Industrial Revolution, the emergence of large-scale production of machines, division of labor, and commerce made the old way of life began to disintegrate. But people do not have new rational thinking about this new lifestyle. Businessmen firmly believe that the artistry of a product is something that can be bought from the market and applied to industry, equating decoration with design, rather than tightly combining art and technology to form an organic whole. From the 19th century onwards, handicrafts turned to mechanical processes for the production of daily necessities. Since then, technology and art have been separated, and they have been combined with science, and the products have become unified, standardized, and batched. At the same time, the production of large machines has a profound impact on the art world, and a gap has emerged between artists who meet the needs of the public and artists who are self-isolated.

Many avant-garde artists emerged in this period of time, such as Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. In Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto, he praises the pursuit of passion for adventure. In Marinetti’s his Manifesto, women and violence is mentioned, My understanding is that since this is a revolution, tradition needs to be abandoned to its absolute, the common perception of women must change and violence is the method to make this happen, and violence indeed has progressed world, as world war 2 has modernized this world but for a huge price. Although it is cruel to say, we are definitely benefiting in this aftermath of WWII. 

 In such a human society, these futurists were the first to realize the need to move forward and the “cage of history”, Human beings already controlling machine serve themself  (this is not experienced by any previous civilization ), the old way must be updated to reach a new balance as it is not suiting the contemporary society.

Technology is something that I believe has no end and its renewable. Although not all generation are up to date with the technology. Technology is however something useful but needs to used right.

In the article by El Lissitzky, I learned from the part where he stated “We know two kinds of writing: a symbol for each idea = hieroglyph (in China today) and a symbol for each sound = letter” and then he gives example saying that The hieroglyph is international and if a Russian, a German, or an American impresses the symbols (pictures) of the ideas on his memory, he can read Chinese or Egyptian (silently).And its true people can relate and understand despite that is relative.

I also think what is inspiring and I believe help in improving the technology was the invention ofGutenberg, the inventor of the system of printing from movable type. I think without his invention we wouldn’t have printers today.

In the article who we are the author I think is stating that humans are the ones who built technology because the ways we design through technology now was invented in the 19^th. The square—1915, the line, grid, point—1919.

 

 

By reading these texts, I learned that every artist such as Marinetti, El Lissitzky, and Aleksandr Rodchenko have different ways to improve art. They found that the old style was already too old and decided to create a new revolution of art. I also learned that for them, there was a need to find and explore new ways of expressing the field of art and to take away the old art that they express how images recall from memories and with it bring the artists’ expressions from the old and how it rekindled painful memories that were a discouragement to the author’s dreams. This was to make original artworks and to combine it by incorporating expressing emotions that can be identified easily by the audience. Therefore, this helped the artists to integrate technology to build art in what is called modern audience.

In the manifesto, I learned that artists had to reconsider the design, the type and space of a book to help the writers create new writing methods.  The text of El Lissitzky was based on new possibilities or ways for typography and its combination with printing, writing machines duplicating and copying instead of handwriting which is in a way too tired and old. Rodchenko, Stepanova & Gan Manifesto  focus on constructivism which is an art movement. This is also based on communism which focuses on designing new products and geometrics to have mass production of products in the industry. The artists focus on trying to pass this idea and not being afraid of any risk.

In order to follow, the artists had to look forward to the art and design without leading the outside to bring ideas in which they think wrongly about what they are doing. They had to be courageous in order to make their ideas passed as well as they 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 not being afraid of taking the risks even if it meant putting themselves at any risk.

I noticed that a lot of the authors’ ideas intersect as they have mainly the same idea of taking away the old and constructing new ways of reproducing and revolutionating  art as well as technology. Technology is a main factor today as it helps to make digital art as well as it can be printed on paper and put the art outside for the world for people in various copies to appreciate it.

 

Technology is a constant change in our world and it is advancing faster than we know. One thing that has an advancement due to technological advancement is, art of printing with new instruments that produce books. In El Lissitzky’s Our Book (1926), Lissitzky talks about the way that art changes along with technology and the materials that are used to create art. For example, Lissitzky discusses how modernized machinery processes are replacing manual processes which in turn changes the appearances and forms of things. He also discusses how the visual aspect of books can change due to the changes of languages, construction and style. During the civil war, Europe had printed material that looked similar to all the other countries. However, after the war, Europe saw America’s new printed matter and they were shocked. In America, the words were illustrations of pictures. 

In Europe, a new form of printed matter was introduced. The form of printed matter was when Blast, a magazine that the Vortex Group came out with. This magazine had large and simple words in presentation that were all in block letters. In Germany, there was a printed document of the portfolio, Neue Jugend (1917) which became an important document for new, modernized typography. During the time of the Revolution, the traditional book had been torn from its binds, increased the size, made colors more prominent, and distributed into the streets as a poster. Europe’s intention was to have people read it closely and make sense of the message that it was trying to send and America’s intent in creating posters was for people just to get a glimpse of it. 

Due to influences, children as they grow will make something new and improved due to the fact that they are being introduced to an increasing amount of children’s books appearing. Books have become accessible to people who want to read them, this will increase a different point of view to the world, to space, to shape, and to color. Since technology has advanced, books are also in digital form to be read on computers, laptops, tablets, and phones. 

In Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, I learned that linguistics are somewhat closely related to other sciences in which they borrow and apply data. For example, in ethnography, meaning the recording of human cultures and in prehistory, it is used differently from each other. In prehistory, language is used to document and in anthropology, language is just a social factor. I also learned that the in the scope of linguistics, it can be used to describe and trace the history of the languages. It is used to trace back to the history of languages to see where the language originated from and how it is used as the times evolved. 

Some might ask what semiology is and the definition of semiology is, a science that studies the life of signs within society that is conceivable to be a part of social psychology and general psychology.  The way that semiology distinguishes from linguistics is that linguistics is a part of only a general science of semiology. Language can be studied in connection with how people have a connection with something and how they interpret things. The concept is that in your mind, psychology and it turns into a process that comes out physiologically, which happens between two people who are conversing back and forth.

Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics was somewhat difficult to understand due to the description of how linguistic signs unites a concept and a sound-image rather not a thing and a name. Whenever we talk to ourselves or mentally recite a verse, it is clear that the psychological character of sound-images appear. We also tend to disregard what other people imagine when it comes to the associations that we grew up with when it comes to a language. Therefore, it is an interesting reading when it comes to the concept of learning how we take in and communicate in our minds instinctively and the science behind it. 

The new possibilities that the authors of these texts envision for the new century. The authors predict the dematerialization of the technologies that as the time goes by the new invention of technology evolove and its increasing the digital world or the production of instruments; making the use of less material. As El Lissitzky, “Our Book (1926)” said in her book about dematerialization “ Then comes further growth of the communications network… then radio eases the burden”. This quote tells us the technology changed over the time. El Lissitzky also discuss about the the process of the machines such as the invetor of the printing press system printed few books and its success in book art. After that, photography invention came and soo on till today its Digital Media is on top. 

These artists anticipate the art and designs that would follow the distinctive style that will be vision for society. The art and design will change the society for better like this in reading Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism (1909)” talks about the Manifesto of Futurism no 9 “We want to glorify war- the wonly cure for the world- militarism, patrotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for women.” This quote is positive for country where they devote thereself for country and can die for the beautiful ideas and at the same time negative for women. On the other hand Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan, “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group (c. 1922)” talks about the use of technology in to give revolutionary concept of Functionalism, economy and also to Soviet citizens as well.

The ideas of the these authors that intersect is the use technology. Wheather its use for the war or artists to use to shape the society to make new world. Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan, “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group (c. 1922)” talks about first few lines poem “ We didn’t create technology we didn’t create man But we, Artists yesterday constructors today,” I agree with this that we can’t create man and all but we as artist can design the art or the vision ideas that we have.

 The ideas where the authors might diverge is that the technology is changing over the time. El Lissitzky predicted the dematerialization in digital world. Lissitzky says “I submit these analogies in order to demostrate that as long as the book is of necessity a handheld object,…recordings or taking pictures, we must wait from day to day for new fundamental investion in the field”. I think nowdays, it happen where as new invention come we forget the old one like the book then the printing system then the technology comes.