Reading the articles I noticed that each artist had a similar point of view regarding technology and the era they were living in. Rodchenko expressed that technology was the mortal enemy of art in a proud manner. El Lissitky rejoiced at media and technology and Marinetti wanted a technological reform for Italy. They envisioned how great design was going to be with the evolution of technology and tools that could open countless possibilities. Technology was a must in order to achieve these visions that the hands of man alone couldn’t. El Lissitky analyses different aspects remarking the fact that technology didn’t evolve much from the printing press until the invention of photography for designers. They completely disagree on technology not evolving since time keeps changing and what meant something for them is not what is going to mean for the next generation. This is something relevant to the present because time keeps changing rapidly and new mediums of communications and technological tools keep getting invented. Along with visual communication and design, not adapting to the current wave could be problematic as it wouldn’t make communication and creativity easier. That’s what technology is for.
According to the articles that I have read, designs are something with shapes, words, colors, and ideas. By the meaning of the design, it’s not randomly poured in elements. Designers have to learn tricks, techniques, and concepts before working on designs. But in different platforms or the medium of design stand, the design will act differently. The differences of mediums are constantly changing by generation. According to “Our Book ”, we don’t know what will be the next as medium or the trend of design will happen. For example, wheels to animal-drawn wheels, animal-drawn wheels to motors, and motors to airplanes. There’s a trend of what the world is making or inventing. In the text, they listed letterpress and they put question marks. And what they wrote below, they have a sense of what’s coming next, which is books and posters. They also know that there will be systems of how books and posters are going to be photomontage and type montage.
Not only that they know books, posters, and newspapers in our future. They also know that there will be technologies that help designers to produce their artworks. After they predict that they are going to have technologies in their future, they have different opinions toward how technologies will turn into the design in the future. In “Who We Are”, the author said that people would be turned lazy when more technologies are being developed. Since we have used our hands to create artworks before. Technology is an enemy to design because we can’t create something that is in our dreams or something random in our minds with technology. It’s because of this it will cause designers to have less creativity when they are using technology.
I think what they are saying is true. They said that art has stagnated. But I’m not sure if it’s caused by our technologies or not. Here are some of the words that the author said “The invention of easel pictures produced great works of art, but their effectiveness has been lost.” and “Yet in this present day and age we still have no new shape for the book as a body”. I agree with what they said, our books today aren’t changing as much as before. Before we changed books from full text into mixed text with pictures, changing it from animal skins to paper, handwritten text to print, and we also changed the fonts and placement of text throughout the generation. But today books aren’t changing as much as before. I’m not sure if that’s the technical problem or that the finished development of books or actual design is moving toward the end?
What stood out to me the most is the idea that society is dematerializing. When I think of today’s society currently, I think we are the most materialistic we could possibly be. From what I see we seem to value items and object more than anything. However, according to El Lissitzky’s manifesto, it turns out that we are dematerializing.
In Lissitzky’s manifesto it states, “Present indications are that this basic invention can be expected from the neighboring field of collotype. This process involves a machine that transfers the composed type-matter onto a film, and a printing machine that copies the negative onto sensitive paper. Thus the enormous weight of type and the bucket of ink disappear, and so here again we also have dematerialization.” What this example is explaining is how one task that used to take multiple steps and objects has now lessened due to society evolving, and new technology forming that removes an extra step. A modern day example would be like 2 in 1 shampoo where instead of two different bottles, one shampoo and one conditioner, now you have one bottle that contains both. This idea related to an early statement made in the same manifesto, “The amount of material used is decreasing, we are dematerializing, cumbersome masses of material are being supplanted by release energies.”
This idea of dematerializing reminds me about a part of the reading from Assignment 1b. How it was discussed that designers are now prosumers. This term means that they are both producer and consumer. This makes another 2 in 1 scenario where society seems to be trying to make things easier for themselves and lessen the steps of any task possible. In the case of this week’s reading, using advancements in technology to simplify every day task by dematerializing the old routine.
it seems that during th 20th century graphic design or design was not as advanced with technology compared to the modern world we live in today. many fonts such as caslon were used and also being used in media internet or sometimes restaurant menus. technology can make things efficient compared when printing news paper using labor the old fashioned way.” thenthere follow a few centuries that produced no fundamental inventions in ourfield (up to the invention of photography). What we find, more or less, in theart of printing are masterly variations accompanied by technical improvementin the production of the instruments. The same thing happened with a secondinvention in the visual field—with photography”. it sounds that camera will revolutionize the way photos are taken and also how make photography easier. common disagreements were formats of books such as templates. elements such as photos and objects remain vital cause it shows oragnization and hierarchy and the interpertation when viewers see it. technology in art is a tool that can help design to do more work efficiently in the field.
Looking back to the early 1900s, many great designers such as El Lissitzky, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and more had their own important task of design and art. They knew that reading from books or literature itself would adapt for the future which today we have posters, newspapers, magazines, etc. Technology has its own benefits for today’s designers and it has changed the way for how design and artwork are being produced. Compared today and the early 1920s, printers are advanced hardware that we can all have our hands on and produce our work in an instant. Compared to the early 1920s, you would have to go to a press printing facility to have your artwork printed for you by hand. Fare to say that “Engineers relaxed with art now—Artists relax with technology” stated by Aleksandr Rodchenko’s article, this emphasizes today’s workflow for designers adapting and accepting technology’s ability to produce and deliver their design to today’s society. I think towards the advantage of technology, today many books are being converted digitally and it can come to a point that books may not be able to reach to the nearest future if this keeps on going. This is a point where most designers like El Lissitzky, Ilya Ehrenburg and the others would disagree or disprove this process because books took an important role in society back in the early 1900s. Its production gave a unique form and function for how books are meant to be read. It had a cover with an essential design, a spine to merge the pages, and its manufacture was appreciated and successful at that time. One of the elements that remains relevant in the present is the template of a book or design posters in the early 1900s that applies to some platforms such as magazines, newspapers, etc. We see text that emphasizes its aspects, objects (shape) to organize or categorize information and color to visualize moods and variations. Looking at Aleksandr Rodchenko’s article, “Who We Are, Manifesto of the Constructivist Group ”, he mentions the distinction between working with technology and working with design. These two element may work well together but there are many artist that rely too much on technology that is becomes a problematic element, “This is—today—Technology is—the mortal enemy of art”, as Rodchenko stated in his article, technology can oppose art, limits creativity, leading to complexity, and more. We as artists have yet to learn how to properly use technology without conflict with art and to reassure that we only use it towards our advantage to complete our design.
Salome Mindiashvil : Design is a form of visual communication that aims to either educate, inform or inspire people with ideas or actions. A good designer is the one that communicates those ideas in the clearest way possible. It is also highly aesthetic and uses color theory and principles of good layout.
Darriel Bleasdille: One important aspect when speaking about design is the community. Good design is supposed to improve the lifestyle and standard of living of the community; an easier way of communication and living. I believe good design also should shed light on problems around the world and issues within the community. Moreover, it has a duty to help with the advancement of society (from the good old days of riding horses to now having street signs to govern auto vehicle movements). My personal opinion on what makes a good design is as follows: “An unselfish form of communication’’ (for the betterment of society).
Daniel Rodriguez : when it comes to design after taking classes with other student designers we might be given the same product or idea but each person can create a design and speak to them or how they see things.
Jasmine Domena: Language seems to be kind of sexist. In the reading it talked about how by default they used the male figure by default and the female figure would be used to show a person providing a service to the male. This instantly reminded me and I connected it to Spanish language. In Spanish ellos is a group of boys, ellas is a group of girls, but if a group has a mix of boys and girls the default and expected term to use is ellos. This is also similar to the argument of using the term latinex
Language is a system of communication . There are many forms of languages. Language is distinguished by other forms of communication by being somewhat arbitrary. Language can be somewhat arbitrary because the relationship between “signified and signifier” are constantly being shifted. Symbols and icons are related to language because it is considered a signifier and visually one can associate with what is being communicated.
Signs, signifiers, and the signified are demonstrated in general communication and graphic communication as a concept and sound-image. Language has shaped design historically because with time there is change and the shift between signifier and signified is affected.
Design can accomplish things that language cannot because design can be communicated visually and verbally without using the word of language. Language itself isn’t completely universal since its constantly being changed. The relationship between language and design in today’s culture is trying to communicate to people what they need to understand. With design its more of a communicative message and with language its more of a speech.
Language is typically viewed as a verbal or written method used to express something. Not only does language express actions, items, emotions; but different people around the world express it in different ways, which is why there are multiple languages. A word can have a meaning in one country but another meaning in the next country, same with gestures. Which makes me wonder, is Sign Language taught the same universally or differently according to the popular gestures in each country?
Symbols and icons are tools that relate people whether they share the same language or not. Most of the time humans are able to understand symbols universally, like traffic signs and emojis. Wherever you live these things hold similar meanings. This is why learning to make icons are is important for designers to accomplish. It’s a skill you can incorporate in a design project that will be viewed all over the world.
The relationship between language and design in today’s culture can determine how successfully your audience reacts to your design project. Just like with symbols and icons, if your design features a character preforming certain hand gestures that Americans will find funny, the design will be successful in America. However the same gestures may be viewed as offensive by people in Japan because the two have separate cultures with separate languages. In the design world, it goes a long way to have consideration about language barriers and thinking in context of who your target audiences are.
Our third reading assignment consists of three short manifestos written by avant-garde artists in the early decades of the 20th century. They are as follows:
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism (1909): Marinetti_Manifesto_Futurista
Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksei Gan, Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group (c. 1922): RodchenkoStepanovaGan_WhoWeAre
El Lissitzky, Our Book (1926): Lissitsky_OurBook
Here are some questions to consider as you read:
What new possibilities did these authors envision for their immediate futures? What role did they imagine technology would play in shaping those futures? In what ways did these artists anticipate the art and design that would follow? What common views do these authors share and where might they disagree? Which elements of these texts remain relevant for the present, and which elements are problematic?