Stephen_S_Assignment_3

Marinetti’s writing was very descriptive and sort of like a narrative, at first I was not sure what the purpose of this was. His comparison of museums and cemeteries was interesting and a valid point, yet I don’t fully agree with him. His tone when he notes that people visit these places one a year came off as very sarcastic and as a fan of art museums I don’t really agree with his perspective. When Marnetti says, “To admire an old picture is to pour our sensibility into a funeral urn instead of casting it forward with violent spurts of creation and action,” I take this as him questioning  whether or not we can make progress while showing appreciation for the past. While this is an interesting view, I think we can advance and make progress while being aware and learning about the past or “an old picture”. Rodchenko came off more direct to me, in regards to his view on technology and its impact. He focused on how changes can be made politically, culturally, and socially compared to Marinetti who covered society as a whole. Lissitzky’s writing was definitely easier to understand out of the three passages, his focus on books and how technology allowed for the production of books to be elevated was interesting. If I’m not mistaken, all three authors seem to have this similar view that we, as a society, consumers of art and designers must not be fixate on the past, but aim to strive for the future and continue to make progress.