Author: Anna C. (Page 2 of 2)

The avant-garde manifestos of Marinetti, Rodchenko and Lissitzky spoke about the balance of language and technology in relation to society.

The Marinetti reading was hardest for me to understand. At first I thought it was describing a party or a war. But overall I grasped the concept of “time and space, died yesterday”. Marinetti says we created a language that’s omnipresent, everywhere at the same time. Believing that artists put dreams into reality using media of choice. But then he describes the juxtaposition between museums as cemeteries, and how we are only the prolonged version of our ancestors. I took this as, we will follow the same patterns if we do not create our own language.

Rodchenko felt technology was the mortal enemy of art. He also mentioned how art was yesterday, and constructors are today. Referring to the merging of engineers and artists. How artists should be relaxed with technology.

Lissitzky envisions a new language. He believes they are formed by different relationships with the world, space, shape and color. The relationships allow for new books to be made. We should not be satisfied with just a jacket, we need the whole book to take shape. Lissitzky refers to the significance of the daguerreotypes and how they were at the forefront of their time. He describes this as “the machine itself supporting manual processes by mechanical ones’ ‘. Today as a graphic designer one of our tools is adobe, which comprises language, shape, and color. I related this to previous classes when we spoke about prosumer. Lissitzky also mentions the dematerialization of the digital world. If anything we have become more materialistic and we constantly change our opinions and or repurpose technology. However it might just be me, most things don’t feel original anymore. Almost, if not all ideas are inspired by another artist. Although they are all connected through adaptation in the responsibility of knowing the message and understanding multiple ways of sharing the information. The way a book or theater show is created in a picture frame style of theatrics but then watching from different seats changes how the living movement develops into telling a story that’s new each time. 

Prior to the readings I just never gave language much credit. I guess because it’s so natural. You either have an interest in learning another language or it’s taught to us from birth, where we naturally overtime grasp onto words, sounds and images. From the readings, Language is a combination of various forms, part inherited and part environmental. It is a set of rules that changes per generation, but it is not living. Only contains the potential life because of time, which is based on the principle of continuity.

Language is distinguishable because it is the system/tool used to communicate. Communication is a way to exchange information. The signified is the concept of the thing, and the signifier is the auditory image association. I associated signs to icons and logos because the language of symbols is silent. It’s viewed not spoken; no matter the size, you need to be able to distinguish what it represents. In addition language influences design. Symbols and Icons are used to convey the communication in a simplified form. Some becoming timeless and universal. For example a pictograph of man and women, is an ideograph of toilets. If/when traveling those same symbols are in airports, hotels and restaurants regardless of the native language. I believe we can accomplish what language can not through design, for example Braille is designed for those blind.

What I found interesting was how writing is assumed to be graphic design because it consists of lines drawn on a flat plane. This was interesting to me because we all have a different handwriting. We learn the same language/system of letters but it has its own individualism by the way we apply pressure to the pen and paper.

For todays complex world language and design are still are the forefront. As humans we have a need for communication. Universal design allows for language barriers to be broken down. Design is forever changing; but just like language there is a foundation of basics traveling through generations. [However there will always be someone judging the design and asking is the design ethical to their culture?]

If I am understanding the readings correctly Armstrong would say that successful designers are connected to society. That their role is to ask not only why but how. Munari would say that design is a vast sector of human activity that creates a living language made up of all the sectors. This language is silently viewed by all, understood by few. Both Armstrong and Munari agree that we need to understand and establish the purpose of past design in order to build the art of today. 

The Design field distinguishes itself from other occupations because it adequately weights out all components, from the drawing table to the finished product. In order to connect art to the public, designers must consider function as well as color psychology. Today’s designers have more of a connection with art and the public, between living and nonliving.

Which is why designers need theoretical questions. Everything is constantly changing. The Munari reading said it perfectly. Art was once images painted, drawn or carved. We could show the visible reality. Since then with the involvement of technology we now see the invisible, through x-rays and microscopes.

What’s debatable is the beauty. I like that design challenges and combines old with new. A decorative vase function was once a vase in a kitchen containing oil, and is now on display in a museum for its intricate and ornate detail. Yet we still have vases, the purpose has just changed, it holds flowers. I connected this to buildings. The ones built now are more streamlined. Many windows, often floor to ceiling. With little to no outside detail. No gargoyles, just spikes to remove the pigeons. As designers the goal is to understand and visually create to the changing needs of society and social activities.