According to the author, Walter Gropius, art isn’t something that can be fully developed in school or any kind of learning. Since school is here to teach you formats, rules, and techniques. Not the creativities and ideas. For example, the school will teach you what are primary colors, secondary colors, and metallic colors. Some rules would tell you what color mix with what color will create a certain sense of feelings. Yes, and it’s something that you need to know before you start to create your art pieces. But art is not fully following the rule. Is about how you use these concepts in your ideas. If every art student got out of school, and follow the rules and formats that they learned in school. It will create repetition of “art”, and these pieces of art don’t count as art. It’s more toward programs, the mathematical sense…etc. Designers can’t learn art totally in school, they need experience and research. For example, research a company or activities before you start the art. Or maybe have a trial, or experience of it.

Typography is another way to communicate with people. It’s a strong way to communicate with people since typography can deliver information quickly and efficiently. It will cause less misunderstanding compared to a picture or art itself. Typography is a way to make language visible. Typography has risen when the technologies are being more developed. As it rises, more typefaces are being developed. Typography is about readability and legibility. Most of the time typography is playing with missing words, consciousness, and impression of words to create curiosity in people. And the use of this curiosity in people to finish reading of the information that you wanted to deliver or provided.

However, only having typography isn’t having much fun. Since it’s playing off with positioning, colors, and typefaces. So Typophoto is being developed. Typophoto is typography with photos. Which is something that we often see and use today. Typophoto can create better visuals compared to typography itself.

While reading about “the academy” it was interesting to see how some of the things mentioned that were taught are still being currently taught today. For instance, the design process, which I learn in almost all of my classes, is one of the major things taught. The reading also described techniques and elements that sound very similar to the elements and principles of design taught today. 

Art is something that can not be taught alone. Art schools give artist knowledge on tools and past artists. It dips their toes into the community of fellow artists. It can build networking and community so artists can learn and grow from each other. However, it is also up to the individual in order to grow. It is the hard work and practice the student puts into it outside of their studies with the knowledge taught at the schools that can make them the best artist they can possibly be.

“The theoretical curriculum of art academy combined with the practical curriculum of an arts and crafts school was to constitute the basis of a comprehensive system for gifted students.” This quote shows to me that being gifted isn’t just enough. Art schools teach gifted students how to grow and cultivate their gifts. I will relate this idea to WandaVision because I am still recovering from the series finale this week. Wanda is a gifted witch but without the right teachings of the history of witches before her and techniques and spells she is just a powerful being with no real control of her own powers or talent. She needs a teacher and this idea is just like how any artist needs someone to teach the fundamentals in order to really use their gifts to their full potential.

I think what most artist and designers tend to forget the art of the past is not about visual-expression but about visual-form, say for example, typography can be read not just literally but also by its feature, dedicated to the typeface and there’s a huge variation of typeface that can be read without any disturbance of design modification. Based on every type of profession of art plays an important role for society because everything from arts to typography, photography and more have the ability to emphasize its language by form which simulates or reflects mood and expression. In terms of language, typography comes to relation with language, art and design. Typography in general plays an important role for society because typography demonstrates a strong field of communication, language is visible to the viewer and with the variation of typeface delivers a unique language that speaks more than just language such as; expression, mood, motives, etc. I think in Bauhaus’s idea can influence the foundation of vision and inspiration, the given space represents a power that all artists and designer can discover through his/ her inner vision, delivering creativity.

Typography is the most common and effective way to communicate with others and get a message across, whether it’s used by graphic designers or other people.  From the reading, typography has gone through a lot of changes and technology has had a Porto to play over the years.  Typo-photo which is the incorporation of type and and photos to create a visual communication, was created by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and is used in graphic design almost like muscle memory today.  Moholy-Nagy was a photographer and painter, who was an advocate for technology to play a role in the arts and design and to help spread the news of what was happening in world.  The “technician and his machine” that was mentioned by Moholo-Nagy, that were meant to fulfill the needs that were need at the time, have paved the way to the graphic designer of today, who’s role today is similar the the technician where graphic designer use the typo-photo method a lot is their visual communication. The art of the past is missing variety and exploration of new concept, maybe due to limitations of technology at the time, Mohloy-Nagy also believed that the future of typographic methods are with new technologies.

When it comes to language, there’s a barrier due to so many different languages that are present and no universal way to communicate between the different languages.  Herbert Bayer believed science and art should come together and bridge the gap between.

Education is a need for artist, whether it’s self taught or in education institutions, it gives the artist the necessary tools, knowledge and community where they can grow and learn, however school and education alone isn’t enough for the artist to create and grow. Artist should create, make mistakes and improve, education helps but not without practice.  Art and design in the  21^st century has developed with the help of technology and different ideas, in order for the Bauhaus ideas to remain relevant today, they would have to be more socially conscious about what’s happening around them and design messages that speak out for or about social issues today.

as role for a designer with photography and typography is to coveny the brand message it grabs attention of viewer and build hierarchy. according to bayer the missing thing from art is approach of craftsmenship “they recognized that in all human endeavors a technology had adjustedto man’s demands; while no markedchange or improvement had taken placein man’s most profound invention, printing-writing, since gutenberg.the manual skill and approach of the craftsman was seen to be inevitablyreplaced by mechanical techniques”. it seems that bayer seemed scared that technology will have negative effects of design. according to MoholyNagy is needs of the moment”The technician has his machine at hand: satisfaction of the needs of the moment. But basically much more: he is the pioneer of the new socialstratification, he paves the way for the future”. the role of language of art and design is able to send a message out to the viewer. the way in the 21st century that is revelent for bauhaus is to find the relation of typogrpahy being used in 20 and 21 centuries in papers and advertising.

The three readings from this week were rather interesting. One of the readings was written in a form of poetry, which made it difficult for me to grasp at first whilst the others was more straightforward. The artists from the readings envisioned a future where they believed that the art of an artist has to be more than representational art, which was what the typical artist was known for during those times. The writers believed that yesterday’s artist has to adopt new qualities of being today’s constructors and assemblers. Taking on a higher responsibility as an artist. Artists have to get off their high horse and become more in touch with their engineering side while still being creative. This will allow them to contribute to society in a more meaningful way. One thing the readings had in common was the idea of technology and how it would affect. 

Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was quite effective with his poetic reading but I still feel like his views were stagnant and that he did not believe technology was going to help the art community. Although Marinetti was experimenting with the early form of graphic designs I still feel like his manifesto was overwhelming. Oppose to constructivists, like Aleksandr Rodchenko, who believed that art should be made in a way that it has function and meaning, that way it can last forever. Him and his wife wanted to do a service for their community and the world. They also refined several art designs and helped the development of graphic design to what we know it today via mass production. They didn’t see themselves as artists of fine art instead branded themselves as engineers. Last but not least, I believe technology came and changed the whole game; revolutionizing both the art and graphic design industries. It helped with its development and reach internationally. My favorite quote from the reading was “Technology is the mortal enemy of art”; yesterday’s artists used fine arts, whereas the designers of today use’s technology to help advance society in a positive way.

From what I understood from the article is that, designers need to develop and adapt to society in order to advance. This article I felt was similar to the other articles as they all speak on Technology and their perspective on how it effects us. It has become apart of our everyday life and to past artists such as Filippo Marinetti had an extremist approach towards his ideas and wanted to see a new type of future. Marinetti’s view on museums and comparisons show just how strongly they felt towards the idea of museums, and while in a way I can agree, places like museums can still give an artist ideas for any piece of art they ever come up with in the future. I think Marinetti also states how looking at old art and admiring it isn’t really a way of advancing, we are draining our energy into old dead work, which I kind of disagree with because I feel that every idea or concept can come from something that may have seen before or can bring inspiration to make your own form of art. At the same time, it makes sense because it is true that people rarely go to museums and when they do it’s maybe like 1-2 times in a year, and each time you go it will most likely be the same art like a cemetery would be with all the tombstones. El Lissitzki’s point of view on art was a very interesting one, they viewed every invention in art as a single event in time with no evolution, he had the thought that art and design would follow the idea of ” dematerialization”. Which in fact is true, because the more and more society evolves, the more technical we become, In just the span of 15 Years our technology has advanced dramatically, and doctor appointments, shopping, selling art, etc. can all be done virtually through your laptop or phone, and when it comes to making art, we now stray a bit away from hands on art, and now perform more art through computer software. Artists have fought to keep a balance, but one has to adapt to the technology to maintain having a smooth creative and communitive process.

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.