F.T. Marinetti, “Manifesto of Futurism”; Aleksandr Rodchenko, “Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group”; and El Lissitzky, “Our Book”, Graphic Design Theory: Readings From the Field by Helen Armstrong, pages 19-31.
- What common views do these artists/designers share and where might they disagree?
- Which elements of these texts remain relevant for the present, and which elements are problematic?
- Using visual examples from the Futurists and Constructivists, present the ways that political and economic power can be expressed through visual design.
- How has the communication process changed since the early 20th Century, specifically with regard to “feedback” and “noise”?
There are a number of connections and disconnections between the written works of Marinetti’s “Manifesto of Futurism”, Rodchenko’s “Manifesto of the Constructivist Group” and Lissitzky’s “Our Book”, all ranging from the years 1909 to 1926. While they may differ in their intended values, they surprisingly share a number of ideas, one of which includes their approach to technology and machinery. To F.T. Marinetti in his manifesto of futurism, he approaches technology, more so machinery, with an understanding of the danger it brings to people both literally and metaphorically. This is suggested in the language of the manifesto that connects machinery such as railways, locomotives and planes being technology that can be ever so dangerous, but also bring progress and adrenaline to humanity. In Rodchenko’s manifesto of the constructivist group, he approaches technology with a strong opposition. Technology in the constructivist eye is considered a “mortal enemy”, due to the understanding that designers should be able to form their own works from start to finish without help, and without cheating to the end. This brings to question; to what extent is the involvement of technology in the design process a major setback in terms of authorship? If one uses technology in order to prevent doing something by hand, does it make them lazy or efficient? Does authenticity remain? Finally, Lissitzky’s “Our Book” also suggests the uncertainty technologies bring to the art process, and questions whether an ever developing society is benefitting from it. Thanks to the printing press, reading has become nationwide and granted opportunities for people of all nations to learn and grow. Lizzitsky notes how children are learning a new language by reading at a young age, and because of this they are growing much differently with new understandings of the world, even thinking they will bring forth more literature in a growing cycle. I immediately thought of this being compared to present time, as our society develops and technology grows, babies as young as a few months old are being introduced to and learning from technology to aid their growth. iPads are utilized for teaching children to learn technology and grow much faster than older generations do, meaning they may have better chances of furthering technological advancement and producing works similarly. Since the early 20th century, the communication process has changed in regards to feedback and noise. Noise especially has multiple meanings, in regards to its context. In imagery, specifically photography, the amount of noise refers to the grain in a print or image, making the image less clear and more textured in a sense. In literal terms, it also references the amount of sound. In a third sense, it kind of represents when there is an unorganized, almost overwhelming fashion. An image becomes distracting when it has too much noise, and say, a library also becomes distracting when there is too much noise. F.T. Marinetti used noise to create this feeling, in both type and imagery, with posters that have no defined structure and an assortment of letters, shapes and patterns all throughout.
Hypothesis Annotations:
Recent Comments