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.
- Consider if and how these manifestos addressed the concepts of authorship/ownership, universal systems of communication, and social/political engagement.
- 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?
- How has the communication process changed since the early 20th Century, specifically with regard to “feedback” and “noise”?
In my opinion, these manifestos have addressed the concepts of authorship and ownership. In these manifestos, they are outputting their ideas, concepts, and states to the audience, so they drive the development of futurism and constructivism. They began to emphasize the innovation and form of artistic style. When art is stuck in a bottleneck period and cannot be further developed, it means that “the best time for the emergence of new sports”. They break the rules and try new styles, new ways of expression, and new ways of creating art. At that time, the universal systems of communication were still single. Books, letters, paintings, newspapers, posters, and magazines are channels for people to obtain knowledge and information. Therefore, I believe that universal systems of communication and society and politics influence each other. The reason is: that society, politics, and war will affect people’s lives, and artists will use these events to create art and guide and influence people’s ideas. Vision is the focus and action that can easily affect and attract people, and the combination of vision and text produces greater power. So art can include the concept of social and political participation. This is also one of the responsibilities of artists because many times social events and political correctness are an artist’s task. This is why a large number of images and texts and artistry appeared in previous movements.
These artists and designers all share a common view that in the same object or event, artistic form and expression should be innovative and changed. Art should not be static. But they hold different opinions on the choice of tools. F. T. Marinetti believes that we should create in a more radical, stimulating, and enthusiastic way, and bring the audience an “explosive” sense with the dual power of poetry and vision. Aleksandr Rodchenko and El Lissitzky hold opposite thoughts. Aleksandr Rodchenko is more inclined to use traditional and physical tools, such as paintbrush and oil colour. He believes that technology is the enemy of art and the culprit hindering the development of art. But El Lissitzky thinks that technology is to open a new door for future artists so that they can have more tools to create and realize the creation that could not be done before because of technology.
I agree with the point of view that in “The Book” by El Lissitzky, he notes,” Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution. With time, different variations of the same theme are composed around the invention……“So far, we can find that this is true by observing history. However, because it has been changing different “various clothes” (styles), it is hard to react at the moment. They have been expressed in different ways and are essentially the same theme. But emotion and the view of the period affected the artists’ thinking. “We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.”(Manifesto of Futurism F. T. Marinetti,1909) I think the elements in this sentence are problematic, which means that are too extreme, violent, and unreasonable. At any time, libraries, museums, etc., all have the meaning of existence, and they also represent a period of history. Therefore, we should not choose destruction and violence because of disagreement. Too extreme will not only hurt your opponent but also yourself.
Since the early 20th century, the communication process has changed a lot. The first is the breakthrough in technology — electronic products, and then the development of software — Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Before the 20th century, most of the ways people communicated were letters, telegrams， etc. No matter how the masses or artists make “noise” is limited, and so is the “feedback”. When the masses want “feedback” from authors, their channels are limited. It is also tedious for authors to collect “feedback”. The best way is probably to interview and write letters in the suggestion box. But now, the way that people make “noise” has become simple, and there are many forms. “Feedback” is also simpler, typing comments directly under the author’s post, or voting on the software. In our era, both “noise” and “feedback” are more easily seen, heard, and noticed.
Annotation:
Leave a Reply