Pioneering Modernism

"Pioneering Modernism" by Paul Greenhalgh was an article which discussed both the modernism movement itself, and its origins and evolution. The modernist movement, as discussed in the article, began with a rough start. The essential “rules” of modernism were unclear, and various schools practiced their own different forms and executions of what modernism was. This lead to a really disjointed and not comprehensive, even, clean start for the modernist movement. Because of this, many different styles and efforts eventually all fell under the category of “modernism.” Greenhalgh talks about how the followers of modernism wanted to change the world through their design. These designers believed that by creating clean, sleek, simple pieces, people would feel the same way—clean, effective, new, ect. This clean, sleek feeling that accompanies modernism was what tied modernism in with mass-production of products. For example, instead of someone hand-making a wooden chair and hand-carving details and designs into in, a modernist chair would eliminate any carved designs, and strip that chair down to the sleekest, simplest design which was easily manufactured. The art and design pieces which I was able to see at the Bauhaus exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art all fall into this category of modernist art and design, and the Bauhaus’s pieces were arguably some of the most successful of any school at the time.

We're Here To Be Bad

I loved "We're Here To Be Bad", because it seemed to shed light on a different side of the graphic design world that we haven’t discussed in great detail in class. “We’re Here To Be Bad” talked about how “bad” graphic designers are the most effective because they, essentially, push the envelope. These designers make their consumers uncomfortable because they push the envelope when it comes to their designs. By being different and unexpected, these “bad” designers are able to really catch a consumer’s eye. Breaking the “rules” of graphic design is very interesting to me, because I feel like a lot of designers today follow the rules too closely. Many designs look so similar to each other because they all stick to a very clean and simple motif that I, frankly, am sick of. By being “bad” and bending or breaking the rules, designers find all new ways to represent things or express a message, and this can lead to more eye-catching designs. If no one ever broke the rules when it comes to design, we’d never see anything new, different, or exciting in the design world—everything would continue to look exactly the same. I think that the “bad” designers discussed in this article really have their own sense of style and are more creative than the designers who never stray from the traditional, standard graphic design style.

Media, Gender And Identity

In “Media, Gender and Identity”, written by David Gauntlett, the author discusses the connections between media and consumers/the general public. This reading develops more on the idea of advertising and branding, and the importance of both of these aspects in the world of buying and selling products. I agree that advertising is extremely important because it is a consumer’s first impression of a product. Advertising is key because it introduces a consumer to a product that they may or may not have discovered on their own. After being introduced to a product by advertising and becoming interested in it, it is then up to the consumer to research or further become familiar with a product before they decide whether or not to purchase it.

Advertising is crucial to selling products, but it also creates cultural changes and trends in the world. As I discussed in my last post, certain products and brands inevitably become more desireable than others based on their advertising and branding, rather than the quality of the products, or the integrity of the brand. I feel as though this is unavoidable, and while some consumers may buy into advertising and branding, it is ultimately the consumer’s responsibility to keep a clear head and to do research and know what they are buying when they make a purchase. Any consumer who bases all of their knowledge of a product based off of the product’s advertising or the company’s branding is ill-informed and will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Branding The Individual

“Branding The Individual” was a reading we were assigned in class which was written by Jane Pavitt. The article was really interesting to me because it discussed brands and how the identities of certain brands affect that brand’s relationship with consumers. The whole idea of branding, and how just a logo, or a “lifestyle” represented in a brand’s advertising can sell a product to consumers is fascinating to me. Before the television and internet of the modern world, consumers didn’t have access to as much advertising, so branding wasn’t as important. In our modernist society, however, companies spend more money on branding and advertising their products than they do on the manufacturing of the products themselves. This essentially means that we, as consumers, often find ourselves choosing to buy one product over another simply because of the branding and advertising which surrounds that product, rather than buying based on the actual quality or design of the piece. In the article, Pavitt gives examples of branding affecting consumerism in the real world when she highlights a young girl named Nicole, who talks about how branding has affected her relationships in school. Nicole discusses how important it is in her school to wear clothing with actual brand names stamped out on it—such as t-shirts that say ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH. These t-shirts aren’t at all different from regular t-shirts from any other store, except for the fact that the Abercrombie brand name is stamped out across them. This idea of branding is somewhat frightening when I really think about the fact that even I am guilty of purchasing items more so for the brand name than what I actually know about the quality of the item I’m buying.

First Things First Manifesto

The “First Things First Manifesto” was one which was published by Adbusters magazine first in 1964 and again, in a revised version, in 1999. The manifesto is one which debates graphic design in the sense of morality. The manifesto talks about the consequences of working for and creating designs for causes that create a negative output. Designing for causes like gun manufacturers or the tobacco industry would be examples of causes that aren’t exactly morally correct. I really agreed with First Things First because I personally wouldn’t choose to design or work for something or someone that went against my personal beliefs. If I felt that my designs would contribute to something negative, I wouldn’t take the job.

In my last post, I talked about the “Impotence Of Being Earnest” article and how it’s unfair to expect designers to only design for “good causes”. The issue posed in “First Things First” is different though, because it is simply a matter of staying away from “bad causes.” This is something that all designers can do with a lot more ease than only designing for “good causes”, and it stops companies and corporations who have a negative message or affect on the world from prevailing through the use of graphic design and advertising.

The Impotence Of Being Earnest

Today in the design world, many designers are forced to choose between creating designs for consumers or designs for causes. In “The Impotence of Being Earnest,” Matt Soar addresses the relationships between these designers and the audience and purpose which they design for. Some designers choose to use their talent and focus it on designing for environmental causes, or educational purposes. I personally was wondering how these designers could financially afford to design for causes rather than for high-paying consumers, but quickly realized that the designers didn’t need the consumers to survive. These designers are often the ones who are already well-established, have money in the bank, and do not necessarily need to design for consumers anymore to put food on their table. Other designers, however, are not given such a luxury, and need to try to make a living off of their design work. Designing “for a good cause” isn’t very lucrative and most designers simply can’t live by doing work of this nature. The ability of the upper-class designers to design for worthy causes is something I can definitely appreciate, but I also understand the need to create more commercial designs for companies and consumers in order to make a living, and I certainly can’t hold that fact against designers who don’t make a ton of money. I personally feel that if I had to design for a living, I wouldn’t be concerned with designing for a cause or discriminating against certain clients because the jobs they required of me were not moral-based ones. Design is needed for all types of situations, be they charitable or commercial.

Buckminster Fuller

The “Speculative Prehistory of Humanity” Buckminster Fuller piece was one which discussed the connections between design and money, math, and science. The connections between design and science and math weren’t completely clear to me prior to “Speculative Prehistory of Humanity”, but have now become clearer. Buckminster fuller feels that nature is important to design, so this piece certainly ties in with the later reading, “The Sincerest Form Of Flattery.” I personally am not a design major, but many of the articles we read on design really interest me and seem to apply to other aspects of visual arts as well. This piece wasn’t quite as interesting to me because I’m not a huge fan of neither math nor science, and it’s hard for me to enjoy their contributions to design being that I really don’t enjoy either topic.