Great words of wisdom about life from a man with a life time within design, Milton Glaser.
The following speech was delivered by Milton Glaser at the AIGA Voice Conference on 23rd March 2002. We thank Mr. Glaser for his kind permission to use the text.
This Is What I Have Learned
by Milton Glaser
Like all of us I was in a state of shock after September 11th. The trauma and madness of the event stirred up all the fears about annihilation and uncertainty of my earliest childhood. For six or seven weeks I could think of nothing else and spent my time trying not to feel powerless and impotent. I wanted to use my skill and training as a designer to affect the situation. I was not alone in this regard. Many designers in and out of New York, feeling they had a public responsibility, produced images and words to help us deal with this unprecedented event. I felt proud to be part of a profession where serving the needs of the public was considered appropriate and necessary.
All I ever wanted to do was to make images and create form. This instinct for form-making seems to be something that is very characteristic of our entire species. It's one of the things that almost defines humankind. I like the idea of cultures that do not have an idea of art as a separate activity from their daily life, such as many African groups, where there isn't a word that approaches the idea of art. They are very interested in containing magic but that is another thing. Among the Balinese, there is no word for art. They just say 'we do things the best that we can.' Which is a nice way to think about what we all do. I am going to tell you everything that I know about the practice of design. It is a sort of collage of bits and pieces that I have assembled over 50 years. It includes a lot of things I've said before but I've repackaged them rather attractively. This is what I've learned.
Number 1
YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE.
It took me a long time to learn this rule because at the beginning of my practice I felt the opposite. Professionalism inferred that you didn't necessarily have to like the people that you worked for, and should maintain an arms length relationship to them. As a result, I never had lunch with a client or saw them socially. Some years ago I realised that I was deluded. In looking back, I discovered that all the work I had done that was meaningful and significant came out of an affectionate relationship with a client. Affection, trust and sharing some common ground is the only way good work can be achieved. Otherwise it is a bitter and hopeless struggle.
Number 2
IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE NEVER HAVE A JOB.
One night I was sitting in my car outside Columbia University where my wife Shirley was studying Anthropology. While I was waiting I was listening to the radio and heard an interviewer ask 'Now that you have reached 75 have you any advice for our audience about how to prepare for your old age?' An irritated voice said 'Why is everyone asking me about old age these days?' I recognised the voice as John Cage. I am sure that many of you know who he was - the composer and philosopher who influenced people like Jasper Johns and Merce Cunningham as well as the music world in general. I knew him slightly and admired his contribution to our times. 'You know, I do know how to prepare for old age' he said. 'Never have a job, because if you have a job someday someone will take it away from you and then you will be unprepared for your old age. For me, it has always been the same every since the age of 12. I wake up in the morning and I try to figure out how am I going to put bread on the table today? It is the same at 75, I wake up every morning and I think how am I going to put bread on the table today? I am exceeding well prepared for my old age' he said.
Number 3
SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC AVOID THEM.
This is a subtext of number one. There was in the sixties an old geezer named Fritz Perls who was a gestalt therapist. Gestalt therapy derives from art history, it proposes you must understand the 'whole' before you can understand the details. What you have to look at is the entire culture, the entire family and community and so on. Perls proposed that in all relationships people could be either toxic or nourishing towards one another. It is not necessarily true that the same person will be toxic or nourishing in every relationship, but the combination of any two people in a relationship produces toxic or nourishing consequences. And the important thing that I can tell you is that there is a test to determine whether someone is toxic or nourishing in your relationship with them. Here is the test: You have spent some time with this person, either you have a drink or go for dinner or you go to a ball game. It doesn't matter very much but at the end of that time you observe whether you are more energised or less energised. Whether you are tired or whether you are exhilarated. If you are more tired then you have been poisoned. If you have more energy you have been nourished. The test is almost infallible.
Number 4
PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ENOUGH or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT.
Early in my career I couldn't wait to become a professional. That was my complete aspiration in my early life because professionals seemed to know everything - not to mention they got paid well for it. Later I discovered after working for a while that professionalism itself was a limitation. After all, what professionalism means in most cases is limiting risks. So if you want to get your car fixed you go to a mechanic who knows how to deal with transmission problems in the same way each time. I suppose if you needed brain surgery you wouldn't want the doctor to fool around and invent a new way of connecting your nerve endings. Please doc, do it in the way that has worked in the past.
Unfortunately in our field, in a so-called creative activity - I've begun to hate that word. I especially hate when it is used as a noun. I shudder when I hear someone called a creative. Anyhow, when you are doing something in a recurring way to diminish risk or doing it in the same way as you have done it before, it is clear why professionalism is not enough. After all, what is desirable in our field, is continuous transgression. Professionalism does not allow for that because transgression has to encompass the possibility of failure and if you are professional your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat success. Professionalism as a lifetime aspiration is a limited goal.
Number 5
LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE.
Being a child of modernism I have heard this mantra all my life. Less is more. One morning upon awakening I realised that it was total nonsense, it is an absurd proposition and also fairly meaningless. But it sounds great because it contains within it a paradox that is resistant to understanding. But it simply does not obtain when you think about the visual of the history of the world. If you look at a Persian rug, you cannot say that less is more because you realise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every shift in form is absolutely essential for its aesthetic success. You cannot prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way superior. That also goes for the work of Gaudi, Persian miniatures, art nouveau and everything else. However, I have an alternative to the proposition that I believe is more appropriate. 'Just enough is more.'
Number 6
STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED
I think this idea first occurred to me when I was looking at a marvellous etching of a bull by Picasso. It was an illustration for a story by Balzac called The Hidden Masterpiece. I am sure that you all know it. It is a bull that is expressed in 12 different styles going from very naturalistic version of a bull to an absolutely reductive single line abstraction and everything else along the way. What is clear just from looking at this single print is that style is irrelevant. In every one of these cases, from extreme abstraction to acute naturalism they are extraordinary regardless of the style. It's absurd to be loyal to a style. It does not deserve your loyalty. I must say that for old design professionals it is a problem because the field is driven by economic consideration more than anything else. Style change is usually linked to economic factors, as all of you know who have read Marx. Also fatigue occurs when people see too much of the same thing too often. So every ten years or so there is a stylistic shift and things are made to look different. Typefaces go in and out of style and the visual system shifts a little bit. If you are around for a long time as a designer, you have an essential problem of what to do. Incidentally, it's popular for designers to claim they have no style but this is generally not true. Most good designers have developed a vocabulary, a form that is their own. It is one of the ways that they distinguish themselves from their peers, and establish their identity in the field. How you maintain your own belief system and preferences becomes a real balancing act. As a career progresses the question of whether you pursue change or whether you maintain your own distinct form becomes difficult. We have all seen the work of illustrious practitioners that suddenly look old-fashioned or, more precisely, belonging to another moment in time. And there are sad stories such as the one about Cassandre, arguably the greatest graphic designer of the twentieth century, who couldn't make a living at the end of his life and committed suicide. But the point is that anybody who is in this for the long haul has to decide how to respond to change in the zeitgeist. What is it that people now expect that they formerly didn't want? And how to respond to that desire in a way that doesn't violate your sense of integrity and purpose.
Number 7
HOW YOU LIVE CHANGES YOUR BRAIN.
The brain is the most responsive organ of the body. Actually it is the organ that is most susceptible to change and regeneration of all the organs in the body. I have a friend named Gerald Edelman who was a great scholar of brain studies and says that the analogy of the brain to a computer is pathetic. The brain is actually more like an overgrown garden that is constantly growing and throwing off seeds, regenerating and so on. And he believes that the brain is susceptible, in a way that we are not fully conscious of, to almost every experience of our life and every encounter we have. I was fascinated by a story in a newspaper a few years ago about the search for perfect pitch. A group of scientists decided that they were going to find out why certain people have perfect pitch. You know certain people hear a note precisely and are able to replicate it at exactly the right pitch. Some people have relative pitch; perfect pitch is rare even among musicians. The scientists discovered - I don't know how - that among people with perfect pitch the brain was different. Certain lobes of the brain had undergone some change or deformation that was always present with those who had perfect pitch. This was interesting enough in itself. But then they discovered something even more fascinating. If you took a bunch of kids and taught them to play the violin at the age of 4 or 5 after a couple of years some of them developed perfect pitch, and in all of those cases their brain structure had changed. Well what could that mean for the rest of us? We tend to believe that the mind affects the body and the body affects the mind, although we do not generally believe that everything we do affects the brain. I am convinced that if someone was to yell at me from across the street my brain could be affected and my life might changed. That is why your mother always said, 'Don't hang out with those bad kids.' Mama was right. Thought changes our life and our behaviour. I also believe that drawing works in the same way. I am a great advocate of drawing, not in order to become an illustrator, but because I believe drawing changes the brain in the same way as the search to create the right note changes the brain of a violinist. Drawing also makes you attentive. It makes you pay attention to what you are looking at, which is not so easy.
Number 8
DOUBT IS BETTER THAN CERTAINTY.
Everyone always talks about confidence and believing in what you do. I remember once going to a class in Kundalini yoga where the teacher said that, spirituality speaking, if you believed that you had achieved enlightenment you have merely arrived at your limitation. I think that is also true in a more practical sense. Deeply held beliefs of any kind prevent you from being open to experience, which is why I find all firmly held ideological positions questionable. It makes me nervous when someone believes too deeply or too much. I think that being sceptical and questioning all deeply held beliefs is essential. Of course we must know the difference between scepticism and cynicism because cynicism is as much a restriction of one's openness to the world as passionate belief is. They are sort of twins.
Number 9
SOLVING THE PROBLEM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING RIGHT.
Ultimately, if we're lucky, we begin to understand that always being right is a delusion. There is a significant sense of self-righteousness in both the art and design world. Perhaps it begins at school. Art school often promote the Ayn Rand model of the single personality resisting the ideas of the surrounding culture. The theory is that as an individual you can transform the world, which is true up to a point but as someone once said 'In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world.' One of the signs of a damaged ego is absolute certainty.
Schools encourage the idea of not compromising and defending your work at all costs. Well, in our work the issue is usually all about the nature of compromise. You just have to know when compromise is appropriate. Blind pursuit of your own ends which excludes the possibility that others may be right does not allow for the fact that in design we are always dealing with a triad - the client, the audience and you.
Ideally, making everyone win through acts of accommodation is desirable. But self-righteousness is often the enemy. Self-righteousness and narcissism generally come out of some sort of childhood trauma, which we do not have to go into. It is a consistently mischievous element in human affairs. Some years ago I read a most remarkable thing about love, that also applies to the nature of co-existing with others. It was a quotation by Iris Murdoch from her obituary. It read 'Love is the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real.' Isn't that fantastic! The best insight on the subject of love that one can imagine.
Last year someone gave me a charming book by Roger Rosenblatt called 'Ageing Gracefully'. I got it on my birthday. I did not appreciate the title at the time but it contains a series of rules for ageing gracefully. The first rule is the best. Rule number one is that 'it doesn't matter.' 'It doesn't matter that what you think. Follow this rule and it will add decades to your life. It does not matter if you are late or early, if you are here or there, if you said it or didn't say it, if you are clever or if you were stupid. If you were having a bad hair day or a no hair day or if your boss looks at you cockeyed or your boyfriend or girlfriend looks at you cockeyed, if you are cockeyed. If you don't get that promotion or prize or house or if you do - it doesn't matter.' Wisdom at last. A week or two later I read a joke that I haven't been able to get out of my head. A butcher was opening his market one morning and as he did a rabbit popped his head through the door. The butcher was surprised when the rabbit inquired 'Got any cabbage?' The butcher said 'This is a meat market - we sell meat, not vegetables.' The rabbit hopped off. The next day the butcher is opening the shop and sure enough the rabbit pops his head round and says 'You got any cabbage?' The butcher now irritated says 'Listen you little rodent I told you yesterday we sell meat, we do not sell vegetables and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those floppy ears to the floor.' The rabbit disappeared hastily and nothing happened for a week. Then one morning the rabbit popped his head around the corner and said 'Got any nails?' The butcher said 'No.' The rabbit said 'Ok. Got any cabbage?' My last rule is based on an article I wrote in the AIGA Journal some years ago and also refers to the sense of public responsibility I mentioned in my opening remarks.
Number 10
TELL THE TRUTH.
The rabbit joke is relevant because it occurred to me that looking for a cabbage in a butcher's shop might be like looking for ethics in the design field. It may not be the most obvious place to find either. It's interesting to observe that in the new AIGA's code of ethics there is a significant amount of useful information about appropriate behaviour towards clients and other designers, but not a word about a designer's relationship to the public. In daily life we expect a butcher to sell us eatable meat and not to misrepresent his wares. I remember reading that during the Stalin years in Russia that everything labelled veal was actually chicken. I can't imagine what everything labelled chicken was. We can accept certain kinds of misrepresentation, such as fudging about the amount of fat in his hamburger but once a butcher betrays our trust by knowingly selling us spoiled meat we go elsewhere. As a designer, do we have less responsibility to our public than a butcher? Our meat is information. Everyone interested in licensing our field might note that the reason licensing has been invented is to protect the public not designers or clients. 'Do no harm' is an admonition to doctors concerning their relationship to their patients, not to their fellow practitioners or the drug companies. Incidentally, if we were licensed, telling the truth might become more central to what we do.
I went to Las Vegas for the last AIGA convention. Someone once claimed that Vegas was the greatest single work of art the human species has yet produced. I was staying in a hotel called the Venetian, which had more clouds painted on the ceilings of the hallways than had ever been executed in 15th century Venice.
I went up to the reception desk and I said 'I understand that there is a Grand Canal here' and she said 'Yes we have one here.' I said 'Where is it?' She said 'One flight up!'
What a concept. The earth reeled beneath my feet when I thought about it. I took the stairs up and there indeed was the Grand Canal with gondolas and gondoliers who will cheerfully take you to St. Marco Plaza, which was just around the corner in perpetual twilight. If you sit in the plaza even though it is under a plaster ceiling, the waiter will ask you 'Would you like to sit inside or outside?'
One day the plumbing broke down and the ghastly smell started to fill the game rooms. Actually it was very much like Venice in the summertime. I wondered if they might be doing this intentionally. Is there such a thing as a virtual smell? I never found out but on the way back I took a flight that I thought might have been influenced by its proximity to Las Vegas. When I got on board a stewardess came from the back of the cabin carrying steaming towels, I had never seen towels steaming that much - they were billowing. I realised as she approached that the steam wasn't coming from the towels. The source was a wineglass she was balancing on her tray. 'What's in glass?' I inquired. 'Dry ice,' she replied. 'Is that for the drama?' I asked. She said 'yes.'
So I tried to imagine the meaning of all this and where the decision to do it was made. In the boardroom? The advertising agency or perhaps on the flight? Who benefits? I wondered. Could the thinking be that if the glass were steaming enough people would remember and next time they book a flight they would want to go with an airline that had steaming towels? Because if they paid attention to hot towels they might also be attentive to whether the plane was going to land or not. How about the man in the last aisle who put a steaming towel on his face that was ice cold and immediately thought that he had had a stroke. I don't know exactly why this modest misrepresentation bothered me but it did. For one thing, lies erode your ability to act. Ultimately the lie is an instrument of power.
One must start with the presumption that telling the truth is important for human survival, but at this moment of relativism and virtuality, I'm not sure how many would agree on what truth is or how important it is in our private and professional lives.
But we must begin somewhere. The question becomes a professional one, because as designers or communicators (the preferred current description), we are constantly informing the public, transmitting information, and affecting the beliefs and values of others. Should telling the truth be a fundamental requirement of this role? Is there a difference between telling the truth to your wife and family and telling the truth to a general public? What is that difference? We also cannot overlook the pervasive power of advertising, the activity that drives our economy and does more to shape our idea of truth in communication than any single thing.
Two years ago, as I was doing the illustrations for Dante s Purgatory, I got very interested in the Road to Hell and designed a little questionnaire to see where I stood in terms of my own willingness to lie. So here it is - 12 steps in the Road to Hell. I personally have taken a number of them.
1. Designing a package to look bigger on the shelf.
2. Doing an ad for a slow, boring film to make it seem like a light-hearted comedy.
3. Designing a crest for a new vineyard to suggest that it has been in business for a long time.
4. Designing a jacket for a book whose sexual content that you find personally repellent.
5. Designing a medal using steel from the World Trade Center to be sold as a profit-making souvenir of September 11th.
6. Designing an advertising campaign for a company with a history of known discrimination in minority hiring.
7. Designing a package for children whose contents you know are low in nutrition value and high in sugar content.
8. Designing a line of t-shirts for a manufacture that employs child labour.
9. Designing a promotion for a diet product that you know doesn't work.
10. Designing an ad for a political candidate whose policies you believe would be harmful to the general public.
11. Designing a brochure for an SUV that turned over frequently in emergency conditions known to have killed 150 people.
12. Designing an ad for a product whose frequent use could result in the user's death.
The range goes from making a package that seems a little bigger to somebody's death. The interesting thing is how slippery that slope is and how easy it is to move from stage to stage until you arrive at the ultimate human sin. But then again, why talk about it. This discussion has been going on since the dawn of history. But something occurred to me the other night. Imagine that the butcher goes out shopping one morning and before he makes his first purchase a vision of the rabbit's face comes to him. He thinks about how adorable that rabbit was, even though a bit of a pest, and at that moment he decides to buy a pound of cabbage instead of a pound of nails.
About the Author
Milton Glaser was born on June 26 1929, in New York City. He has been a seminal force in graphic design for over fifty years: co-founder of the Push Pin Studios in the '50s and New York Magazine with Clay Felker in the late '60s, as well as establishing his own multi-disciplinary design studio, Milton Glaser, Inc. in the '70s. His works include the I love NY logo, the quintessential Dylan image and more than 400 posters. Milton Glaser has been teaching continuously for 40 years at the School of Visual Arts. Mr. Glaser's new book on design, Art is Work, was published in November 2000.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Need Help Defining Yourself? Have No Fear Ford is Here!
I recieved a mailer from Ford today. It is an 05 college student purchase program. The headline says "define yourself". Just in the nick of time! The cover has an awesome rock poser guy whaling on the guitar in a back breaking pose, which is complimented by colorful and blury pictures of a rock concert and head bangin chic gettin down. I already have my credit card out.
I flip over the card and actually read further...
How do you define yourself?
A free spirit? Adventurous? Wild and crazy or simply laid back? whatever your personality - we have a vehicle to match your own unique style.
I'll spare you guys the rest but it goes on to talk about $500 cash bonus (which is foot noted for some fine print) and a chance to enter and win the ford "define your prize" giveaway (another foot noted event) I can get an itunes gift card, or an ipod photo, or $10,000. YAY! (I've never seen so many exlamation points on such a small piece of paper!)
I wish there where html tags for emotions cause I'm pissed and not sure if all the sarcasim is coming through my blog right now. How did they get my address? Why are they sending me this bullshit? And why are they wasting so much energy sending out this bullshit? Does it really work... ever... what the dilly yo? Someone please graduate and teach Ford some "truth in advertising" and not a bunch of new and shiny bullshit.
I have to say I do feel that your vechicle is an extention of you and your personality but not a definition of it.(Unless you're shallow and need a car to define you. Maybe the market Ford is targeting here?) Why is such importance placed on the things we own? I've heard many quotes about material things, ecspecially well designed material things having souls. I disagree, even in the case of well designed artifacts, they are still just things. I'm not tryin to slam design, but any importance/personality/"soul" that an object posseses is put there by us as owners, or an advertisements as sellsmen. It is rediculous to me that a car, house, t-shirt, etc. could define me or my personality. I think the opposite is true we, as owners/consumers, define it. We are the ones with the power to place impartance on objects.
OK my point... you're not you're fucking car you're something greater, have some self respect.
I flip over the card and actually read further...
How do you define yourself?
A free spirit? Adventurous? Wild and crazy or simply laid back? whatever your personality - we have a vehicle to match your own unique style.
I'll spare you guys the rest but it goes on to talk about $500 cash bonus (which is foot noted for some fine print) and a chance to enter and win the ford "define your prize" giveaway (another foot noted event) I can get an itunes gift card, or an ipod photo, or $10,000. YAY! (I've never seen so many exlamation points on such a small piece of paper!)
I wish there where html tags for emotions cause I'm pissed and not sure if all the sarcasim is coming through my blog right now. How did they get my address? Why are they sending me this bullshit? And why are they wasting so much energy sending out this bullshit? Does it really work... ever... what the dilly yo? Someone please graduate and teach Ford some "truth in advertising" and not a bunch of new and shiny bullshit.
I have to say I do feel that your vechicle is an extention of you and your personality but not a definition of it.(Unless you're shallow and need a car to define you. Maybe the market Ford is targeting here?) Why is such importance placed on the things we own? I've heard many quotes about material things, ecspecially well designed material things having souls. I disagree, even in the case of well designed artifacts, they are still just things. I'm not tryin to slam design, but any importance/personality/"soul" that an object posseses is put there by us as owners, or an advertisements as sellsmen. It is rediculous to me that a car, house, t-shirt, etc. could define me or my personality. I think the opposite is true we, as owners/consumers, define it. We are the ones with the power to place impartance on objects.
OK my point... you're not you're fucking car you're something greater, have some self respect.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Russian Constructivism
I'm writing paper on the Russian Constructivism in Hitsroty of Modern Design class.
I was thinking about the designers back then and designers today.
I belive we, as today's designers have courage and willing-to-do-mind as much
as those constructivists in Russia in early 1920's.
But what is not really working is that whole groups of designers do not cooperate
each other, instead, they are making the other designers look bad.
The corporate designers trying to fight with each other in very nasty way - I think.
And It is all brought up by the consumers.
I wish there are someone or something who can bring all of designers together happily - not trying to hurt each other.
Will it be possible?
I was thinking about the designers back then and designers today.
I belive we, as today's designers have courage and willing-to-do-mind as much
as those constructivists in Russia in early 1920's.
But what is not really working is that whole groups of designers do not cooperate
each other, instead, they are making the other designers look bad.
The corporate designers trying to fight with each other in very nasty way - I think.
And It is all brought up by the consumers.
I wish there are someone or something who can bring all of designers together happily - not trying to hurt each other.
Will it be possible?
Germany
I saw the flyers around..called "What happens in Weimar, stays in Weimar"..hmmm..really?
After I was reading No Logo, and I think it is the second reading we are supposed to read,
I like to talk to you guys how the AMERICAN CULTURE effects Europe, specially in Germany.
I stayed in Swaebisch Hall, Sounthern Germany for almost six months and it was a really good experience.
Everyday when I turned on the TV - to learn some of the Deutsch..never ever really got it - but MTV was always playing American pop songs, always! and everyone that I got to know was talking about the American celebrities-how they live, relationships to whom. blah, blah~ even I noticed that every stores I go I only heard Britney Spears and Usher. Every young people were super excited to go to their concerts and I think Usher came to Germany almost once a month (the song 'YEAH" was really really popular!)
The point that I like to address is that the power of American Consumerism and Culture is bigger than we know.
And the design responsibility gets more serious..don't you think?...yeah!
After I was reading No Logo, and I think it is the second reading we are supposed to read,
I like to talk to you guys how the AMERICAN CULTURE effects Europe, specially in Germany.
I stayed in Swaebisch Hall, Sounthern Germany for almost six months and it was a really good experience.
Everyday when I turned on the TV - to learn some of the Deutsch..never ever really got it - but MTV was always playing American pop songs, always! and everyone that I got to know was talking about the American celebrities-how they live, relationships to whom. blah, blah~ even I noticed that every stores I go I only heard Britney Spears and Usher. Every young people were super excited to go to their concerts and I think Usher came to Germany almost once a month (the song 'YEAH" was really really popular!)
The point that I like to address is that the power of American Consumerism and Culture is bigger than we know.
And the design responsibility gets more serious..don't you think?...yeah!
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Shame on Nike
On wednesday I wanted to talk about Nike and thier P.L.A.Y. program, but we didn't get to it (whata waste) Anyway it really really pisses me of that NIKE puts up the good guy flag of donating to ghetto basketball courts, when really they are getting tax deducted advertising space. I mean is it a win win situation or is it exploitation of poor communities and the people who live in them? The article tends to make feel more like it is exploitation... but that was kinda the overall tone.
Any ideas? I'd like to rant on this, but need more info.
P.S. In the tarvis power hour of news this week a kid was robbed on the street for his new jordans, however the robber let the kid keep his money for the bus fare. What The Fuck ? Perhaps NIKE should hook up the owners of high profile shoes (like the new jordans) with small bottles of mace for just such an instance. They could be part of program call D.E.F.E.N.S.E. and the bottles of mace will be designer colors with NIKE swooshes on them! Oh oh wait the mace canisters will be in the form of NIKE swooshes they'll give em out for free if you fill out a survey on coolness and give NIKE all your personal info. Yah Yah
Any ideas? I'd like to rant on this, but need more info.
P.S. In the tarvis power hour of news this week a kid was robbed on the street for his new jordans, however the robber let the kid keep his money for the bus fare. What The Fuck ? Perhaps NIKE should hook up the owners of high profile shoes (like the new jordans) with small bottles of mace for just such an instance. They could be part of program call D.E.F.E.N.S.E. and the bottles of mace will be designer colors with NIKE swooshes on them! Oh oh wait the mace canisters will be in the form of NIKE swooshes they'll give em out for free if you fill out a survey on coolness and give NIKE all your personal info. Yah Yah
get your war on too
well since the individual im doing for my magazine spread has an online comic i thought id leave the link to go at look at some of them. They are pretty funny and intellegent too. so if you need a break or something heres some stuff to look at.
old school link
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
you can fix that if you want garrett i dont care
old school link
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
you can fix that if you want garrett i dont care
Proud
I just want to tell all of you how proud of you I am. It has been such an opportunity to go to school with such talented individuals, I will miss all of you. I am so excited to see how each of us do in our futures, I really hope we can all stay intouch, e-mail works where ever we go. Good luck to everyone on our 40 min. presentations!
Mothers
This is for the mothers who have sat up all night with sick toddlers in their arms, wiping up barf laced with Oscar Mayer weiners, and cherry Kool-Aid saying, "its okay honey, Mommy's here."
Who have sat in rocking chairs for hours on end soothing crying babies who can't be comforted.
For all of the mothers who show up at work with spit-up in their hair and milk stains on their shirts and diapers in their purse.
For all the mothers who run carpools and make cookies and sew Halloween costumes.
For all of the mothers whose priceless art collections are hanging on their refrigerator doors
for the mothers who froze their ass off on metal bleachers at football or soccer games instead of watching from their warm cars, so that when their kids asked, "did you see me, Mom?" they could say, "Of course, I would not have missed it for the world," and ment it.
This is for all of the mothers who go hungry, so their children can eat. For all the mothers who read "goodnight, Moon" twice a night for a year. And then read it again. "Just one more time."
This is for all of the mothers who taught their children to be peaceful, and now pray they come home safely from war.
Appriciate and respect your mother, she is a precious gift. Remember mothers day!!!!!!
Who have sat in rocking chairs for hours on end soothing crying babies who can't be comforted.
For all of the mothers who show up at work with spit-up in their hair and milk stains on their shirts and diapers in their purse.
For all the mothers who run carpools and make cookies and sew Halloween costumes.
For all of the mothers whose priceless art collections are hanging on their refrigerator doors
for the mothers who froze their ass off on metal bleachers at football or soccer games instead of watching from their warm cars, so that when their kids asked, "did you see me, Mom?" they could say, "Of course, I would not have missed it for the world," and ment it.
This is for all of the mothers who go hungry, so their children can eat. For all the mothers who read "goodnight, Moon" twice a night for a year. And then read it again. "Just one more time."
This is for all of the mothers who taught their children to be peaceful, and now pray they come home safely from war.
Appriciate and respect your mother, she is a precious gift. Remember mothers day!!!!!!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
First, an apology for clogging bandwidth.
But my ADD makes it almsot impossible for me to keep thoughts in a coherant manner without writting or drawing them. I was thinking about the auto industry, and how technology (generally respected as a good thing as far as innovations go in other industries) has infiltrated the way cars, drivers, and the road all work together. In my opinion, there are a lot of technologcial advances like ABS and Airbags which can really save drivers in bad situations. But is there and over-techno-gizmo obsession here? is the over-design of cars becoming a platform for technology to be the selling opint, ie: our cars have more gadgets to keep you on the road (allowing you to be less focused on driving the car, because the car makes up for your distractions) so buy us not them!
It bothers and scares me to see people bragging or instilling such confidence in a microchip while they drive a 5000 pund vehicle. Personally, and this is probably the enthusiast talking, I like to feel the vehicle in my hands and at my feet, and its that feeling which gives me confidence as a driver, not knowing that my car will (if i bought one of these cars) can apply the brakes or counter steer the tires when it gets out of control. If the car gets out of control with me behind the wheel, its not up to the car manufacturer to take responsibility and load me up with numbing safety deevices. I say if you can't keep a car under control in all forseeable circumstances, you shouldn't have a driver's license, which should truly be the measure of safety on the public roads. Not the computer controlled aspects that your car may posses.
OK, i hope that made sense. Thanks for putting up with my rants.
It bothers and scares me to see people bragging or instilling such confidence in a microchip while they drive a 5000 pund vehicle. Personally, and this is probably the enthusiast talking, I like to feel the vehicle in my hands and at my feet, and its that feeling which gives me confidence as a driver, not knowing that my car will (if i bought one of these cars) can apply the brakes or counter steer the tires when it gets out of control. If the car gets out of control with me behind the wheel, its not up to the car manufacturer to take responsibility and load me up with numbing safety deevices. I say if you can't keep a car under control in all forseeable circumstances, you shouldn't have a driver's license, which should truly be the measure of safety on the public roads. Not the computer controlled aspects that your car may posses.
OK, i hope that made sense. Thanks for putting up with my rants.
Bill Hicks
I have a Bill Hicks CD with many funny and insightful rants. I used to just think he was funny but recently I have see a little more than just jokes in his work. He talks about Bush, anti-war, marketing/advertising, arrested development, even semiotics (in the form of a fetus ---- see Me & Saddamm last half of the track) Anyway I will make a copy and pass it round the studio for anyone interrested.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
On Running in packs...
I'm reading the "No Logo" excerpt for tomorrow's class, and I find myself wondering where I was during my teen years and this atom-bomb of teen/youth marketing. The quote: "If you sell to one, you sell to everyone in their class and everyone in their school" makes me think about how I responded to marketing in those days.
I don't think I'm one of these people who would pay up for brand-name products, or image-related goods, or anything like that. Are you guys those kinds of consumers? Were you in highshool?
I'm not sure if it's just the kids who spend their parent's money, or kids who went to big schools, or what. But I don;t recall ever buying something out of lust or popularity of the item over it's function/use/benefit in my life. Sure, I wanted to buy cool things, be one of those kids, but this idea of selling to everyone in my highschool is way off for me. Nothing I ever spent money on became a commodity within my peergroup, nor vice versa, except maybe our Powerbooks (and my iPod, but I'm talking about highschool here). Maybe I'm thinking too highly of my purchase-making decisions, but I really wonder how those kids at the big suburban schools in Denver got their grubby hands on all that shit. I mean shit, too, like whatever was in the movies or on TV could be located at these places, but nowhere near me. What's the deal? Money? or Personal taste differences within income-tax-brackets? ok, now I'm ranting...
How about this. Were we included in this demographic that the big brands appealed to? I say no. But we should be, since it's not the product (the thing you actually spend money on) that holds the brand's importance. But if not the product that I don't buy, then how does the brand stay afloat? Basically I don't grasp how a brand sells itself without selling products. I mean, I probably do, but I can't see the basic, fundamental element of business in this new branding wave. Money. Someone tell me EXACTLY how a brand makes money if its not products they are promoting. I can get emotions from more than one place, thing, or person. Not just Nike Stefania, but anybody. ... Man, I'm more confused now than I was when I started typing.
I don't think I'm one of these people who would pay up for brand-name products, or image-related goods, or anything like that. Are you guys those kinds of consumers? Were you in highshool?
I'm not sure if it's just the kids who spend their parent's money, or kids who went to big schools, or what. But I don;t recall ever buying something out of lust or popularity of the item over it's function/use/benefit in my life. Sure, I wanted to buy cool things, be one of those kids, but this idea of selling to everyone in my highschool is way off for me. Nothing I ever spent money on became a commodity within my peergroup, nor vice versa, except maybe our Powerbooks (and my iPod, but I'm talking about highschool here). Maybe I'm thinking too highly of my purchase-making decisions, but I really wonder how those kids at the big suburban schools in Denver got their grubby hands on all that shit. I mean shit, too, like whatever was in the movies or on TV could be located at these places, but nowhere near me. What's the deal? Money? or Personal taste differences within income-tax-brackets? ok, now I'm ranting...
How about this. Were we included in this demographic that the big brands appealed to? I say no. But we should be, since it's not the product (the thing you actually spend money on) that holds the brand's importance. But if not the product that I don't buy, then how does the brand stay afloat? Basically I don't grasp how a brand sells itself without selling products. I mean, I probably do, but I can't see the basic, fundamental element of business in this new branding wave. Money. Someone tell me EXACTLY how a brand makes money if its not products they are promoting. I can get emotions from more than one place, thing, or person. Not just Nike Stefania, but anybody. ... Man, I'm more confused now than I was when I started typing.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Tears,fears,and cheers
I think Jenks is on to something, and Im going to follow up. This may get a little emotional and sappy, but just go along with me for a sec. Tears for the four years of crazy, happy memories, fears for getting that 'first job', and cheers to all of us for being run through the mill, and emerging with a BFA. We are all so different, and our talents swell in such diverse areas. I cannot wait to see what our class will contribute to the world in the comming years. The sky is the limit for all of us. What will the future hold...Godwin guitar Co.,....Jenks Industrial Design Inc......McNary NeoPress.....Ross Entertainment.....Porter Print&Fabrication......so on and so on....Well, gotta go get a tissue now.
You guys ROCK.
I don't know what is making me say this, or why I feel so happy right now (could be the fact that this is my 11th blog), but damn, having this kind of interaction with you guys is truly awesome, and I hope never to forget it. I think that being among a group of people who are so motivated, inspired, enlightened, opinionated and talented has made my experience here truly unique. I'm not saying corny shit like "I'm going to miss my years at KCAI". What I'm saying is that I hope that in our futures as peers, contemporaries, competition, and friends, that we are ever-growing in our abilities to share our opinions, and articulate our emotions about everything we feel passionate about. I know its hard for some of us to feel like putting our "feelings" on the internet is corny or a load of crap, especially when commanded to do so, but to those I say this: If we can spend hours with MySpace, Friendster, or VWVortex (my vice), why can't we put some effort into a well of communication that has the potential to truly inspre for change? and if not change, then isn't inspiration alone good enough?
I hope that there is still this kind of thing available to us after we graduate. I think we need this kind of rant-friendly, goal-oriented, anything goes environment for us to release our ravings upon the "collective" as T-Diz would put it.
Ok, there. I'm a dork. I like BLOGS. But please look past it and see why.
I hope that there is still this kind of thing available to us after we graduate. I think we need this kind of rant-friendly, goal-oriented, anything goes environment for us to release our ravings upon the "collective" as T-Diz would put it.
Ok, there. I'm a dork. I like BLOGS. But please look past it and see why.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
A Quote for Molls
“The power of the golden section to create harmony arise’s from its unique capacity to unite different parts of a whole so that each preserves its own identity, and yet blends into the greater pattern of a single whole.”
Gyorgy Doczi
This quote makes think of our class, a single whole made of different identities.
�(deep sigh) I get so wistful sometimes.
Gyorgy Doczi
This quote makes think of our class, a single whole made of different identities.
�(deep sigh) I get so wistful sometimes.
Visual Advocacy
It has been interesting to read how everyone feels about our readings. The way I see it sort of the same as Travis. The bottom line is that as beginners we , or I know that I need to make money to pay my student loans, and raise my family. Not that I do not care about being a responsible designer, but I have to put my family first, and the fact is is that there are bills to be paid. Picking and choosing responsible design, is risky. I wish there was something in the readings that gave us a point of view on this, being a freshly out of school, new designer, with horrendous debt from school. How did they go about being so responsible. I think there are a lot of opinions with no answers, while we are all facing the scary reality of making it, and paying these loans off. I don't want to sound cold hearted, but this is where my reality is is sort of like the story goes, the guy who is kind, and does all he can for others, is the first to be taken advantage of and so on. So where is the answer to all of this? Am I supposeds to feel bad for trying to make it and feed my family while designing cigg packaging. I mean the fact is is that we all are going to get a job, and before we have a strong understanding of the design profession as professionals, we are all going to need a paycheck!
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Ultimately it comes down to taste?
I know you guys are probably sick of looking at websites (cutting, pasting, and whatnot) but if you haven’t visited any of them yet, take the time to check this one out!
http://ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/good_design_makes_me_tingly_bad_design_makes_me_physically_ill/
http://ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/good_design_makes_me_tingly_bad_design_makes_me_physically_ill/
citzen designer bloooogs
hey, i thought since i got so many responses about the reivew of our book this site would be fun to look at! These people are all blogging their thoughts on the book and what they thoight of it. its good to read. so enjoy it people.
heres the link i forgot to put on
http://www.underconsideration.com/mt-static/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2160
cmon speak up
heres the link i forgot to put on
http://www.underconsideration.com/mt-static/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2160
cmon speak up
just in case you forgot the Principles of Graphic Design like me
Take pleasure in these “tidbits”, they might help with your magazine layouts.
leading the viewers eye
A composition may be broken down by reads.
+
What is the viewer going to read first, second, third, and so on?
design elements
Line , Shape, Texture, Space, Size
composition and layout principles
Emphasis, Balance, Rhythm, Unity
formal composition systems
Using grid, root rectangle construction, The Golden Mean
leading the viewers eye
A composition may be broken down by reads.
+
What is the viewer going to read first, second, third, and so on?
design elements
Line , Shape, Texture, Space, Size
composition and layout principles
Emphasis, Balance, Rhythm, Unity
formal composition systems
Using grid, root rectangle construction, The Golden Mean
proffesionals who are responsible
so this site features proffessionals whoa re responsible too. Its some award that is given out to do gooders.
The amazing organizations that received the Fast Company/Monitor Group Social Capitalist Awards have found a better way to do good: They're using the disciplines of the corporate world to tackle daunting social problems. In our second exclusive ranking, we used a similarly hard-nosed approach to find the 25 best social entrepreneurs.
you should tke their example if you end up doing the corperate thing.
go here man.
http://www.fastcompany.com/social/2005/
The amazing organizations that received the Fast Company/Monitor Group Social Capitalist Awards have found a better way to do good: They're using the disciplines of the corporate world to tackle daunting social problems. In our second exclusive ranking, we used a similarly hard-nosed approach to find the 25 best social entrepreneurs.
you should tke their example if you end up doing the corperate thing.
go here man.
http://www.fastcompany.com/social/2005/
thoughts on goooood design
We who are clay blended by the Master Potter, come from the kiln of Creation in many hues. How can people say one skin is colored, when each has its own coloration? What should it matter that one bowl is dark and the other pale, if each is of good design and serves its purpose well.
Polingaysi Qoyawayma, Hopi
Good design is serious business.
A.G. Lafley, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive, Procter & Gamble
The urge for good design is the same as the urge to go on living.
Harry Bertoia
Good design is a renaissance attitude that combines technology, cognitive science, human need, and beautry to produce something that the world didn’t know it was missing.
Paola Antonelli
The difference between good design and great design is intelligence.
Tibor Kalman
Good design is making something intelligible and memorable. Great design is making something memorable and meaningful.
Dieter Rams
Good design is innovative Gives a product utility Is aesthetic Makes a product easy to understand Is unobtrusive Is honest Is long-lived Is consistent down to the smallest detail Protects the environment Good design is as little design as possible.
Dieter Rams
Rather than overpowering nature or limiting human impact, good design will affirm the possibility of developing healthy and creatively interactive relationships between human settlements and the natural world.
William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Buildings Like Trees, Cities Like Forests
Good design doesn’t cost, but it pays.
Richard H. Driehaus, Chicago Money Manager and Philanthropist, Richard H. Driehaus Foundation
I love the idea of slowness. It took thousands of years to come to the conclusion that we think of as a chair. Vitra moves fast in comparison to that, but I do think that every object has a natural evolutionary pace. If Charles Eames had said, “We have to finish it fast fast fast!” his chairs wouldn't be relevant a half-century later. I believe in getting things right. In our industry, you can’t force something if you want it to be good. It has to become. Every object is a being with a soul. Our work is to find that soul. Sometimes we can’t manage to find it, and we have to abandon the project or try again. We’re not worried about being first to market, because what we do is unique by its very nature. Good design is relevant for decades; a year matters little on that scale.
Rolf Fehlbaum, CEO, Vitra
Good designers relentlessly generate lots of ideas and open-mindedly consider alternative solutions. At no time are good designers frightened to entertain a crazy, competing, or uncomfortable idea.
Karl Ulrich, CEO, Nova Cruz Products
When you feel the architecture just click, as though it couldn’t have been anything else, it’s due to a true understanding of the site and the plan and section.
Stephen Kanner, Architect
Good design is a visual statement that maximizes the life goals of the people in a given culture (or, more realistically, the goals of a certain subset of people in the culture) that draws on a shared symbolic expression for the ordering of such goals.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Author of Flow
Good design today requires more vision (a larger point of view versus the single brilliant idea), more consistency (a deeper underlying structure of language and form versus the simple, uniform application of visual elements) and more patience (persistence over time versus creative authoritarianism).
William Drenttel, partner, Jessica Helfand/William Drenttel design
Good design is a form of respect—on the part of the producer for the person who will eventually spend hard-earned cash on the product, use the product, own the product.
David Brown, editor of Gain
Good design begins with honesty, asks tough questions, comes from collaboration and from trusting your intuition.
Freeman Thomas, Automobile Designer, DaimlerChrysler
The good designer aims at a perfect fusion of the various considerations which enter into his design. He aims at an untortured unity—a direct whole. He arranges his levels consciously or subconsciously, adhearing to the requisites of the problem he is asked to solve or to his own inclination. Some designers see total act through a disc of aesthetic considerations—others, more practical minded, may put economic considerations at top level.
Leo Lionni, Graphic Designer
Polingaysi Qoyawayma, Hopi
Good design is serious business.
A.G. Lafley, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive, Procter & Gamble
The urge for good design is the same as the urge to go on living.
Harry Bertoia
Good design is a renaissance attitude that combines technology, cognitive science, human need, and beautry to produce something that the world didn’t know it was missing.
Paola Antonelli
The difference between good design and great design is intelligence.
Tibor Kalman
Good design is making something intelligible and memorable. Great design is making something memorable and meaningful.
Dieter Rams
Good design is innovative Gives a product utility Is aesthetic Makes a product easy to understand Is unobtrusive Is honest Is long-lived Is consistent down to the smallest detail Protects the environment Good design is as little design as possible.
Dieter Rams
Rather than overpowering nature or limiting human impact, good design will affirm the possibility of developing healthy and creatively interactive relationships between human settlements and the natural world.
William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Buildings Like Trees, Cities Like Forests
Good design doesn’t cost, but it pays.
Richard H. Driehaus, Chicago Money Manager and Philanthropist, Richard H. Driehaus Foundation
I love the idea of slowness. It took thousands of years to come to the conclusion that we think of as a chair. Vitra moves fast in comparison to that, but I do think that every object has a natural evolutionary pace. If Charles Eames had said, “We have to finish it fast fast fast!” his chairs wouldn't be relevant a half-century later. I believe in getting things right. In our industry, you can’t force something if you want it to be good. It has to become. Every object is a being with a soul. Our work is to find that soul. Sometimes we can’t manage to find it, and we have to abandon the project or try again. We’re not worried about being first to market, because what we do is unique by its very nature. Good design is relevant for decades; a year matters little on that scale.
Rolf Fehlbaum, CEO, Vitra
Good designers relentlessly generate lots of ideas and open-mindedly consider alternative solutions. At no time are good designers frightened to entertain a crazy, competing, or uncomfortable idea.
Karl Ulrich, CEO, Nova Cruz Products
When you feel the architecture just click, as though it couldn’t have been anything else, it’s due to a true understanding of the site and the plan and section.
Stephen Kanner, Architect
Good design is a visual statement that maximizes the life goals of the people in a given culture (or, more realistically, the goals of a certain subset of people in the culture) that draws on a shared symbolic expression for the ordering of such goals.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Author of Flow
Good design today requires more vision (a larger point of view versus the single brilliant idea), more consistency (a deeper underlying structure of language and form versus the simple, uniform application of visual elements) and more patience (persistence over time versus creative authoritarianism).
William Drenttel, partner, Jessica Helfand/William Drenttel design
Good design is a form of respect—on the part of the producer for the person who will eventually spend hard-earned cash on the product, use the product, own the product.
David Brown, editor of Gain
Good design begins with honesty, asks tough questions, comes from collaboration and from trusting your intuition.
Freeman Thomas, Automobile Designer, DaimlerChrysler
The good designer aims at a perfect fusion of the various considerations which enter into his design. He aims at an untortured unity—a direct whole. He arranges his levels consciously or subconsciously, adhearing to the requisites of the problem he is asked to solve or to his own inclination. Some designers see total act through a disc of aesthetic considerations—others, more practical minded, may put economic considerations at top level.
Leo Lionni, Graphic Designer
Friday, April 22, 2005
Now Travis, for my book of quotes...
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Douglas Adams
Douglas Adams
Here's another...
"Maybe we should develop a Crayola bomb as our next secret weapon. A happiness weapon. A beauty bomb. And every time a crisis developed, we would launch one. It would explode high in the air - explode softly - and send thousands, millions, of little parachutes into the air. Floating down to earth - boxes of Crayolas. And we wouldn't go cheap, either - not little boxes of eight. Boxes of sixty-four, with the sharpener built right in. With silver and gold and copper, magenta and peach and lime, amber and umber and all the rest. And people would smile and get a little funny look on their faces and cover the world with imagination."
Robert Fulghum
Robert Fulghum
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Do your Doodle!
I think one of the biggest ways to impact responsible living in modern society is by first re-evaluating and re-designing everyday items. In example: a plastic bag. Sure, it is boring and may not make you a part of pop fame history, but it just may change the world for the better.
Here is the wave of the future:
Doggy Doodle!
Here is the wave of the future:
Doggy Doodle!
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
greenmap
Okay so this site is wierd too. It says greenmaps are locally created maps that chart the natural and cultural environment. Using adaptable tools and a shared visual language of Green Map Icons to highlight green living resources, Green Maps cultivate citizen participation and community sustainability. wuh?i been looking at the site for 5 minutes and i still dont know what they are talking about.
and i think the icons they use are butt ugly.
http://greenmap.org/
and i think the icons they use are butt ugly.
http://greenmap.org/
Citizen Designer review
So uh i was looking at this web site and read this review of the book weve been reaing this semester. I think its pretty good, it points out stuff i thought were pretty weird. I liked reading the book anyways though, but sometimes the articles left me with a weird feeling. I do agree with the author of the review when he says alot of the essays in the book reduce social responsibility to acts of personal salvation. That seems to be right i guess.
http://www.backspace.com/notes/topic/print/2
thats the link duh
http://www.backspace.com/notes/topic/print/2
thats the link duh
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
'Sucking up' the learning experience
Is it not possible to simply sit back, take in a teachers lecture, apply your skills to class work, actively participate, and come away from the class with new knowledge? If you are doing anything more than this, what are you trying to prove? And who are you trying to prove something to? We are all our own person, or so we should be anyway. So when you try your hardest to impress someone, say whatever you think a peron in a superior position wants to hear so you will feel accepted, or make it clearly known that you are all knowing, then who are you? You are no longer your own person. You are a puppet who allows superiors to command your strings. Plus, when you think you are gaining acceptance, you are not. Sure everyone around you will smile in your face, and acknowledge your skill, but everyone also knows you are hollow. My point is, true happiness comes from acceptance on the inside, not from the outside.
very pretty books
"Uberdog hopes to satisfy a niche of severely deprived urbanites languishing in the murky depths of unfulfilled book fantasies. Let us find that book you covet."
I'm sure many people know this site, but just in case I will spread the word like wild rice. Plus, they have a phat design section. Bookmark-it, you might find something you like.
www.uberdog.com.au/ <--- copy and paste.. sorry guys. (GKP, you should code a link for me, aight?)
I'm sure many people know this site, but just in case I will spread the word like wild rice. Plus, they have a phat design section. Bookmark-it, you might find something you like.
www.uberdog.com.au/ <--- copy and paste.. sorry guys. (GKP, you should code a link for me, aight?)
what's with all the "quotes"? i guess i'll do one then
A significant proportion of graphic design in recent years has been more concerned with the means of production than the content it expresses.
Ian Noble, Picture Perfect
Ian Noble, Picture Perfect
yikes... that was BRASH (ha)
Before my post mysteriously evaporated (5 bucks to anyone who has news of its disappearance, 10 bucks for recovery)I, very inarticulately, attempted to voice my frustration and confusion with the point of Visual Advocacy. I would never suggest that the class is not enlightening, but is it realistic? Are theses manifestos, articles, experienced designers, and debates informing the baby designers of how to realistically deal with cornering situations? It's so simple to pick a cause or idea during class debate. However, in the end it’s a matter of choice and it’s ok if you choose the death ciggies and monster SUVs or the recycled ciggies and SUVs that run on water. Because, Visual Advocacy won’t tell us what the answer is.
Seriously though...
I have realized that if our class, if Visual Advocacy were the entire political body, were divided into left and right wingers, I'd be on the right. However, in the world beyond the classroom I'm way left. What does that mean? Is this revelation pointless? I suppose then, that my status quo is not the average status quo. That means no ciggies and no SUVs. Ok. I've cornered myself (insert a shrug, a grimmace, and furrowed brow)! I dunno what I am trying to say. It's just that all of our debates in class, though they draw "battle lines," make pretty vague distinctions. I'm so frustrated. All this gray is too blurry. I think I want black and white. Distinctions make me comfortable. So, where is that graphic design security blanket? I sure need it.
I'm on a roll. Let's just keep going...
"There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite."
Paul Gauguin
Paul Gauguin
I'm all about quotes...
For Garrett. Just because I can.
"Designing pages in HTML is like having sex in a bathtub. If you don't know anything about sex, it won't do you any good to know a lot about bathtubs".
Unknown Web Guru
This makes sense...
"What a disappointment to learn that this revolution is aimed at replacing mass manipulation for commercial ends with mass manipulation for cultural and political ends".
Michael Bierut | To The Barricades
Michael Bierut | To The Barricades
Monday, April 18, 2005
Design for what?
In one of my liberal art classes "The American Dream", we discussed about the America's great consumption culture. And of course, who designs all of those products? yeah. it is the DESIGNERS!! Since US is one of the top countries which has the excessive exports - it automatically tells that there are excessive amount of designers also.
According to the fact, the top first consumer in US is teenagers, and they spend over couple hundreds every weekends. Many of entertainment companies are also targeting teenagers - it is huge! Even elementary school students have cells and ipods, and watching MTV and VH1.
So as designers we sure have more pressure over what we are designing for and against. Is it so true?
According to the fact, the top first consumer in US is teenagers, and they spend over couple hundreds every weekends. Many of entertainment companies are also targeting teenagers - it is huge! Even elementary school students have cells and ipods, and watching MTV and VH1.
So as designers we sure have more pressure over what we are designing for and against. Is it so true?
Putting off...in all aspects, never good
I was having trouble getting my blog account to work at the start of the semester, but I just kept saying 'I'll take care of it later'. And then later turned into later, and so on....But since the purpose of blogging this semester is to discuss issues in design, putting things off raises a good point. If designers keep putting off the fact that design needs to be more ethical, and 'leaving it up to the next guy', then are we ever going to progress? Focus needs to be put on more environmently car parts, instead of how many dvd players and chrome exhaust systems we can cram into the next monsterous sized suv. More emphasis needs to be put into showing people how smoking is bad, and not putting a new friendly, well illustrated camel into every magazine. But without someone saying 'we need to change this', nothing will change. Especially when a company shoves big dollar signs in designers faces. I pose the question, will money always cause designer tunnel vision, or will someone be 'the next guy'.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
How low can you go?
After I read this article by David Vogler, I realized that wow! there are really bad designs of "Oops!" situations.
I just want to mention out that "who controls what" in design fields.
If even with the good design, without audience's agreement it is nothing - or worse than nothing.
Designers tend to seek out the most outstanding solution for everyone in their basic need or even luxury life.
One example in "The round imac mouse", I thought the design was pretty, (as one of those "Awww~it's cute!! people) but in its functionality? I don't think so.
So, did the designers of this cute mouse targeted only for the "Awww~" effect to draw more consumers into? for their pleasure?
yes, there are still so many unneccesary designs for the wrong product, but hey! we are the next generations -we can change it!
I just want to mention out that "who controls what" in design fields.
If even with the good design, without audience's agreement it is nothing - or worse than nothing.
Designers tend to seek out the most outstanding solution for everyone in their basic need or even luxury life.
One example in "The round imac mouse", I thought the design was pretty, (as one of those "Awww~it's cute!! people) but in its functionality? I don't think so.
So, did the designers of this cute mouse targeted only for the "Awww~" effect to draw more consumers into? for their pleasure?
yes, there are still so many unneccesary designs for the wrong product, but hey! we are the next generations -we can change it!
can I afford advocacy ?
After seeing how much I am in debt I seriously question how ethical I can afford to be. Right now I feel like I need to get out of this huge hole I'm in as fast as possible. And if selling cigarettes is the way out, so be it. People know how bad cigarettes are. But it's their choice to smoke, not mine. How will I sleep at night? In an air conditioned room on a comfortable matress with a full stomach. Why should I feel bad? No one feels bad about me being in debt... it's a choice I made. And after I'm out of debt and I start to feel bad about all those teen smokers, I might just do some pro bono non-smoking ads to even the odds.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Genre Design.
Okay, I guess you could kind of expect me to have this opinion, but I don't care what you think of me. This is about being a designer.
We were talking in class a few weeks ago about "genre design" which stemmed from a reading in Citizen Designer.
What is "genre design"?
I am under the impression after digesting our readings and conversations that it means the different classifications of design. Much like contemporary music is divided into genres of rock, hip-hop, jazz, indy, vocal, etc, etc, we can divide design into similar categories. Those categories are commonly known as fields like Graphic Design, Industrial Design, Architecture, and so on.
But honestly, what is the point?
Musicians are all musicians, who appreciate the music others make, and most of the music-savvy people I know tend to frown upon genre-classification. I think it has to do with creative expression, which is truly present in music. But in design, it seems (at least in my limited experience) that there need to be labels for some reason or another. I don;t want to talk about the reason for that right now, maybe later. In Design, Graphic Designers are so quick to label themselves as such because of the fancy ring it has to it, or the 'respect; they might recieve. I can see more significant divisions in the field of design when it comes to licensing, like getting a license to practice architecture in your community. But why else do we need to clarify what kind of designer we are? why does someone else have to?
It's bullshit.
Say I call myself a graphic designer. "I am a graphic designer". What does it infer in the minds of the people listening to me? It infers that I can set type appropraitely, use color, shape, image, message and content in a way I think appropriate for the project. Does it mean that I can not understand how a building is designed and how it contributes to culture? Or, on a more personal note, does "Graphic Designer" mean I don't have a good sense of scale, physically, and relationship issues in the physical realm? Does it infer to my audience that I don't care about my surroundings, my environment, my world?
I think it does.
I've met several people during my time at Architectural Metalworks that don;t understand why a (graphic)design student is interning at a design/build firm. Even architects don't get it. I like to think that I have a firmer grasp on the 3Dimensional world in my head than I do on print work, even if my portfolio or educational background says otherwise. I can blog on that later. But I think the important part of being a designer, which gets clouded out by the word always preceding it regardless of what word it is at the time, is that we can think in a largely visual way, using any means necessary to solve the given problem. Tyler introduced design as 'creative problem solving' during our sophomore year. I still feel like that is the most accurate description of what I (want to) do in life. Fuck if it is a printed poster for some concert or an identity system for a company I am passionate enough about to support, or a beautiful staircase, coffe table, DESK, or otherwise. If it serves a cultural, commercial, personal, aesthetic, or any need I deem valid, then why not pursue? Certainly not because I can't weld with a GD degree, but I could if I were, say, holding a degree in architectural design.
Okay, its late now. My concusion is this: Why label the way we think? It will inevitably effect the way we work, which effects our 'effectiveness' as cultural communicators, beauty providors, or whatever else I can't give a name to. Peace.
We were talking in class a few weeks ago about "genre design" which stemmed from a reading in Citizen Designer.
What is "genre design"?
I am under the impression after digesting our readings and conversations that it means the different classifications of design. Much like contemporary music is divided into genres of rock, hip-hop, jazz, indy, vocal, etc, etc, we can divide design into similar categories. Those categories are commonly known as fields like Graphic Design, Industrial Design, Architecture, and so on.
But honestly, what is the point?
Musicians are all musicians, who appreciate the music others make, and most of the music-savvy people I know tend to frown upon genre-classification. I think it has to do with creative expression, which is truly present in music. But in design, it seems (at least in my limited experience) that there need to be labels for some reason or another. I don;t want to talk about the reason for that right now, maybe later. In Design, Graphic Designers are so quick to label themselves as such because of the fancy ring it has to it, or the 'respect; they might recieve. I can see more significant divisions in the field of design when it comes to licensing, like getting a license to practice architecture in your community. But why else do we need to clarify what kind of designer we are? why does someone else have to?
It's bullshit.
Say I call myself a graphic designer. "I am a graphic designer". What does it infer in the minds of the people listening to me? It infers that I can set type appropraitely, use color, shape, image, message and content in a way I think appropriate for the project. Does it mean that I can not understand how a building is designed and how it contributes to culture? Or, on a more personal note, does "Graphic Designer" mean I don't have a good sense of scale, physically, and relationship issues in the physical realm? Does it infer to my audience that I don't care about my surroundings, my environment, my world?
I think it does.
I've met several people during my time at Architectural Metalworks that don;t understand why a (graphic)design student is interning at a design/build firm. Even architects don't get it. I like to think that I have a firmer grasp on the 3Dimensional world in my head than I do on print work, even if my portfolio or educational background says otherwise. I can blog on that later. But I think the important part of being a designer, which gets clouded out by the word always preceding it regardless of what word it is at the time, is that we can think in a largely visual way, using any means necessary to solve the given problem. Tyler introduced design as 'creative problem solving' during our sophomore year. I still feel like that is the most accurate description of what I (want to) do in life. Fuck if it is a printed poster for some concert or an identity system for a company I am passionate enough about to support, or a beautiful staircase, coffe table, DESK, or otherwise. If it serves a cultural, commercial, personal, aesthetic, or any need I deem valid, then why not pursue? Certainly not because I can't weld with a GD degree, but I could if I were, say, holding a degree in architectural design.
Okay, its late now. My concusion is this: Why label the way we think? It will inevitably effect the way we work, which effects our 'effectiveness' as cultural communicators, beauty providors, or whatever else I can't give a name to. Peace.
The bottom line is...
that there is no bottom line. You know, I've been hesitant to blog this semester because there isn't too much to say that can truly make lucid to me not only who designers are, but likewise, where our efforts in the field should be focused. I compare Visual Advocacy to my Philosophy of Religion class. The readings are similar. At least, my interpretations of the texts are pretty congruent. Basically, being Agnostic is the way to go. Everyone is happy then, right? There isn't evidence for belief or disbelief. So, everyone is covered, and there are no wrong answers. It's whatever floats your boat, and that's almost a bottom line. It's as close as I've gotten: a little corporate here, a little challenging my ethics there, throw in a couple freebies and there's your career. It's a giant compromise; and for now at least, I'm okay with that. If I'm too accepting of the status quo, then so be it.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Cravings.
Ran across this quote. What do you guys think?
“What students have in mind when they (inevitably) describe themselves as ‘creative’ is someone who challenges the status quo…To set out to design ‘change’ is also to crave attention. The concerns that initially lead many students to design–humane, political, social, and practical–are, too often, later replaced by design at its most intrusive, short-lived, and disposable form. The very idea of design being a public service could not be further from most students’ minds. The celebrity status that too many consider a representation of success does not easily equate with the concept of service.” (David Jury)
“What students have in mind when they (inevitably) describe themselves as ‘creative’ is someone who challenges the status quo…To set out to design ‘change’ is also to crave attention. The concerns that initially lead many students to design–humane, political, social, and practical–are, too often, later replaced by design at its most intrusive, short-lived, and disposable form. The very idea of design being a public service could not be further from most students’ minds. The celebrity status that too many consider a representation of success does not easily equate with the concept of service.” (David Jury)
Styles of teaching and Critiques
Responding to styles of critiques. This subject was brought about during our conversations in class in reference to the article "teaching". I found it interesting how different people respond to different techniques, whether it be teaching or critiquing. I think it is such a special thing that so many different minds come together in these forms. We all have our pet peeves, and our enlightens, but what an opportunity we all are having being able to come together in an environment like this, and find ways to set aside out pet peeves, our likings, our weaknesses, and our strengths, and learn from each other with open minds.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Plagiarism
Plagiarism, this was an exciting conversation in visual advocacy. It was interesting to hear the views of others on the subject. Looking back in history, artists such as Matisse, Gauguin, and many others took inspiration from other cultures such as Oceania, Africa, Japan, and many more. Many of the paintings we study today, has a clear influence of these inspirations. Some of them are not changed much, is this considered plagiarism, I am curious. I am curious because in our discussion in class, it was said that inspiration like this is plagiarism in some opinions.
I have noticed how we as a team of students inspire each other and ones work influences another's. Is this plagiarism? Ones idea develops another students idea within their own work or dp project, should one be offended or flattered? Is it plagiarism or is it collaborative inspiration?
I have noticed how we as a team of students inspire each other and ones work influences another's. Is this plagiarism? Ones idea develops another students idea within their own work or dp project, should one be offended or flattered? Is it plagiarism or is it collaborative inspiration?
Apply Colors
"I try to apply colors like words that shape poems, like notes that shape music." Joan Miro (1893-1983), Spanish Surrealist artist.
"Colors, like features, follow the changes of the emotions." Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), Spanish artist
"Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the harmonies, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul." Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), modern Russian painter
Take time to enjoy the colors, and smell the flowers!
"Colors, like features, follow the changes of the emotions." Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), Spanish artist
"Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the harmonies, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul." Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), modern Russian painter
Take time to enjoy the colors, and smell the flowers!
"Soccer Mom"
Yes I am going to tackle this one. I have listened quietly to the "soccer mom" being brought up in reference to design. I suppose as advertisers on their"station wagons", or supporters of "cult advertising". I have to say first for the "soccer mom" who has either sacrificed her career to stay at home and pull the equivalent of 2 full time jobs by raising children and keeping a house, or put her career and dreams on hold because her priority became her children. I have listened for four years now to negative commentary from young adults who are naive to the reality of raising children, what it takes etc... If you think college is hard, waite until you become a parent. I praise the woman who has time to be a soccer mom, and a supporter and advertiser of her kids and what they believe in, whether it be the pink ribbon on her car or the yellow one. Which if we were truly to read this "cult" of the yellow ribbon, it reads "Support our troops" not "support our War"!!! Possibly this "soccer mom", has a son or daughter in the war, or has lost a child in the war. My point with all of this is that maybe we as students and professionals , may have a tendency to criticize before we really get the message. We can be to ready to judge what is wrong with a design or trend, before we understand it, and I think that this is something we as designers should be conscious of and careful, because as designers we must learn to understand trends, reasons behind them, a multitude of audiences, and so on.
The things we can not see
" I stepped out onto the porch and stared out in wonder and amazement at the beauty of the things we can not see". Albret Einstein
I love this quote, it is loaded with food for good thinking.
I love this quote, it is loaded with food for good thinking.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
on our relationships to brands
i was reviewing the photocopy pieces over the weekend (create a photocopy piece that demonstrates your relationship to a brand) and thought of a few ideas. i thought i might post three questions in relation to the assignment, with hopes that you might blog back.
> these pieces mostly demonstrate relationships to P R O D U C T S.
how do you define "brand"?
(as demonstrated by your approaches to the assignment, it is easy to demonstrate your physical relationship to a product using a photocopier, but not as simple to communicate the relationship to a brand.)
> moira spoke on friday about designers' ability to create value and meaning for the user.
How does the brand change the value or meaning of a product?
(i think molly took this on in her discussion of why it is *coke* rather than *pepsi* that she chose to demonstrate.
> how is a *brand* represented on a photocopier?
(does it look like a cup, a package, a logo, etc.)
> these pieces mostly demonstrate relationships to P R O D U C T S.
how do you define "brand"?
(as demonstrated by your approaches to the assignment, it is easy to demonstrate your physical relationship to a product using a photocopier, but not as simple to communicate the relationship to a brand.)
> moira spoke on friday about designers' ability to create value and meaning for the user.
How does the brand change the value or meaning of a product?
(i think molly took this on in her discussion of why it is *coke* rather than *pepsi* that she chose to demonstrate.
> how is a *brand* represented on a photocopier?
(does it look like a cup, a package, a logo, etc.)
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
I believe in lunatics...
Tibor Kalman states, "Creative people are now working for the bottom line."
It was interesting comment that Sarah mentioned about the artists who worked for the commision of the upper class people during the Renaissance, and compare them with designers today. It's getting harder to express your own design concepts under all of those "restrictions" as a designer and I think we are becoming VERY generous about those facts as we start to get in the field. As the thinking designers, we agree with Kalman's view of losing independence of our voice and it reflects in the culture we are living in. The culture with ideas and tastes that seem like they control the trends of design. It will be the designer's responsibility to choose whether to gether with other designers and forget about his or her own ideas, or to keep the thoughts that can change the world and act upon it.
It was interesting comment that Sarah mentioned about the artists who worked for the commision of the upper class people during the Renaissance, and compare them with designers today. It's getting harder to express your own design concepts under all of those "restrictions" as a designer and I think we are becoming VERY generous about those facts as we start to get in the field. As the thinking designers, we agree with Kalman's view of losing independence of our voice and it reflects in the culture we are living in. The culture with ideas and tastes that seem like they control the trends of design. It will be the designer's responsibility to choose whether to gether with other designers and forget about his or her own ideas, or to keep the thoughts that can change the world and act upon it.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The Mixing of Type Etiquette
Seen in this link is an article by non other than Martin Majoor.
If yall recall, martin Majoor is teh man who designed Scala and Scala Sans.
I have never seen any wriitng from him until recently, but having mulled through halff off it i can see he has a lot to say specifically about type design.
In the article he goes into deep exploration about how one shoudl properly mix sans and serifs, and how he practices these ethical codes in his own design of type.
I post it on here because I feel it relevant to what we talk about relating to design ethic aesthetics, and Martin Majoor jujst so happens to be a bad ass.
Bon Apetite!
My Type Philosophy:by Martin Majoor
If yall recall, martin Majoor is teh man who designed Scala and Scala Sans.
I have never seen any wriitng from him until recently, but having mulled through halff off it i can see he has a lot to say specifically about type design.
In the article he goes into deep exploration about how one shoudl properly mix sans and serifs, and how he practices these ethical codes in his own design of type.
I post it on here because I feel it relevant to what we talk about relating to design ethic aesthetics, and Martin Majoor jujst so happens to be a bad ass.
Bon Apetite!
My Type Philosophy:by Martin Majoor
Thursday, March 24, 2005
vow of chastity
(from the DOGMA95 website)
DOGME95 is a collective of film directors founded in Copenhagen in spring 1995.
DOGME 95 has the expressed goal of countering “certain tendencies” in the cinema today.
DOGME 95 is a rescue action!
In 1960 enough was enough! The movie was dead and called for resurrection. The goal was correct but the means were not! The new wave proved to be a ripple that washed ashore and turned to muck.
Slogans of individualism and freedom created works for a while, but no changes. The wave was up for grabs, like the directors themselves. The wave was never stronger than the men behind it. The anti-bourgeois cinema itself became bourgeois, because the foundations upon which its theories were based was the bourgeois perception of art. The auteur concept was bourgeois romanticism from the very start and thereby ... false!
To DOGME 95 cinema is not individual!
Today a technological storm is raging, the result of which will be the ultimate democratisation of the cinema. For the first time, anyone can make movies. But the more accessible the media becomes, the more important the avant-garde, It is no accident that the phrase “avant-garde” has military connotations. Discipline is the answer ... we must put our films into uniform, because the individual film will be decadent by definition!
DOGME 95 counters the individual film by the principle of presenting an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.
In 1960 enough was enough! The movie had been cosmeticised to death, they said; yet since then the use of cosmetics has exploded.
The “supreme” task of the decadent film-makers is to fool the audience. Is that what we are so proud of? Is that what the “100 years” have brought us? Illusions via which emotions can be communicated? ... By the individual artist’s free choice of trickery?
Predictability (dramaturgy) has become the golden calf around which we dance. Having the characters’ inner lives justify the plot is too complicated, and not “high art”. As never before, the superficial action and the superficial movie are receiving all the praise.
The result is barren. An illusion of pathos and an illusion of love.
To DOGME 95 the movie is not illusion!
Today a technological storm is raging of which the result is the elevation of cosmetics to God. By using new technology anyone at any time can wash the last grains of truth away in the deadly embrace of sensation. The illusions are everything the movie can hide behind.
DOGME 95 counters the film of illusion by the presentation of an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.
below is the DOGME95 Manifesto referred to in this friday's reading. i remember seeing "The Celebration" when
"I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGME 95:
1.
Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2.
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
3.
The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
4.
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5.
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
7.
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
8.
Genre movies are not acceptable.
9.
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
10.
The director must not be credited.
Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."
Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995
DOGME95 is a collective of film directors founded in Copenhagen in spring 1995.
DOGME 95 has the expressed goal of countering “certain tendencies” in the cinema today.
DOGME 95 is a rescue action!
In 1960 enough was enough! The movie was dead and called for resurrection. The goal was correct but the means were not! The new wave proved to be a ripple that washed ashore and turned to muck.
Slogans of individualism and freedom created works for a while, but no changes. The wave was up for grabs, like the directors themselves. The wave was never stronger than the men behind it. The anti-bourgeois cinema itself became bourgeois, because the foundations upon which its theories were based was the bourgeois perception of art. The auteur concept was bourgeois romanticism from the very start and thereby ... false!
To DOGME 95 cinema is not individual!
Today a technological storm is raging, the result of which will be the ultimate democratisation of the cinema. For the first time, anyone can make movies. But the more accessible the media becomes, the more important the avant-garde, It is no accident that the phrase “avant-garde” has military connotations. Discipline is the answer ... we must put our films into uniform, because the individual film will be decadent by definition!
DOGME 95 counters the individual film by the principle of presenting an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.
In 1960 enough was enough! The movie had been cosmeticised to death, they said; yet since then the use of cosmetics has exploded.
The “supreme” task of the decadent film-makers is to fool the audience. Is that what we are so proud of? Is that what the “100 years” have brought us? Illusions via which emotions can be communicated? ... By the individual artist’s free choice of trickery?
Predictability (dramaturgy) has become the golden calf around which we dance. Having the characters’ inner lives justify the plot is too complicated, and not “high art”. As never before, the superficial action and the superficial movie are receiving all the praise.
The result is barren. An illusion of pathos and an illusion of love.
To DOGME 95 the movie is not illusion!
Today a technological storm is raging of which the result is the elevation of cosmetics to God. By using new technology anyone at any time can wash the last grains of truth away in the deadly embrace of sensation. The illusions are everything the movie can hide behind.
DOGME 95 counters the film of illusion by the presentation of an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.
below is the DOGME95 Manifesto referred to in this friday's reading. i remember seeing "The Celebration" when
"I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGME 95:
1.
Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2.
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
3.
The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
4.
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5.
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
7.
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
8.
Genre movies are not acceptable.
9.
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
10.
The director must not be credited.
Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."
Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Pre-fabricated Design
Hey again yall
Here is something to look at. The link I provide here is the main website for an architecture firm Located in New York. The reason I post it on the blog is because I feel what they do as architects somewhat relates to what we talk about in Visual Advocacy.
All their projects utilized prefabricated materials in new and innovative ways that no one else has ever thought of doing in this conext. I think it is an inventive way to reuse old industrial materials to a design advantage.
Check them out. Their work in awesome in my opinion.
http://www.lot-ek.com
(copy and paste the link in a new windo to view)
Here is something to look at. The link I provide here is the main website for an architecture firm Located in New York. The reason I post it on the blog is because I feel what they do as architects somewhat relates to what we talk about in Visual Advocacy.
All their projects utilized prefabricated materials in new and innovative ways that no one else has ever thought of doing in this conext. I think it is an inventive way to reuse old industrial materials to a design advantage.
Check them out. Their work in awesome in my opinion.
http://www.lot-ek.com
(copy and paste the link in a new windo to view)
Rite vs. Right
hey yall, I posted this blog a while bacck, but my account was messed up. So I am reposting it. The blog is a little old and the event I am talking about is long past, but I feel what I had to say is still relevant.
Bon Apetite!
What is the purpose of Ash Wednesday? History will give us the understanding that it is to commemorate repentance and humility and the sorrow for sins committed. It is a ritual that began around 590 BCE and has become a ceremony that is celebrated on an annual basis. There is a lot more to it, and if you are interested feel free to look at this link:
http://www.theholidayspot.com/ash_wednesday/origin.htm
My problem with this ritual of protestant decent is that most people are oblivious to why they actually partake in this ceremony in the first place. This problem goes farther than just Ash Wednesday and Lent, it includes any other holiday celebrations like; Valentines day, where people buy vast amounts of candy to express their shallow love to another individual; or Easter where the focus is more centered around a giant six foot bunny that sneaks into your house every March and hides hard boiled eggs in random places; or, god forbid, Christmas-the worst mass celebrated and bastardized holiday of them all. I won't even open this can of worms right now…
Getting back to my original point, I feel Ash Wednesday has lost its actual importance in society and has merely become a required ritual by those of that affiliated faith partake in. Essentially, what I am saying is that most people go to the Ash Wednesday ceremony, have some ashes of burned bamboo placed on their head in the form of a cross, then go about their day with no other connection to the ceremony except for the burnt remains inscribed on their forehead. My opinion of religion is that you have to buy the whole cow; you can't just nibble off small portions of your liking through the year as you please or else the meat will rot. I myself was raised Catholic, and after coming to my own realizations and development of my own ethos, I am no longer a practicing Catholic-so I no longer attend the ceremonies I did before. I have thought about going to Ash Wednesday in the recent years that have passed, but I realized that I would be a complete hypocrite if I did. Hypocrisy is most apparent in the modern day conception of religion, and in fact it has been apparent since its formation. What I am ranting on about is that people need to realize why they take part in these rituals, instead of doing it because they are socially and morally obligated. Individuals do not need to be the sheep of a religious heard. Think for yourself damit!
Now of course I know that there are people out there who celebrate and partake in this ritual because their faith/ethos is structured around this moral set of standards and the truly believe that what they are doing is right. Great, good for them. These people are not the individuals I am talking about. They have every right to believe what they want. I have full respect for individual beliefs as long as people practice what they preach and are not just going along with what is socially correct for the masses.
This may be one designer's opinions and I may be talking out of my ass, but I feel that people need to think for themselves and decide on their own if what society places as the norm is right for them. Break the mold that binds you! Be an independent speaker and thinker. If you don't know why, or care why, you put ashes on your forehead on the second Wednesday in February then don't do it-It is that simple! The same can be said for any other religious holiday.
I honestly could talk on this matter until I am blue in the face, but it is nearing two o'clock and I have class at 2:30.
Someone respond to this. Tell me if I am full of it or not.
Bon Apetite!
What is the purpose of Ash Wednesday? History will give us the understanding that it is to commemorate repentance and humility and the sorrow for sins committed. It is a ritual that began around 590 BCE and has become a ceremony that is celebrated on an annual basis. There is a lot more to it, and if you are interested feel free to look at this link:
http://www.theholidayspot.com/ash_wednesday/origin.htm
My problem with this ritual of protestant decent is that most people are oblivious to why they actually partake in this ceremony in the first place. This problem goes farther than just Ash Wednesday and Lent, it includes any other holiday celebrations like; Valentines day, where people buy vast amounts of candy to express their shallow love to another individual; or Easter where the focus is more centered around a giant six foot bunny that sneaks into your house every March and hides hard boiled eggs in random places; or, god forbid, Christmas-the worst mass celebrated and bastardized holiday of them all. I won't even open this can of worms right now…
Getting back to my original point, I feel Ash Wednesday has lost its actual importance in society and has merely become a required ritual by those of that affiliated faith partake in. Essentially, what I am saying is that most people go to the Ash Wednesday ceremony, have some ashes of burned bamboo placed on their head in the form of a cross, then go about their day with no other connection to the ceremony except for the burnt remains inscribed on their forehead. My opinion of religion is that you have to buy the whole cow; you can't just nibble off small portions of your liking through the year as you please or else the meat will rot. I myself was raised Catholic, and after coming to my own realizations and development of my own ethos, I am no longer a practicing Catholic-so I no longer attend the ceremonies I did before. I have thought about going to Ash Wednesday in the recent years that have passed, but I realized that I would be a complete hypocrite if I did. Hypocrisy is most apparent in the modern day conception of religion, and in fact it has been apparent since its formation. What I am ranting on about is that people need to realize why they take part in these rituals, instead of doing it because they are socially and morally obligated. Individuals do not need to be the sheep of a religious heard. Think for yourself damit!
Now of course I know that there are people out there who celebrate and partake in this ritual because their faith/ethos is structured around this moral set of standards and the truly believe that what they are doing is right. Great, good for them. These people are not the individuals I am talking about. They have every right to believe what they want. I have full respect for individual beliefs as long as people practice what they preach and are not just going along with what is socially correct for the masses.
This may be one designer's opinions and I may be talking out of my ass, but I feel that people need to think for themselves and decide on their own if what society places as the norm is right for them. Break the mold that binds you! Be an independent speaker and thinker. If you don't know why, or care why, you put ashes on your forehead on the second Wednesday in February then don't do it-It is that simple! The same can be said for any other religious holiday.
I honestly could talk on this matter until I am blue in the face, but it is nearing two o'clock and I have class at 2:30.
Someone respond to this. Tell me if I am full of it or not.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Road-Side Conglomerates
Greetings Yall.
Here is something to chew on. I recently left the land of barbeque and blues for Spring break to go to Chicago for various reasons. Well my trip has taken me through a total of four different states and there was on e key observation I made while driving along side each small town we passed. The observation and assumption I am making is that BP and Mc Donald’s are in cahoots. Almost every place we passed, both large and small, had a bp gas station right next to a Mc Donald’s.
This could be the first step toward world domination. Oh wait, what am I saying. These two conglomerates already own the world from a business perspective.
I am posting this blog to not really say anything profound, just to point out a disturbing observation I made while time passed on the road. Next time you leave KC pay attention and you will see what I mean. Even small red neck, one stop light, out-house in the center of it towns contained these two monuments to consumption.
Oh yeah, on final thing. Never EVER eat at a T+A truck stop. Worst service and horrid food. Especially if you don’t eat meat.
Here is something to chew on. I recently left the land of barbeque and blues for Spring break to go to Chicago for various reasons. Well my trip has taken me through a total of four different states and there was on e key observation I made while driving along side each small town we passed. The observation and assumption I am making is that BP and Mc Donald’s are in cahoots. Almost every place we passed, both large and small, had a bp gas station right next to a Mc Donald’s.
This could be the first step toward world domination. Oh wait, what am I saying. These two conglomerates already own the world from a business perspective.
I am posting this blog to not really say anything profound, just to point out a disturbing observation I made while time passed on the road. Next time you leave KC pay attention and you will see what I mean. Even small red neck, one stop light, out-house in the center of it towns contained these two monuments to consumption.
Oh yeah, on final thing. Never EVER eat at a T+A truck stop. Worst service and horrid food. Especially if you don’t eat meat.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
words from Jean Metzinger
props to Courbet:
Reality is deeper than academic recipes, and more complex also. Courbet was like one who contemplates the Ocean for the first time and who, diverted by the play of the waves, does not think of the depths; we can hardly blame him, because it is to him that we owe our present joys, so subtle and so powerful.
Reality is deeper than academic recipes, and more complex also. Courbet was like one who contemplates the Ocean for the first time and who, diverted by the play of the waves, does not think of the depths; we can hardly blame him, because it is to him that we owe our present joys, so subtle and so powerful.
pat yourself on the back
It is one thing to attend a school that is well known for the purpose you are going there for. It is another thing to attend a school that was well known for the purpose your are going there for...forty years ago. I am proud to be in the KCAI school of design for it's past, present, and future. For all the b.s. we put up with from our peers from across the way, for all of the frustration that comes with believing in something that others can't see. For all of the times we couldn't party with our friends from across the way because we had work to do. God forbid actually being productive at the KCAI. We are soldiers.
On sheep and shephards
(disregard my blog being called responsibility) - I am attempting to lay a foundation for those of us who really believe in the issues proposed in our Vis. Ad. class, as well as issues proposed by Citizen Designer. Personally, I am attracted to design and to becoming a life long designer because of the power we have to change the way things work - this said, I want to be one of the good guys whose work is under a different light, a responsible light, an admirable light, and an innovative light. So the problem is, I am struggling with putting my name on paper saying that I will do this and that in regards to ecologically minded design, when truthfully, I dont approach my work instinctively with these things in mind. So I am trying to re-evaluate my approach to my work, as well as trying to really think of ways to be a shephard in this pasture of responsible design, and not to be way in the back of the herd just because I know it is the right herd to be in. I'm not sure it is so black and white. On one side having the designer making work solely for the client disregarding their personal belief system, the other being one whose work reflects their ideals and standards in and out of work. There has to be compromises and other avenues of acceptable work both in and out of the design community. I think we are on the right path. We are a young profession, and one that will always be improving. We must be honest no matter where each individual project takes us. This honesty will tear down some barriers that I feel this movement of responsible design is making. We are all shephards by nature, lets use this to our advantage, honestly.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Karim Rashid can have it... I don't want it.
I'm talking about the world. Karim Rashid wrote a book called "I Want to Change the World". When I first heard about him several years ago, I was inspired by the power he saw in design and it's ability to "change the world". After I let it set in for quite some time, and especially after the discussions we've been having in this class, his ideas have come to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
It brings several things to mind. One, I assume Rashid has good intentions for the most part, and being a respectable person I also take assumptions that he isn't intent on destroying the planet or ceating any pain and suffering in his attempts to "change" things.
Also, how does responsibility fit into this kind of endeavor? As designer's aren't we responsible for the work we do and it's kinetic ineteraction with the world? Especially in industrial design and Architecture, which for the most part are purely luxury-oriented and the creation of new, unprecedented necessity driven projects is very low. These fields thrive on making existing things better, ie: new improved knee braces, toilet bowls, computer mice, exciting skyscrapers, new malls, etc [side: I see validity in these things too, but to what extent can we push the envelope of progress vs. the idea that a new product means new income]. It feels so greedy (I don't think Rashid is hiding this feeling) in wanting to effect the human race as one, but I think design can be so much more effective when the generalizations for HUGE audiences don't have to be made. When designers decide to focus their efforts to certain audiences, taking into account the context their work will be viwed/used in and the user's background, true connections can be made between the work( and the designer) and the user. When Rashid makes new neon curvy trashcans and tells the world (with reassurance from trendy publications) that they are inevitably better than *older* metal trashcans, while he is taking some chances (a choice I support) he is also insulting the inteligence of his audience by teling them what is beauty, telling them what kind of objects are in good taste and so on. A choice I don't support.
I think our discussion on Friday about beauty and its effectiveness holds true, and beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what Rashid thinks. As far as personal activity goes, I want to design for small groups of people, making sure that my work appeals to them in the way I want it to/the way {ithey/i} want it to. If Rashid wants to tell the world what good design is, he can sure try. I'll take the people who want beauty for themselves and have the state of mind to make that decision on their own, be it ceramic unicorns or beautifully constructed pieces of furniture or architecture or fucking rubber jar openers. Leave it up to humans to decide. I think we can help, and should, but we have no right to dictate what beauty is. We're just part of the fad anyway.
PS- I don't know how to code html in this thing. sorry for the funny punctuation.
It brings several things to mind. One, I assume Rashid has good intentions for the most part, and being a respectable person I also take assumptions that he isn't intent on destroying the planet or ceating any pain and suffering in his attempts to "change" things.
Also, how does responsibility fit into this kind of endeavor? As designer's aren't we responsible for the work we do and it's kinetic ineteraction with the world? Especially in industrial design and Architecture, which for the most part are purely luxury-oriented and the creation of new, unprecedented necessity driven projects is very low. These fields thrive on making existing things better, ie: new improved knee braces, toilet bowls, computer mice, exciting skyscrapers, new malls, etc [side: I see validity in these things too, but to what extent can we push the envelope of progress vs. the idea that a new product means new income]. It feels so greedy (I don't think Rashid is hiding this feeling) in wanting to effect the human race as one, but I think design can be so much more effective when the generalizations for HUGE audiences don't have to be made. When designers decide to focus their efforts to certain audiences, taking into account the context their work will be viwed/used in and the user's background, true connections can be made between the work( and the designer) and the user. When Rashid makes new neon curvy trashcans and tells the world (with reassurance from trendy publications) that they are inevitably better than *older* metal trashcans, while he is taking some chances (a choice I support) he is also insulting the inteligence of his audience by teling them what is beauty, telling them what kind of objects are in good taste and so on. A choice I don't support.
I think our discussion on Friday about beauty and its effectiveness holds true, and beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what Rashid thinks. As far as personal activity goes, I want to design for small groups of people, making sure that my work appeals to them in the way I want it to/the way {ithey/i} want it to. If Rashid wants to tell the world what good design is, he can sure try. I'll take the people who want beauty for themselves and have the state of mind to make that decision on their own, be it ceramic unicorns or beautifully constructed pieces of furniture or architecture or fucking rubber jar openers. Leave it up to humans to decide. I think we can help, and should, but we have no right to dictate what beauty is. We're just part of the fad anyway.
PS- I don't know how to code html in this thing. sorry for the funny punctuation.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Truth in Advertising
Since the beginning of this BND assignment, I've been struggling with the idea of using the same tactics advertising/marketing uses to promote mass-consumption. I think we articulated it well the other day in class when we called it "fighting fire with fire." Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway I came across this connection in a reading for another class which outlined the way that the DADA poet Tristan Tzara used the conventions of advertising to subvert its original intentions and accomplish his own. The article says:
"Dada also made use of the advertisement, but not as an alibi, an allusion, but as a utilisable material w/ aesthetic and suggestive ends...It used the very reality of advertising in the service of its own publicity needs."
Is this still a legitimate option in a day when advertising is not as new and its audience not so naive to its manipulative nature?
"Dada also made use of the advertisement, but not as an alibi, an allusion, but as a utilisable material w/ aesthetic and suggestive ends...It used the very reality of advertising in the service of its own publicity needs."
Is this still a legitimate option in a day when advertising is not as new and its audience not so naive to its manipulative nature?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Designers with impact on evil side
The other day, I was talking to my friend who recently graduated from design school.
He mentioned, "What about the designers who creates guns, bombs, or even tanks? Are they responsible for their designs?"
I struggled. For the purpose of killing others, I can't say it isn't their responsibility however they only designed it. isn't it?
Design for good or evil-- that is really inbetween designer's morality and responsibility, I think.
He mentioned, "What about the designers who creates guns, bombs, or even tanks? Are they responsible for their designs?"
I struggled. For the purpose of killing others, I can't say it isn't their responsibility however they only designed it. isn't it?
Design for good or evil-- that is really inbetween designer's morality and responsibility, I think.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
low flow that is the tempo
standard toilets use at least three and a half gallons of water for each flush. many water districts offer rebates to those who switch to more efficient models, but if no such program exists where you live, look back to the 70s, when the groovy, homegrown solution was to set a brick or two in the tank.
each brick displaces about a third of a gallon of water, sending much less than that down the pipes.
(this message from readymade magazine, issue 16)
each brick displaces about a third of a gallon of water, sending much less than that down the pipes.
(this message from readymade magazine, issue 16)
Friday, February 11, 2005
manifestos: de stijl, novebergrueppe, first things first, futurism
Novembergruppe manifesto
1918
The novembergruppe was an organization of artists formed on 3 december 1918 in response to the German revolution of November 1918. Leading figures included max pechstein and cesar klein. Others involved were Rudolph belling, heinrich campendonk and otto muller. After the defeat of the revolution, and the establishment of the bourgeois Weimar republic, differences of opinion emerged about the group’s role and commitments. These early statements mark the utopian moment of the group’s enthusiastic foundation.
Manifesto
We are standing on the fertile soil of the revolution.
Our slogan is: Freedom, Equality, and Fraternity!
We are uniting because we have human and artistic convictions in common.
We believe that our first duty is to dedicate all our energies to the moral regeneration of a young and free Germany.
We plead for excellence in all things and we shall support this plea with all the means at our disposal.
We insist upon an unlimited freedom of expression as well as public acknowledgement of it.
We believe it is our special duty to gather together all significant artistic talents and dedicate it to the collective well-being of the nation.
We belong to no party, no class. We are human beings, human beings who work tirelessly at the task appointed to us by nature. It is a task, like any other if it is to benefit the whole Volk, which must take into consideration the general public good and requires the appreciation and recognition of that general public.
We respect every achievement in every sphere and we are of the opinion that the most competent men will assume the heaviest duties, submitting themselves to such duties for the sake and benefit of the whole Volk;
Our goal—each at his place in hard, tireless, collective, creative work.
We feel young, free, and pure.
Our spotless love belongs to a young, free Germany and we shall fight against all backwardness and reaction, bravely, without reserve, and with all the power at our command.
We send our fondest greetings to all those who have heard the call and feel responsible—Cubists, Futurists, and Expressionists. Join us!
De Stijl manifesto
The De Stijl group was founded in Holland in 1917, dedicated to a synthesis of art, design and architecture. Its leading figure was Theo van Doesburg. Other members included Gerrit Rietveld and JJP Oud, both architects and designers, and the painters Georges Vantongerloo and Pite Mondrian. Links were established with the Bauhaus in Weimar Germany, and with similar projects in Russia, particularly through contracts with El Lissitsky. The manifesto, principally the work of van Doesburg, was composed in 1918. It was published in the group’s journal De Stijl, V, no.4, Amsterdam, 1922.
1. There is an old and new consciousness of time.
The old is connected with th individual.
The new is connected with the universal.
The struggle of the individual against the universal is revealing itself in the world war as well as in the art of the present day.
2. The war is destroying the old world and its contents; individual domination in every state.
3. The new art has brought forward what the consciousness of time contains: a balance between the universal and the individual.
4. The new consciousness is prepared to realize the internal life as well as the external life.
5. Traditions, dogmas, and the domination of the individual are opposed to this realization.
6. The founders of the new plastic art, therefore, call upon all who believe in the reformation of art and culture to eradicate these obstacles to development, as in the new plastic art (by excluding natural form) they have eradicated that which blocks pure artistic expression, the ultimate consequence of all concepts of art.
7. The artists of today have been driven the whole world over by the same consciousness, and therefore have taken part from an intellectual point of view in this war against the domination of individual despotism. They therefore sympathize with all who work to establish international unity in life, art, culture, either intellectually or materially. […]
First Things First Manifesto 2000
This manifesto was published in Emigre magazine issue 51.
First Things First Revisited
We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, art directors and visual communicators who have been raised in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable use of our talents. Many design teachers and mentors promote this belief; the market rewards it; a tide of books and publications reinforces it.
Encouraged in this direction, designers then apply their skill and imagination to sell dog biscuits, designer coffee, diamonds, detergents, hair gel, cigarettes, credit cards, sneakers, butt toners, light beer and heavy-duty recreational vehicles. Commercial work has always paid the bills, but many graphic designers have now let it become, in large measure, what graphic designers do. This, in turn, is how the world perceives design. The profession's time and energy is used up manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best.
Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view of design. Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.
There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention. Many cultural interventions, social market- ing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require our expertise and help.
We propose a reversal of priorities in favor of more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication - a mindshift away from product marketing and toward the exploration and production of a new kind of meaning. The scope of debate is shrinking; it must expand. Consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives expressed, in part, through the visual languages and resources of design.
In 1964, 22 visual communicators signed the original call for our skills to be put to worthwhile use. With the explosive growth of global commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent. Today, we renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades will pass before it is taken to heart.
Jonathan Barnbrook
Nick Bell
Andrew Blauvelt
Hans Bockting
Irma Boom
Sheila Levrant de Bretteville
Max Bruinsma
Si‰n Cook
Linda van Deursen
Chris Dixon
William Drenttel
Gert Dumbar
Simon Esterson
Vince Frost
Ken Garland
Milton Glaser
Jessica Helfand
Steven Heller
Andrew Howard
Tibor Kalman
Jeffery Keedy
Zuzana Licko
Ellen Lupton
Katherine McCoy
Armand Mevis
J. Abbott Miller
Rick Poynor
Lucienne Roberts
Erik Spiekermann
Jan van Toorn
Teal Triggs
Rudy VanderLans
Bob Wilkinson
The Futurist Manifesto
F. T. Marinetti, 1909
We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.
Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls.
Then we were suddenly distracted by the rumbling of huge double decker trams that went leaping by, streaked with light like the villages celebrating their festivals, which the Po in flood suddenly knocks down and uproots, and, in the rapids and eddies of a deluge, drags down to the sea.
Then the silence increased. As we listened to the last faint prayer of the old canal and the crumbling of the bones of the moribund palaces with their green growth of beard, suddenly the hungry automobiles roared beneath our windows.
`Come, my friends!' I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness.'
We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel - a guillotine knife - which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,' I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!'
And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.
And yet we had no ideal Mistress stretching her form up to the clouds, nor yet a cruel Queen to whom to offer our corpses twisted into the shape of Byzantine rings! No reason to die unless it is the desire to be rid of the too great weight of our courage!
We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.
Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of puddles.
`Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the Absurd!'
As soon as I had said these words, I turned sharply back on my tracks with the mad intoxication of puppies biting their tails, and suddenly there were two cyclists disapproving of me and tottering in front of me like two persuasive but contradictory reasons. Their stupid swaying got in my way. What a bore! Pouah! I stopped short, and in disgust hurled myself - vlan! - head over heels in a ditch.
Oh, maternal ditch, half full of muddy water! A factory gutter! I savored a mouthful of strengthening muck which recalled the black teat of my Sudanese nurse!
As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.
We thought it was dead, my good shark, but I woke it with a single caress of its powerful back, and it was revived running as fast as it could on its fins.
Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.
MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM
1. We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.
2. The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.
3. Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.
4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
5. We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.
6. The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.
7. Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
8. We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
9. We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.
10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.
11. We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds.
It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism, because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.
Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with innumerable cemeteries.
Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?
What can you find in an old picture except the painful contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers which obstruct the full expression of his dream?
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. Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?
Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.
For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living Futurists!
Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the foundation of venerable towns!
The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems, clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.
But we shall not be there. They will find us at last one winter's night in the depths of the country in a sad hangar echoing with the notes of the monotonous rain, crouched near our trembling aeroplanes, warming our hands at the wretched fire which our books of today will make when they flame gaily beneath the glittering flight of their pictures.
They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.
The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.
Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!
Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: `We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors,' it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!
Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!
1918
The novembergruppe was an organization of artists formed on 3 december 1918 in response to the German revolution of November 1918. Leading figures included max pechstein and cesar klein. Others involved were Rudolph belling, heinrich campendonk and otto muller. After the defeat of the revolution, and the establishment of the bourgeois Weimar republic, differences of opinion emerged about the group’s role and commitments. These early statements mark the utopian moment of the group’s enthusiastic foundation.
Manifesto
We are standing on the fertile soil of the revolution.
Our slogan is: Freedom, Equality, and Fraternity!
We are uniting because we have human and artistic convictions in common.
We believe that our first duty is to dedicate all our energies to the moral regeneration of a young and free Germany.
We plead for excellence in all things and we shall support this plea with all the means at our disposal.
We insist upon an unlimited freedom of expression as well as public acknowledgement of it.
We believe it is our special duty to gather together all significant artistic talents and dedicate it to the collective well-being of the nation.
We belong to no party, no class. We are human beings, human beings who work tirelessly at the task appointed to us by nature. It is a task, like any other if it is to benefit the whole Volk, which must take into consideration the general public good and requires the appreciation and recognition of that general public.
We respect every achievement in every sphere and we are of the opinion that the most competent men will assume the heaviest duties, submitting themselves to such duties for the sake and benefit of the whole Volk;
Our goal—each at his place in hard, tireless, collective, creative work.
We feel young, free, and pure.
Our spotless love belongs to a young, free Germany and we shall fight against all backwardness and reaction, bravely, without reserve, and with all the power at our command.
We send our fondest greetings to all those who have heard the call and feel responsible—Cubists, Futurists, and Expressionists. Join us!
De Stijl manifesto
The De Stijl group was founded in Holland in 1917, dedicated to a synthesis of art, design and architecture. Its leading figure was Theo van Doesburg. Other members included Gerrit Rietveld and JJP Oud, both architects and designers, and the painters Georges Vantongerloo and Pite Mondrian. Links were established with the Bauhaus in Weimar Germany, and with similar projects in Russia, particularly through contracts with El Lissitsky. The manifesto, principally the work of van Doesburg, was composed in 1918. It was published in the group’s journal De Stijl, V, no.4, Amsterdam, 1922.
1. There is an old and new consciousness of time.
The old is connected with th individual.
The new is connected with the universal.
The struggle of the individual against the universal is revealing itself in the world war as well as in the art of the present day.
2. The war is destroying the old world and its contents; individual domination in every state.
3. The new art has brought forward what the consciousness of time contains: a balance between the universal and the individual.
4. The new consciousness is prepared to realize the internal life as well as the external life.
5. Traditions, dogmas, and the domination of the individual are opposed to this realization.
6. The founders of the new plastic art, therefore, call upon all who believe in the reformation of art and culture to eradicate these obstacles to development, as in the new plastic art (by excluding natural form) they have eradicated that which blocks pure artistic expression, the ultimate consequence of all concepts of art.
7. The artists of today have been driven the whole world over by the same consciousness, and therefore have taken part from an intellectual point of view in this war against the domination of individual despotism. They therefore sympathize with all who work to establish international unity in life, art, culture, either intellectually or materially. […]
First Things First Manifesto 2000
This manifesto was published in Emigre magazine issue 51.
First Things First Revisited
We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, art directors and visual communicators who have been raised in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable use of our talents. Many design teachers and mentors promote this belief; the market rewards it; a tide of books and publications reinforces it.
Encouraged in this direction, designers then apply their skill and imagination to sell dog biscuits, designer coffee, diamonds, detergents, hair gel, cigarettes, credit cards, sneakers, butt toners, light beer and heavy-duty recreational vehicles. Commercial work has always paid the bills, but many graphic designers have now let it become, in large measure, what graphic designers do. This, in turn, is how the world perceives design. The profession's time and energy is used up manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best.
Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view of design. Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.
There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention. Many cultural interventions, social market- ing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require our expertise and help.
We propose a reversal of priorities in favor of more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication - a mindshift away from product marketing and toward the exploration and production of a new kind of meaning. The scope of debate is shrinking; it must expand. Consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives expressed, in part, through the visual languages and resources of design.
In 1964, 22 visual communicators signed the original call for our skills to be put to worthwhile use. With the explosive growth of global commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent. Today, we renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades will pass before it is taken to heart.
Jonathan Barnbrook
Nick Bell
Andrew Blauvelt
Hans Bockting
Irma Boom
Sheila Levrant de Bretteville
Max Bruinsma
Si‰n Cook
Linda van Deursen
Chris Dixon
William Drenttel
Gert Dumbar
Simon Esterson
Vince Frost
Ken Garland
Milton Glaser
Jessica Helfand
Steven Heller
Andrew Howard
Tibor Kalman
Jeffery Keedy
Zuzana Licko
Ellen Lupton
Katherine McCoy
Armand Mevis
J. Abbott Miller
Rick Poynor
Lucienne Roberts
Erik Spiekermann
Jan van Toorn
Teal Triggs
Rudy VanderLans
Bob Wilkinson
The Futurist Manifesto
F. T. Marinetti, 1909
We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.
Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls.
Then we were suddenly distracted by the rumbling of huge double decker trams that went leaping by, streaked with light like the villages celebrating their festivals, which the Po in flood suddenly knocks down and uproots, and, in the rapids and eddies of a deluge, drags down to the sea.
Then the silence increased. As we listened to the last faint prayer of the old canal and the crumbling of the bones of the moribund palaces with their green growth of beard, suddenly the hungry automobiles roared beneath our windows.
`Come, my friends!' I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness.'
We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel - a guillotine knife - which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,' I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!'
And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.
And yet we had no ideal Mistress stretching her form up to the clouds, nor yet a cruel Queen to whom to offer our corpses twisted into the shape of Byzantine rings! No reason to die unless it is the desire to be rid of the too great weight of our courage!
We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.
Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of puddles.
`Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the Absurd!'
As soon as I had said these words, I turned sharply back on my tracks with the mad intoxication of puppies biting their tails, and suddenly there were two cyclists disapproving of me and tottering in front of me like two persuasive but contradictory reasons. Their stupid swaying got in my way. What a bore! Pouah! I stopped short, and in disgust hurled myself - vlan! - head over heels in a ditch.
Oh, maternal ditch, half full of muddy water! A factory gutter! I savored a mouthful of strengthening muck which recalled the black teat of my Sudanese nurse!
As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.
We thought it was dead, my good shark, but I woke it with a single caress of its powerful back, and it was revived running as fast as it could on its fins.
Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.
MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM
1. We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.
2. The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.
3. Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.
4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
5. We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.
6. The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.
7. Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
8. We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
9. We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.
10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.
11. We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds.
It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism, because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.
Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with innumerable cemeteries.
Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?
What can you find in an old picture except the painful contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers which obstruct the full expression of his dream?
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. Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?
Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.
For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living Futurists!
Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the foundation of venerable towns!
The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems, clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.
But we shall not be there. They will find us at last one winter's night in the depths of the country in a sad hangar echoing with the notes of the monotonous rain, crouched near our trembling aeroplanes, warming our hands at the wretched fire which our books of today will make when they flame gaily beneath the glittering flight of their pictures.
They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.
The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.
Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!
Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: `We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors,' it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!
Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)