DSDN171 Blog Assignment 10 (Week 13)

Postmodernism was the result of the people’s uprising against what they saw as an unnecessarily restrictive nature of Modernism. They had grown tired of being fully practical and minimalist and sought in Postmodernism a certain freedom of expression. Venturi was speaking for the wider community when he said, “[We] can no longer afford to be intimidated by the puritanically moral language of orthodox Modern architecture. […] I am for messy vitality over obvious unity.” (1966).

Postmodernism can be considered a remix of old ideas and works to bring new meaning to a particular thing, whether it be design or other cultural fields.  After “questions were raised whether the […] modernist aesthetic could cater adequately for the increasingly variegated tastes and desires of the consumer,” (Woodham, 1997 , p. 183), Postmodernism sought to bring new life to design and increase accessibility, whatever the individual’s taste or desire.

The image below (fig. 1) is a remix of an original renowned painting by Salvador Dali, which has been brought into the Postmodernist era with an adaption to a ‘Simpsons’ theme. It historically quotes Dali’s ‘The Persistence of Memory’ (fig. 2), directly re-presenting the placement of the objects in the new image as they were in the original, and by the same style in which they appear to be melting. Even though this remixed image is cartoonised, the elements quoted make the image recognizable. Humour is also used in the image by adding ‘The Simpsons’ characters, with their iconic yellow colour and/or caricatures, that television audiences are so familiar with. It is funny because the melting figures mock the strange concept behind Dali’s painting – ‘The Simpsons’ characters do not melt over tree branches, but neither do clocks as portrayed in the original.

The remix utilises this historical quotation in combination with humour to add meaning, by making the artwork more accessible to the current generation, to whom ‘The Simpsons’ is an incredibly well recognised television show. A work of art is use unless there is an audience to whom it means something. A humourous take on a famous painting, the original of which seems so inaccessible and ‘ancient’ to today’s society, and not at all to their developed taste for art, gives meaning to both the remix and the original, because it appears familiar, not formidable, to the audience of today. This, a ‘license’ to take history and apply it to today, is the root of Postmodernism – a response to the period of Modernism, which was a time when rules of ‘good and proper design’ did not allow for such freedom of expression.

Fig. 1 - sourced from:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/171/171syllabus13chapter7.html

(Original)

Fig. 2 - sourced from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Persistence_of_Memory.jpg

Citations:

Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

Woodham, J. (1997). Pop to Post-Modernism: Changing Values in Twentieth-Century Design (pp.182-203) Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 9 (Week 12)

What kinds of political or ideological messages inform design or the branding of design today? Identify one example and describe in what ways it expresses larger cultural, political, or ideological beliefs.

It was during the Cold War, fought peacefully between the Capitalist USA and the Communist Europe, that the ‘Kitchen Debate’ arose. The USA was all about ‘the good life’, and claimed it was the better party because it provided the very best for its people, making them happy. The Kitchen Debate was based on America’s aim for a consumerist culture, which they hoped would help rebuild the country’s economy after WWII. America also “offered a bright vision of material abundance to assuage the privations of Europe”, (Pavitt, 2008, p. 75) in an effort to convince [Europe] that a consumerist society was the way to rebuild the economy.

American corporations sold not only products to the people, but firstly and foremostly the idea that their products were necessary, would make one happier, and would improve one’s quality of life. They used “American models of modern domesticity”, that is, females who the consumers of the time, to whom the women of the household would relate, to “’[conflate] democratic freedom with rising private consumption.’” (Pavitt, 2008, p. 75) The most successful advertisements for products, both then and now, push this ideology, that better living comes from being a consumer, to the limit. If the branding makes the consumer believe that they need the product to be better off, it will sell.

An example of this is the branding of renowned chocolate company, ‘Cadbury’. The company’s latest sales pitch is ‘Share the Joy’, a campaign aligning Cadbury with happiness. The logo below is the central point of the campaign, which is a collection of many videos, songs and images all reflecting back to the joy that Cadbury products will supposedly bring you. Although this message is never outrightly stated, by aligning their brand with happiness, Cadbury has cleverly convinced consumers to buy their product. If Cadbury equals happiness, and happiness satisfies consumers’ desires, Cadbury can convince people buy their product by persuading them that it is necessary in order to be happy.

This ideology that a particular product is necessary for happiness stems back to America’s push for a consumerist culture in the wake of WWII. Their plan to boost the economy worked, because consumers were convinced that they needed the products. However, how can one be truly happy when companies constantly refuel the ideology that craves constant consumption of their products? The economy boost may have succeeded, but the ideologies involved in this give rise to the prospect of an insatiable appetite for the material.

'Share the Joy' logo by Cadbury
http://amillionpagesofinspiration.com/category/branding/page/2/

Citations:

Pavitt, J. (2008). Design and the Deomocratic Ideal, Cold War Modern: Design 1945-1970 (pp. 72-91) London: V&A Publishing.

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 8 (Week 11)

In our reading this week, “The first machine age in Europe” by David Raizman, we learned that Hannes Meyer, the Swiss-born architect appointed director of the Bauhaus in 1928, argued that design is a product of “function x economy”, aligning design with a scientific model driven by new technologies and manufacturing potential. Considering this week’s lecture and readings respond to the following question (approximately 150-300 words, as needed):

Do you agree or disagree with the position that design is a result of “function x economy”? Do you think design today an ‘art’ or a ‘science’? Should it be one or the other, or can it be both?

I do not agree that design in a result of “function x economy”. Granted, a company must sell products, and these need to be functional to sell, so they can be financially sustainable and have the capacity to keep designing new products, but by the same reasoning, a company must give its designers freedom to create, just as Gropius “supported artistic freedom and individuality rather than the imposition of typical, standardized forms,” (Raizman, 2004, p. 181) because without innovation, a product will not sell anyway.

Designers are the visionaries who push the boundaries and pave the way to new possibilities of design. Without this vision, design would grind to a halt and there would never be new innovations because the focus will be on sheer practicality. Designer Reitveld, whose “Schroder House fulfilled many of the esthetic principles embraced in [the journal] De Stijl, in particular the attempt to create a “living” work of non-objective art, to extend the experience of non-objectivity to a built environment,” (Raizman, 2004, p. 171) believed that design went beyond pure bare minimum functionality, and with this I agree. I think that design is an ‘art’ and should be treated as so. I also think that there is a distinction between designers and manufacturers - the mechanical process of building these ideas into mass produced products is the ‘science’ component.

We have come a long way from the designs of a century ago with designs that function better not because they are simply practical, but because they create joy within the user. The first Apple Macintosh computer (fig. 1) looks to us today an ugly piece of technology – it satisfies its function well enough - you can type and use the mouse - but by today’s standards, it wouldn’t be enjoyable to use at all. In contrast, the Apple iMac currently on the market (fig. 2) also performs its function, but, more than this, it makes the user want to use it because it is sleek and attractive and has a finely tuned user interface that makes it a pleasure to use. Consumers, when given the choice, will buy products that they will enjoy using – hence, a company must accommodate for this by designing products that are not just ‘science-based’ and functional at that moment in time. Instead, they must allow for designers to think creatively, using design as an ‘art’ to respond to the requirements set by the interactivity involved between the user and the design.

Raizman, D. (2004). The First Machine Age in Europe, in History of Modern Design (pp. 166-191) New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Fig 1. 

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/first-apple-mac-plus-goes-up-for-auction-18-09-2009/


Fig 2.

http://tinacolada.net/zrrltsy/Imac

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 7 (Week 10)

In this week’s lecture we discussed the concept of the “symbolic universe” as a cultural “structure of legitimation” capable of organizing the social world as comprehensible and connected. The structure of the symbolic universe then, places the individual in a known and knowable space. Such social structures are critical for societies in transition. Can you identify the creation of any “symbolic universe” today (or in recent years)? How might media and design be implicated in the construction of these social universes today?

One of the most popular areas for the creation of “symbolic universes” today is in advertising. Everywhere we look, companies are creating idyllic situations in their advertisements to make us believe we will be better off by buying their product. This utopian ideal is “a good, beneficent place, better in all ways than that in which its creators live,” (Kihlstedt, 1986, p. 97). One such example of this influence is an ad by well-known surfwear and general clothing label, Billabong. In this ad below, they create a utopia for female teens. Everything the ad, from the joyous expressions on the girls’ faces, to the body language they’re using, to the very choice of gorgeous models, is portraying that the consumer will become these upon purchasing the brand. Of course, it is a ridiculous theory – buying labeled clothes is not guaranteed to make you happier, more attractive, or get you more friends, but something on a subconscious level is targeted by this type of advertising. As with “symbolic universes” created within world fairs of the 20^th century, those created in advertising today “equate[…] happiness with the fulfillment of material needs and wants,” (Kihlstedt, 1986, p. 97).

Media and design are heavily implicated in the construction of “symbolic universes” today, especially in those created in advertising. It is the design of an advertisement that alludes to a utopian ideal that needs to sell the idea to the consumer, so it revolves around the consumers’ ideals. The design aesthetics of this particular poster are light and airy, expressing happiness and carefreeness, because that is what potential buyers want to be shown. Media is implicated because the media forms that will best penetrate the niche market, in this case, print forms, like posters and magazine ad, for the label will be used.

Kihlstedt, F. (1986). Utopia Realized: The World’s Fairs of the 1930s in Imagining Tomorrow: History Technology, and the American Future (pp.97-118). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

http://valenbarbero.blogspot.com/2009/11/chapter-15-billabong-ads.html

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 6 (Week 6)

In this week’s reading Benjamin argues, “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic print makes no sense.” Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there is a role for the ‘authentic’ in an age of digital design and manufacture?

I agree with this statement – the development of how artwork is produced today has affected its original form – more and more often, it is purely digital. Benjamin talks about how designs were previously created by an “incision on a block of wood or […] etching on a copperplate” (Benjamin, 1992, p. 219), these methods contrasting with more progressive, readily reproducible ones. These methods did allow for reproduction of the artwork, but involved a clear original in the first place – one that society holds with more value than a copy. As the demand for easily reproducible art has grown, like Benjamin says, art has become “designed for reproducibility” – the photographic negative allows for infinite reproductions of the work, however, the uniqueness surrounding an original print, as with an original painting that may be sought after by a collector as an authentic alternative to the many copies available, has been lost.

This poses the question as to whether the original of an artwork has a place in today’s society. With everything moving to a digital form, the physicality of a work of art, being able to hold and smell a crisp, brand new book in one’s hands, rather than reading the pages off a computer screen, is being lost. The problem is, there is something special about an original - “[e]ven the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element; its presence in time and space, its unique existence,” (Benjamin, 1992, p. 220). But, as the very form in which the artwork is produced moves with the digital age, more and more often skipping the stage where an exclusive original is created, sadly, the ‘authentic’ print is losing its place in society. I don’t think that there could be a place for the ‘authentic’ when technology is moving as fast as it is today.

Benjamin, W. (1992). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (pp. 211-244) in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn. London: Fontana.

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 5 (Week 5)

How has the experience and experimentation of artists influenced our understanding of colour and the development of a theory of ‘colour vision’?

Originally, vision was thought of as an external process; an exchange of information from outside to inside, but, over time, improved theories have been formed and refined. It was Newton who made the first real scientific investigations and initiated the theory of a “quantifiable colour-order” (Gage, 1993, p. 191). By his experiments splitting light through a prism into the colours of the spectrum, he determined that vision was an external process – the colours existed externally and there was no element of internal perception involved. In the 1820’s, Chevrul began to recognise a relationship and interference between colours, where a glow could be observed on the fringe of two complimentary colours placed side by side, which he called ‘simultaneous contrast’ (Gage, 1993, p. 191) – this was an early indicator that colour recognition involved an internal process. Following this, Goethe proposed a theory that it is the brain which recognizes colours. He discovered this by experimentation with “complimentary after-images” at “junctions of light and dark areas”, where he could see the outline of an object after staring at it for some time, even when it was gone (Gage, 1993, p. 201). These outlines he concluded were a result of internal perception of colour, and so an internal process must exist.  Following Geothe’s theory formation, Runge and Turner coordinated the complimentary colours and set up the primary colour scheme respectively. These discoveries and many others have been monumental in the collaboration of ‘colour theory’ today, where we understand colour vision due to experimentation and discovery by these artists.

Gage, J. (1993). Colours of the Mind in Colour and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction (pp.191-212). New York: Thames and Hudson.

DSDN171 Blog Assignment 4 (Week 4)

Adolf Loos argued in 1908 that, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use.” After careful consideration, I do believe that Loos is correct, to an extent. Most everyday objects today have little ornamentation – minimalist design, which is now popular, means there is no need to intrinsically decorate every object. Modern housewares such as plates and cups are simply and practically designed (ref. 1). This is just one example of what is now acceptable by today’s standards, compared to a plate years ago which was expected to have some sort of intricate design – a show of the craftsman’s talent. “Decorated plates are expensive, while white crockery, which is pleasing to the modern individual, is cheap.” However, I do believe that this is a result of industrialization– minimalist design is a cost-effective way of mass-producing. As Loos said, “ornament (…) commits a crime itself by damaging national economy”. Objects without much ornamentation are cheaper to produce, and it is not essential to ornament, therefore society has reduced its efforts to do so, resulting in progression. Therefore, I agree with Loos that culture has evolved as minimalist design has become more and more popular, but I do not agree with the context in which he puts it – “the man of our time who daubs the walls with erotic symbols to satisfy an inner urge is a criminal or degenerate”. It is not a crime to decorate; it has merely become something surplus to requirement.

Ref. 1
http://www.idealhomemagazine.co.uk/news/foo_article_146608.html