THE FIRST BOOKLET
Curiosity #1
It is curious that the artists and designers of these movements seem to think that their design will inform and change society and not the other way around.
When many of these designers, artists, and artist-authors recognize that they are inspired by human psychology and the advent of the machine age, they seem reluctant to admit that their design is reactionary. While of course their design can be reactionary while still influencing society, it seems unusual to believe you will influence something you also believe to be the natural product of human development (i.e., society as a product of human advancement, the development of the sciences, and of underlying human psychology).
Curiosity #2
It is curious that the artists and designers of these movements seem singularly obsessed with a certain kind of objectivity — in reducing imagery down to the forms of circles and squares —
STRONGLY STRONGLY and yet their design seems anything BUT objective, and that they utilize forms, designs, and typography that STRONGLY state something.
I question the reasons for this draw towards objectivity in design. These designers were trying to convey a variety of opinions. Even if they believe these are unbiased opinions or the “best� opinions, they are still sharing their own opinions and biases, so why object so strongly to the idea of subjectivity?
STRONGLY STRONGLY
Being transparent about one’s own biases and subjectivity is likely the closest we can get to actually being objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at least I think so.
Curiosity #3
It is curious that the modern aesthetic continues to be so very influential in the United States today. It seems that Modernism became popular here in part because of its novelty, and in part because of its Europeanness, which remains a perpetual draw for Americans, but its principles and aesthetics widely influence today’s design and design pedagogy.
If it was really novelty for the sake of novelty, then the success should have been short-lived, when in reality it stimulated rather than simulated, real, organic changes. Their notion of pure shapes and forms and their appeal to human psychological science as the basis for their style seems to have been dismissed in the modern era, but if not these things, why has it stuck?
Is it because, as seems to be the case, this was truly the first venture into graphic design as an independent form, and as it was entering into somewhat of a void, it set up its own roots and laid the foundation for everything else that was to come? Or merely because these designers were the ones who became the instructors?
Irritation #1
“telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl” “telephone girl”
I balk at these historical tropes of women which, even though these were real women’s occupations, and even if they are referenced with a satirical eye, they still perpetuate and reflect an internalized acceptance of these patronizing tropes. These are old texts, but still. The introduction to Language of Vision states “We match the data from the flux of visual experience with image-cliches… we manipulate those abstractions and make systems with them… we call them our “picture of the world.” Things like this really stay wormed into our consciousness, and I hate that.
Sticking Point #1
“Visual language can convey facts and ideas in a wider and deeper range than almost any other means of communication.”
IS THIS REALLY TRUE?
Visual language does not have the nuance and adequate degree of abstraction to deal with non-visual thoughts, such as those necessary to communicate philosophy or discourse. Text adds conTEXT. An old picture of an lady means very little. An old picture of a lady with the text “This is my Grandmother, who died yesterday,” means more. An old picture of a lady with the text “This is my Grandmother, who died yesterday, and who cured a rare disease and saved the lives of thousands,” means yet something different. Visual language alone seems lacking.
T hat's the end of that.