The exhibit was very beautiful and thought provoking. When I first entered, I was immediately struck by how reminiscent the art was to 1960's radical art. The screen prints had vibrant colors and bold lettering and beautiful use of composition. Although aesthetically I really enjoyed the prints, I was at first not convinced of their purpose. I left the exhibit appreciating what messages they were trying to give and their talent, but I wasn't sure how successful their objective was. There was no explanation to their works, call to action, or informing their audience of the issues they were addressing.
After listening to the artists speak, it completely changed my interpretation. I recall one of the artists saying that they often got criticized for not have a specific goal to their artwork. If the activists weren't trying to pass a specific policy or repeal something, then what was the point to their work? This was the kind of resistance their work was receiving, and I related to that kind of thinking. But the point she was making was that they were making art, screen printing specifically, to gain support and involvement from people that could relate or wanted to support their cause. It is the act of doing art that inspires innovative thinking. It is not always about perusing a specific goal in politics or local government, but creating awareness through the act of doing art. Art is about promoting creative thinking and allowing people to be aware that their involvement and participation is what matters.
I really enjoyed the lecture because it brought a new perspective on activism for me, but I still think it could have been an even more successful exhibit. The art was clearly addressing issues that made the viewer study the piece and how it related to what it was conveying, but I think the gallery needed more background info. There needed to be something else to help the viewer understand the issue. An ill-informed audience would not have the same appreciation as someone who knew the intention of the artwork. Beautiful work should be understood to the fullest.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Radical Artsits: Timing and Approach is Everything
Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements, “Mind Bombs: Woodcuts, Satirical Prints, Flyers, Photomontage, Posters, and Murals”, pages 158–180
Travels in Pornotopia, Citizen Designer, Rick Poynor, pages 58–63
I found the Woodcuts and Politics section of the "Mind Bombs: Woodcuts, Satirical Prints..." article to be very interesting. The artist Kathe Kollwitz came to be known as a radical thinker whose work reflected social issues of abortion, unemployment, gay rights, etc... Her woodcuts had simply imagery that started to appeal to the Nazi regime in the 1920's and 30's. Her work was soon adopted my the Nazi's. It is ironic and sad that an artist, whose voice spoke up for the victimized, ended up being pushed into working for a group that represented everything she was against. The article explained that her simple imagery was easily interpreted in different ways. Although it spoke to a wide audience, her open ended themes worked to her disadvantage.
The article continues with examples of art mediums that challenged political views and government policy. The radical thinking these artists had were masked in humor, simple imagery, word play, and exaggerated images. Political cartoons became a massive phenomenon at the turn of the century that informed metropolitan and country side populations. The patronizing themes of these cartoons and caricatures were despised by governments because of their influence in many social movements and revolutions.
Photomontage was a particularly mocking form of radical art. Mainstream pictures and articles were cut out, spliced, and reorganized to create and read socialist points of view. Taking the enemy's words and reforming them to create your own message was shocking and successful in getting attention. The timing and relationship these various art movements have with their message is what reinvented radical art. Taking a commonly used art form to slowly reinvent it's purpose was intelligently used. The crafty and cunning use of simple images and and exaggerated cartoons or montages of familiar images was what made these artists' points of view effective.
"Citizen Designer" brought up the fear of radical artists being grouped with terrorists during the late 1990's. If anyone spoke against corporate or government decisions, there was the risk of being seen as a threat. AIGA and publications such as Adbusters responded to this ridiculous claim by popularizing their voice and making it a national awareness.
In order for their message to be accepted by alike thinkers across the nation, it was vital for their message to relate to the public. I think it was essential for these groups, to some degree, become manipulators themselves in order for their message to be heard. It was about informing the public and generating a want for change without being too radical. Strategy was to target a specific sector and slowly expand and gain supporters.
This article also made a key observation. Reading this article now could seem arbitrary or obvious to the present day liberal thinker, but it is because these groups were successful that created this awareness. It may seem easy today to promote a radical message and gain support, and that is thanks to groups like AIGA, Adbusters, and the First Things First Manifesto.
Travels in Pornotopia, Citizen Designer, Rick Poynor, pages 58–63
I found the Woodcuts and Politics section of the "Mind Bombs: Woodcuts, Satirical Prints..." article to be very interesting. The artist Kathe Kollwitz came to be known as a radical thinker whose work reflected social issues of abortion, unemployment, gay rights, etc... Her woodcuts had simply imagery that started to appeal to the Nazi regime in the 1920's and 30's. Her work was soon adopted my the Nazi's. It is ironic and sad that an artist, whose voice spoke up for the victimized, ended up being pushed into working for a group that represented everything she was against. The article explained that her simple imagery was easily interpreted in different ways. Although it spoke to a wide audience, her open ended themes worked to her disadvantage.
The article continues with examples of art mediums that challenged political views and government policy. The radical thinking these artists had were masked in humor, simple imagery, word play, and exaggerated images. Political cartoons became a massive phenomenon at the turn of the century that informed metropolitan and country side populations. The patronizing themes of these cartoons and caricatures were despised by governments because of their influence in many social movements and revolutions.
Photomontage was a particularly mocking form of radical art. Mainstream pictures and articles were cut out, spliced, and reorganized to create and read socialist points of view. Taking the enemy's words and reforming them to create your own message was shocking and successful in getting attention. The timing and relationship these various art movements have with their message is what reinvented radical art. Taking a commonly used art form to slowly reinvent it's purpose was intelligently used. The crafty and cunning use of simple images and and exaggerated cartoons or montages of familiar images was what made these artists' points of view effective.
"Citizen Designer" brought up the fear of radical artists being grouped with terrorists during the late 1990's. If anyone spoke against corporate or government decisions, there was the risk of being seen as a threat. AIGA and publications such as Adbusters responded to this ridiculous claim by popularizing their voice and making it a national awareness.
In order for their message to be accepted by alike thinkers across the nation, it was vital for their message to relate to the public. I think it was essential for these groups, to some degree, become manipulators themselves in order for their message to be heard. It was about informing the public and generating a want for change without being too radical. Strategy was to target a specific sector and slowly expand and gain supporters.
This article also made a key observation. Reading this article now could seem arbitrary or obvious to the present day liberal thinker, but it is because these groups were successful that created this awareness. It may seem easy today to promote a radical message and gain support, and that is thanks to groups like AIGA, Adbusters, and the First Things First Manifesto.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Design and Key Events of the 1930s
T I M E L I N E
1930
Censorship to films heighten and revised
Frozen Food commercialized
Pluto is discovered
1931
Empire State Building opened
Star-Spangled Banner approved as national anthem
Whitney Museum of American Art opens in NYC
1932
Hans Hofmann comes to the US from Germany (influential artist)
Bonus Army march in DC (WWI veterans demand early cash payment of their services)
1933
Ford introduces Model B (V8 engine at a low price)
New Deal (3 r’s: relief, recovery, reform) established by FDR
CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps for men)
PWA (Public Works Administration)
NRA (National Recovery Administration)
21st Amendment ends prohibition (alcohol)
1934
Dust Bowl begins
Federal Housing Administration
Indian Reorganization Act
1935
Works Progress Administration
FBI is established
Social Security Act
Alcoholics Anonymous formed
Revenue Act (taxes raised)
1936
Life magazine publishes first issue
Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange
1937
LOOK magazine publishes first issue
Hindenburg disaster (airship explosion)
Panay Incident (Japanese attack on US Navy gunboat outside of Nanjing)
Golden Gate Bridge completed in SF
Snow White is released
1938
Fair Labor Standards Act
Hatch Act (aimed at corrupt political practices)
Orson Welles The War of the Worlds broadcasted on radio (alien invasion scare)
1939
Nazi Germany invades Poland, WWII begins
Golden Gate Bridge International Exhibition
NYC World’s Fair
FDR first president to give a speech broadcasted on television
I n t r o d u c t i o n
- National identity very important to establish
- Entertainment provided relief
- “American Scene” mural art promoted
- Cartoon art, advertisements: political, social commentary
- Radio broadcasts
- Film industry growing
- Photography booming
- Architecture and urban design expansion
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Design Beyond Materialism
The article "Good Citizenship" by Katherine McCoy shed light on graphic design and how it is a platform for liberation. She mentioned past examples of how design has influenced social and political commentary and that this motivation of design needs to be encouraged and expand. McCoy's strong belief is that students of design, along with current designers, have the responsibility to be the voice of social and political movements. She rejects the commercial role designers usually fill, materialism, and under-whleming art projects current schools are assigning. She is asking students of design to become proactive, express themselves in unique ways, and become involved in current social and political forces.
I do agree with McCoy that students have the capability to grow a new voice. I agree that it is uncommon for students to deter from the expected investment of time and energy into materialistic or commercial ideals. She asks designers to bare the load of social and political responsibility, which I feel is responsible for ALL students, and well, everyone. A student has the capability to gain knowledge, have new perspective, and think creatively and passionately about global or national issues, but this is the responsibility of all students not just designers. The article was written in 1995 which is leading up to 2001 and the war in Iraq. This is an interesting gateway to the next decade of political involvement. Her call for activism in 1995 may be responding to a dull scene of graphic design. I see her argument as being more of a call to be active and not really responding to a particular issue or movement at that time. She did not want to see students rest on the media or marketing venues and become safe designers. I see this article as a warning I suppose and a critique towards the young generation giving zero effort to think actively about how they can influence change.
I would say this article can ring true in any decade and during any political or social movement. McCoy wants students to engage. period. Think creatively.
I do agree with McCoy that students have the capability to grow a new voice. I agree that it is uncommon for students to deter from the expected investment of time and energy into materialistic or commercial ideals. She asks designers to bare the load of social and political responsibility, which I feel is responsible for ALL students, and well, everyone. A student has the capability to gain knowledge, have new perspective, and think creatively and passionately about global or national issues, but this is the responsibility of all students not just designers. The article was written in 1995 which is leading up to 2001 and the war in Iraq. This is an interesting gateway to the next decade of political involvement. Her call for activism in 1995 may be responding to a dull scene of graphic design. I see her argument as being more of a call to be active and not really responding to a particular issue or movement at that time. She did not want to see students rest on the media or marketing venues and become safe designers. I see this article as a warning I suppose and a critique towards the young generation giving zero effort to think actively about how they can influence change.
I would say this article can ring true in any decade and during any political or social movement. McCoy wants students to engage. period. Think creatively.
Monday, February 11, 2013
First Things First
I have always been aware of the vast difference between fine art and graphic design. Before coming to USF, and really before I decided on being a design major, I was always very bias towards fine art. I saw graphic design as being unmoving, and having no relationship to the viewer. Graphic design was two dimensional and therefore not as tangible as fine art can be. I saw fine art having a better relationship with not only the viewer, but with the artist as well. Fine art is a hands on skill that requires a physical pull from the artist. Graphic design is not like that anymore. It used to be more interactive before computer programs changed graphic design and the direction it was going into for good. So, I was very wary of the role graphic designed played other than advertisement, signage, packaging, and brand development. It seemed less personal and having less of an impact to the art world. I really had no idea what I was talking about before my introduction to graphic design at this university.
Both fine art and graphic design share the quality of being able to communicate anything in any platform or medium. Graphic design has had huge influences on its audience not only in a social context, but politically and historically. Although fine arts has a longer history, graphic design has evolved more dramatically than fine arts since the introduction of the internet and online media. Pertaining to the First Things First 1964 a manifesto, this is when graphic designers have demanded to have a different platform other than social media and advertisement. This manifesto calls for a new look towards graphic design and rejects the point of view I originally had.
I feel this manifesto calls for a revolution of graphic design artists. Graphic design is art, and the people creating it are artists. Fine art and graphic design have worked together in our history to call for social change. Without either platform, public voice would be very lost.
Both fine art and graphic design share the quality of being able to communicate anything in any platform or medium. Graphic design has had huge influences on its audience not only in a social context, but politically and historically. Although fine arts has a longer history, graphic design has evolved more dramatically than fine arts since the introduction of the internet and online media. Pertaining to the First Things First 1964 a manifesto, this is when graphic designers have demanded to have a different platform other than social media and advertisement. This manifesto calls for a new look towards graphic design and rejects the point of view I originally had.
I feel this manifesto calls for a revolution of graphic design artists. Graphic design is art, and the people creating it are artists. Fine art and graphic design have worked together in our history to call for social change. Without either platform, public voice would be very lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)