Modernist Design and Films

            Out of every movement comes another movement that rejects it. It’s an endless cycle of one generation carving out a concept of reality different from the one before it that will ultimately be replaced by another concept in the future. The film documentary Monterey Pop and Jacques Tati’s satire Playtime both reject the concepts behind modernist design. At the core of both of these films is a focus on individuality and democracy. Where modernist design upholds neutrality, simplicity and hierarchy Playtime and Monterey Pop (especially) encourage personality, expressiveness and spontaneity.

            Although these two films are similar in their motives they are presented differently and react towards the principles of modernist design in different ways. Playtime directly pokes fun at modernist design by emphasizing the fallacies behind it. Tati shows the viewer a highly modernized city that appears orderly and structured but at the same time confusing, unemotional and inhuman. It’s this lack of humanity that Tati emphasizes as the film switches between scenes of modern Paris and old Paris (which still retains its charm and liveliness). Where modern Paris is a wash of dark and light greys with cold geometric shapes old Paris is a cacophony of vibrant sounds and colors.

            The film documentary Monterey Pop (named after the festival it details) does not directly object to modernist design like Playtime however the way it was filmed and the culture emphasized in the film separate it from modernism. Monterey Pop is a documentary about the legendary Monterey International Pop Music Festival held in Monterey, California in the summer of 1967. Boasting a number of well-known folk, blues and rock artists as well as up and coming acts like The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Janis Joplan this festival was a focal point for the hippie counter culture that was emerging alongside modernism.

            The film was shot in a raw unedited fashion that focused on the crowds watching the bands as much as the bands themselves. D. A. Pennebaker (the director of Monterey Pop) captures the chaos and energy of each band as they perform coupled with candid shots of the crowd and fairgoers. It is all at once spontaneous and frenzied, which differentiates itself from the controlled and clean rules of modernist design. Monterey Pop comments on modernism not by bringing it into question but by existing as an alternative.

            There is one other theme that unifies the two films and that is the democratic way in which characters are portrayed. There is no one thing to focus on in both Playtime and Monterey Pop because the action is always moving from person to person and scene to scene. There is no formula or guideline (like in modernist design) it’s just a stream of events. It is this disregard of convention that sets these films apart and that is why they are a breath of fresh air. There are many advantages to establishing rules and after the turmoil of WWII order and stability were highly appealing. But too much order kills individuality and in response to this loss of humanity films like Monterey Pop and Playtime rose up in defiance.

Week 7

            If there is one thing the article on April Greiman that has stuck with me it’s this: technology is advancing faster than we actually realize. This article was written around the late 80s and it has been 20 years since then, that’s almost a quarter of a century. In almost one quarter of a century ago digital art was just emerging (pioneered by artists such as April Greiman who continues to experiment in the digital field). By today’s standards the digital tools used to make this art are primitive to say the least.  The program Greiman uses is not familiar to me (it’s called Graphic Paintbox) but they do mention the application of Photoshop in her work. One of the most surprising things to me was the cost of this program: $400,000!  That is at least 40 times the price of similar software today, something that I integrate so much in my work used to cost the price of a small mansion.

            The reason I find this leap in technological advance so surprising is because (as I have just stated) digital art is my forte. Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and all the others; these are the tools I use most often in my work. Therefore I find this article amusing in it’s excitement over a digital design that could be made (all processes of layout and printing included) in minuets with today’s technologies. It’s worth mentioning that the article actually does emphasize the fact that the emerging digital tools sped up the design process. However, this only pertains to the process of layering the design and later on Todd Hays (the author of the article) mentions that the printing aspect is still complicated and time consuming.

            At the same time this was still faster than any other design method and was actually revolutionary. Although Greiman sounds like she doesn’t know exactly how Graphic Paintbox works she nevertheless used the relatively new tools she had and experimented. I myself work in that way, playing around with the program before actually learning how it works, and for Greiman it was a step into new territory. Although I don’t quite agree with the poster she designed, which feels so much like early 90s graphics (something I have come to dislike over the years), it’s worth some merit that this was a style not seen before.

            Even as I discuss this article and marvel at the gap between technological advancements I realize that in another 20 years I’ll look back on today and find the CS5 set amusing. “Photoshop and Illustrator?” I’ll say with a nostalgic grin, “wow that was back in the day when we actually worked on a computer. It’s so much better working from a brain chip computer implant.” There will always be something new to replace the old with new technologies that outstrip the previous models. The best I can do as a designer is keep an open mind and experiment with the tools I’ve got.

Museum Piece:

·      Computers have made design faster and more fluid.

·      Greiman was one of the first designers to experiment with this new digital field.

·      Such technologies at the time were rather expensive but limited in the commands they included.

·      Greiman pioneered the use of hybrid imagery (whatever that means).

·      The emerging digital process (although faster in the layout process) still required time and effort when it came time to print.

Week 6

            I have never really cared for the relationship between design and art. In high school when I was deciding on the path I would take as an artist I came to two different conclusions. On the one hand I could become a studio artist and create work that I wanted to create and most likely not make any money. Or I could go into design (which was more business oriented), make art for clients and still not make any money (but just a little bit more than a studio artist). I thought about it for a while and finally decided on design but not because it would make me a little more money. What I realized is that I enjoy helping others more than myself and design is all about using one’s artistic talents to solve another’s problems. That’s all that matters to me, I don’t really care if my work is never shown in a gallery or written about in textbooks all I care about is using my talents to help others.

            But there is debate over this and many designers bemoan the fact that design has always been undermined by art. Many wish for a level playing field where art and design exist in equal respect. This lack of respect is evident in the interview between the two designers Michael Amzalag and Mathias Augstyniak where one gives the account of their removal from a guest list they had added themselves to, a guest list for an art show. Although now they are hosting their own art exhibition which shows a change between the relationship of art and design. Design is beginning to become as well known as art and actually affects more people, as writer Rick Poynor argues.  Poynor also gives examples of designers who have used art-like qualities in their work and argues that those who reject such design for being too artistic represent one design aesthetic. There are countless ways to approach art and design and segregating the two only leads to close-mindedness and unnecessary bickering.

            I also do not care for sides or labels as they restrict and cause people to separate the “us” from the “them”. Art and design has been like this and whenever artists and designers have attempted to cross over they have been met with criticism. But there is no need for this line between the two because nothing is ever set in stone. Kees Dorst argues that artists and designers work like the other without even realizing sometimes. When the artist is planning towards a finished product or the designer is subconsciously expressing himself through design the line blurs. In my experience the line is always blurred and definitions are never solid because it is such a difficult thing to categorize an ever-changing idea; that is why I don’t agree with siding on art or design. I call myself a designer but only because I use my talents to help others. But who’s to say that I can’t create for myself sometimes either? All of this arguing over the lack of respect design receives could be solved if the boundaries were just torn down.

Sketches for sustainability redesign project:

Sustainability List

10 things graphic designers can do to conserve paper

1. Explore materials outside of paper.

2. Make use of digital media.

3. Make your design count. Wasted design is wasted materials. 

4. Design from the cradle to the cradle. Make your designs useful in their afterlives.

5. Spread the word. You can do a lot by saving paper but you can do so much more by convincing a nation to do the same. 

6. Print sparingly. If you need to view the design on paper print it in a small scale. 

7. Bigger is not always better. However if it is necessary make use of recycled paper to reduce waste.

8. Recycle old sketch books. If you really want to save them use a computer to scan the images into a digital format.

9. Reuse old sketch books. The erasure is a powerful tool.

10. If printing in bulk invest in the recycled papers available. 

Week 5


             I love amateurs. By amateurs I don’t mean those who are naïve and untrained but those that do something for the sake of doing it. Amateur designers create for a variety of reasons (advertisement, personal identity, just for the hell of it, etc.) and they do it all naturally. Do it yourself design is as much a part of our environment as professionally crafted design however we may not notice it as much because it serves a more practical purpose. Take a local storefront sign for example; it serves little purpose other than informing passersby the name of the store. However, as time goes on the sign becomes ubiquitous with the store and after a while it eventually becomes a staple part of the visual culture not because it’s an excellent piece of design but because it is integrated into the environment. Its vernacular design; the everyday images and structures designed by non-designers, the amateurs. Our culture is shaped by the vernacular as much as flashy attention grabbing professional design.

            My favorite amateurs are the rebels. They are the people who do their own thing because they don’t want to follow. Tibor Kalman and Karrie Jacobs must feel the same way. Their article “We’re Here to be Bad” calls out for rebellion so much so that the article itself seems to be rebelling against the reader. Designers have been caught up in the soul sucking yes-man world of big business, Kalman and Jacobs argue. The cure? Take a look at vernacular design where the inspiration comes not from getting paid but from filling a need or solving a personal problem. I agree with them and I also agree with their argument about the role of the designer, not as a corporate lap dog but as a cultural agitator, but I feel torn. Part of me wants to be “bad” (as Kalman and Jacobs put it) but the other part keeps reminding me of my position. Right now I’m at the bottom and to be honest not much will come of me rebelling against the system other than getting fired and replaced.

            That’s why I admire the amateur (and in some ways envy them). They design to fill their own needs without any pressure; it’s a venerable sense of simple practicality. What’s even more impressive is that such design plays a role in shaping our culture (much more than we may realize). Gerry Beegan and Paul Atkinson’s article chronicling amateur design through the years shows just how this “invisible” design contributes to culture in a subconscious way. It’s the self-buildings and homemade furniture that are so much a part of our daily life that they become ingrained in our memory. It’s more than just conveying a message; it’s about creating a niche within one’s environment. It’s expression through design that over time becomes part of our visual culture.

Professionalism, Amateurism, and the Boundaries of Design

by Gerry Beegan and Paul Atkinson

• Amateur designers have existed alongside professional designers for many years and recent technological advancements have further blurred the line between maker and user.
• Amateur design has been used as an alternative to consumerism.
• Everyday objects and buildings that become a part of daily life fall under the term Vernacular Design.
• Vernacular Design has subconsciously influenced other fields of design (such as Modernism which ironically rejects vernacular design)
• The amateurs are the “ghosts” of the design world who contribute silently and subconsciously.

We’re Here to be Bad

by Tibor Kalman and Karrie Jacobs

• Bad design is not poorly made design but design created to be rebellious.
• Designers have been bought into and subdued by corporations who opt for the “safe” method of design.
• Designers need to make design that shakes our notions of good and bad design.
• Vernacular design is design in its purest form.
• Design schools teach too much about their perception of good design and not enough about vernacular design.

Week 4

            Every time someone brings up the notion of “going green” I’ve always dismissed it with a mental rolling of the eyes and half-hearted interest. It has been my opinion that going green is a trend generated by the guilt of knowing that humans have a negative impact on the environment coupled with the apathy to not actually do anything more than buy a soy based t-shirt or grocery bag. Those are the images that pop into my head so when the term “green design” comes up I immediately associate it with these cutesy images of shirts with graphics of leafs on them and bags that proclaim to the world “go green”! However I am beginning to realize that my cynicism towards most things, in this case green design, is a direct result of ignorance. I judged only on what I saw and didn’t get the whole picture (as a designer perhaps that is a future problem I will have to take on but I digress).

            This week’s set of articles gave, to me at least, some substance to this issue of green design. One article in particular, the interview with Biologist Jainine Benyus written by David Krupfer, really stuck with me. The ideas that Benyus describes are ingenious, simplistic and most importantly numerous (so much in fact that Benyus confesses that one of the harder parts of her job is keeping up with all the projects that come in). With each idea I felt myself warming up to green design, I guess I just needed realize that there are people out there actually doing something and getting results. I also like this idea of learning from nature rather than taking from it because what better source of inspiration than a system that has gone through billions of years of trial and error.

            As for the other two articles I enjoy the evaluation of the Industrial Revolution that William McDonough and Michael Braungart give and their sensible criticism. Although they argue that for the most part the Industrial Revolution plowed forward without any consciousness for the damage they were doing to the environment they justify such thinking.  The Industrial Revolution came about so quickly and improved life so suddenly that people became lost in the invincible ideology of progress, so much so that they blinded themselves to the repercussions of such progress. The third article, by Buckminster Fuller’s, really didn’t give me as much as the other two. It may be because it promoted a solution through advancing already existing technology (I was already set on technology learning from nature) or maybe it was his over-use of hyphenated phrases that really made it confusing to read. I think that more than anything it was the fact that this article was written in 1981 and speaks of the necessity to become a sustainable society by 2000. Well it’s 2010 now so that didn’t really do anything to inspire me because already his argument feels like a lost cause (I personally have never seen a domed city).

            Although I thought these two articles were interesting to read and provided good points they didn’t deliver the same impact as the Benyus interview. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts I’m not satisfied with suggestions on how I should be living or thinking, I need solid examples and Benyus gave me that. You can explain to me the destruction of the environment and advise me to think green but until you show me a starting point I won’t do anything other than change my light bulbs to eco friendly ones and buy those soy-based shirts. The people and ideas that Benyus talks about are that starting point, I read about them and think to myself:

“Hey there’s this big movement that’s growing by the day with ideas that go beyond the wind farms and solar cells. They’re making things eco friendly on all levels. This is something that can actually happen.”

Speculative Prehistory of Humanity by Buckminster Fuller

·      Technology permits greater efficiency however it is retarded by a combination of public ignorance and upper class power control.

·      Effort is wasted on the weaponry instead of livingry.

·      A more efficient society is a happier society.

·      Current technologies are extremely inefficient and do more harm than good.

·      Money is not wealth. Wealth is the technological ability to support all needs of life.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery by David Krupfer

·      Jaines Benyus is a revolutionary Biologist working in the field of Biomimicry (a science that mimics nature to solve problems).

·      Biomimicry shows promise as the driving force behind more sustainable technologies.

·      Instead of taking from nature we should learn from it.

·      Nature is a master of using what it has to the fullest extent.

·      Biomimicry is a rapidly growing field that is being recognized by businesses around the world.

A Question of Design by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

·      The Industrial Revolution did more harm than good.

·      By focusing only on progress people did not concern themselves with its repercussions

·      The traditional belief was that the Earth could provide unlimited sustainability. This is not true.

·      Today we have to consider how our actions today affect the environment in the future.

·      We can’t keep supporting a system that thinks linearly from product to consumer to profit.