This reading gave a nice overview of all of the movements that lead us to what we now consider as modern typography - active typography rather than passive. While each of these movements was essential to getting us to where we are today, not all of them appeal to me.
I appreciate Futurism's interest in machines and movement, however, they are a bit too abstract and violent for me. Although, I do think it's interesting how they played with sound and making everything they created have a meaning and "intensify the content" rather than just to be edgy or different.
Dada's concentration on satire is interesting, and I think it's always important to look critically at the world around you and be able to point out societal aspects through humor. However, a lot of Dada seems to be pure shock value, at least to me personally, and I think that can get a bit tedious.
De Stijl's simplification of formal qualities really appeals to me. I think a lot of the best design is when images or ideas can be made as simple as possible. I think that simplification makes for a really effective design in that it can portray a lot of meaning to an audience very quickly and concisely.
I appreciate the Bauhaus's work at uniting art and industry to create art that was also utilitarian. When art can also become a useful part of everyday life, I think it makes art more approachable and appeals to a wider audience.
Constructivism, in a similar way to Dadaism, used art to make statements and criticism about the world around them - specifically politics. I also like how Constructivism, more than the others, brought photography into their working medium. Historically, photography was seen as very objective and thus the message came across as more truthful and impactful. I think this was an incredibly smart strategy for Constructivists to make their statements more credible in the public's eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment