ers, illustrators or visual problems solvers of some form or another like ourselves, we put tremendous amounts of time into our skills, years in fact. Much study of history, techniques and training is explored with tremendous dedication, so much so, that at the end of it all, we're considered experts to the "untrained" public. This little Cage Toad illustration here for example, could greatly benefit a biologist who needed my skills to help a discussion on this creature.I would hallucinate to think that someday sooner or later down the road we're going to be approached by others because of our skills to help a visual problem that they themselves cannot solve. We know what is good design and what wouldn't work, but we also know it is mainly about what our client who has approached us for help, wants. Or do we? When do we boldly march in and claim we know what's best, assuming the client knows nothing as to provide input for solving the visual problem? Or should we constantly hold to the theme of the solution what they want as an output, and merely act as a sort of guide and tool to help facilitate the process?
Everyone, at least everyone discussed in all the articles of "The Glasgow Style" seems to be trying to make the world a better place, in their own way. But from the way I see it, they're doing it in a "we know what's best for you" sort of mindset. A relatively dismissive diagnostic attitude; not even asking people what they think is the best course of action for a solution to a problem. They just do it. In David Brett's article, he discusses Mackintosh (and other designers of the nineteenth century) and how he has used an art-nouveau style of erotic shapes to design a furniture piece for the bedroom. Mackintosh designed a full length mirror, and Brett describes it as "an erotic item". The word "eroticism" is derived from the Greek work Eros which is the god of love. To eroticise something is to give it an aesthetic focus on sexual desire: according to Wikipedia.
According to th
e article by Brett, this mirror piece was to promote different erotic feelings in men and women who looked upon it. Firstly, my question was why? Why would Mackintosh feel the need to design such a thing to be erotic, or to create what Marx observes as an object of "a social hieroglyphic"? Was there some subliminal message at work here? Were nineteenth century architectural interior designers like Mackintosh like the Hollywood T.V./movies producers, MTV executives and fashion designers of today: telling people in a subconscious level how to think, how to talk, how to act, how to dress and what to do?...and were they using Art Nouveau to do it? It's as though they thought what happens in couple's bedrooms needed a bit of spicing up. It felt as though there was a need for a "design aphrodisiac" back then. They just simply did it: they did it well and received much acknowledgment and praise for it, but just did it nonetheless. Even though nobody asked them to. Was there any real harm done? Not really, but no good came of it either.
e article by Brett, this mirror piece was to promote different erotic feelings in men and women who looked upon it. Firstly, my question was why? Why would Mackintosh feel the need to design such a thing to be erotic, or to create what Marx observes as an object of "a social hieroglyphic"? Was there some subliminal message at work here? Were nineteenth century architectural interior designers like Mackintosh like the Hollywood T.V./movies producers, MTV executives and fashion designers of today: telling people in a subconscious level how to think, how to talk, how to act, how to dress and what to do?...and were they using Art Nouveau to do it? It's as though they thought what happens in couple's bedrooms needed a bit of spicing up. It felt as though there was a need for a "design aphrodisiac" back then. They just simply did it: they did it well and received much acknowledgment and praise for it, but just did it nonetheless. Even though nobody asked them to. Was there any real harm done? Not really, but no good came of it either.When I attempted to examine Jane Addams article: "The Humanizing of Industrial Education", I saw evidence of this dismissive attitude there too. She had wonderful ideas of bringing people together and her heart was "in the right place". Jane observed that with the ever increasing influx of immigrants in the early 1900s it would be a capital idea to find a way to include them more in the existing society and attempt to bridge the social class gaps. The immigrants had traditional hand labor skills, and instead of looking down on them with a loss of respect, it would be better to attempt to make efforts to get a better appreciation of how things were made by them: also to obtain a better appreciation of what exactly these "peasant" immigrant's jobs were relative to the middle/upper class American families. Through training the young and exposing them to these skills from these people we could, as Jane puts it, "restore a genuine relation between the workman and the scholar." Jane proposed a sort of information/knowledge exchange program or trade wherein during this process a cultural exchange could occur as well. In a sense, Jane is right in that you will get more culturally aware by doing this, but as one young person pointed out so intelligently in our class discussion: "Why would upper class kids need to study this if they're never going to use it?" Jane's ideas are admirable but she presented them here in a presumptuous manner.
Now we get to the appalling views presented in Stratigako's article: "Women and the Werkbund". They were views not representative of Stratigako herself, but reported of others: like Else Warlich. In a dark cloud of nationalism presented in the early nineteen hundreds in Germany, there became a need to unify everything out of a chaotic degeneration, including what was exhibited and purchased. Women shoppers were mainly the target of blame by the Ger
man Werkbund, which was a union created by a group of artists, architects, critics and business owners. Here we go again: designers of sorts coming in with their surgical dismissive attitudes to looking at the situation as a whole. At this time there was a fleeting attempt to gain control of all angles as to just what was a "purchase" of work: and this group lended their ideas to that of "modern women" failing to discern what was "authentic" as they preferred cheap imitation. As far as could be told, authenticity was anything that was endorsed by this German Werkbund group and nothing else. I couldn't help but wonder: was it an early form of consumer control? Or even an early form of propaganda? It was definitely a form of steam rollering in and assuming a solution to their own ends. Exactly who else had a say in it?
man Werkbund, which was a union created by a group of artists, architects, critics and business owners. Here we go again: designers of sorts coming in with their surgical dismissive attitudes to looking at the situation as a whole. At this time there was a fleeting attempt to gain control of all angles as to just what was a "purchase" of work: and this group lended their ideas to that of "modern women" failing to discern what was "authentic" as they preferred cheap imitation. As far as could be told, authenticity was anything that was endorsed by this German Werkbund group and nothing else. I couldn't help but wonder: was it an early form of consumer control? Or even an early form of propaganda? It was definitely a form of steam rollering in and assuming a solution to their own ends. Exactly who else had a say in it?I'm merely attempting to apply the ideas and concepts from these articles into what I'm learning now, and what I'll ideally be doing in the future. In attempting gain a level of comprehension, I go back to the situation of a client who's employed me to find a visual solution to a problem. Do I knowingly produce something in bad taste just to appease my client and my bank account? Or am I missing the point? Am I really just someone who's a tool as an extension to my client's imagination, and regardless of the outcome, must hold to that function? Maybe I should do what these people did and just "make it right" by swiftly doing it.
Steve, there are many things here--too many to address, perhaps:
ReplyDeleteAre designers foisting their view of a better world on an unsuspecting and helpless public or are they putting a product out and seeing if their 'solution' sticks?
What is the alternative to the designer trying to change the world? Committee-made culture? Design produced by focus groups?
On Brett and gender: he is certainly onto an interesting problematic. I think the controversial quality of Margaret and CR Mackintosh was their refusal to abide by gendered conventions.
I understand the concept you're wrestling with: design something meaningful, or design something financially feasible? These two are not necessarily the same. I think the argument that needs to be addressed is that the separation of class between the designers at the turn of the century and their audience was not the same as we're at times led to believe. For example, William Morris might have been designing everything by hand and advocating socialism, but in reality his wares were as afforable to the lower-middle class as Attica is to us NSCAD students.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to communicate and exchange ideas between the lower-middle classes was also restricted. Not everyone could afford extensive travel, nor did they have radio, and telephone service was restricted to local calls. Spreading ideas was done by those with influence or had the means to exchange ideas. I might be butchering history a little: I make it sound like before the 30s everyone lived primitively and sheltered within their own communities; but I think that it is not much of an exaggeration to say that people kept to their respective communities and bought items from their local tailor, smith, and woodworker.
Therefore, by what exactly do art/design historians draw upon when confronted with this (now primitive) art and design world? The basic cases are those with the records: successful companies who were able to keep paperwork and maintain a status within the upper echelons of society, and also with the forethought to PRESERVE their name within history.
With the now unbelievable resources of knowledge we can draw upon, and with the pseudo-permanence of the internet as a record-keeper, it is much easier to be in touch with the "public", so to speak. It is amazingly easy to contact people from your "target group" to get a feel for their preferences. Facebook and Google are both prime examples of taking people's preferences and converting them into target potential for advertising. Therefore the work you do should already be much more meaningful to your audience because of the unhibited access that technology offers.
Khuyen, you make some interesting points here. I often find myself questioning who my target market is... as a weaver, to pay myself even $10/hr I would have to sell a hand woven shawl for $300.00. I have no interest in serving a market that can afford a $300.00 shawl, but I also don't want to outsource production and have a design manufactured in China. The reason I weave is because there is a difference between handmade and manufactured that I think even the "untrained" can sense.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of the Arts and Crafts movement, I am always led to Bernard Leach. Although Morris was not reaching a wide audience with his actual designs, others in the movement were. It was Leach who left the legacy of affordability that Studio Potters face today.
Steve, a note on Mackintosh's mirror. They designed it for their own bedroom. I don't think they intended the design to be for other people's bedrooms. I also think the eroticism Brett talks about is something we read into it in hiensight... As designers who were part of Art Nouveau, I think it more likely that the sensuous curved lines appealed to them. I imagine they were a rather sensuous team, so their bedroom would be an extension of that... not necessarily a commentary on the need to spice up bedroom life.
It does pose some interesting questions regarding gender politics. I wonder which of them is actually credited with the design of the mirror because that would colour my reading of it.
Firstly, I used Facebook and Google as examples of corporations who use smart advertising, not as suggested tools for use.
ReplyDeleteWhile I obviously cannot comment on the job industry of design, I agree on your view that "bad design is bad design". My long-winded point was that all designers have the resources to find the style most meaningful to their intended audience. Whether they have the time and the means to do so is a different matter. (Who has time to do a focus group when you're given only 2 hours to make an advertisement?)
I wasn't trying to be altruistic about the demands and realities of the corporate world, but I get the feeling that the most celebrated designers I've studied have always given up both time and money to produce good design.