Suggested research question:
For my research question, I'd like to concentrate on consumerism and the way it affects us, and us as designers. I'd like to focus on technology, and the idea of elitism within society. Another focus would be to talk about this in the design industry, with traditional print techniques becoming redundant and technology taking over - is all design the essentially same? Is it just churned out to make the consumer happy?
Which of the module resources does this question relate to?
- 'New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional advertising'
- Baudrillard - The consumer society
Which academic sources are available on this topic?
- Wally Olins - On Brand
- Naoimi Klein - No Logo
- Branded - Alissa Quart
How could the research question be investigated through practice?
I'd like to create something that shows that print still has value. Possibly a bespoke publication or poster that is very intricate and uses many different methods of printing to create. I'd like to show that if something is one of a kind, or traditional, it can still have value and appreciated. I could also create a run of 10 posters, for example, all using a different method to create - showing that even though they're the same poster, the different ways of making have a different character and in return, different resolution.
Peer feedback:
Good idea. Maybe you could focus on one aspect of the question rather than having it quite jumbled? Try to stick to one part so the essay and practical research is more concise.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Thursday, 15 October 2015
OUGD501 | STUDY TASK 2 | PARODY AND PASTICHE
A pastiche is a piece of visual art, music, theater or literature that has taken characteristics from other pieces and appropriates them to fit a certain context, which celebrates the styles and uses them appropriately, unlike a parody which mocks the work it imitates.
Linda Hucheon states that parody helps us consider how design relates to the outside world. She claims that parody is a political issue, not a mindless cannibalization of styles. She believes that within postmodernism, parody and pastiche are one and the same. Since postmodernism was a reaction to modernity, it could be classed as a pastiche, but it is also a parody, since it rejects the ideas put forward by modernism. Hucheon claims that postmodernism will never be its own being, that it needs historical context to exist "it is incorporated and modified, given new life and meaning." (Hucheon, L, 1989).
Jameson believes that parody and pastiche are not equal to each other. Pastiche is a blank parody. The past is always a representation of what we think it is, rather than the truth. "No original has ever existed." (Jameson, F, 1991). Jameson is very blunt with his writing, and very critical of the idea of pastiche." Pastiche, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique idiosyncratic style, the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language." (Jameson, F, 1991).
The two philosophers both have a very different view of what parody and pastiche is. An example of this would be the Stranger and Stranger branding. They cultivate a lot of different aspects of culture and periods of time and create branding that mimics that of a certain aesthetic. Jameson would call this a parody, as Stranger and Stranger are effectively appropriating these styles for their own use, though Hucheon would say that they have created a pastiche of all the styles.
Linda Hucheon states that parody helps us consider how design relates to the outside world. She claims that parody is a political issue, not a mindless cannibalization of styles. She believes that within postmodernism, parody and pastiche are one and the same. Since postmodernism was a reaction to modernity, it could be classed as a pastiche, but it is also a parody, since it rejects the ideas put forward by modernism. Hucheon claims that postmodernism will never be its own being, that it needs historical context to exist "it is incorporated and modified, given new life and meaning." (Hucheon, L, 1989).
Jameson believes that parody and pastiche are not equal to each other. Pastiche is a blank parody. The past is always a representation of what we think it is, rather than the truth. "No original has ever existed." (Jameson, F, 1991). Jameson is very blunt with his writing, and very critical of the idea of pastiche." Pastiche, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique idiosyncratic style, the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language." (Jameson, F, 1991).
The two philosophers both have a very different view of what parody and pastiche is. An example of this would be the Stranger and Stranger branding. They cultivate a lot of different aspects of culture and periods of time and create branding that mimics that of a certain aesthetic. Jameson would call this a parody, as Stranger and Stranger are effectively appropriating these styles for their own use, though Hucheon would say that they have created a pastiche of all the styles.
Monday, 5 October 2015
OUGD501 | STUDY TASK 1 | DESIGN & AUTHORSHIP
Massimo Vignelli is a one of the most famous modernist designers in the industry. He developed his own way of working, so much so that he made the Vignelli Canon, a guide to modernist design. Auteur theory states that you can understand works of design through the characteristics of the designer, for example, the technical expertise, style and consistent interior meaning. As Vignelli is a modernist designer, this Auteur theory should not apply to his work - as modernists believe that the function of the design should come before any aesthetic is even considered, meaning that Vignelli's work should not be attached to him, it should clearly display the message of the design and that's that. There should be nothing to "understand", as it's already there on the page.
"Once the author is removed, the claim to decipher a text is quite futile" (Bates, R. 1977) The removal of the author, or in this case, the designer, is the main message in The Death of the Author. It's the idea that something only has one meaning (the authors) is a fallacy. The meaning is created by the readers at the point at which the writing is received, not when written. This idea attacks modernism, as it allows the reader to create their own meaning of the design, rather than accept the design that the designer has created. "A text's unity lies not in its origin, but in it's destination" (Bates, R, 1977) . This text encourages you to challenge the dominant approach of the world, and reject the idea that anything has a fixed meaning. For a modernist designer such as Vignelli, this is problematic because his work is only supposed to have one meaning - the meaning that he gave to it. The text goes on to say "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text" (Bates, R, 1977). Vignelli's work is so popular, and as his work is well known, it's easy to give his design a designer, much like giving text an author. It limits the design, and makes it about himself rather than the viewer, which goes against what is said in The Death of the Author. It perpetuates the idea of a structural hierarchy in society, where the intelligent are more superior. The intelligent are the "author" in this society, and if you don't understand the "proper" message of Vignelli's work, you must be stupid and unworthy.
This hierarchy is a misconception of society, as the more intelligent should not be based on the meaning they accept. "In a communist society, there are no painters but at most people who engage in painting among other activities" (Marx, K, 1846). The idea that society determines who is successful is truly damaging, and the Auteur theory promotes this. It states that the meaning of something can be found by looking at the author, but once you remove the author, you're free to give it meaning yourself. Auteur theory is debunked because trying to figure out who someone is, or what they mean cannot be done, as they themselves are made up from the society they live in. From this, we can determine that nothing is original, "This author is a modern figure, a product of our society" (Bates, R, 1977).
"Once the author is removed, the claim to decipher a text is quite futile" (Bates, R. 1977) The removal of the author, or in this case, the designer, is the main message in The Death of the Author. It's the idea that something only has one meaning (the authors) is a fallacy. The meaning is created by the readers at the point at which the writing is received, not when written. This idea attacks modernism, as it allows the reader to create their own meaning of the design, rather than accept the design that the designer has created. "A text's unity lies not in its origin, but in it's destination" (Bates, R, 1977) . This text encourages you to challenge the dominant approach of the world, and reject the idea that anything has a fixed meaning. For a modernist designer such as Vignelli, this is problematic because his work is only supposed to have one meaning - the meaning that he gave to it. The text goes on to say "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text" (Bates, R, 1977). Vignelli's work is so popular, and as his work is well known, it's easy to give his design a designer, much like giving text an author. It limits the design, and makes it about himself rather than the viewer, which goes against what is said in The Death of the Author. It perpetuates the idea of a structural hierarchy in society, where the intelligent are more superior. The intelligent are the "author" in this society, and if you don't understand the "proper" message of Vignelli's work, you must be stupid and unworthy.
This hierarchy is a misconception of society, as the more intelligent should not be based on the meaning they accept. "In a communist society, there are no painters but at most people who engage in painting among other activities" (Marx, K, 1846). The idea that society determines who is successful is truly damaging, and the Auteur theory promotes this. It states that the meaning of something can be found by looking at the author, but once you remove the author, you're free to give it meaning yourself. Auteur theory is debunked because trying to figure out who someone is, or what they mean cannot be done, as they themselves are made up from the society they live in. From this, we can determine that nothing is original, "This author is a modern figure, a product of our society" (Bates, R, 1977).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)