Modernism in Design

Modernism is many things and has without a doubt changed the world in major ways on a major scale. It is the perfect example of the potential art has to change the world. Unfortunately it was more of a cosmetic change, however, surprisingly a real change followed. (Although that’s debatable…) Our generation has a vastly different outlook on life than the people living back in the days when the modernist movement was taking place and this could be the result of the new image they have created. Meaning that the change wasn’t instant, but actually very much delayed. Would we really “feel” different if things looked the same way they were in the 1800’s? I doubt our mentality would have had the drastic shift it did if not for the change in image society underwent. We literally feel like a modern society and therefore try to act like one by protecting human rights and freedom. That means a cosmetic change can cause a real one.

The reason it might have been more of a cosmetic change is because a lot of the same problems exist. You cannot change human nature overnight or over a century for that matter. We still lie, cheat, hate, and discriminate. It might only seem like things changed but did they really? Our disdain for the past and hope of the future is what drove the movement at heart. (It seems) That’s why we stripped our products from decorations, to destroy anything that would reference the past. It worked, today’s buildings, furniture, and designs have almost nothing in common with those of the past. Yet if feels like a lot of the old problems persist.

Truth was another major theme in the modernist movement. We have been lied to, manipulated, and dominated by our governments for centuries. We sought to erase that. In fact we sought to erase hierarchy altogether if not history itself. I am doubtful that design has anything to do with truth though. Truth is important and takes us in the right direction every time, but how do we know that modernist design isn’t a lie pretending to be the truth? Design is a façade by nature so it can’t exactly be truthful.

First Things First Manifesto

Although Ken Garland’s manifesto is inspiring it feels a bit hopeless. It’s true, our current economic system fuels design for the single purpose of profit and almost nothing else. You know we have a problem when we create beautiful artworks to convince people to buy their own deaths. Soda companies? Terrible. Tobacco companies? Terrible. Drug companies? Not only terrible but most of them need to be tried for crimes against humanity. Not only because they made it nearly impossible for natural cures to exist legally but also because they create cures for diseases that don’t exist. ADHD for example cannot POSSIBLY be a disease. Yet we prescribe adderol like it’s candy. (Adderol has a healthy does of amphetamines) Yes there are extreme cases in ADHD that might benefit from it but the majority of people who “have it” are in no way helping themselves.

That is the reason his manifesto feels so hopeless, it simply has no grounded reality unless designers suddenly decide to do charity work on a massive scale. Government action would be the best hope for this manifesto, but why would the taxpayers agree to fund artists? The average person does not look at minimalism and think “wow how refreshing” but something more along the lines of “wow is this a scam?” Not to mention the fact that government is often mismanaged, corrupt, and funds the dumbest projects. This is why artists do not have government funds in the first place. (Who was the genius who approved piss Christ?) Modern art has disenchanted people and caused them to lose faith in artists. The last century has made little progress in regards to beauty.

On a brighter note, I completely agree with the manifesto despite its bleak prospects. Design can change the world and it has. It has been for thousands of years from the time pharaohs decorated their palaces with symbolism of domination. More importantly, I love the idea that we can walk down a street and feel sensual bliss because it is decorated with sculptures, colors, designs, and has a nice melody playing in the background, but how can we achieve this? I have no doubt in my mind it is something we’ll achieve one day but not anytime soon.

No Logo

The most interesting aspect of Naomi Klein’s article is the distinction between the physical existence of a corporation and its meta-physical existence. To be clear, the physical existence of a corporation would be the factory itself. The meta-physical existence of a corporation is the brand or logo. The reason I use the term meta-physical is because companies today exist mostly on paper. Since they do not have a manufacturing base their existence would disappear if the economic system breaks down. As opposed to the existence of companies 50+ years ago; they would still exist and produce as long as they had workers despite the state of economy.

There is a deep philosophical discussion that can be had about this type of existence. Metaphorically it would be like asking: would it matter if my current body was replaced with another body? I’d still have my brain therefore my consciousness, thoughts, and opinions. However my body will be someone else’s and would have a completely different outward appearance so am I really the same person? I feel that yes I would be the same person and the same goes for corporations. (Although corporations are technically existing without a body...) Sadly she did not expand on this topic because it was more of an informative piece about outsourcing.

There is technically nothing wrong with outsourcing. Since headquarters of companies are all that matter. The problem is not us outsourcing, it’s why we outsource. Outsourcing makes no sense really… especially if the system is fair, why would we produce goods thousands of miles away? The reason is the cheap labor it provides. However this has a HEAVY cost that we don’t even consider. There is a reason why companies here made a 100% margin profit while operating in the U.S. as opposed to a 400% margin profit while operating in China. The countries we go to for our contracts have almost no wealth in the western sense of the word and even less human rights. The people who make our shoes are also the people who have to choose between life in a factory and starvation. Granted, capitalism is vicious at the core and only benefits the smart. However this is really no different from slavery. Wage slavery would be the proper term. Really, what is the difference between having black guy pick cotton and paying for his survival and having an Asian guy make cotton shirts and pay him money so he can pay for his survival?

To me this is the most outrageous aspect of outsourcing. The fact that this is not a mainstream issue makes me wonder how corrupt the news network really is. Although it wouldn't be surprise me if complicated matters like this simply fly over those people's heads. Finding a good informative unbiased news article is like looking for needle in a haystack.

Bauhaus Exhibit in MoMA

The Bauhaus exhibit in the MoMA is very engaging and thought provoking. While the works of art are great as stand alone pieces without any explanations they become a lot more awe-inspiring when put into their context. The context being the time period the works of art were made in. To say that the Bauhaus movement was ahead of its time would be an understatement. If we were to compare this exhibition to other artworks of the time it would be like comparing the submachine gun to a revolver. It doesn't just represent humanities shift to the modern era, it lays the groundwork for it. In fact, to my surprise a lot of the art pieces were basically the same as the art we produce today. This either says little about the progress we made since the 1920's or represents the groundbreaking revolution the movement accomplished. I believe the latter to be true.

The furniture pieces in the exhibit look like extra comfortable versions of the cheap stylistic rip-offs we buy today. Ironically, manufacturers missed the point of the style completely. The Bauhaus was less concerned with style and more with practicality. That isn’t to say that style wasn’t important, on the contrary, but the style was a result of comfort. The chairs they made were built for sitting down; the simplicity was a rebellion against the gimmicky styles that plagued the time period. Now it seems we are back to gimmicky styles without the comfort. This is probably where Morris influenced the Bauhaus movement most. In his quest to make perfect books he stumbled upon the field of design. Although humans have constantly designed their environment it was never a conscious process but something instinctual. (Like a beaver building a dam.) Morris was very specific about his works however; to him it was as if beauty was a science and everything had a reason for existence. If he didn’t invent design he definitely started to bridge the gap between our emotional sense of art and intellectual sense of art and then the Bauhaus movement finished it. Morris’s unrelenting desire to create comfortable visually pleasing books can be felt through-out most of the exhibit.

Although not all works at the exhibit were about logic and practically. Some of them simply explored the unknown. One thing is certain, traditional concepts about what art is supposed to represent were tossed out the window. There is an overwhelming sense of freedom that art before it simply doesn’t have, and for the first time the concept of less is more can be seen. As opposed to the renaissance artists who would try to fit in as many things as possible into every square inch the exhibit displayed art pieces that were not afraid of being bare. They played with the empty space and created geometrical compositions with stark contrasts. Some pieces did the opposite and convoluted the design with interweaving geometric shapes to create chaos. What is beautiful about the chaotic pieces is that all of them found harmony in the overall result. The chaos could only be seen up close; from far away they melted into coherent compositionally pleasing images. And this seems to be the hallmark of almost any Bauhaus work of art – the intentionality of the design element.