“If you’re not pissing someone off, you’re not making art.”

HisGD -3/13

Quiz next week!

“If you’re not pissing someone off, you’re not making art.”

“The solution is in the problem”

Kel Lissitzky- influences constructivism, de stijl, and the Bauhaus

Lissitzky and Kandinsky- two very different people

Lissitzky- explores the intersection if painting and architecture

-P.R.O.U.NS- experiments to explore intersection( projects for establishment of a new art)

  Beat the whites with the red wedge- Lissitzky

-writes book “The –isms if Art”

-interesting page system, mathematical graph system

Columns separate languages, used sans serif fonts, established grid

Analyze the geometry to solve the design problem

 Lissitzky

- about the whole, not the individual

Experimentation in art and cinematography

-Serge Issenstein

-looking for the new art

Alexander Rodchenko- lived up to 1956

-Showed paintings at 5x5 show, considers painting dead and done.

- begins supremacist, moves to constructivism

Constructivism- creativity with a social need

De Stijl

Netherlands

-based on utopian approach to aesthetics

rectilinear planes void of decoration

-black, white, red, yellow, and blue

-express mathematical structure to explore the universe and universal harmony

Piet Mondrian- well known member

Theo van Doesburg- founder, De Stijil ends when he dies.

Dadaism- the world is chaos, so art should be.

Van Doesburg embraced Dadaism- believed that “in order to have new art, the old must be destroyed.”

Piet Mondrian

                                

Van Doesburg vs. Mondrian- Van Doesburg wanted diagonals, Mondrian didn’t.

“At Christmas, I’ll come to you house and ask who Walter Groppious is?

The Bauhaus! 1919-1933

-Utopian idea to change the world

-Looking for a unity of artist and craftsmen to find a new world.

-about rebuilding

1919-1925     Weimer

            1923   First exhibition

            1924   Letter of Resignation

1925-1932     Dessau

            1928   Groupius replaced by Meyer

            1930    Meyer replaced by van der Rohe

1932-1933      Berlin

Thoughts

I think the Constructivism and supremacism movements in Russia, though limited my government influence, were able to grow and experiment within their own boundaries and produced incredible examples of design. Lissitzky was able to explore the intersection of painting and architecture. His piece "Beat the whites with a red wedge" was an interesting exploration of geometry and color. His interest in geometry later influenced his book on the Isms of Art when he organized his book into 3 columns with a different language in each one. It refers to a quote from class about "using geometry to solve a design challenge." In this case, Lissitzky wanted to write the book in three different languages. Instead of writing 3 separate books or separating each language in order, he put all three on the same page using columns. Constructivism design created a style synonymous with propaganda art including the modern day Shepard Fairey work. The crisp geometric shapes and bold colors create strong emotion responses. 

What surprised me was the amount of experimental work being done at the time, especially so early in its history. Its a shame I do not see much of that these days. In the Motion Design presentation, there were examples of work that involved scratching and manipulating film with tools and chemicals to create imagery.  I imagine these days that could be done with both digital and analog tools. Perhaps some traditional stop motion or animation could be done. It might be also interesting to combine old photo techniques with film manipulation.

I had mixed feelings about Alexander Rochenko's comment's on painting being dead and gone. Did he refer to the tradition of realistic rendering from the previous periods? Because the symbolic nature of painting has never died from its history before it inception. In fact, the paintings of suprematism and constructivism are absolutely dependent on symbolism in order to evoke the emotion they desire with color. I may be wrong, but I would like clarification on what he means by "painting" being dead.

 With Destijl and Dadaism, I believe they serve the same purpose in tow different ways. The Destijl movement I find to be more appealing with the work of Mondrian and Van Doesburg. Its also a very academic way to approach art with the inclusion of mathematics to interpret their surroundings. The geometric forms and lack of decoration emphasize the simple but powerful. It challenges the elaborate nature of arts and crafts and especially the previous movements of Rococo and beyond. Dada. however, specifically attacks the idea of what art is. While personally I am not appealed by dada art, their challenge if the idea of art was vital if creating the environment that would lead to the rise of abstract expressionism. It was a fulcrum movement that shifted the art world from one direction to another. Duchamps' fountain, actually a urinal on its back, questions whether ordinary objects could be considered art. My question is if artist like Duchamp were turning solo ordinary objects into art, then did that possible lead down an avenue of thinking that lead to appreciation of say product design?

For the world of design, nothing can undermine the importance the of the Bauhaus. The idea of changing the world with design was an ambitious but refreshing approach and important for an art school. The work reflected a carefully planned, meticulously crafted, and minimalistic approach that I believe can still be seen today. It integrated what was happening with modernism in the fine art world with the practical design world. 

Questions

Many of my questions are mentioned above but a few highlights are:

-When Rochenko siad painting was dead, what do you specifically think he meant by that ? I need clarification

- Did the dada movements appreciation of ordinary objects as art lead to an avenue of thinking that created an appreciation of say product design?