Some further questions to possibly consider:
Does Visual Communication, or design more generally, bear responsibility for a particular position within capitalism and the spectacle?
Is 'Fine Art' somehow freed from this responsibility, or is this perceived autonomy simply and finally illusory?
If design is (as many theorists and commentators have suggested) inextricably linked, to a greater degree than the other arts, to capitalism, consumption, and the spectacle, does this mean that design and designers are limited to serving and reproducing these conditions?
Or is there room for critique or change from within the spectacle?
You might also consider the following (highly provocative, to my mind) exchange from an interview with Matt Soar, a Canadian academic and working graphic designer:
Q. (Klik magazine)
You’ve disagreed with the notion that the world would begin to change if ten thousand designers would finally decide to change the way they work. I’ve read that Canadian designers were thinking about going on strike, back in the seventies, because of their dissatisfaction with their status and working conditions. Croatian theoretician Goroslav Keller once wrote: “Can we imagine for all designers in the world to go on strike for indefinite time. How would this result in a world, would there be any damage? Cynics might even say that society at the end might even prosper.” Can you imagine a world without designers?
A. (Matt Soar)
I think there are several questions here. For me, it’s highly unlikely that ten thousand designers would suddenly decide to change the way they work because, barring a real social or political revolution, that kind of thing simply doesn’t happen overnight. It’s an entirely different question to ask whether such a change would have any effect on the world. ‘Changing the way you work’ could mean using a computer instead of a pencil, or it could mean working exclusively for ethically sound organizations and actively working against all the others. To paraphrase a famous German philosopher, ‘we make history but not in conditions of our own choosing.’ This is true for designers in particular, but it’s something they generally don’t understand or don’t want to hear. Designers are middle-men; intermediaries. They generally mediate between their clients and the expectations of their clients’ audiences. In strict terms, they’re not producers or inventors or creators at all.
The rest of the interview is available here.
- Keith
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Ok, enough already. a message from your instructor
Dear all:
As you are no doubt aware, a recent post by Jeremy Jeresky on this site regarding the complicity of VC students vis-a-vis the spectacle has prompted a good deal of commentary. It should be said that not all of this commentary has been against his initial opinion, and some of it (both for and against) has been genuinely reflective (thanks Connor and Jen, among others), often to a greater degree than the original post. It should also be said that Jeremy has posted a kind of apology/retraction in a comment on his original post, something which seems to have escaped the attention of some later post-ers.
It's true that Jeremy's initial post was inflammatory and unjustified in its sweeping characterizations about Visual Communications. But much of the best - and worst - writing on art and design seeks to provoke or challenge, and while aspects of the original post are, indeed, regrettable, it has generated some interesting discussion, and thoughtful response by some students in this class. What does bother me, is the extent to which other posts have devolved into personal insult and attack, often posted by students who fail to sign their posts.
So, please, stop with the personal attacks, jibes and insults. If you want to address this post, or the thread and later entries that take it up, I want you to do so in a substantive way that engages with the concepts, and not with the individual who posted it.
Thanks,
Keith
As you are no doubt aware, a recent post by Jeremy Jeresky on this site regarding the complicity of VC students vis-a-vis the spectacle has prompted a good deal of commentary. It should be said that not all of this commentary has been against his initial opinion, and some of it (both for and against) has been genuinely reflective (thanks Connor and Jen, among others), often to a greater degree than the original post. It should also be said that Jeremy has posted a kind of apology/retraction in a comment on his original post, something which seems to have escaped the attention of some later post-ers.
It's true that Jeremy's initial post was inflammatory and unjustified in its sweeping characterizations about Visual Communications. But much of the best - and worst - writing on art and design seeks to provoke or challenge, and while aspects of the original post are, indeed, regrettable, it has generated some interesting discussion, and thoughtful response by some students in this class. What does bother me, is the extent to which other posts have devolved into personal insult and attack, often posted by students who fail to sign their posts.
So, please, stop with the personal attacks, jibes and insults. If you want to address this post, or the thread and later entries that take it up, I want you to do so in a substantive way that engages with the concepts, and not with the individual who posted it.
Thanks,
Keith
More Familiar Heterotopias.
In last class I when we were discussing heterotopias I thought it was interesting that our own school was brought up. One thing I’ve always noticed at my time here were communities generated within the school that have their foundations in false pretence and insecurity that we are all guilty of.
These heterotopias are brought about by the clustered and un-intimate nature of the current environment. It relies on individuals creating areas were they belong, to essentially make everything right in their world out of the terror that who they are is not special.
A prime example of this would be the tendency of our students to degrade the life of anyone willing to attend Sait. To most of us, it seems that a career in art is the only sound and noble choice to make in life. It’s apparent to most that choosing a career in say, welding, or automotives is for a lower type of person. What they seem to forget is that one of the true necessities we actually have his nutrients, and obviously we use money to buy food. Food is far more important than the pursuit of intellectual gain in the arts, so how can someone simply trying to have a job and survive be deplorable? Because how else would art students justify their own existence? How would we be so sure that our choice is the right one if we don’t shit on any other choice? These are a sort of psychological heterotopias, they are associated with physical boundaries but rely on personal instinct.
Even more absurd is the heterotopias generated by the factions of visual communications and fine arts. Everyone knows there are these generalized and crass outlooks coming from either side, and again they have their roots in personal indulgence and ignorance.
Further down on the post you can see that Jeremy Jeresky made a statement that clearly outlines his heterotopia of choice.
“But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$) _Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...”
“It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to.”
I should start by saying that all of this could just as well be a joke for his own amusement, in which case it’s admittedly funny (the irony of spelling sophisticated wrong is not lost on me), because believe it or not, there are human beings with fully functioning motor skills going to this school that actually have these beliefs.
This is a heterotopia of the privileged, self-endowed, free thinking individual that you could say is a product of the system of higher education. We all do this, through our long hours and empty pockets have an overwhelming sense of accomplishment.
In the rare case of our school we see another sub-culture of arrogance beyond that of higher learning. Despite the fact that art is a completely abstract and subjective term, we find people strictly declaring what is right and what is wrong with no ground of previous experience or accomplishments to stand on. For Jeremy to have said those things he so eloquently put would be the same as a VC student declaring that anyone who used money to enroll in classes in the fine arts department are unmotivated hippies who’s only ambition is to be poor and have cooler hair than you. Obviously, this is not the case, as anyone with unobstructed observations skills can see there are some extremely talented people in Fine Arts, just as there are in Visual Communications.
What Jeremy has generously provided is a perfect example of how heterotopias are real, and are generated not just by our physical surroundings, but more importantly by the continuously adapting psychological state of it’s inhabitants.
-Connor Willumsen
These heterotopias are brought about by the clustered and un-intimate nature of the current environment. It relies on individuals creating areas were they belong, to essentially make everything right in their world out of the terror that who they are is not special.
A prime example of this would be the tendency of our students to degrade the life of anyone willing to attend Sait. To most of us, it seems that a career in art is the only sound and noble choice to make in life. It’s apparent to most that choosing a career in say, welding, or automotives is for a lower type of person. What they seem to forget is that one of the true necessities we actually have his nutrients, and obviously we use money to buy food. Food is far more important than the pursuit of intellectual gain in the arts, so how can someone simply trying to have a job and survive be deplorable? Because how else would art students justify their own existence? How would we be so sure that our choice is the right one if we don’t shit on any other choice? These are a sort of psychological heterotopias, they are associated with physical boundaries but rely on personal instinct.
Even more absurd is the heterotopias generated by the factions of visual communications and fine arts. Everyone knows there are these generalized and crass outlooks coming from either side, and again they have their roots in personal indulgence and ignorance.
Further down on the post you can see that Jeremy Jeresky made a statement that clearly outlines his heterotopia of choice.
“But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$) _Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...”
“It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to.”
I should start by saying that all of this could just as well be a joke for his own amusement, in which case it’s admittedly funny (the irony of spelling sophisticated wrong is not lost on me), because believe it or not, there are human beings with fully functioning motor skills going to this school that actually have these beliefs.
This is a heterotopia of the privileged, self-endowed, free thinking individual that you could say is a product of the system of higher education. We all do this, through our long hours and empty pockets have an overwhelming sense of accomplishment.
In the rare case of our school we see another sub-culture of arrogance beyond that of higher learning. Despite the fact that art is a completely abstract and subjective term, we find people strictly declaring what is right and what is wrong with no ground of previous experience or accomplishments to stand on. For Jeremy to have said those things he so eloquently put would be the same as a VC student declaring that anyone who used money to enroll in classes in the fine arts department are unmotivated hippies who’s only ambition is to be poor and have cooler hair than you. Obviously, this is not the case, as anyone with unobstructed observations skills can see there are some extremely talented people in Fine Arts, just as there are in Visual Communications.
What Jeremy has generously provided is a perfect example of how heterotopias are real, and are generated not just by our physical surroundings, but more importantly by the continuously adapting psychological state of it’s inhabitants.
-Connor Willumsen
Luke, I am your father.
People may be interested in a series by photographer Cedric Delsaux , which features Star Wars characters in urban settings. I was reminded of this when we discussed Star Wars in class the other night. Though it's not by any means a new idea, I find the juxtaposition of pop culture and art to be extremely interesting. Plus, who's not a fan of Star Wars? That image of the red guards is my favorite: the red is beautiful and it just pops out of the sterile grey environment.
I'm not sure if this would be considered a heterotopia or not. In a way, it breaks down the typical heirarchy of space by placing fictional characters from the future (actually a long time ago in a galaxy far away, but whats the difference) in contemporary settings. Is it a heterotopia though?
-Justin T
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Couple of Articles - Visual Culture in the News
“The Biggest Outdoor Media in the World”
Ad-Air is negotiating with major airports in the US, Europe, and Asia to place 5-acre ads where passengers in airplanes can see them as they take off and land.
While the advertising company’s website boasts it as “ground breaking,” I’m sure its no surprise to any of us. TVs in the back of airplane seats are becoming almost standard, running ads before and during many of their in-flight features. The people in airplanes can afford to travel, and hey, they’re not going anywhere. Now, ads are going to invade that very special time when seats are brought to their full and upright position and TVs need to be switched off, and there’s not much else to do but look out the window. It was only a matter of time before someone tapped into that slim margin of opportunity.
And just wait a few years; another company will probably do one better--or bigger.
It’s also interesting to note that they’re not looking to sprawl advertisements alongside Canadian runways just yet.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Disney’s America--Very Friendly
Disney has developed a video to make entering the US feel more friendly. Featuring US landmarks and smiling Americans saying, “Welcome,” the brief movie is to be played in consular offices and US customs areas of several airports. The project was conceived after a decline in tourism was noted following 9/11, presumably due to the feeling of mistrust among Americans towards foreigners. This film is supposed to make visitors to the US feel wanted and accepted.
It is interesting that they expect seven minutes of footage set to music to be so powerful as to circumvent such deep-seated, visceral emotions. And who else but Disney could hope to make the process of traveling into the US more pleasant? The video reflects a lot of that same “old time America” discussed in class regarding Disneyland and Celebration, Florida--which is certainly not reality anywhere in the world.
(Maybe they should just try training customs agents to smile... )
See the video, “Welcome: Portraits of America” here.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Chelsea Schulz
(Sorry they’re both travel related. Blame it on the day job.)
Ad-Air is negotiating with major airports in the US, Europe, and Asia to place 5-acre ads where passengers in airplanes can see them as they take off and land.
While the advertising company’s website boasts it as “ground breaking,” I’m sure its no surprise to any of us. TVs in the back of airplane seats are becoming almost standard, running ads before and during many of their in-flight features. The people in airplanes can afford to travel, and hey, they’re not going anywhere. Now, ads are going to invade that very special time when seats are brought to their full and upright position and TVs need to be switched off, and there’s not much else to do but look out the window. It was only a matter of time before someone tapped into that slim margin of opportunity.
And just wait a few years; another company will probably do one better--or bigger.
It’s also interesting to note that they’re not looking to sprawl advertisements alongside Canadian runways just yet.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Disney’s America--Very Friendly
Disney has developed a video to make entering the US feel more friendly. Featuring US landmarks and smiling Americans saying, “Welcome,” the brief movie is to be played in consular offices and US customs areas of several airports. The project was conceived after a decline in tourism was noted following 9/11, presumably due to the feeling of mistrust among Americans towards foreigners. This film is supposed to make visitors to the US feel wanted and accepted.
It is interesting that they expect seven minutes of footage set to music to be so powerful as to circumvent such deep-seated, visceral emotions. And who else but Disney could hope to make the process of traveling into the US more pleasant? The video reflects a lot of that same “old time America” discussed in class regarding Disneyland and Celebration, Florida--which is certainly not reality anywhere in the world.
(Maybe they should just try training customs agents to smile... )
See the video, “Welcome: Portraits of America” here.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Chelsea Schulz
(Sorry they’re both travel related. Blame it on the day job.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)