The final countdown

So it has come to the end of our CMT lectures for this semester. The question is what have I got out of them? At the beginning, I found it difficult to link the lectures to our six cities design project, as the topics seemed totally unrelated. However, I have now realised, although the topics may not directly link, there are underlying themes and principles that have helped in the project.

Looking back to the very first lectures, the idea that we are all networked together through media, both old and new was evident and helped in providing direction for “six cities”. This showed that messages could be conveyed easily and quickly to mass audiences. Learning more about digital culture aided in the understanding that it is important to involve users in design and that various cultures can expect different solutions, so that making sure you know what your target audience wants is very important for success. It was also clear that digital media is a great tool for gathering opinions and discussing issues, due to vast online communities such as discussion boards/forums, etc. Although we didn’t use these to the best advantage, our project benefited from gathering some research this way. This also posed the thoughts that technology was taking over our lives, which in a way, I strongly agree with, as did the others in my group. Everywhere you look, technology is apparent, and often make things very complex. Perhaps the most beneficial fact I gained from this was that simplicity in design is successful. It is apparent in a lot of design that technology is just incorporated for the sake of having it – we decided, why use modern technology when there is no need. This led to our simple, but effective design trail using physical, coloured dimples and design map to lead people around design features in Dundee. Virtual Reality also got me thinking along the same lines – this is leading to technology becoming too immersive. We are no longer appreciating the ‘real’ as much as we should. Technology in design should not be a feature in itself, but more as an aid to improve design.

I think some of the lectures subconsciously influenced me throughout the practical work. Although it didn’t seem evident at the time, looking at comics, cartoons and graphic novels got me thinking about how people perceive images, and how the overused expression “a picture is worth 1000 words” is even more appropriate in this case, as there is often a lot of meaning in such mediums.

The lectures benefited me greatly, causing me to think about things I would never have considered before, such as the subtle ‘manipulations’ in Disney, whether they are deliberate or not. From attending them, I believe I now look at everyday situations in a different and more critical way, and this has made me a better designer.

To everyone: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

The Final Stretch

So what did all these CMT and DHTP lecturers connect with our project work in Design Studies. Well firstly there is the obvious connection between the Six Cities Design Festival and The Great Exhibition. By looking at similar festivals from the past we can gain an understanding of what a festival might achieve and what it’s goals could or should be. Although the two Festivals are very different in terms of exhibits and situation we can still learn a lot by looking at past events. This brings me onto my next point.

Most of the lectures showed that anything new is usually built up by looking at old inventions, old theories and knowledge that has been acquired by others. Nothing is ever entirely original it is usually built upon things we know and recognise mixed in with creative ideas. For example the invention of film was not quick. Many different techniques were tried before finding a method and a machine that worked and so it continued. Now inventors and researchers are thinking about ways to show television as holograms.

Other lectures that don’t seem necessarily to be related are related. The Lectures on Post Modern Perspectives, the Global Village and Digital Culture gave us an insight into how people think and work especially with technology that is useful when you are trying to get the general public to interact with design or see design in a different light.

Even the Lectures on comics, Disney and representations of Violence were useful as they showed how powerful images could be and how manipulative the right image can be on a person. Symbols can be a powerful, subconscious tool, which unconsciously passes across ideas and messages both unintended and intended. I think knowing the power of images and symbols is important as if you know about them and you use them right you might just get the message you want to get across, across.

Wow this has been some crazy marathon. It has been interesting, but I am partly glad it’s over like any marathon.

Media breeding Violence?

I think saying that playing violent games or watching violence on TV causes violence in children is just using games and TV as an excuse rather than wondering why these children haven’t been taught that this kind of behaviour is acceptable in the real world. Thousands of children play games with violence in them yet most of them never turn out to be violent. I do think that we should be careful of what we let our children play though for example you wouldn’t let an eight year old play something more suitable for a teenager anymore than you would let an eight year old watch something suitable for an eighteen year old. But to say a video game “made you steal” or “made you hit people” is just ridiculous. You decide what you are going to do or not going to do not a video game. If children are taught right and wrong properly and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable there wouldn’t be so much violent behaviour. That’s my feeling anyway.

Violence in Media

This got me thinking... originally I would have said that violence in video games and on television has no effect whatsoever upon violence in the real world. But recently, even before this lecture there has been evidence to prove otherwise. Can what we see on TV really affect our brain so that we want to kill? Can playing as a hitman or violent character in a game make you act this way in real life? I'm not too sure.

Recently on CSI Miami, there was an episode involving kids who were "recreating" a violent video game in reality. As it turned out, they were part of a group of people, influenced by the maker of the game to act it out in reality, just so that the sales would increase. Although this was a ficticious story, it is easy to see how it could happen, but I do beleive the mentality of people involved in violent acts has to be affected in some way. What was unusual though, and makes a positive argument, is that about a week after this episode was aired in Britain, an incident in England happened, based on the events. A teenager who had been watching the program, tried to reinact the violence by robbing a bank, shooting a number of innocents for no reason. This can therefore argue that both video games and TV can cause violence in reality.

Another example of violent films affecting people's actions was with the release of "A Clockwork Orange". This film saw an increase in gang attacks across Britain, similar to the ones potrayed in the movie, promptly leading to it being banned.

On the other hand, there are counter-arguments to these. Why has there been a decrease in violent youth attacks with an increase in violence in media. Censorship has laxed alot in recent years, with the intensity of violence in films and games becoming extreme and very realistic. But this does not seem to have had an effect on the community. Why would previously banned films be re-released and censorship laxed if it effected our minds so much as to become more violent people?

It is my belief that it takes a certain type of person to commit violent attacks, and those people may well be affected by media violence. But would these people not just be violent anyway? Is media really a trigger for their violence?

Maybe...maybe not

Final Blog

I think all the lectures had different meanings and understandings, which could be taken away and thought about afterwards. However, I found the relation between a few of the lectures, to the Six Cities Design project we were working on at the time, was the fact that using design can change peoples moods and emotions either over a time-period of even instantly. The lectures on posters and war/revolution design brought up the question of whether propaganda is a vital tool for capturing the publics support and interest, my answer to this question is yes.

Of course, I think that without design propaganda would be nothing as layouts/text/images/meanings have all to be conveyed in such a small space (e.g. posters/leaflets). The fact that moods and emotions can be altered by the use of music/imagery or even a colour really astounds me. I know myself that my mood can change just by listening to different types of music. I feel that many people probably do this when outside/working/etc, and ignore things that their mood doesn't connect with. During war people wouldn't have been able to think of anything else and so took interest in the posters/banners/parades going on, also due to censorship blocking out anything else! I find this fact to be very interesting as it shows not only how moods can change and how propaganda can be used as the 'secret weapon', but also that human interaction with this form of design partly depends on how that human is feeling. That is my opinion however.

I felt as though this related to our project as we had to promote areas of Dundee design to people inside, and outwith, of the city. The different ideas that each groups came up with had to try and attract peoples interest, either being blatantly obvious as to what it was or being vague so to make people feel curious. One of our main aims was to change the view of Dundee from 'Scumdee' to a more popular/modern view, which meant we had to try and convert people's image of Dundee. This meant trying different approaches to transform people's moods – from ignoring design to being curious and actually wanting to know why it was there, etc.

This is the main link I took from the two seperate parts of the Design Studies course and it really had an impact on me when I was writing up my blog on the lecture of the Russian Revolution. As I had little knowledge of the actual propaganda used in the revolution and World War I (knowing more about the historical details) I found my eyes were opened and knew that similar tricks are still used today, and without propaganda it would be very hard to capture peoples interest and imagination. This was the tool we needed to be successful in our Dundee Design project and so we all adapted it to our own thoughts and causes.

DISNEY (Deconstructed)

After attending this lecture, I found it hard to see the point trying to be conveyed. However, thinking back, it seems to have been focused on attacking the theories and ideas behind Disney's creations. For example, portraying that Beauty and The Beast was in fact a representation of domestic violence, and that it was conveying the message that people should accept this, and forgive, seemed a little far-fetched to me. Disney's main audience is in fact young children, so it is hard to beleive that children will be thinking about these facts while enjoying a movie. To be fair, a lot of fairy-tales do have morals behind them, however, having watched Disney Movie's as a child, I do not perceive any immoral messages, and do not accept domestic abuse as a result of watching Beauty and the Beast.

It was mentioned that culture was the biggest USA export, which I can agree upon, as we often base our knowledge of how people live their lives by what we see on television and in blockbusters. However, I beleieve that we aren't affected by Disney as much as we may think. Although there is often alot of meaning behind the stories, there are still unrealistic features, including the fact that they are animated. OK, so children do get attached to animated characters, I'll admit, but does this really affect their view on real life? In my opinion, I think even children are able to seperate between fiction and reality to some degree. And in Disney's defence, why would they purposely portray bad influences? Their sole purpose is to provide entertaining stories, which from experience, require conflict and resolution - which is shown in Disney films. And is this not a good thing to teach our children - how to resolve problems? I think so.

The First World War

During this lecture we were told several times that one of the main points, to take from it, was that moods can be changed easily by the use of visuals/music/etc. This relates back to my blog about the Russian propaganda posters, as I explained that views/opinions could be altered so to gain support and to oppose enemies. This was also true, as during the lecture many World War posters were shown to us showing different countries portrayals of events/opinions. Looking mainly at the British; Russian and German posters, it was apparant that this form of propaganda took different shapes in each of the countries. From my opinion, I found the British posters to be dull, relying mainly on text and basically just giving orders; the Russian posters being dramatic/colourful and patriotic and the German posters showing off powerful figures to be almost religious (as well as being colourful). My favourite posters were the Russian posters (probably due to my knowledge of Russian history) and my least favourite were the British ones (as I disliked the way they are set out and instead of trying to be persuasive, they just blatantly say what is expected).

Propaganda is the art of persuasion - persuading others that your 'side of the story' is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge etc.

However, the British government discovered that Germany had a Propaganda Agency after the outbreak of WWI. David Lloyd George (Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time) was given the task of setting up a British War Propaganda Bureau, so to keep up with the other countries, and have the same abilities. The WPB invited twenty-five leading British authors to discuss ways of promoting Britain's best interests during the war. Famous authors such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling and H. G. Wells attended and agreed to keep it a secret. It was only until 1935 that the WPB became known to the general public. Books, pamphlets, photographs and war paintings were produced as propaganda, as well as films/music etc, so to gain support and keep Britain running smoothly during the times of war. One interesting point was that only specific photographers were allowed to take photo's of the Western Front, with anyone else being sent to the Firing Squad!! Many British artists had difficulty creating paintings/pictures of the War, as they were required to only involve dead Germans instead of any British soldiers and were asked to show the friendship between Britain and the U.S/etc. However, many artists refused to do this as they wanted to display the real effects of the war, such as resulting gas effects on soldiers/death/etc. Therefore, the public only saw posters/paintings showing British triumph as well as posters asking men to go to war/about food/coal rationing and others. Recruiting posters issued during the first two years of the First World War included Alfred Leete's famous design of Lord Kitchener, war savings, charities and the role of women.

Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently perverse level. Adolf Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda. Goebbels 2 main tasks were to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party and to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible. Obviously, this propaganda centered around putting down the Nazi's opponents (Britain/France/Russia/USA and of course, the Jews). The Nazis controlled film production, censorship, what books could be read, providing cheap radios at low prices so Hitler could be heard, as well as rallies/parades and posters.

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it." Goebbels

This quote from Goebbels clearly shows that the Nazi's found propaganda to be a vital part of completing their goals and becoming successful in their aims, as well as depicting the public as conforming to any set idea as long it is repeatedly displayed to them (i.e. as in the use of posters/etc). Propaganda for the masses had to be simple, and appeal to the emotions. To maintain its simplicity, it had to put over just a few main points, which then had to be repeated many times so to make the public aware of it, but unaware that they were reading the same things over and over. This was done by altering text and images to create a different look. For the Germans cartoons and images were vital to showing their like/dislike of something (such as showing Hitler providing grain to showing the Jews asking for money, one poster even showing that Germany had defeated Britain and the Bolsheviks were next in line!).

My last blog shows in detail my thoughts on the Russian posters used by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution, but this also applies for World War I. Posters showed their leaders and soldiers to be patriotic and strong (similar to those of the Germans but not as biased - having one man fighting off 2 men at once). The colours that were used were always bold and usually invloved the colour red, showing them as the Reds (Bolsheviks wanted communism). Therefore their posters were more dramatic and dark, to a certain extent, not giving away too much but still asking for support in a subtle way.

These three countries were the main basis of the lecture and we witnessed many images and posters that were used throughout the Great War, but other countries had their ownkinds of posters such as France. The French focused on trying to encourage enscription into the army while pleading the justice of the French cause. These posters seem to be printed mainly on brown paper which makes them quite bland, but the bright colours used to focus the eyes mainly on the images involved. However, there is quite a lot of text used on many of them which would put people off looking at them for long. American posters were on the same lines as the British (as in asking for help and support) but used happier images and showed characters helping others, keeping them more supportive and straying away from war images (focusing on the behind-the-scenes views - transport/communication/etc.). These posters are quite clever but still don't make me feel as though they would have had a big impact when compared to Russian and German posters.

Altogether, I enjoyed this lecture as instead fo being told lots of facts it was left to our own thoughts and opinions of the posters and analysing a few of them. This was helpful as I was still thinking about the Russian revolution posters and so gave me a deeper insight into what the posters meant and how they could be used to alter moods and emotions.

Disney - Sheesh it's Fiction

First off I wasn’t feeling too bright when this lecture happened but I did read up on it later on and was surprised. I was surprised because it seemed to be taking a kids film far too seriously. In a way I can see where they have got their ideas from but Disney are the softest cartoons around and here are people saying something along the lines of they are teaching kids sexist ideas and racism. Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t Disney been making cartoons since the 1930’s, those children grew up with Disney and they all turned out ok. Yet now all of a sudden Disney is evil in disguise because all it’s heroines are pretty!?

Are you saying that all heroines should be ugly? How is showing beauty being sexist? A large amount of anime shows characters as being big doe eyed and beautiful are you going to now say that it is being sexist? To me sexism isn’t about showing too much beauty it’s about women being taken advantage of and only seen as objects. If you want to see true sexism read Chaucer The Merchants Tale where May is treated completely as an object and not as a person.

Then there is all this about Disney only portraying broken families or portraying all mother figures as being either evil or non-existent. In Lilo and Stitch, there wouldn’t be much of a story if the family wasn’t broken, would there? Lilo and her sister are trying to cope with losing their parents. Don’t you think this might be a relevant issue given that families become broken in real life? Children lose parents in accidents and become orphaned. Sometimes children need to be able to identify with fictional characters in order to cope with their own real life situations so why is it considered so bad that Disney portrays broken families. In the Lion King Cimba has to cope with the loss of his father. And yes the mother is missing in The Little Mermaid but in the original version the mother only appears there for one line, I hardly think it makes a difference to the storyline. And since we’re on this subject of broken families, In Shrek Princess Fiona was locked away in a tower by her parents, In About A Boy there is a little boy who only has his mum who suffers from depression. Broken families do not portray bad values towards children.

From what I remember of watching Disney films when I was young, it was all about trying to do the right thing and finding true love, which is what most of the fairy tales we’re told as young children are about and I’m very certain you wouldn’t feel happy about the original fairy tales being told.

On the other hand I will agree that I find the idea of Disneyland somewhat sickening, the films themselves are beautiful examples of animation but Disneyland I always viewed as a money making scheme which was somewhat sickeningly sweet and fluffy.

But apart from that the Disney films are stunning examples of some quite beautiful animations it is a work of fiction, children should not be viewed as stupid to see them as stupid would be a mistake they are quite aware that cartoons are not real.

Final Post

to be honest, i didnt think that i would take anything from these lectures, i just saw them as time when i wouldnt be doing any work. it turned out that i really enjoyed them, they were quite an eye opener. i found subjects and topics that have sparked my interest that i didnt even really care about before (9/11, American Politics, Psycology). they made me think more about how we, as a race look at things, how we tare things apart, analyise them to death. sometimes you just have to take things as they are and then from there, you will find out "the point" in them. i'd like to think that im more of a "creative practicioner" now and more open to other peoples ideas and opinions.

the lectures were an escape from the heavy project work and the more we got into the project work, the more important the time that we had in the lectures became. it was time to think freely, time when you weren't restricted to just thinking about "we have only got 2 days to finish this project". i saw it as my most creative time, as i would get ideas from some of the topics that we would cover, so you could say that those lectures directly effected my thinking on the projects. now im not sure if this was the intended effect, but that the effect they had on me.

the blog was the part i found most liberating, as i could just type what i was thinking freely and not feel restrained by an essay brief. it was the only way i could really "get out" what i was thinking. all in all, i'd like to think it was a positive experience for me.

media and the global village

media has the power to change and influence people in such a powerful way that it can shape countries and destroy them with a single quote, picture or video clip. the internet and TV has allowed this to become available to anybody with an internet connection or a television. so the power of communictaion with the world as a whole is no longer in the hands of a select few. now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? are those with access to an internet connection educated enough to make statements that may effect how a person thinks about things? are those with a video camera and able to upload those videos to the internet again, educated enough to post those videos?

take for example, 9/11, this is the most documented "terrorist" act ever. within seconds of the first plane hitting the first tower, the internet was crawling with video clips of this act of terrorism. not just videos, you had full TV crews at the scene within seconds, screening what is probably the worst thing that had happen to the world since America dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan (again, filmed). now, was the world ready for constant 24 hour footage of this event. were we as humans actually able to handle the constant streaming of this event, this event replayed over and over and over again in FULL COLOUR with STERO sound. did this constant footage and the views of the people who were speaking on that day effect how we reacted after 9/11? if we hadn't have seen what had happened in FULL COLOUR and with STERO sound, would we have been so outraged? if it was reported just in type, would it have had the same effect? id have to say no.

the internet and TV played an important part on that day. its showed us the true horror of a terrorist act, in FULL COLOUR...something that had been seen before, just not on this scale. it brought the world together in complete unison, joined in a simultanious wave of hatered of the "terrorists". also, they reported lots of untruths, but these wouldn't be known as false until later on, but these also contributed on that day to form opinions. in this age of instant TV, the supposed "facts" may not actaully be facts, but aslong as they will reinforce the idea that you a trying to push its ok to say, (purely made up name and purely hypothetical) "thats a fact...this is true...Dakr Hisballi was a terrorist on flight 93"....then turns out he was actually back home in Pakistan and nowhere near there...but because it was reported as a "fact" Dakr is extridited to the US to stand trial even though he would be dead ?!?!?

the internet has the power to become a seriously powerful connection and informational tool, but its has to be used responsibly. will this happen? only time will tell on that one im afraid, but i remain hopefull that it will.

Virtual Reality

....now, as i write this i have just happened to have bought the Nintendo Wii, which i would reguard to be the singualr most revolutionary games console ever. also, i would argue that it falls into Virtual Reality, but more as an Augmentation to reality.

the Nintendo Wii is no ordinary console. well, it does look ordinary, quite understated actually. anyway, its the Wii Remote that interests me and this that i would argue is an Augmentation to reality. when you you a Wii controller to play Wii games, its not just your usual joypad-to-play-a-game nonsence, you actually PLAY THE GAME. take tennis as an example, you have to SWING the remote to hit the ball, just as you have to SWING the racket to hit the ball if you were playing real tennis. how you "hit" the ball effects how it reacts, you can put back/front spin on the ball, lob it, smash it....it is in essense VIRTUAL TENNIS, and its the remote that makes this possible. "The position and motion tracking of the Wii Remote allows the player to mimic actual game actions, such as swinging a sword or aiming a gun, instead of simply pushing buttons. An early marketing video showed actors miming actions such as fishing, cooking, drumming, conducting a string quartet, shooting a gun, sword fighting, and performing dental surgery"....

THIS IS VIRTUAL REALITY NOW !!!!

Violence in Media

this is a topic that i have been at odds with for some time, and one that i have discussed over and over again with my friends. the idea that watching a violent act will make you more violent as a result. this is just something that i just cannot buy.

taken from personal experience, i have never thought about killing someone after playing a computer game such as Grand Theft Auto, or watching a film like The Punisher, it just doesnt have that effect on me. i just see these things as purely fictonal experiences, they have no effect on anybody, nobody is really going to die. if you kill someone in GTA, you dont actually kill anybody, you mearly sent a signal to the computer to tell that set of pixels on the screen that you shot not exist anymore. its a program. thats all.

now, if somebody plays GTA, then goes out and murders somebody...in my opinion, there must have been something wrong mentally with them in the first place. to actually be able to commit a murder, to take a human life without thinking about it, is something that a computer game just cannot train you to do. yes, it improves you hand eye co-ordination, but train you to kill. No.

the columbine massacre that happened in America was blamed on two things. Marilyn Manson and....would you believe it, computer games, Doom to be specific. the "Satanic Music" of Marilyn Manson and a computer game called Doom turned two American teenagers from normal teens, to murderers...sorry, just don't by it. hows about the fact that because of Americas retarded Guns Laws, they had easy access to Guns ??? bring it on yourself ?? i think so. how about social exclusion, bulling, depression, a feeling of helplessness...could this have caused a fundimental shift in thinking that would enable two teenage boys to murder 13 people...id guess so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Disney

when i came out of this lecture i felt exceptionally irratated by it and as i sit typing this out im still quite annoyed by it, as it was very one sided. all that i took from this lecture was quite simply "DISNEY IS EVIL...WE MUST STOP THEM NO MATTER WHAT". hmm...now, this is a company who produced, or has produced (and still does, but using PIXAR under the DISNEY name) some of the most beautiful animated films ever, so why are they so hated, what makes them any different than any other multinational company...nothing, thats what. they go about their business just the same as any other multinational company does, looking to make the biggest profit at the lowest cost and we are supposed to HATE them for it. hmm...that seems a bit off, one rule for them, and one rule for the others.

secondly, when the lecture turned to the analisis of Beauty and the Beast, i found it horrendus. why do we as humans take so much pleasure from compleatly disecting and destroying something, which in my opinion is one of the greatest (old school) animated movies ever, and turn it into "Beast: The Wife Beater". now, this is a film about a man who is cursed and turned into a BEAST...no longer human, he is clearly a BEAST..a monster you could say. how they can take something as innocent as this and turn it into what they want is just unbelieveable...how about we just take these wonderful animated films and treat them how they are supposed to be treated, as animated cartoons, works of fiction. lets stop looking at things with such a critical eye, sometimes its nice to just watch a movie and just do simply that,watch the movie.

now, im not saying that what they found in the movie is wrong, i mean, you can see where they are coming from, but you can do that with anything if you have the determination and drive to do so.

in my eyes, i just see Disney as an easy target for people who are unhappy with their lives...a big multinational company, lots of money and a responcibility to produce films that fit the so called "Disney ideal" that they have supposedly drilled into the masses for over 50 Years. if they are so bad, you dont have to buy their goods or watch their films, there are lots of other animation studios works you can watch. its just because its Disney, and that just doesnt seem right.

Futurism V 'De Stijl' (The Style)

Futurism Movement

The movement, known as Futurism, ranged from 1909 (being firstly brought to the world by Marinetti's publication in the Figaro magazine) to 1944. Originating in Italy, as an avant-garde movement, it took technology, speed and modernity as its inspiration. Futurism showed the technological dynamics of twentieth century life. The futurist style hailed the machine age and war, and favoured the rise of Fascism. It reached its peak in 1909, when Filippo Marinetti made his first manifesto of the art style. Marinetti expressed violent views about art and literature, and it seemed that his comments were mainly focused about shocking the public. I find it very interesting that futurism was the first art movement to be self invented, therefore inspiring many people around the world to follow suit and create their own styles of art/design. Famous futurist artists included Filippo Marinetti, Giacomo Balla, Umberto Boccioni, Carlo Carra, and Gino Severini (all portraying their own views of sight - display of movement in contained painting, sound - creating abstract pictures of environments/public places which were busy/etc, and also states of mind). Being influenced by electrical equipment (such as streetlights), Cuban art and photographs/time-lapses some drawings/paintings produced showed the movements of playing a violin or even cartoon-like images.

One quote that I found quite interesting during the lecture was:

"You never step into the same river twice, for fresh waters

are always flowing in upon you"

This quote, by Heraclitus, was quite a good point in the lecture (although it was read wrong, as it had been changed) as it made me think that artists/designers should always try new techniques and take different approaches everytime, instead of modifying or copying existing styles. This relates deeply to the Futurist view of art/design as they wanted to create new styles, as Italy was being 'plundered' of its fmou artwork. Basically, the Futurist movement aimed to start over again and create a new kind of art (focusing on speed as a main influence, eventually leading to the introduction of cars/planes/etc).

The example shown is of a dog on a leash. The painting obviously shows the movement of the dog, the leash and the owners feet. When viewing this I instantly think of cartoons such as 'Scooby Doo' as it looks comical and fast-moving. I do like these styles of paintings, but others showing sound and mind-states are harder to understand as they can be very absract and you may not notice a certain part, whereas someone else might! I feel as though this painting works well as even the background fits in, with the lines shooting off as if to show the speed of the dog and owner walking.

The simple use of colour makes it very effective, in my view, and if other colours had been applied, I don't think it would have had the same effect.

Moving into the First World War, many Futurist artists joined the army and actually did paintings/drawings when at the front-line/etc. Some of these works are viewed as the best Futurist productions by critics while others don't. However, it has to be said that the pieces created clearly depict the tradegies/victories of war and the people involved in it. Some artists actually died during the war, such as Severini and Boccioni. The influence of machinery/etc being introduced meant the Futurists started creating new pieces such as those representing car movements/dynamisms. Also, futuristic buildings were drawn and depicted, however none were made but have relevent styles relating to today's architecture - showing that they possibly had an impact on the future of architecture, or that they were good guessers!

De Stijl Movement

The De Stijl movement (translated as 'The Style') was founded by Theo Vandenberg's publication in 1917. This movement was created by the Dutch and consisted of abstract paintings/patterns that used simple solid colouring; thick lines and the use of square blocks. The artists/designers in this period viewed paintings as outdated and so wanted to create a more modern representation of art. Many of these pieces are very abstract showing a tree as only a few brown squares, not even shaped like a tree! One reference that people may be more familiar with, in the modern day, of De Stijl is the White Stripes album 'De Stijl' which involves bold black lines and red/white solid squares.

The simplicity that characterises De Stijl thinking suggests that it is a model for organising space and achieving visually engaging and functionally successful solutions. This has been adapted in recent times as more bars/clubs and even flats are adopting a simple look, using up to 3 colours while keeping it looking smart and organised. Some of these buildings/spaces I actually like but I feel as though some are taken a bit too far, influencing highly from the De Stijl style. A great example of this is the Schröder House. Being built in 1924, by Dutch architect Gerrit Rietveld, for Mrs. Schröder and her children, she wanted the house to be designed preferably without walls. The house is one of the best known examples of De Stijl-architecture and arguably the only true De Stijl building. Now, as it has been furnished with only De Stijl styl furniture/etc, it is truly De Stijl but I don't like it mainly due to the fact that most parts aren't very practical. However, that is only my opinion and I know that many people would like this style viewing it just as a form of art/architecture or actually liking it due to their tastes/preferences - I am not one of these people. I do however respect the whole De Stijl movement, as it modernised the way art/design can look and strayed away from the traditional detail that was fashionable and converted it to a simple look. I feel as though it plays a large part in the modern-day construction of stylish bars/flats and many influences can still be seen nearly everywhere you look (in my view even the IPod contains some reference to De Stijl style).

Russian Propaganda Posters

Having studied Russian history in great detail at High School I aready knew about a lot of the movements/wars/etc that went on. However, I realised that although I had looked into Russian propaganda I had never really focused on how they actually used it. Therefore, posters and publications interested me as it meant not only was I adding to my knowledge of Russian history, but I was looking at how they used art and design to portray their propagandic views. Although there were existing posters used in Russia, before the Russian Revolution, these were over-shadowed due the colourful and dramatic propaganda posters produced by the Soviets. The Soviets, being powerful and determined, knew exactly what they wanted and therefore got the help of talented artists/designers to create the dramatic looking posters.

Through the posters the greatest artists of the time proclaimed government policies, asked for support, and demanded greater efforts, all with the goal of building Soviet power. The Russian civilians would view these everyday, as more and more would be produced and replaced, and slowly be forced to support the Soviet views. Of course, many people would go along with what was being said at the time and these posters re-inforced this. Although other measures were taken to gain support such as the Cheka (secret police who could arrest any suspects, even kill them if needed - mainly the enemies of the Soviets or other political groups) and the use of FEAR, which was a vital factor of the Russian Revolution.

However, Lenin has to take the credit for creating the very first modern propaganda scheme. Stamps/parades/sculptures/publications/banners and most importantly posters helped him to gain allies and support. The Soviets used art as a special propaganda weapon and helped them from 1917 - 1984. Such propaganda techniques were especially important during the first years of the revolution, when the authorities were appealing to the whole nation. Propagandists had to transform the mentality of the people and make them accept new political ideas and a new lifestyle. In that respect, this mentality relates them with authors of modern advertising campaigns, who attempt to change people's habits and encourage them to try new products. Although most Soviet posters were issued in editions of 5,000 to 50,000, they are extremely rare today. This is because most posters were placed, and survived only weeks or months. The remainder were not recognised as valuable historical documents or collectibles at the time they were printed and were recycled or lost due to the ravages of war. Others were destroyed for political reasons (it was dangerous to keep images of Trotsky after 1928, for example).

Soviet political posters were usually accompanied by a slogan or even a whole verse. "Ah, my heart is burning, brighter than fire. Why, my darling are you rejecting me?" complains a young man from a poster. The poor man doesn't want to go to war, and here his beloved's reason. "Years don't go back, the river doesn't flow backwards. The Cheka will keep you warm," she threatens. These types of posters basically forced men to join the army, making them embarrassed and guilty if they hadn't already. This influenced the public to adopt this view, almost resenting those that didn't go to war.

As America alone produced about 2,500 poster designs and approximately 20 million posters – nearly 1 for every 4 citizens – in little more than 2 years, these lessons of American advertising in WWI were not lost on the Bolsheviks. Turning to poster art, to help win their civil war against the Whites, Lenin and his followers used this modern propaganda and made it a weapon - which would be used throughout the century in both hot and cold wars everywhere. Basically, the Bolsheviks used the posters (plus other methods) to put down their enemies while gaining support. Without this use of propaganda, many historians argue that they would never have been so successful while others see it from a different perspective. I think that propaganda is a great way of getting peoples attention and using it to basically 'brainwash' people into a different way of thinking. I do think it was vital for the Russians to use this technique, especially the dramatic posters, and it proved to be a major factor in achieving their goals to a certain extent.

Even today many people collect Russian posters as a form of art, as well as British/American/etc, and a way of keeping a record of historical events. Today russian artists still make their own interpretations of goings on, such as movie posters of 'The Matrix' and other examples, and can show different moods and feelings through these. Collectors will pay hundreds of pounds to buy them. However, it is viewed as a dying art as it can make cinemas look cheap, and even films! It is also seen by many as not a form of art and is even detested by many critics. This shows however that Russian art still exists and can change peoples views on people/places and events.

I find Russian propaganda posters to be very interesting, and when conjoined with the other design happenings in Russia at the time of the Revolutions, I can safely say that this form of art/design is one of the most important ways of changing public views secretly. Compared to German/American and British I feel as though they are more truthful and patriotic (to a certain extent!) and it was a very smart move to adopt the technique of using visual propaganda.

The Viennese Secession

The Viennese Secession, part of the highly varied Secessionism movement that is now covered by the general term Art Nouveau, was formed in 1897 by a group of 19 Vienna artists who had resigned from the Association. The first President of the Secession was Gustav Klimt. Unlike other movements, there were no similarities in the artists work - but fell between the decorative qualities of Art Nouveau and the more agitated style of later expressionistic movements. The building itself is considered an icon of the movement, partly due to its entrance, displaying the phrase "to every age its art and to art its freedom", which had been carved into the material. Secession artists main concerns were exploring the possibilities of art academic tradition, hoping to create a new style that had no reference or relation to historical influence. The style was exhibited in a magazine that the group produced, called "Ver Sacrum" lasting from 1898 t0 1903, featured highly decorative works relating to the Art Deco period. Linear ornamentation, in whiplash/eel styles, decorated the buildings designed by Secessionist architects.

Gustav Klimt (painter), one of the founders of the the Secession, strayed away from academic art and based his work on styles similar to Art Nouveau. Influencing others, such as Oskar Kokoschka, due to his focus on the female body (emphasising the skin by placing flat areas of ornamental colours around it). The other founders of the Secession were Josef Hoffmann (architect) and Alfred Roller (stage designer). The actual building was designed by Joseph Maria Olbrich. Other well-known Secessionist artists, that produced new unique styles of art, are Egon Schiele; Koloman Moser; Oskar Kokoschka; Carl Moll; Marx Kurzweil and Rudolph Bacher. All of the artists participating in the group exhibition, in the Vienna Secession, are distinguished by their very personal and direct way of reacting to the political and economic situation - often by introducing seemingly absurd, sometimes self-destructive elements into their work that are full of humour, yet have no claim to universality.

Sharing notions, with Arts and Crafts, that the notion of great art versus minor art needs to be abolished. They designed and erected the geometric building for permanent exhibition space.They supported Art Nouveau, and Klimt especially was the most determined to create new styles and art, away from the stranglehold on exhibitions and policies. In 1905 came a further split within the movement split between the fine arts people and the applied arts people associated. The latter, including Klimt, associated art with industry and were dismayed by the increasingly strong trend towards naturalism. Geometrics, functionalism, and a two-dimensional quality were features instead here. In 1939 growing Nazism contributed to the dissolution of the movement. However, the Secession was seen as a big success by many. Hermann Bahr (critic) commented on the first exhibition saying:

''Such an exhibition we have never seen in Vienna! An exhibition without a single bad painting in it!''

Artists from all over Europe were made welcome, and when the Scottish architect and designer Charles Rennie Mackintosh and his wife, the designer Margaret Macdonald, were the sensation of the Secession exhibition in 1900 there was a move to make them stay on forever. I feel as though this new movement towards art and design was a well-taken step forward, as new styles and techniques were accepted readily instead of being constrained to following certain rules and guides. History itself basically helped the movement survive, as shown by Naturalism being pushed aside by the Nazi's so getting rid of competition that Secessionists disliked, and its remaining pieces today are fought over by avid collectors - paying huge amounts to get paintings/drawings/stamps or even wooden toy figures.

The group split in 1910 and the Neue Sezession was formed. Members of the Neue Sezession included Nolde, Pechstein, and other artists who would form Die Brücke, as well as Kandinsky and Jawlensky.

I find the Viennese Secession to be enlightening as young bold artists/designers used their own initiative to rebel against academic art, looking to experiment with new styles and techniques for not only their own pleasure but also to shown a different way of using subject matter/art. Although this was a brave movement, even constructing a building to hold exhibitions of new pieces, it was successful and showed the world (not only Germany and Austria) that there was other ways to use form/etc to create art and to go ahead with what they wanted.

Blog done, bye.