VA: Degree Project Thoughts [ again ]

I've had some feedback, some more time to think about this, and I feel a bit more confused now.

I chose graphic design because I want to make art that relates to everyday people. Things that are functional, that solve problems, that educate, inform, inspire. I chose not to exclusively be a fine artist because I wasn't interested in the esoteric gallery setting, in making work that one had to have an education to understand, or relate to, in aesthetic masturbation.
And I believe that, to an extent, the way that I've phrased my potential degree project so far is in that context.

I feel like I should clarify my motivations a little bit. I don't believe in the line between art and design. I think good artists dabble in design, and good designers dabble in art. I'm really not even sure why they're divided in the first place. Both serve the same function: to "make special". To take the ordinary and make it transcendental, to transform the mundane everydayness into sublime experiences. So called "good" art and "good" design both serve this function. The only difference is design's utility.

In my work I'm interested in the gray spaces between different movements, arts, and disciplines. The tension. I think that nomenclature is a harmful activity that oversimplifies the world, and categorizes it into easy to understand chunks of information, that I believe never come close to fully explaining the nature of what is actually named. In other words, the name for "art" or "design" oversimplifies the fields. Yes, it makes them tangible. Yes, it makes them manageable, and people can categorize things neatly into neat piles for each, but what purpose does that serve? Work that lives in-between hard-defined terms has a life of its own, due to the way it borrows from many things.

I know I talk about Modernism and Primitivism a lot, but perhaps I haven't detailed why I'm interested in both, why the tension between the two informs my degree project, and why I think they exist in the same vein. It may even seem hypocritical to talk about these movements in a divisive way, but how else am I to explain myself? Ah! The other side of the argument.

In any case, Modernism can be defined as the tradition of design that looks to rationality, abstraction, and 'cleanliness'. Primitivism can be defined as a movement in art that looks to so-called "primitive" cultures for their unique aesthetic expressions, and their inherent "humanity". The underlying similarity between the two movements is their use of the "transcendental". The purpose of art and design to primitive cultures was to transcend normality, and scratch at the notion of the other-worldly. Obviously, things like abstraction lent themselves to this kind of aesthetic motivation. African masks are a great example of how abstraction was used to create a transformative exoskeleton for performers in ceremonies whose purpose was to channel a higher spirit, or evoke a sense of wonder or amazement. To go beyond everyday life, and create a more spiritual, transcendental environment.

Modernism's purpose is the same, but for different reasons. It was born out of a want for unity, for universalism, and for common understanding. But I think that Modernism is much more rooted in rationality, reason, simplicity, logic, and order. Ironically, in creating a formal language that could universally communicate, anything that exists outside of this rigid paradigm, including the aesthetic musings of less advanced cultures, is discounted as savage. Modernism has this undeserved arrogant air to it, that it is obviously the most evolved art movement. For example, most Modernist designers never step outside their rigid modes of expression. And in that lies this strange conservatism, this dogmatic approach to ways that people can express themselves, the 'appropriate' manner for them to create. For example, Massimo Vignelli went as far as designing a book for the average non-designer to create objects of design according to the tenets of Modernism.
[ I know I'm name-dropping a lot but it has a purpose, trust me :-/ I'm not trying to be elitist ]
Despite Modernism's idyllic perception of itself as allowing all people to come together and understand each-other, it is arguably cold, rational, and rigid. Even though it attempts to be human, it is so un-human that it becomes unattractive, esoteric, and doesn't relate to everyday people. Why would anyone want to live in a Mies van der Rohe building?
[I promise this is going somewhere. Stay focused!]
Geometry is simultaneously human and inhuman. It is democratic in the way that it can be understood. It is pure, rational, clean. It is also other-worldly, perfect, transcendental, mathematical. The universe is arranged in complex geometric patterns. From the leaves on trees, to fractals, to the microscopic molecules that are arranged to create our bodies, everything is neatly arranged into complex mathematical geometric patterns. God isn't a man in the sky. God is math. In Pocahontas' words, God is in everything. And as horribly kitschy and cheesy as that sounds, it's true. The order and reason of the universe is mind-numbingly sublime.
Perhaps this is why Geometry is the common denominator between these two movements. Modernism's focus on rational, clean communication relies on geometry for its cleanliness and ease of expression, while Primitivism channels its universality. The common ground is the use of the three most basic shapes: the circle, the square, and the triangle to conjure a new reality.
[ I understand the connotations the above remarks may have, and vouch for my sobriety ]

OKAY.
So now that I've loosely outlined my thinking, I'll get into why this is relevant to my work and to my degree project, whatever form that might take.

I've explained how Modernism and Primitivism exist as two polarities on a pendulum, swinging between order / human messiness and forward-looking / backward-looking. The common formal language between these movements is a tool, I believe, to show everyday people, even people who don't understand or appreciate art, that (again, as cheesy as it sounds) we're all brothers. That difference is beautiful. That people are people, and even though we collectively exist as diverse permutations of the species HUMAN, we are all in this together. ( cheese cheese cheese cheese. but true )

How? Because our chemical makeup is the same. We experience the same earth, we share the same emotions, we all want the same things. And, somewhere back in history we all arose from one common origin. Be it an ape that stood up, or the garden of Eden, it doesn't really matter -- believe what you want. The truth of the matter is that we all share the same past, and the same future.

I'm incredibly interested in ancient means of expression because of their honesty. They served a real purpose to their creators. Otherwise, why would these art-objects be made? The prehistoric man, the ancient Egyptian, the ancient Babylonian didn't have the luxuries of modernity. Their time was spent creating things that would better themselves and society. I know this is a generalization, but my point is simply that to ancient societies, art had to have a function, because their main concern was survival and procreation, things that were much more dire at that time than now.

In that lies an interesting distinction. Are these created artifacts art or design? They are created with a function. Canopic jars were designed to hold the organs of a person that had been mummified, but we consider them art today. Were they considered art back then? My intuition tells me that ancient societies didn't have the same definitive pretentions that modern-man does.

The Mayan calendar served the function of telling time, as did many ancient pieces of art. The cave paintings at Lascaux were perhaps didactic, or religious, the Venus of Willendorf was a fertility amulet. The pyramids were objects of propoganda, and massive tombs. FUNCTION! REASON!

These pieces of "art" exist in the same way that Modernism attempts to divine reason from chaos. They all collectively strive for the betterment of man. They attempt to apply control over the natural world. The process of mummification stemmed from a belief that man could have some level of control over the afterlife. This mode of thinking bred the kind of art-experience that is mummification, and all the art-objects that comprise its practice. Today we see them as art. In ancient times, people used them as transcendental tools. Even language, a collection of abstract symbols, is an example of this kind of thinking -- of taking the natural world and harnessing, even domesticating it, so that it can be easily understood. Is language art, or design? Or both?

But should the world be domesticated? Should it be systematized? Should it be named?

Alright. I'm rambling perhaps? Back on track.
The modes of thinking of ancient times lend themselves to this distinction between art and design, but in their universal use of abstraction, show the interconnectedness of the human race. It's no coincidence that the pyramids are a triangular prism. The Egyptians were interested in durability, in eternity, and chose the pyramid form for its absolute strength. The Parthenon uses the golden mean in its construction, and is primarily created from rectangles and squares. Arabic geometry uses the three pure geometric forms to create complex and inter-connected patterns that transcend reality, and connote the divine. This use of geometry underlies everything and everyone, and I hope to explore why in-depth.

_________


I'm not sure how this will be translated and what function it will have. I am interested in writing, in books, but also in print design. I'm not out to create a website. I'm not interested in motion. I don't want the things that I'm not interested in to limit my thinking, but at the same time, I want to graduate with a degree project that articulates my strengths, and demonstrates the kind of work I want to do in the future.

I do want whatever I do to serve a real purpose to people, and for them to confused as to what it is, in terms of the division between art and design. Although my work is very formal-centric [makin' up words!] , I am not interested in experimenting in form for the sake of it. I want to create some kind of transcendental experience for my audience. I want to educate them. I want for my work to serve a real purpose in their lives that betters them in some way. This stems from a philosophy I have about design's purpose: that it is the art of improving. I also want it to use space and materials responsibly, to not be wasteful, and hopefully to not be esoteric, because that's why I divorced fine-art.

So! I know I'm being vague at this point as far as what the end product will be. But I think being too specific is dangerous. This is a large problem I'm trying to tackle, and I think I will need to research it much more before making any serious decisions.

End.