typography lecture

the history of type

• All that is necessary for any language to exist is an agreement amongst a group of people that one thing will stand for another
• language is negotiated. The sender and receiver both must understand
• type is what language looks like
• typography is the art and technique of printing movable type, the composition of printed material from movable type, the arrangement and appearance of printed matter, the craft of expressing human language with durable visual form
• the written word endures, the spoken word disappears. Type has charted and documented changes in culture over 1000's of years
• 7000 years BC, hieroglyphics - one of the earliest physical representations of language 
• type was very much driven by trade, it was a form of receipt and of a record of what had been bought, it was a lot later that descriptive language began to arise. There was no glyph for rain, only water because you cant trade rain.
• 3200 BC - Mesopotamia, middle east to the Syrian gulf occidental view point, western hemisphere
• Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew, all different alphabets, they needed to develop a common language of trade = cuneiform system which is the basis of occidental language
• the Rosetta stone, discovered 1799 - the point at which we started to recognise distinct root origins of language. It represents three languages Egyptian, demotic and Greek. Our first example of the idea of translation
• Greek alphabet was adapted from the Phoenician alphabet into what we recognise today, Greek is our closest neighbour alphabet wise
• 
• tools also effected how alphabets looked, rush based alphabets and ink are much more smooth and cursive than the Arabic strand of language 
• Lindisfarne bible = the last significant cultural document produced using bone, the production method effected the quality of line and type
• Gutenberg 1450, produced the first movable printing press in the west approximately 1436, they had already been doing it for 600 years in china. Through travel and trade routes the technology was brought to Europe. From then on it became a physical thing and typefaces started to emerge
• 1540 garamond, 1722 caslon, 1757 baskerville
• William Foster 1870 - elementary education act, compulsary to be taught how to read which pretty much gave typography its job. We then had to shift to mass production, invention of type writers, more developed printing presses
• 1919 Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus 1919-1933, the coming together of industrialisation and design, drawing together pre-industrial European craft and the development of industrial technology. Design as a discipline being informed by new mass manufacture, this is when type design and typography was born.

study task 3 - image analysis

In today's COP session we had our first go an analysing images to support the quote we had chosen, we paired up and discussed the 20 images we'd each collected. Me and Alice both had the same quote but we'd collected very different pictures and had both come at it from a different angle which was really interesting. We decided to pick two of each of our pictures and annotate them in a mind map format. Discussing with Alice and creating the mind maps was really interesting and helpful and it gave me done great new themes and ideas such as the concept of land art as an anti communism anti establishment movement and a good counter argument to my quote.

Study task 1 - research sources

Finding research sources

Jstor has a really helpful and indepth advanced search option which helps you narrow down everything to subject area. It also highlights your searched term throughout the documents like google books. However I didn't find it great with a time limit as theres so much content it can be hard to find whats really relevant.

The library took the most time in terms of finding relevant texts, even searching books on the library computers then having to locate them took a while which isn't good if you have limited time. What is good about tthe library is that all the texts there are proffesional published texts from reliable authours which increases the validity of the information gathered and means I'm more likely to be reading informed and well judged opinions.

 Google books was very helpful for scanning a document as you can enter a key phrase such as 'public good' and it highlights this phrase throughout the book which means you dont have to skim or read the entire document and saves on time. I found it was a bit like the library but quicker and easier.

Google Scholar didn't really appeal to me as a resourse, I found it hard to find any text in laymans terms and everything I found was too complex or academic to be helpful for me, I think I just need to spend more time looking at things

Websites were the best research tool for finding answers to very specific queries or questions compared to all the other resources and it's much more fast which much less time having to filter through whats relevant to me. The main problem with websites is the question of validity, anyone can say pretty much anything on the internet so it's good to cross reference or be careful what sources you're using. Also more in depth discussions on your topic such as whole essays are very rarely found on websites, other online resources were better for deeper discussions of themes.

the best research I collected

• I found a very promising book on Jstor called, with this already interesting and helpful quote; 'political art signifies a capacity to shape well the practice of power in a collectivity. Words are its primary tools; deeds are its direct objects; the common good is its ultimate aim. Exercising the political art transforms discourse into action that would benefit a political community.' I'm definately going to look into this book futher as it seems like it has interesting and developed themes and is also very relvant to my quote and the idea of the 'public good'
• where is culture created - a really short and interesting discussion on the origins and structures of culture, also helpful as it references other sources I could look into.
  
  
  

lecture 2: 2000 year non-linear history of the image

Todays lecture was one of the most interesting lectures I've ever listened to and I seriously enjoyed it. Our lecture was great because he was so passionate and interested in the themes he was talking about, theyre also things I'm really interested in and have a lot of opinions about. I've tried to summarise the lecture and take out non important aspects but that was pretty hard! I've typed up the main points and ideas we were introduced to today in my own words along with some of my own thoughts and opinions mixed in throughout, I think I just think and write better this way instead of splitting things up.

• History is not necessarily linear, one event does not cause one more then one more then one more, it is more tangental and complex than that
• the power of the image is a primal mystical power
• Pre historic cave drawings - no one really understands what they're about (as they're pre history) there is only speculation on their meaning. The best or most interesting theories are that they're attempts to communicate with a higher power, they hold magic and mysticism. they're spectral images attempting to achieve something powerful magical with.
• Cy Twombly - a similar concept, his work is not just created by chucking paint at a canvas, its actually something more spiritual and primal than that, theres more energy and meaning in them.
• Richard Long red earth circle - aboriginal sand painting to try and prove the point that theres similarities between ancient aboriginal art and western conceptual artists, theres a continuity, something core that relates to us all as people. Very controversial piece, criticised for cultural appropriation and cultural imperialism. third world being roped into the western worlds endgame story.
• Rothko Chapel Texas - If you look into a Rothko painting its like looking into the abyss, the paintings are dark maroon painted on black mixed with a wax so that theres no reflection. they are described as a spiritual and emotional experience. Rothko actually killed himself, the idea is that when you look at his work you feel his tragedy as well. He was interestingly commissioned for the 4 seasons restaurant in new york but felt so guilty (anti capitalist) that he said he wanted everyone who looked at the paintings to feel physically sick, naturally when they found this out they didn't take his commission, the paintings are now hanging in the Rothko room in Texas. In the room these paintings are now displayed its 2 degrees colder and it is the only room in the gallery that's not white but is a pale shade of grey, apparently people actually sit in front of these paintings and cry. Is that a genuine response? Is there something in visual communication that hooks our soul or is it just in the institutional framing and authority of the art which causes this? Anything in a prestigious gallery automatically seems more important than it actually is or what it was before it was curated in such a way. Certain galleries and University's actually make things important. Are you crying at the Rothko because its a genuine human response or because that is how your expected to feel?
  
• similarities exist between churches and galleries, you go to them, they do not come to you, its like a pilgrimage where you bow down to the alter of culture. This tells you something about institutions and their power over us.
• louvre - interestingly the Louvre is actually a palace turned gallery. The Mona Lisa is kept there behind bulletproof glass, the room is always full of tourists and theres sign posts around the whole gallery to the Mona Lisa like its the only thing of importance. It already sounds like a religious experience; worship at the alter of the Mona Lisa! It's not really a very fulfilling experience (how can it be surrounded by so many smart phones) your not moved emotionally. No one really knows why its the most famous painting in the world, the price alone gives it half its intrigue, decide a painting is worth millions of dollars and it becomes culturally valuable it seems. The Mona Lisa certainly isn't famous because everyone who sees it is bowled over by its majesty. I went to see it years ago in Paris and to be honest its shit. Da Vinchi is so much more than that one painting. Is this painting meaningful because of its essential characteristics or is it because its behind a bullet proof piece of glass.
  
• Duchamp 1919 LHOOQ - if you say the name of this piece fast it sounds like 'she's got a hot ass' in french. Duchamp's piece was about attacking the institutional authority of art and the 'taste makers'
  
• This leads us to the bigger question, do people actually have a meaningful relationship with visual communication or is it institutionally led?
• 'exit through the gift shop' has this capitalist culture of souvenirs added to the magic and culture of it or does it degrade its authority. Is a masterpiece less important now its on your umbrella or does the reproduction of image make art more accessible and increase its potential?
• Theres a strong relationship between money, authority and culture. The art world decide Banksy is worth attention and people start knocking down buildings to put walls into galleries, they're trying to sell something that was created for free. Once graffiti is in a gallery it's not graffiti anymore your missing the point trying to control culture like that.
• Jackson Pollock, Hans Namuth film - back to this idea of the actual existence of spiritualism and meaning in art, Pollock paints to jazz music, almost in this shamanistic trance like state. It's like an existential record of the self 'the soul just vomited out on the canvas' (a great quote from today's lecturer...) its not just drips on a page.
• OR IS IT
• Roy Lichtenstein Red Paint - we live in a superficial age, made of mass culture, art can't move you in the way your claiming.
• Warhol - Pollock style painting just walking all over a canvas, taking the piss out of abstract impressionism.
• Stalin in Russia actually banned radical modern art in the 50s which I never knew and find extremely interesting. The only style you were aloud to paint in was socialist realism. Vladi Mirshi 'roses for Stalin' They banned avant garde modern art because it was 'elitist' and pretentious, no one understands modern art its an exercise in elitism. If people don't understand it we'll ban it, instead we should all paint in socialist realism, its not an art of oppression its an art of the everyman. however this limits freedom pf expression, you cant dictate whats meaningful to people and what is not. Plus half of these socialist realist pieces at the time were blatant propaganda and most of them pretty creepy..
  
• What you wont hear in most of the art history books (but on the very good authority of our wonderful lecturer) the CIA were funding Jackson Pollock to oppose the soviets through the means of art. The goverment use abstract impressionism as a 'cultural weapon' and a form of unrecognisable propaganda. Did Pollock represent a new era of freedom of expression and artistic enlightenment or were we sold another goverment lie?
• Alberto Korda Guerrillero Herocia - the image of revolution, its been reapropriated and its meaning changed. the image has almost lost meaning because of its recycled nature, its just become pop culture, posters on bedroom walls it doesn't represent Cuba or socialism anymore. until today I didn't even know that the image was in anyway connected to Cuba.
  
• Politicians are also always photographed 3/4 to show they're thinking of the future. 
• Shepard Fairey - a graffiti artist employed by the Obama campaign, he created the famous hope poster, he was positive about Obama and what he could do as the first black president which in his opinion turned out to be anti climactic as America continued American imperialism, bombing the middle east just more of the same. He recently created this second poster reevaluating his opinions, the Guy Fawkes mask has become an image of revolution.
  
  
• digital memes/ the image as a political weapon - a good example of this is Gillrays 'little boney in a strong fit' Napoleon actually said his downfall was because of Gillray. Steve Bell has been hailed as the modern day Gillray
  
  
• Disney cartoons were also used as political weapons, the CIA commissioned them to fight the Germans and the Nazis through image during WW2. Society recognises the power of the image, we can see that clearly just by looking at the history of propaganda.
• guerrilla girls - less that 5% of the artists in art galleries are women but 85% of the nudes are female. The guerilla girls actually paid for huge advertising spaces outside galleries to plaster up their work. As artists i have a lot of respect for what they're trying to say and I think there message is still relevant now.
• art as a weapon - in 1968 there was revolutionary unrest in France with the beginnings of a new existential philosophy and the idea of free love. Students were the revolution, a group of art students in France kicked out the professors from their school, took the means of production and turned the print rooms into a production factory to further their revolution. they were young people crying out that another world is possible
• Places can be branded, citys are now trying to sell themselves through image rather than reality.
• Jean Jullience, peace for Paris - this symbol became the unofficial symbol for paris' solidarity after the attacks recently. It was a quick automatic moment of expression which i think is why it meant more, why it was more moving than a planned detailed drawing. Its similar to Enso Kanjuro Shibata, the artist spends their life trying to figure out how to draw the perfect circle in one act.
  
• Nick Ut 1972 Napalm attack - this photograph shows the power of visual communication, after this the support for the Vietnam war coming from the public dwindled and we had to draw out.
  
• Gainsborough Mr and Ms Andrews - it isn't a beautiful study of landscape and culture its a painting commissioned by a couple of posh aristocrats to boast and show everyone how much land they have and how rich they are.
• Throughout this lecture we explored both sides of the argument of the power images hold. Is the importance of a masterpiece institutionally manufactured or is image making about creating something primal, eternal and immortal?

side note;

Plutonium is not supposed to be on this planet - we created it. Nuclear power plants are needed to create plutonium for nuclear bombs and the goverment sells the idea of them to us as a 'green' and environmental act. Something our lecturer felt he had to stop and explain to us, not necessarily related but important none the less

investigating quotes part 2

'In his studio the artist has no social responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes' - David Shrigley

• key terms defined:
  social responsibility - an ethical framework that suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large.
  
• what is the quote trying to communicate?
  The idea that in his studio, his private sketchbooks ect. the artists work has no impact on wider society and because of this in his private work he has no responsibility to be tolerant or aware of others feelings and reactions. The artist may doodle a poster titled 'kill all Jews' and illustrate hate speeches with ugly racist drawings - all of this doesn't necessarily matter until the artist publicly displays his work. At this point there begins the problem of the artists social responsibility. If he created hateful private work it wouldn't matter so much if no one ever saw it or were hurt by it, but say such work became public the situation would change. More importantly the art may influence other people negatively or generate certain socially damaging attitudes. Its a similar prospect with any behavior, in your head you may be ranting about 'dirty immigrants'or making a rape joke, but the moment you voice this thought aloud you're in sighting hate speech or normalizing dangerous and damaging behaviors. You do not become a better or worse person, but you do have a social impact. It is much the save with private and displayed artworks.

• how does this quote relate to society
  The quote is focusing on how an artists work can impact on people who see it and wider society
  
• two images to illustrate this quote

• Michael von Hausswolfs painting created using the ashes of holocaust victims he stole in 1989 from a former Nazi concentration camp.

•  Alexander Savko’s series “Mickey Mouse’s Travels Through Art History, banned from being exhibited by the Russian court. The courts called the work “extremist,” and “religiously offensive

         

• counter argument
  The artist has no social responsibility. How do we define social responsibility? art which pleases and does no offend? Or art which offends because it raises difficult but important moral points? Simply we can ignore all of this and just argue that the artist has no responsibility to anyone other than himself and  his client (if he has one) The artist may make racist work, hateful work, lies or propaganda - the artist may offend and insight hatred where he likes, he is only responsible for himself - there re no legal obligations for his displayed work to further the public good. I do not agree with this idea, but clearly as the work of Carl Michael von Hausswolff shows, some people do. And its not simply a question of whether I believe the artist should have social responsibility, its whether he does.

Investigating Quotes

'Cultural products are the all time favourite playthings of the powerful, tossed from wealthy statesman such as Gauis Cilnius Maecenas, who set up the poet Horace in a writing estate in 33 B.C.., and from rulers like Francis 1 and the Medichi family, whose love of the arts bolstered the status of Renaissance painters in the sixteenth century. Through the degree of meddling varies, our culture was built on compromises between notions of public good and the personal political and financial ambitions of the rich.

• What do you think is communicated by the quote.
  The wealthy and powerful control culture, they control the art we create because we are the suppliers but they are the buyers and we must always be controlled by that relationship. The word 'compromises' is very important here as what I feel the quote is trying to express is that as artists we need to find a compromise between creating art for the 'public good' and creating art which sells. To create art that sells you must appeal to the buyer therefore you must appeal to those with money in order for you yourself to survive and make a living. We live is a capitalist society and so we must operate in one in order to survive. This is hard for an artist who may want to make art that shocks or disgusts, often good art is that which challenges people, shakes their confidences in their way of life and makes them reevaluate the way they live - this art is not exactly the kind of art you want hanging on your wall is it? But it's art that serves this notion of 'public good' most important messages that ought to be expressed are ugly, poverty, disease, war. These also happen to be themes which very often are the fault of the rich and powerful in our society or criticise their lifestyle and if you yourself were one of these elite then why would you buy work criticising yourself? Herein lies our problem, in Renaissance times the only people rich enough to buy art were the rich, an artist is hardly going to invest his time his expensive oil paints and stretched canvas, painting a political rebellious piece against the bogeousie if he wants to eat - instead he is going to paint commissioned portraits of the rich. What I think this quote is trying to address is the balance in culture of art which furthers the public good and art which was funded and commissioned by the rich and powerful

• How does it fit with the overall theme? The quote relates directly to the subject of culture, as we can see by the first scentence a reference to 'cultural products' has been made along side examples. The quote concerns itself with the control of culture and suggests how culture has been created in terms of the rich and the ruling classes.

• Define highlighted key terms using research - linking to potential examples.
  
  cultural products - Intangible products: an oral tale, a dance, a sacred ritual, a system of education, a law. Perspectives—the philosophical perspectives, meanings, attitudes, values, beliefs, ideas that underlie the cultural practices and products of a society. They represent a culture's view of the world. Maecenas- Gaius Cilnius Maecenas was an ally, friend and political advisor to Octavian as well as an important patron for the new generation of Augustan poets, including both Horace and Virgil. Medichi- an Italian banking family, political dynasty and later royal house that first began to gather prominence under Cosimo de' Medici in the Republic of Florence during the first half of the 15th century status- the position of an individual in relation to another or others, especially in regard to social or professional standing renaissance - a period in Europe, from the 14th to the 17th century, regarded as the cultural bridge between the Middle Ages and modern history. It started as a cultural movement in Italy in the Late Medieval period and later spread to the rest of Europe, marking the beginning of the Early Modern Age compromise- a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
  

  b. The result of such a settlement.
  public good- the benefit or well-being of the public.
  

  "the frequent conflict between the public good and private interests"

• Locate two images that you think could relate to that quote. How do they exemplify the argument within the quote?
  
  Portrait of a man, 1632, Rembrant
  
  I feel this image Rembrant painted of one of the 'elite' sums up the quote very well. the book 'ways of seeing' by John Berger talks about the struggles Rembrant faced in the sense that he had to make a living and take money from the rich who commisioned him, but he also wanted to express his own opinions and feelings in his work and not cater to the bogeousie.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Ahmed and family, Olivier Kulger, 2014
  I've included this image of Kugler's as a form of counter argument, Kugler creates work that certaintly does not benefit the personal, political or financial ambitions of the rich. His work like the piece on the left focuses on refugee camps, often his subjects are the working class, the underclass and the oppressed or minorities. as kugler is a succesfull illustrator he is an example of a counter argument to this quote. However the work on the left was (I beleive ) commisioned by the guardian which still brings up the question of is there an outisde adgenda to this work coming from the corporation rather than the artist themselves. When working for a client there is always a question of control of content and message, how is this work to be used? how is it to be displayed?
  
  
  Is there a counter argument? not all art caters towards the rich and powerful, if there exists succesful art which criticise the powerful and the ruling class then can this quote be said to be accurate? however we must consider that these pieces of work may just be exceptions to the rule. sucessful work existing which criticises the rich and powerful does not debunk the claim that a vast amount of culture is controlled and curated by the wealthy.
  The creation of the printing press in Victorian Britain meant culture could be mass produced which meant it became affordable which meant it became accessible for the proletariat - thus there was a shift from culture being controlled by the rich and powerful and a move to the beginnings of pop culture.

Lecture 1: Visual Literacy

We had our first lecture today on the language of design, focusing on visual communication and visual literacy. I found it really interesting to actually realise we all have a shared understanding of signs symbols and gestures, we are the most visually literate generation on a global level. Visual language is based on the idea pictures can be read like literacy (books). We are constantly surrounded by a rich visual language made up of media, TV, press, social media ect. visual literacy is literally embedded in our generation. Visual communication is driven by audience, context, media.
visual literacy is our ability to interpret, negotiate and make meaning from information presented in the form of an image. A really interesting example used in the lecture was this image

I think its so interesting we were able to instantly understand this foreign sign without question, yet when we delved deeper into it the visual language was made up of a complex assortment of culture, social values, and meanings inherent to our generation. its a simple automatic almost, image and understanding but the workings of it are complex.
we've developed a complex visual language, theres a serious underpinning of visual language in things like medical instructions and flight safety instructions - its important this can be almost a universally understood language. Visual Language is made up of symbols who's meaning often result from their existence in particular context, introducing context and other symbols were familiar with narrows down a meaning and understanding such as this example of a cross. in the first image it could have a range of meanings such as doctor, church, addition, but when we put it in the context of other mathematical symbols it clearly means addition.

Visual language, like any other language, is not static it moves and shifts, its continually develops and we as visual communicators develop with it. We actually already have a complex visual literacy and knowledge. For any language to exist there must be an agreement amongst a group of people that one thing will stand for another. we also need to have an awareness of the relationship between visual syntax and visual semantics.When were creating a visual image it's important how we light things, how we present things, the colours we use. For example the use of pink and blue in the toilet signs instantly communicated to us male and female, the use of green often connotates health. With visual communication there are three main parts symbol, sign and signifier. Symbol is logo, sign is identity and signifier is the brand.
With regards to visual language what we are all doing is using what people already know and what we know and applying to our own ideas we work the metaphor, we translate meaning we create meaning.
an interesting application of what we've learn today is our current 2 week visual skills project, we have to solve a problem visually with 100 ideas, we worked the metaphor, thought about one idea from different angles and translated that visually. All of this is an exercise in visual communication.

key terms learnt today:

visual literacy - ability to construct the meaning in our messages working with image as type.
visual communication - a process of sending and receiving messages using type and images
visual syntax - refers to the pictorial structure and visual organisation of elements such as colour, tone, frame, format, line, scale, space.
visual semantics - the way an image fits into a cultural process of communication. relationship between form and meaning and the way meaning is created
semiotics - study of signs and sign processes (semiosis) it also studies non-linguistic sign systems, visual language and visual literacy.
visual synecdoche - when a part is used to represent the whole or vice versa, eg. the statue of liberty to represent New York.
Visual Metonym - symbolic image used to make reference to something with a none literal meaning

First COP Task

For our first Context of Practice task we had to pick two of the 6 module themes (aesthetics, politics, society, culture, technology, history) then make a list of ten words for each topic we chose. I picked society and Politics and created these two lists. We then had to swap one of our lists with another class mates and I got a list of aesthetics which we then combined with our list to create ten randomly generated phrases. I came out with Grimey Corbyn, Modern Tories, expensive Middle East, muted colours war, avant garde Brexit, kitsch Trump, romantic parliament, aggressive Putin, barbaric Syria and pastel Tony Blair.


I actually found this little task really fun to do as I do have an interest in politics and I like creating work or communication opinions about certain political subjects. These are just quick little drawing however and not to be taken too seriously. I ended up spending way more time on these than I expected and really ended up getting into the task.


Grimey Corbyn was my first illustration and one of the funnest ones to do, I did a bit of a double meaning with grimey by incorporating the aesthetic use of the word as well as referencing the music scene. For romantic parliament I included David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.



Kitsch Trump was definitely the funnest illustration of the list and modern Tories was a pretty challenging one to think up!



Aggressive Putin was such a weird (and accurate) coincidental phrase but pretty easy to illustrate, muted colours war was less so and is one of the drawings I'm least happy with.



I didn't actually want to approach barbaric Syria, especially not in cartoon format, I think the phrase is pretty somber and speaks for itself so I've decide to include a link instead that infact went up 20 minutes ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/01/-syriaairstrikes-major-offensive-against-rebel-held-areas-of-aleppo
Avant Garde Brexit was by far the hardest phrase to illustrate and I struggled with an idea for ages, I'm still not really happy with the outcome.



Pastel Tony Blair was so fun to draw and I quite like the outcome, expensive Middle East was a pretty topical one to try and tackle, but again I found it very interesting.