I don't know if punk is the "other" romantic as opposed to the "new" romantic. I witnessed the post go up on Friday, yet still find myself stuck on the response to this question. My first sentence is as far as I have gotten in the past three days. I just believed that I should acknowledge the fact that there is some form of thinking taking place ( over thinking more than likely) and that i hope to return to the blog, victorious, without this writers block.
Elysa: Point taken. However, I'm not suggesting that much, since Punk is already history. Good luck with your writer's block.
Well, after reading this definition of who punks are, all I wanna say they seem like a group of rebellious kids that are anti- everything. Most of the time I think being rebellious is good, we all should express our own opinion, however being against most of the social rights/laws/ rules and hating on everybody and everything isn't as good. I think people hate other people/ cultures/ races when they don't know them. When we don't know something we fear it and to do not show the fear we hate. That's our self-protection. So taking this route I would assume (I mite be of course wrong) a lot of the punk kids aren't educated enough (they would rather skip school, shoot heroin or smoke meth). Also self- mutalation isn't too clever either. What good does it do? It doesn't serve one's well being which kind of goes against their vegeterian/ vegan diet beliefs(which is supposed to be healthier choice for one's body and make it better- cleaner). They eat healthy but then they cut themselves, sounds like absurd to me. Or maybe the diet is just another form of rebellion not really concerning the actual fact of healthier living? Going against the rules just to prove a point? Does that make punks today's romantics? I don't think so. Romantics even though they didn't like the times they were living in, and there always has been some tragedy to their situation, they had deeper beliefs that were based on something. I feel like punks are anti- everything just for the hell of it. Romatics were also patriots, where punks are anti-nationanlists. Romantics wouldn't phisically fight during the war but hey would inspire the community by art (paintings, poetry) to go and fight for the country, where punks are totally opposite. So just but contrasting those arguments I think punks are not other romantics.
Interesting point Magdalena, but I prefer you guys to talk about, ejem, graphic design...
Is Punk the other Romantic? I think that first you need to establish the differences between the two and after I did I found the differences more substantial than the similarities. Punks came as a response to a socio-political perceived "wrongness" whereas romantics seemed to emerge out of a need for artistic revolution. Even according to wikipedia (an undeniable fountain of knowledge) "It legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority which permitted freedom from classical notions of form in art." We talked about this some last class when discussing the renaissance. I think that romantics had much more of a historical and artistic repercussion than did/do the punks. I also dont know if I would go as far as to say punks can be characterized by cutting-but that is besides the point. Punk emerged as a musical revolution through the kinks who came out with a sound that was never before heard while all other where still listening to Motown- from here it evolved but I digress...Punks could be our modern day romantics but I would not give them so much credit as I would the romantics....
Well, I was originally going to say something about the typeface but then saw prof. Triff's question about punks and romantics (which was really interesting to me) and that's why I responded to that. So I remember we mention in class that the type in renessaince started changing from Gothic to Roman. From what I know when the books first came out, the ones that were hand written, they usually were highly protected in churches and only selected prists could read them. As the printing process started being more efficient and more books were printed and distributed, more people could read them. So, in order to have ordinary people read the books the type had be simplified to make it more readable. Also, if they were printed in larger quantities that means there isn't going to be put as much time in decorating every single page, which makes it look simplier. That's why I think those were the reasons that made the typeface change from complicated, harder to read and very decorative Gothic to easier and less complicated Roman. In my opinion that indicated progress.
Triff mentioned in class in reference to over produced music /media “… thousands of sounds, layer with bass and so much going on, that in the end you lose you focus.” It reminded me of a conversation I had the day before. I heard Viva Las Vegas the other day and it is so rich! Sure it’s not a classic per say, but it’s very different from what is on the airways now. It MOVES you. As far as graphic design, when will we stop layering special effects and hideous gradients? Anyways, I was so impressed by Griffo’s accomplishment of solving the optical problem of uppercase and lowercase letters. Problem solving for clients is what being a graphic designer is all about (at least that’s what I was taught). The gothic fonts are beautiful, but not illegible for any book meant to be read.I feel for the process of ‘back in the day’. Though, the craftsmanship is honorable. Imagining being a human Swiss army knife like them really makes me feel like I getting away too easy in my classes. Calling myself a graphic designer now is far from what is was. Just the other day I learned how much went into designing the cover for our text book. I marvel at that visually when I’m supposed to be reading the damn thing. (Sorry for the damn there…)There are so many errors in the translation of the Christian bible now. I’m dubious about the accuracy the Biblia Sacra by Plantin had in its time and now. However composition of all the languages is impressive, especially in terms of reading directions.Maribel Cardona
I was most intrigued by the development of typography that we discussed during Thursday's lecture. At first, when only the elite could read or write at all, letters were elaborate and ornate and all but illegible. It was as if type was decoration alone, emphasizing letterforms as opposed to actual content. I felt as if books were made generally to show the world just how fancy you really were. I wonder if any of these books were read at all. I just can't imagine a Duchess going to bed with Gutenberg's Bible for some light reading. I can only see these books as we know them today: in class display cases. Personally, I like books without frills. I like being able to dog ear my pages and accidentally spill water on the corner of a book. I like when the binding is so old that the book stays open by itself. I just can't imagine any of the books of antiquity being used and loved. I would be terrified of accidentally ripping a piece in my haste to turn the page.I was more drawn to the type that was based on emphasized legibility, like Caslon and Garamond. These forms are simple, and before studying typography I didn't think much of them. As typefaces became easier to read, literacy began to spread. Whether one fact had to do with the other I am not sure, but I believe modern typefaces are more beautiful than the ornate for precisely this reason. They aren't frilly, they aren't swirly, but they are clear. They are harmonious. They can be read, and they have spread the gift of reading to most of the Western World. I just saw the movie The Reader this past weekend and it really made me question the importance of literacy. It is something so ingrained in all of us, but it is a gift. The woman in this movie goes to great lengths to be read to because she is illiterate. To her, books are mysterious, and therefore even more magical. These typefaces have demystified the stories of our time to an extent. The plots are still intricate, but the way in which we read line by line is perfectly clear and, therefore, perfectly functional. I am beginning to see the subtle differences between type, and what each typeface can contribute to a piece of art. Helvetica speaks in a different language than Arial, though they are both Sans Serif. The art of type is not blatant and loud, but a quiet kind of language. I think that is beautiful.
It is hard to deny that punk follows some basic romantic trends. The punk DIY and Anarchistic philosphies show a mistrust for the world in which they exist. Punks are clearly not meant for their time period and as a result force themselves out of the realm of normal behavior, i.e. self-mutilation and abusive drugs. The art of Punk is in-your-face and edgy, pushing the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by society. One interesting point which Magdalena brought up is that Punks are not patriotic which is a strong Romantic quality. If anything, Punk is a middle-fingers up response to nationalism, i.e. The Sex Pistols God Save The Queen album-cover art work. Punk is more of a randomly mutated offspring of Romantic art gone horribly awry. But what else do you expect when groups of DIY people have a century to evolve? They begin creating sub-categories of themselves that make no sense like neo-Nazis and pierced freaks. However, these freaks are the people who become tomorrow's artists, so who are we to judge?
I was immensely inspired and attracted to the graphic qualities of the Sex Pistols Album Cover “God Save the Queen”. The ability to spin the meaning of an established figure or well known object is often attempted but not always successful. It reminds me of Marcel Duchamp’s Mona Lisa piece " L. H. O. O. Q." (Elle a chaud au cul, or she has a hot ass). Since in both circumstances we are shocked, intrigued, and recognize the image. Duchamp’s foresight of the stir that the use of this well known painting would cause reflects the use of the Queens picture on the Sex Pistols Album. Both were statements of rebellion, and were presented in ways that had never been attempted before. Adorned with a textual blindfold that says “God Save the Queen”, and two unlikely provocative words across her lips, words she would likely never utter, “Sex Pistols”, makes the use of type over the Queens mouth and eyes masterful design in that it embodies the anthem and cry of the Punk movement by directly addressing the monarchy and saying “close your blind eyes, shut up and just listen”. In response to Eric's comment, I’m not sure if punks were not meant for their time period. I find it that up and coming movements (no matter what century) are sometimes perceived as “in-your-face and edgy (by) pushing the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by society”. But I also agree with your statement, “…who are we to judge?”
I really like Hans Holbein's Imagines Morti woodcut. Even though it is a little creepy. The actual piece is incredibly detailed for being cut out of wood. I think it’s amazing someone could do that. The imagery definitely reminds me of the renaissance and the emphasis, exaggeration and dramatics that were put on death and hell during that period in time. Another thing I thought was interesting was that Holbein and his brother were metal cutters and learned their crafts from their father. I also think images similar to the ones in Imagines Morti are images people want to see today. For some reason people are attracted to viewing the ugly, scary, obscene and revolting. In terms of graphic design Imagines Morti is beautiful although disturbing. However people like disturbing that’s why we watch horror movies after all.
Maribel: Those mistakes (called "errata") in Plantin's Bible become the next subject of investigation for the hermeneuticists. It all happens for a reason. You're right, Victoria, not everybody was literate. but in times when books where THE media, people read more. Kids: Punk graphic design deserves a chapter of its own.
When I think of William Blake, I think of his metal relief etching, Ancient of Days. The illustration by Blake in the blog however, has much more of a Romantic style, and reminded my very much of Henry Fuseli’s The Nightmare. Influenced by Fuseli, Blake’s illustration is strikingly similar to Fuseli’s painting. Both contain a woman in a sublime, deathlike pose, with some sort of monster-like creature sitting on top of her. The two show the disturbing, dark side of the human subconscious, characteristic of the Romantic style. Blake, however clearly had other influences as well. A fan of using classical references, Blake combines the ideal anatomy of antiquity with the darkness of Romanticism. I was also intrigued by Blake’s piece, since the woman’s pose reminded me of one of my favorite works. After your sketch of what a modern-day Romantic would be like, I wondered why one of my favorite works of art is Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson’s The Burial of Atala. I wouldn’t classify myself as a person that would be keen on romantic art, but something about this painting stuck with me ever since I first saw it years ago. Romantic art, although part gruesome, is filled with emotion, just as is Blake’s mysterious illustration of the visions of the inner mind.
In a way I do feel that the realm of punk culture and art do have romantic attributes. Romaniticism is characterized by a heightened interest in nature, emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination, departure from the attitudes and forms of classicism, and rebellion against established social rules and conventions. Punk idefinitiely embodies these characteristics just in a less beautiful way than society is used to seeing it. For example I think Nan Goldin is brilliant because she captures real, personal, and identifiable images of people such as the notorious drag queen friends that affected her life, and though much of it is gut wrenching and tragic some of it is beautiful because of the happiness she experienced even though she was living an extremeley different lifestyle than the majority of society and that conveys the sense of adventure and differentiation that romaniticism identifies with.
I agree that Punk art and Romantic art are very different. I believe they share similarities, but that is what happens due to the progression in history. Art grows as it is influenced by other art movements. Punk is a more rebellious movement that seems to be used to disrupt the majority and the norm. For example, the Sex Pistols album cover can be seen as a defaced photograph of Queen Elizabeth II, and is far different from the softer, Romantic images of nature and emotion. Although both Punk and Romanticism do express emotion, they do so in very different ways. Romanticism, to me, is more imaginative while Punk uses a more straightforward and “in-your-face” approach. The punk movement was a shocking new movement that many people were probably skeptical to be a part of. I do see it as its own new individual movement, but not as the “new” Romantic movement.
A.T.: Those mistakes (called "errata") in Plantin's Bible become the next subject of investigation for the hermeneuticists. It all happens for a reason.Were the "erratas" were done intentionally or its just the way things happen as a first attempt? Last semester I was shown a video that only mentioned the inconsistencies, but not the reasons. I accepted that it was just a language barrier problem. I'm curious now.
So I have to admit, I think I’m still rather confused when it comes to the blogging homework assignments. Do we have to comment upon the posts that you’ve added after our last class meeting (In this case, only the punk post)? Or can we write about anything that we have thoughts on? I guess for this one, I’ll do a little bit of both, just to be safe. I feel as though the art classified as Punk and the art classified as Romantic can overlap, but surely not all punk designs are romantic. My view of romanticism may be guided by girlish ideologies, but some of the aspects of punk that (to me) keep it from fitting into the realm of the romantic involves self-destruction, either through chemicals or mutilation. Wikipedia says that “romanticism elevated the achievements of what it perceived as misunderstood heroic individuals,” and I just can’t see how damaging destruction can be argued to be an “achievement”. On a moderately relevant note, I think that any attempt at creating a similarity between William Blake’s paintings and the cringe-inducing photography of punk (like the third image in the punk post) would be to lessen the value of Blake’s work. His soft and detailed paintings evoke a truly romantic sentiment whereas the woman with strange sores all over her body remind the viewer of the gory, unromantic side of punk.
upon looking at the two versions of the communist manifesto i was surprised to see that no one commented on this post or answered Triffs question. It is very interesting to see two versions of the same book be so completely different. This is a powerful method of showing the way in which graphic design influences and impacts ideas and opinions. For example, if i were to be shopping for a book i would definately pick up the red cover because it is alluring and it invites me in due to the lack of business on the cover. I clearly would not pick up the other version because i do not beliee that it is in english, yet if it was i still would go for the red cover. I think there is complete truth in the statemen that books have alwys been used to disseminate ideas and in two hundred years I am not sure if books will be used in the way that they always have been due to the era of technology. I think that from a graphic design standpoint it is easier to design on a computer by drawing a person in using animation or flash or whatever the means of design will be in the future, one can never tell. regardless, it is interesting to see how design impacts choice and ideas.
I feel that it’s a good comparison. Like most movements the romantic period was a rejection to the earlier movement, Neoclassicism. This movement reflected calm and serious subjects, presented with simple lines and a sense of order and purpose. However the Romantics replaced the calm, order and sense of purpose that was established during the Neoclassical era. Artists interest in exotic lands and travel inspired Romanticism and helped it grow. I would say that punk is a more rebellious version of romanticism. The only difference I can see is their extreme nature to rebel against society and not just the artistic taste at the time. I like the Graphic Design that was made for the Sex pistols album cover “God Save the Queen.” The ransom letter type is fun in a dangerous sort of way. The picture of the queen behind the letter adds to the humor because the queen is the political figure head. What a perfect example of Punk style, anti-authoritarian anarchy.
I would have to say that yes, in a way punk is the other "romantic." Both are reactions against social norms. For punks, they display a general dissatisfaction with society, specifically against the middle class's norms. Romanticism is about revolting against rational scientific thought and promoting the natural emotional responses individuals experience when presented with nature in its most raw form. Both are about change and a shift in values.
Blake combines the ideal anatomy of antiquity with the darkness of Romanticism.Not bad. Fuseli? Ahead of his time.For example I think Nan Goldin is brilliant... Indeed. I just can't imagine a Duchess going to bed with Gutenberg's Bible for some light reading.Unless she was very pious. Instead, she probably kept a copy of Bocaccio's "Decameron." Upon looking at the two versions of the communist manifesto i was surprised to see that no one commented on this post or answered Triffs question.Good point. Particularly because this is one of the most "toxic" books of all times.
I think that it is possible for "punk" to be in a similar category as "romanticism" because as was already stated, they both reject prior opinions, styles, and views. Romanticism manifested itself as a rejection of neoclassical ideas and depicted things in a somewhat scattered and non-conformist style. Each artist had their own style and there was no specific guideline for each to follow. I believe that this mindset fosters creativity and allows the artists to express whatever they feel through whatever medium they feel is most effective. Punk is similar in that it is a rejection of the structured movements that came before and allows for all types of artistic expression. I also believe both punk and romantic artists utilize shock value to get their message across. Defacing the Queen on the cover of the Sex Pistols album was certainly shocking for some, as was the gory imagery depicted in many of the paintings done during romanticism, like Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son. Moving away from the punk discussion - I agree with Paisley regarding the two copies of the communist manifesto. There is certainly something to be said about the use of reds and golds. They tell the audience that the contents of the book makes a bold statement, and gold has been used in the past on religious manuscripts, and legal documents. I would certainly pick up the red copy before the white one. As graphic designers, maybe we would rather people judge books by their covers...
When I think of Romanticism, I automatically associate it with music and intricately, detailed artwork. I also view Romanticism in the way that Kara stated, that Romanticism was a created to revolt against “aristocratic and social norms”, which is why I also believe that Punk is the new Romanticism. When I think of Punk I think about gothic styles, artwork, and fashion as well as heavy metal music, and dark, rebellious clothing and make up. I think the two are very similar because they rebel against what was occurring in the societies of their respective time. I also feel that the emotions of both Punk and Romanticism are obvious in the artwork. I, like others, am confused with blogs, but this is what I’ve come up with based on what I understand thus far. ☺
Clearly punk and romanticism have some definite similarities. As already stated they both rise out of a rebellion for the current cultural trends in society. While Romanticism seemed to evolve due to a trend of non-creativity, punk however seems to be more against everything already going on, whether those trends are creative or not. Romanticism came at a time when there was much less diversity in art than there is today. This type of work was a major break away from the already popular works (which for the most part were fairly similar), where as Punk, while still a form of rebellion, was not the only one in its class. There have been numerous developments and rebellions to art and culture in general over the last century, and Punk was not only one. I feel as though Romanticism was seen as much more drastic compared to the other art and common cultural expectations of its day. While many people find Punk culture offensive, disrespectful, or inappropriate, I would assume it was much more easily accepted as part of our ever-changing culture than Romanticism was in its time. While I’m not saying that the two movements don’t have quite a bit in common, I guess my main point would be that punk rockers don’t seem to have had quite as shocking an impact on the rest of society as the romantics did back in the day.
I agree with Emily's comment when comparing the punk pieces to the Romantics "dark side of the human subconscious", which reminded me particularly of one of the most famous Spanish Romantic's, Goya. Especially during his darker periods Goya depicted gruesome scenes which were directly related to his mental insanity. Even though most Punks weren't insane, they were still trying to outwardly portray their internal struggles (drug related or not) through art. I think in this way Punks are an off shoot of the Romantics but had the advantages of technology and mediums in their time period. By using text and collage techniques combined with photography, rather then just paint, they were able to really get across there message.
Both punk and romantic philosophies originate from rebellious motivations. Where romanticism grew as a response to scientific explanations and such laws attempting to explain (and, in a sense, place in a box) natural behavior and environments, the punk movement fabricated from anti-authoritarian ideals that attempted to place society in a box. I believe that, although both movements do have such fundamental differences on such topics as nationalism, they are similar in their attempts to escape what they considered to be a present, growing corruption of their beliefs. With respect to the influences these two philosophies had on graphic design, I believe that the Sex Pistols’ cover of their single ‘God Save the Queen’ serves as a graphic representation of the very fabric of the punk movement. However, it would be ignorant on my part to suggest that because these two movements originate from similar causes that they were the same; and it is because of this that I don’t believe the idea of the punk movement as a parallel to that of romanticism.
Post a Comment