Via New York Times, above the drawings of the father of neuroscience, Santiago Ramón y Cajal (the article acknowledges that these scientific drawings classify as "art"). I say a mark is a mark.
Dear class. Thanks for yesterday. (I'll try to switch classrooms today). This is our first post-for-comment. Think of anything you found interesting about what we discussed in class and expand it. 125 words minimum. My advice is that you write down your comment in Word first, and save it, and then paste it here. Comments could disappear because of digital glitches. Sign with your name, not an alias (I've opened the options for anyone to write a comment, you don't have to have an account).
5 comments:
Beginning class by discussing the concept of a “mark” and those manmade objects associated with it allowed me to reflect on my own life. Specifically, when viewing the Tetradrachm signed by Eucleidas circa 405-400 BC, I was fascinated by the idea of coinage being considered as an act of collective faith. I had never thought about a coin embodying values and serving as a cultural symbol. There are several aspects from different civilizations such as clothing, music and even pottery that serve as cultural symbols, but a coin is a rather unique one. Examining an everyday object as such, can provide great deal of knowledge. Furthermore, looking at Trajan’s column sparked the same thoughts in my mind. The scribe’s delicate mark has a harmony in the way it is proportioned, which makes me appreciate these artifacts and monuments more. Back then, there was no Photoshop, or pencils to mark out the words and scribes only had one chance to create such monuments. The idea of leaving a mark, and having a tangible, manmade object makes me question where the future is going. Will we run out of “marks”? Everything is becoming digitalized and it makes me wonder what we will see in the lessons to come.
The first class was fun and reminded me that "art history" could be stimulating beyond just identifying "marks". That said, there were three points discussed during the class that made my mind ponder about these "marks".
The first was the significance of a mark being "man-made". The professor said that anything art was a man-made mark, meaning anything created by nature was not art (although some artists have taken unchanged branches and stuck a label on them and called them art). I can agree with that hypothesis BUT I began to think of the genetic changes made by scientists to natural elements. So it made me wonder if a natural element genetically designed by man could be considered art if it is displayed as art? Just a thought but if it is genetically altered, does that still make it a natural occurrence or a mark made by man to create art. Just a thought.
The second point that struck me was when he showed us a picture of a civil war statue of I believe General Lee (a general for the Confederate Army). On the base of the statue were the words spray painted "No Hero". A very appropriate statement to the validity of the purpose of the statue. We discussed the idea of whether this was graffiti and if the statue should be removed. I thought its value was best suited for a museum rather than displayed publicly. However, after thinking about it, rather than removing the statue or even defacing it and its replicates placed for their original purposes of suppression to the black community, I think what would be an even better alternative is to surround this ugliness with statues of MLK, Jr, Rosa Parks and others who represent the ability to overcome suppression.
The third point was about the significance of cemeteries. He talked about the importance of visiting cemeteries of cities to see the most important figures from the areas. He discussed how people of earlier ages saved their entire lives just to have a significant plot. This made me think of the tombs of the early kings and queens throughout history and how people of lower classes wanted to emulate them, even if at a lower scale. Then I thought about why. Why would you save your entire lifetime just to be like royalty? Was it to be like royalty or was it something deeper and more primal? I think in the end, it's to prove that you existed. Isn't that why we all leave behind some part if ourselves? Fame and power is fine but perhaps, the ultimate goal is to prove I live therefore I existed and this is my proof. And here is the "mark" that defines me.
Just a thought... Estella M.
After the lecture last Thursday, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that graphic design included more than just computerized images and graffiti. I have to admit that my knowledge of graphic design is somewhat limited so I was fascinated by the idea that graphic design includes anything that left a mark. I thought this concept opened the door for more than the typical artworks that are considered graphic design. Also, I loved looking back to some of the pieces I studied years ago in some of my first art history classes. I will always be fascinated by the Venus of Villendorf and what she represents, and the accuracy and beauty of the cave paintings. I have always wondered how they had enough light inside the cave to paint just realistic pictures. I am also excited about our class environment. I think we are all lucky that our class size is so small. I believe this will allow us to ask questions and have interesting and pertinent discussions around the world of graphic design.
Elizabeth Davis
Last Thursday the class began with a discussion on what graphic design is, which was the discussion of the “mark.” This was interesting to me because I never heard anyone describe graphic design as the evolution of the mark, so then I was wondering what kind of marks. Any and all marks we’ve made can be considered graphic design, this makes one think about where graphic design actually began and it began in the caves when we were still hunters and gatherers. Normally I don’t think back that far when thinking about the history of graphic design, so it was interesting to think about how far it dates back.
Something else I found fascinating was the idea that we have this necessity to leave/make marks; and of course, in present day you can’t find a bare wall anywhere, it’s either tagged by a street artist or marked by those that put the wall there. But as mentioned earlier we’ve been making marks since we lived in caves, during that time period survival was the only focus. The life span was about 30 years and trying to find our next meal was always on the to do list, but even throughout the such a difficult time period we felt the need to make marks.
The concept of "the mark" was primarily highlighted in our first discussion. We reviewed the evolution of the mark as symbols turned to logophonetic language into abstract alphabets and eventually successful civilizations. I like the idea of "the mark" and how we as humans have a need to leave ours behind; by whatever medium, whether physical or abstract. I am eager to dive further into human marks and the history of graphic design- how these marks become more complex and how culture/historical context come into play within these works. In regards to the makeup of the class, I appreciate the open dialogue amongst such a small group. Outside of the course content discussed on the first day- I really appreciated the professor's input on recent social events by saying "when we wear only lenses of the present we are emasculating the past"- which stirred up a lot of self-reflection and important controversy.
-Sara Punal
Post a Comment