danielwest- Berlin
- Germany
danielwest is currently Browsing Computerlove
Full Name:
Born:
February 19, 1982Job:
Writer/curatorWebsite
NoneStatus:
FreelanceJune 25, 2007 Last login on:
February 22, 2008
Blog Item
July 30th, 2007
Fibre optics
Modernist graphic design was a two-dimensional tale. The posters of Josef Muller-Brockmann were an exercise in simplicity, an enshrinement of the “less is more” mantra. This characteristically spare, typographically-led canon is now being reinvented in 3D. Where paper was once the surface to be printed upon it is now a sculptural staple, reconfigured from canvas to planar experiment.
Sculpting in paper has become commonplace in contemporary visual culture – from the Computerlove-blogged Jen Stark to the fine art photography of Thomas Demand.
Variations exist in advertising campaigns and short films, fashion photography and music videos. While different sub-styles abound, there is a common tendency towards primary colours and simple shapes. These shapes are frequently contrasted against a more complex counterpoint; an outdoor landscape, domestic room or human body – as Terry Hall’s promo for DB Clifford illustrates.
But what drives this aesthetic’s popularity?
Perhaps it is a reaction against the fragmentary nature of postmodern graphic design. David Carson and Neville Brody’s multilayered collages were a product of, and reaction to, mass media proliferation. The bombardment of images from television, advertising and later the internet, provoked a chaotic, fractured response. Today’s graphic consensus is shifting back to simplicity, yet the climate it has emerged from is more image-saturated than Carson and Brody’s era.
Pierre Vanni – whose paper skulls featured in recent graphic design roundup, If You Could – believes paper sculpture offers a way to challenge this visual onslaught and the hegemony of digital perfection. I try to show to the public that virtual reality is not a reflection of our world. My work reacts against the claim of the digital picture to be more than a picture, he says. His views echo Thomas Demand, whose architectural origami problematises the same issue, albeit with more precision. Do I have any other option than to consume images propagated by the mass media? Or can I take it upon myself to play with these images and hit the ball back into their court? Said Demand in a 2005 interview.
Demand, Vanni and other paper sculptors are arguably challenging the tension between organic and synthetic reality. Their work questions the crudeness and sophistication of manufactured environments, whether pictoral, virtual or actual. As paper is replaced by pixels as the data storage medium of choice, what better way to explore the analogue limitations and pleasures of creativity?
Comments (5)
Contemporary art/design mantra: Analyze the surface elements of that which is commonplace or popular and choose a different aesthetic to portray your message.
In fairness to Pierre Vanni and I know his work as he workes with Charlotte but design in object-oriented form has been existent for as long as graphic design has become concious to every prospective student. We as designers embrace the traditional materials and use of pencils and pens and paper but we also forget those who study 3D Design or Object Design. Take a look at Richard Sweeney's work for example.
Yet what I find difficult to comprehend is how today's society is image-saturated. But that is because we don't seek out work that is original, understated yet creative and thoughful and engaging enough that it provokes us in a big way. Stop using prehistoric examples like David Carson or Neville Brody. I am not going to personally hide anything to say that David Carson's work is digustingly ugly and I can't see why it is pioneering. It broke the rigid lines of modernist design but how is it asethetic pleasing?
The biggest problem faced with something like paper sculpture is how it benefits the designer in terms of work? Brody mentions in Designers are Wankers that students should learn to grow as a human being but at the same time, tangible and commerical work needs to be sought in order to make a living. Being an artist or designer is one thing but if it can't support you financially or personally, how will this be viable?
You also need to see a difference between Communication Design and Object Design. Commnication Design allows narrative driven imagination both literal and lateral and abstract. Yet object transforms what is unnatural or literal into abstract form. For some people, that takes away alot of fun and imagination and above all, it is not as aesthetic pleasing.
Hi Shapemould,
You're right, design in object-oriented form has been existent for a while. But concerning Brody and Carson, you can't say that broken a norm is insignifiant : you find it ugly, ok perhaps, but thaht's not the aim.
Asethetic is not a matter of beauty, but a matter of meaning : breaking lines was meaningful when David Carson or Neville Brody done it. It's a matter of context, not of shapes=> shapes are nothing without context.
+
"In fine", I think there is an important difference between Object Design and Communication Design : the first one is a product (what ever you want), the second one is a substitution to the product(or the event)
thanks for according me this time,
see ya Shapemould ;)
P
Form is content.
“They are distilled and ultimately transformed from unsuccessful attempts at documentation to intricately constructed surfaces that process meanings in their own right...” Thomas Demand from 'Aperture' (2006); speaking of the photos/media he works from.
Paper sculptures have a human touch to them, even if they are actually laser or dye cut. This allows the mundane to be recreated and reinvented; even if the end result is rather simplistic, it retains complexity.
An honourable mention to Peter Callesen , whose work I am a particular fan of.