A movement with origins in Russia, Constructivism was primarily an art and architectural movement. It rejected the idea of art for arts' sake and the traditional bourgeois class of society to which previous art had been catered. Instead it favored art as a practise directed towards social change or that would serve a social purpose. Developing after World War I, the movement sought to push people to rebuild society in a Utopian model rather than the one that had led to the war.
The term construction art was first coined by Kasmir Malevich in reference to the work of Aleksander Rodchenko. Graphic Design in the constructivism movement ranged from the production of product packaging to logos, posters, book covers and advertisements. Rodchenko's graphic design works became an inspiration to many people in the western world including Jan Tschichold and the design motif of the constructivists is still borrowed, and stolen, from in much of graphic design today.
from: http://www.designishistory.com/1920/constructivism/
Bauhaus Design
The Bauhaus style became one of the most influential currents in Modernist architecture and modern design.[1] The Bauhaus had a profound influence upon subsequent developments in art, architecture, graphic design, interior design, industrial design, and typography. Bauhas was influenced in part by 19th century English designer William Morris, who had argued that art should meet the needs of society and that there should be no distinction between form and function. Thus the Bauhaus style, also known as the International Style, was marked by the absence of ornamentation and by harmony between the function of an object or a building and its design.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus
1) What are the commonalities between these two schools of design?
2) What are some of the commonalities you can see between the designs of buildings, objects and graphics in Bauhaus design?
2) Do some more Google research - why do you think these designers were so interested in function and opposed to ornamentation?
1) These two schools are designed in a similar manner, the separate square figures and the balcony on the side. The shapes that make up these two schools are almost exactly the same.
ReplyDelete2)Buildings, objects, and graphics were all structures in a balanced way.
3) I think that they were so interested in function because it was stable, structured shapes and very well balanced.
-Chris DeFalco
Some of the commonalities between the two schools of design include their functionality,or purpose. Both are meant to be useful and not just for the "sake of making art". Also, Constructivism and Bauhaus use a Utopian model, preferring a unified design and functionality.
ReplyDeleteThe commonalities between the designs of buildings, objects, and graphics in Bauhaus design are how linear and useful each of them are. Beautifully crafted, each are meant to be fully functional in design.
In this new Utopian way of thinking,art is supposed to work for society, not the other way around. Both forms essentially believed that art should serve a social purpose.
- Krystal Gold
1. Both schools share similar qualities with the purpose of their design. Both have very similar design aspects in their work, for example their typography designs both look alike. Also they both use design to sort of advertise a utopian society. They used designs as a way to how people social changes in Russia. Also they wanted to use art not just for the "beauty" of it but to propose a better society and such, hence why they have very strong typography designs.
ReplyDelete2. They all share a strict and formal structure. Nothing looks organic and it has a strong structural balance with the use of straight lines and etc.
3.I believe the artists were so interested in function was because during their time, they were trying to build a stable and functional society and this was their way to show it.