An Essay by Paul Jones
BTEC Graphic Design, Unit 05: Contextual Influences.
Compare and Contrast two 20th Century Design movements with reference to influential designers, key techniques and features of the movement.
Introduction
The pressure imposed upon the 20th century from two world wars, economic depressions and radical social upheaval would have incurred a great deal stress and turmoil on modern societies. It is said that in times of great adversity great men, through their own personal struggle, reveal themselves to the world. With this in mind, I want to look at two art movements from the last century that have arisen naturally as opposition to the establishment, during such times. That is to say, I will look at anarchy. Not from a political point of view but from a creative outlook and how revolution and rebellion shaped our modern culture and contributed to the creative resources we delve into for inspiration.
Constructivism
The Great War brought with it great destruction and whilst the rest of the world was busy fighting each other, Russia embarked on a civil war of their own. Political upheaval and economic unrest had kick-started the Russian Revolution in 1917. To many critics in the 1920’s modern art was anarchy, anarchy was communism, and the mutilation of natural appearances – like the mutilation of the existing social structure – was anarchistic and communistic (Scharf, 1994, P.160). Communistic ideals, expressed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were soon enforced by the Bolsheviks – led by Lenin and Trotsky. These leaders in communism understood the power of art, and much of what we now associate with Russian Constructivism peaked during this time. It was Constructivism that was called to arms to support the revolution.
Through posters and propaganda, Constructivist artists used their talents to spread their ideas of art and the ideals of their politics. This movement was pioneered by a group of Russian artists who were familiar with the Suprematism of Kazimir Malevich (who coined the word Constructivism) and the Futurists in Italy. Exhibitions were held as early as 1915 by artist such as Vladimir Tatlin and Alexander Rodchenko. They sought to develop the aforementioned work, including angular, geometric elements and suggestions of industrialization and machinery. Tatlin believed that art could, and should, have an impact on society (Dempsey, 2002, P.106). Famous propaganda posters by El Lissitsky deliver their starkly legible message with simple but powerful graphic symbols (Dempsey, 2002, P.108). You can imagine the silhouetted brutes and workers bearing huge iron hammers with swooping shapes and angular, blocky typography.
This kind of anarchy was a unifying one, born out of economic struggle; an aggressive response to the oppressive autocratic authority of the Tzar. The methods in which the Constructivists supported overthrowing the monarchy would have been through printed magazines, pamphlets and posters. Naum Gabo wrote his Realist Manifesto much in the way of the Communist Manifesto, to spread the artistic theories belonging to Constructivism. The printing methods of this time were offset lithographic printing. Oil painting was still being used for murals and on canvas. The power and might that industry had introduced, produced also a new world of illustrated colour that influenced and informed the masses.
Urban Art
For most of Human creative history, graffiti has been used to littler the walls of caves, of Egyptian streets, of Parisian apartment buildings. As a recognized art form, though, it has only recently taken off. The beginning of modern Urban Art is credited with the tagging and street art, originating in the New York ghettos of the 1960’s. Artists with tags like Tracy 168, Julio 204 and Taki 183 developed the Brooklyn style of graffiti alongside the hip hop cultural movement.
This new form of creativity came from within the ghetto, from the community, out of poverty and proposed a message to the world: we are here. This environment fueled an artistic battle against the power brokers in society, and a breakaway from poverty and the ghetto (Ganz, 2004, p.3). The way Pablo Picasso puts it is: If they took away my paints I’d use pastels. If they took away my pastels I’d use crayons. If they took away my crayons I’d use pencils. If they stripped me naked and threw me in prison I’d spit on my finger and paint on the walls (iwise.com, 2015). This statement is easily reflected by poorer communities around the world. When they turn to express themselves, they turn to graffiti and the need to be recognised, to be heard. The ease and accessibility to spray paints during the 1960’s paved the way for the writing on the wall.
The evolution of modern Urban Art leads back into the political realm, just like Constructivism had done. The infamous Banksy says ‘The people who run our cities don’t understand graffiti because they think nothing has the right to exist unless it makes a profit’ (Banksy, 2005, p.01). Although this can be argued, for the most part it is probably true. The response by society to remove graffiti labeled as vandalism is simply a means to keep clean their material assets. It is also thought graffiti brings a negative attitude of abandonment and neglect.
A contemporary example of the power of a simple, symbolic message can be seen in the poster of Barack Obama by artist Sheppard Fairey. This is a prime example of how urban art has grown to encompass a wider influence and audience. Governments are using it and parts of what began as an anarchic, rebellious movement have now become commercialized. 2011 saw Nelson St, Bristol home to a graffiti festival ‘See No Evil’, funded by the local government, argued to be merely a cultural tourist attraction.
Conclusion
It is hereby my point to express how two supposedly different styles of art with two different political agendas can be so similar in the human endeavour to rebel against the power and the state. To overcome oppression with silent protest and vibrant, colourful expression brought into the street. Both these art movements have come to represent what they are today, because of the anarchy they embodied. It is this resistance of art against such oppressive forces that offers hope to so many in dire straits, giving those in the gutter a purpose for living, a reason to fight.
References
Aaron Scharf (1994). Concepts of Modern Art. 3rd ed. London: Thames & Hudson. 160.
Amy Dempsey (2002). Styles, Schools and Movements: The Essential Encyclopaedic Guide to Modern Art. London: Thames & Hudson. 106.
Amy Dempsey (2002). Styles, Schools and Movements: The Essential Encyclopaedic Guide to Modern Art. London: Thames & Hudson. 108.
Nicholas Ganz (2004). Graffiti World. London: Thames & Hudson. 03.
Available from: < http://www.iwise.com/TxIwS> (21st January 2015).
Banksy, (2005). Wall and Piece. London: Century, Random House Group. 01.