File: tamanna-story_647_020217062128.jpg (38 KB, 647x404)

38 KB JPG

>do you agree anon?

No. If you have time to put needless ornamentation on everything it's a sign that your culture is successful. Art, music, literature, etc., are things you get when you're not struggling to survive. Also, the entire Victorian period is defined by gross ornamentation.

Aren't the Renaissance and more specifically Baroque, early forms of modern culture and representing an era more advanced than anything that preceded it but also extremely ornamental, a clear contradiction of this?

>>452737
look at renaissance paintings, they are predominately focused on the human form and the ornaments often reflect the utility they serve for the person. Even in theological paintings and arts the ornamentation is emergent from the need to express the theological form.

>>452736
"pointless" ornaments suggest the success is dull and doesnt have an interesting form - hence the desire or decision for needless ornamentation.

File: green.jpg (30 KB, 476x669)

30 KB JPG

>>452735
when everything is sacred, then necessarily everything turns profane.
nothing is special when everything is special.

ornamentation can be a celebration of that which is desirable and meaningful to us.
but this will lead to scammers and schemers decorating their piles of shit in order to make them appear meaningful or valuable as well. basic mimicry.
this is true for products, lifestyles, ideologies, your future wife, daughter-in-law and everything else. a rationality trap can likely be the result - paradox of competition kicks.
now the opposite turns sacred. that which is pure and simple.

OPs initial statement captures something that is actual; often times ornamentation is nothing but a cheap trick, covering up for the aspects the thing actually misses. the people falling for it are stoopid.
but it is also true; sometimes ornamentation is a valid way of honoring something that is nice.

I am glad my life is not cluttered with ornamentation, but thankful to find opportunities for enjoying some at times. to me it seems productive to nourish a culture that is deliberate and scarce with these things in order not to end up in excess.

this has always been following trends and curves. what has been true at some point doesn't need to be true at all times in order to contain meaning.

File: germ.png (430 KB, 623x383)

430 KB PNG

average german retardation

>>452738
Many renaissance artworks feature extremely intense ornamentation however. While it is clear they also appreciate the human form more compared to earlier medieval artworks, I think it is better arguable that properly applied ornamentation will help to bring out the human form even more than it could on its own, rather than that the decorations just take away the spotlight from the essence of the decorated subject.

I love simplicity, so the lack of ornaments is my personal preference as anything else looks tacky in most modern context even if it is done well and expensively. Just reeks of unnecessary resource spending, inefficiency and lack of taste.
And yet old architecture has a nice balance of symmetry and organic details. I prefer a gothic church over a glass skyscraper.

Although I'd say patterns serve a function in visual identity and can look elegant and nice. But patterns are a bit different, right?

All of this is just an intuition, driven by personal philosophy and modern trends, I am not educated enough to say why ornaments are bad.

>>452741
t. i dont understand what form means

The author is a terribly inarticulate simpleton-

>Men of a higher culture say: This woman is beautiful because she does not wear rings in her nose or her ears.

Simply not wearing ornaments doesn't make any woman beautiful, this guy writes like a retard. Beautiful women are beautiful whether they wear ornaments or not...and Indians know that too.

>To seek beauty in form itself rather than make it dependent on ornament should be the aim of all mankind."

False dichotomy; first of all beauty in natural forms is recognized, not created.
It might not *need* ornament to be legitimately beautiful, but ornament can serve to focus attention and highlight specific features that might be overshadowed by less attractive elements, or might be presented in a more ideal way that accentuates their beauty.

It's certainly easy to overdo ornament and get the opposite effect, but there's nothing inherently "beautiful" about a lack of ornament.

File: JanTschichold.jpg (55 KB, 800x583)

55 KB JPG

>>452763
sure, you are not necessarily wrong.
but did you read OPs citation??
>Men of a higher culture say: This woman is beautiful because she does not wear rings in her nose or her ears
where does it say that beauty is the result of ornamentation or the lack thereof? he clearly said, that there is a correlation between *the state of cultural development and emphasis on ornamentation*, which is a reasonable observation in general and a helpful one at their time. it is something completely different to what you are suggesting!

maybe you simply don't know, but his derived information was hugely relevant for people pushing design development back then, because it put cultural demands into digestible words for working designers to apply.
>The Arts & Crafts style of the 1870s & 1880s had to be defeated; form must emerge purely from purpose, construction, material.
new typography was a reaction to the decline in typographic design that began at the end of the 19th century. new inventions in the field of printing technology (e.g. lithography and offset printing) suddenly offered a multitude of design possibilities. this led to an exaggerated use of decorative borders, frames and ornaments; the fonts themselves were often mixed together indiscriminately. As a result, people soon returned to simple, natural and technical typography.

I disagree with your notion that neglecting how much the context changed since then would be any helpful and I do think that calling him a simpleton is equally unhelpful as calling him a be-all end-all art-prophet.
taking that context away is like saying
>ah, you know. the ancient mesopotamians building the first megastructures in the world without the use of proper concrete and a lack of hot water plumbing are kinda simpletons ngl
don't you agree that it seems rather simplistic to neglect that whole important historical context of the industrial revolution (and the cultural shifts it required)??

>>452771

>>where does it say that beauty is the result of ornamentation or the lack thereof?

Right here-

>"This woman is beautiful because she does not wear rings in her nose or her ears"

>is beautiful

>because

The author may not have meant to say that and by extension all the retarded implications that follow, but that just confirms that he's an inarticulate simpleton.

Not even going to bother reading the rest of your post if that's the level.of intellectual rigor behind it, sorry.

>>452779
>the indian says
>Men of a higher culture says

last time I checked this implied subjectivity, smartass

>>452782
So making thisr statements as if they were objective fact is even more retarded than at first glance, thanks for pointing that out.

>>452785
lul wut?
the "objective fact" is that one culture has some statistical preference in comparison to another culture that has some other preference. preferences which still are subjective.

what are you talking about??? you still didn't read my answer, did you?

>>452789
Again, the author didn't say anything about
>some statistical preference
or anything like it.

He made two definitive statements without ANY qualification of any kind, as if they were unquestionable facts.

He also engages in ridiculous, lazy and sensational hyperbole when he states-

>The Indian overloads everything, every boat, every rudder, every arrow, with ornament.

What constitutes "overloaded" may be subjective, but "every" is in no way a subjective term. It has no legitimate place in this context and is just shitty writing no matter what the motivation was for choosing to make those claims.

>>452735

I would say we cannot escape ornamentation, that even something like precision minimalism (like Apple's product design) is an extravagance, a signalling of resource-richness and wealth, of our own time. Engravings and bedazzling no longer impress in an age where injection molded plastic and acrylic gems flood in from third/second world economies. But zero-tolerance milling, mirror-smooth polishing, durable glass? These are our ornamentations today.

We even see this aesthetics of precision in popular makeup styles among women, with precisely threaded eyebrows and caked-out smooth foundation. Lip gloss, which gave away the complex texture of lips, has been abandoned in favor of matte lipstick, which shows far less of that human, real detail. All this isn't covered in jewels and gold, but it is equally vulgar, equally tastelessly extravagant.

>>452735
Brown girls mog without jewellery too but I appreciate this threads discussion a lot anyways.

File: die gute form.jpg (36 KB, 500x708)

36 KB JPG

>>452791
whatever, man. If that's how you still choose to interpret it, then fine. you've convinced me that you're not even open to considering the possibility that he captured something valuable.

as I've mentioned before, I personally prefer to take more of the original context into account to understand, rather than quickly imposing my own perspective on the statement - especially when it comes from an environment I've never experienced myself, like europe 100 years ago. a context some of which I already provided in an earlier message to you.

even though you disagree, I remain convinced that one can derive a lot of truth and value from his observations (from before ww2!), if you just keep the time of the statement and a few key events from around then in mind and know how to read it.
I wouldn't dismiss a russian text as simplistic just because I don't read cyrillic; rather, I'd regret my lack of understanding due to missing necessary context.
in my opinion judgment should be reserved for those who can put themselves in the position of the condemned, which is why I am just a bit careful with that.

as I've said; to me, it seems simplistic to overlook the historical context and form opinions about the author, but I now understand that you hold the opposite view.
however, for the sake of fairness, you probably think that I, the person susceptible to such rhetoric, am simplistic as well. So, I guess it's all fine.

>>452793
we can't escape extravagance, but we can escape ornamentation, as you noticed correctly. that is exactly tschichold's point which then lead to swiss school international typographic style. it is (finally) free of what the term 'ornamentation' is meant to describe... again: look at the historical context and read >>452740

>>452809
>it seems simplistic to overlook the historical context and form opinions about the author

First of all, his writing style was what was critiqued and found woefully lacking, not him personally.

Secondly, the historical context just makes it worse, he's a German writing about other people and cultures as if they are a) all of one (simple) mind and b) as if they are "primitives" whose cultural ideals and influences need to be eradicated-
>The Indian in us all must be overcome
-and all within a decade of Germany attempting to force its assumed superiority in all things including what art/design was acceptable over the rest of humanity.

Unironically, like all useful idiots Tischold was first to have his authoritarian values used againt him-

>After the election of Hitler in Germany, all designers had to register with the Ministry of Culture, and all teaching posts were threatened for anyone who was sympathetic to communism. Soon after Tschichold had taken up a teaching post in Munich at the behest of Paul Renner, they were both denounced as "cultural Bolshevists". Ten days after the Nazis surged to power in March 1933, Tschichold and his wife were arrested. During the arrest, Soviet posters were found in his flat, casting him under suspicion of collaboration with communists. All copies of Tschichold's books were seized by the Gestapo "for the protection of the German people".

Finally, even he agreed that ***the exact writings you cite*** were poorly conceived authoritarian bullshit-

>Although Die neue Typographie remains a classic, Tschichold slowly abandoned his rigid beliefs from around 1932 onwards (e.g. his Saskia typeface of 1932, and his acceptance of classical Roman typefaces for body-type) as he moved back towards Classicism in print design.

>He later condemned Die neue Typographie as too extreme. He also went so far as to condemn Modernist design in general as being authoritarian and inherently fascistic.

>>452810
yes, exactly! finally we are on the same page!

you just gotta know how to read it and make the effort of establishing context. tschichold correctly saw the overuse of ornaments, which in a developed society of mass production had to be abandoned. he put into words what was apparent. not because he was simplistic or even nazi, but because it was the case.
cultures of an earlier developmental stage had preferences that didn't suit modernism anymore.

I am glad you are underscoring my notion of context being the key ingredient with quotes (like tschichold appreciating ornaments in a world of flat designs again, just like I mentioned here >>452740 ) and think it is nice we were able to settle on the actual knowledge from OPs citation instead of playing the game of calling its author names!

>"Jan Tschichold embraced extremes. His work, most notably “Die Neue Typographie”, embraced and defined modernist typographic ideas. At his most provocative Tschichold only condoned the use of sans serif type. Later in his life he condemned his own pro-modernist stances as too militaristic, comparing them to the thinking of the Nazis which compelled Tschichold to leave Germany."

https://typographica.org/typography-books/jan-tschichold-master-typographer/

>While the text still has many relative uses today, Tschichold eventually returned to a classicist theory in which centered designs and roman typefaces were favored for blocks of copy.

http://www.designishistory.com/1920/jan-tschichold/

>...interestingly, he came to see parallels between the restrictions of Modernist typography (the exclusive use of sans-serif type in asymmetric arrangements, etc.) and the intolerance of the German fascists. After the war he became more broad-minded, and wrote, “The aim of typography must not be expression, least of all self-expression, but perfect communication achieved by skill. Taking over working principles from previous times or other typographers is not wrong but sensible.”

https://tdc.org/news/jan-tschichold-the-tdc-and-a-mystery/

>>452812
>>452813
right. there is even some originals on the internet archive

The Form Of The Book ( Jan Tschichold)
https://archive.org/details/the-form-of-the-book-jan-tschichold/mode/2up

An Illustrated History Of Writing And Lettering
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175770/page/n77/mode/2up

as I said, you gotta know what there is to learn from it instead of projecting...
he wasn't so much about indians, but about design. which is always part of some historical context.
so it shows how you gotta know the corresponding history in order to extract the technical knowledge from such documents!

Oh look, more pompous absolutism-

>The German tradition out of which these observations spring is betrayed by his habit of formulating arguments in the imperative mode as a series of abstract absolutes...

> "Comfortable legibility is the absolute benchmark for all typography … Good typography can never be humorous … a truly beautiful book cannot be a novelty. It must settle for mere perfection instead."

>...He also has essay titles which are almost amusingly didactic: ‘Why the Beginnings of Paragraphs Must Be Indented’...

https://mantex.co.uk/the-form-of-the-book/

>...Tschichold wrote, "Though largely forgotten today, methods and rules upon which it is impossible to improve have been developed for centuries. To produce perfect books these rules have to be brought to life and applied."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_page_construction

>never
>cannot
>must
>impossible

There is no "historical context" where these terms are "subjective", he's well known to have made ridiculously absolutist pronouncements that don't stand up to logical scrutiny.

PRO TIP: expect this from anyone who feels the need to write his "manifesto"

>>452815
some of his teachers even considered him a contemporary instead of a student - he understood design more than well!
falling into the trap of interpreting his rigorous notion of having to leave the established norms behind should not cast a shadow over the principles he clearly noticed. excluding his insight is a disservice to ones own development.

manifesto?

>>452814
>instead of projecting...

Dude, give it up...he ultimately rejected the very text you cite, for the exact same reasons and using the exact same criticisms you are calling "projection".

That isn't to say that there's nothing to be learned from it, but you clearly miss a FAR more important lesson to be learned from his cavalier and poorly conceived/ written pronouncements (made at age 26, lol) that he ultimately regretted and rejected.

Which is to shut the fuck up before you make yourself look like an idiot spewing bullshit in an attempt to drown out all other thoughts and perspectives.

>>452817
?

>>452771
read me again

File: gropius.png (731 KB, 800x507)

731 KB PNG

>>452817
not sure what your point is anymore!

you yourself pointed out with your quotes that he was in fact not a simpleton, but well able to have nuanced thought.
the original OPs quote at no place says anything like there being a "universal beauty", but that the context of culture seems to be having impact on what is deemed beautiful.
he (due to being part of one of these cultures - that at the time at least has had a developmental leg up) noticed these preferences and captured them with words.
him later noticing that the way he put it had similarity with what the nazis propagated AFTERWARDS didn't retrospectively contradict the principles themselves, but questioned the choice of exact words. this I am trying to convince you of from the beginning of this whole escalating conversation...

maybe you will be able to grasp what I am trying to say this final time:
>when he compared cultures, it wasn't nazi propaganda yet. you gotta know the context of the industrial revolution, which had the people contemplate how to deal with the radical changes.
>one of the best things they were able to do was compare with other contexts, like back in time or at other places in the world.
>he correctly established a connection between the type of civilization and taste and changed the future course of design - especially that of neutral, non-nazi switzerland. where it has been such a huge success that it spread around the globe.
>when he noticed, that 10 years later the people who threw him out of the country also lived in modernism and made ideological use of what he noticed, the necessity arose for him to distance himself from how he phrased it before.
>this - again - doesn't contradict what he said, but distanced him from politics.

any more fucking questions?

>>452820
>any more fucking questions?
Have you been screened for hypergraphia?

>A compulsion to write can occasionally indicate brain dysfunction...
>...Their conversation is pedantic and full of circumlocutions, which results in difficulties in concise communication and problems in concluding conversations. An associated "stickiness" of thought also makes it hard for them to let go of a topic.

>>452825
LOL
if nothing else helps anymore just start calling names I guess.

no, I am just ESL. but I take the changing subject as affirmation

>>452826
Where did anyone "call you names"?

The fact that you repeatedly attack strawmen in multiple rambling essays while ignoring what was actually said is symptomatic of a fundamental problem that isn't related to ESL.

That it might be some kind of pathology is the charitable option, you might just be trolling and trying to dominate the conversation whenever someone disagrees with you.

It's not like people can't spot your participation here at this point, that always follows the same pattern of flooding threads with contentious word salads that masquerade as reasoned discussion. It's also obvious that you pretend to be more than one poster.

File: oh no.gif (2.92 MB, 498x211)

2.92 MB GIF

>>452827
right! suggesting diagnoses is so much different to calling descriptive nouns! how embarrassing of me!

well. thanks for being charitable, then! I am glad to be important enough to you in order for you to be devoting that much thought to me!
feel free to tell me what the strawman has been in this particular case then! to me, it actually looks like *you* tried to strawman *my* (initially quite friendly) reaction but then argued poorly. so I am eager to learn about how I am misinterpreting things! I also remember applauding for the will to do research and offering multiple opportunities to settle the discussion. so I am looking very forward to learning more about myself through [your] lense.

it's not like I am trying to hide(?!). this is a confusing point in your message!
I am very ready to admit that I do quite enjoy the discussion. honestly: don't argue with me if you think I am easy to spot AND you dislike the confrontation. pretty easy solution, no? but since my patterns seem to be predictable it should be easy to counterargue anyways, eh?
personally your opinion doesn't really bother me so far, but I compliment you for showing that much interest in what I say!
rn I all I see is a butthurt little bitch :)

last thing: wdym with this part? seems inconsistent...
>always follows the same pattern of flooding threads with contentious word salads that masquerade as reasoned discussion. It's also obvious that you pretend to be more than one poster.

>>452735
cite your source, op.

the 'ornament is crime' conversation is as old as modernism, as is the racism/nationalist idiocy that long structured art history. which is to say its all last century.

but each generation has to learn it again so thats whatever.

>>452830
The irony here is that the person cited ultimately rejected his own extremist "we need cultural eugenics!" approach after having an unanticipated variation of it imposed on himself by the Nazis, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

But the blathering ESL idiot (aka the OP) refuses to address that and if you agree with the author's own more rational and objective later asessment of his brash, uninformed 20-something pronouncements, you are treated to an endless supply of condescending novel- length word salads dripping in sarcasm telling you you dont think right.

>>452828
>it actually looks like *you* tried to strawman *my* (initially quite friendly) reaction but then argued poorly.

Your initial reaction was to snidely ask me if I had read material that I had just quoted and addressed it detail.

Then in your verbose response you said shit like this-

>I disagree with your notion that neglecting how much the context changed since then would be any helpful

NOTHING in the post you were responding to said that or anything like that that could possibly be interpreted by a reasonable person to promote that "notion"..it's as perfect an example of a strawman argument as could ever exist.

Literally nothing was said in my post you responded to about context, or how it might have changed, or how much it mattered in an asessment of the material/ideas being discussed.

NOTHING.

Also that was the first post I had made in this thread, so there was no valid reason to attribute any other "notions" you might have inferred from other posts to that one.

At best its just lazy thinking by someone who is too invested in dominating the conversation to exercise basic logic and message board etiquette.

tl;dr: lurk more, ESL faggot

File: sad man.jpg (33 KB, 567x414)

33 KB JPG

>>452834
>>452835
absolutely seething

>>452834
exactly. context is important! - thanks again for demonstrating to us this important lesson!
before ww2 you could say stuff like that - which he did. since after ww2 you have to say it *differently* - which he did.
therefore hasty judgment isn't particularly helpful here! there is a lot more to absorb!
(you also can't say the n word anymore. doesn't mean the people it describes didn't exist before ww2...)
>what makes you assume I am OP lol

>>452835
your first message aimed towards me:
>Not even going to bother reading the rest of your post if that's the level.of intellectual rigor behind it, sorry.
and then you expect me to cooperate LMAO? confusing me with mommy, my little prince?

>I disagree with your notion that neglecting how much the context changed since then would be any helpful
then why didn't you just say how you agree with me KEK
you start fighting windmills and make me accountable? TOPKEK

I told you that the information contained in the snippet comes from reading between the lines adding the history into the mix; that I find this to be the best point to focus on with such old material, which you clearly showed no interest in doing! I don't know why I need you to say the opposite in order for this fact to be apparent?! other shit I need your permit in order to talk about?
you wouldn't have lost as much time fighting an ESL faggot if it weren't for your cute pride! - a wise man once told me that this is not a personal blog ;)

listen.
you chose to fight it out.
and now you are pissed for having had to fight it out.
kinda stupid of you ngl

I gotta admit that I imagine thinking my opponent to be *actually retarded* and still not winning the argument against them to be stinging a bit. so, to some degree I do sympathize with your bitterness!
looking forward to what our next dispute will be about!

ps: ESL faggot? kinda n**i simpleton of you ngl

tl;dr: fuck you

>>452834
yeah, i didnt get too deep at first, given how such material is reallly easy to misuse. Adolf Loos is an oft cited argument - his language was 'of his times' talking about primitives but wasnt so deep in the art/genetics thing that was extremely common. "ornament is crime' is a decent essay to cut ones teeth on regarding this subject.

so ops is taking from some old Jan Tschichold?

i see some Gropius up there too.

nice book links from the Archive

File: tenor(6).gif (1.25 MB, 480x270)

1.25 MB GIF

>>452837

>>452814
interesting
in the very first pages of the books you link op (i think its op) we find out Jan fled Germany after being imprisoned by Nazis because he dud some design shit they couldnt handle. you might want to include that in your op, OP, next time you try to p.

File: jan-tschichold.jpg (68 KB, 1277x453)

68 KB JPG

>>452849
the anon who posted the internet archive links here.
yeah, I think OP is quoting tschichold. it was me who initially brought his name into the discussion, but OP never clarified.
so, we don't *really* know, although I am pretty sure it's his.

the gropius image is just a nice random design from a page the guy I was arguing with linked. I thought it looks cool and gives a good impression on what design sensibilities we are even talking about (generally). it seemed like a nice idea to bring in the actual works, instead of just talking the concepts. but maybe it was just confusing, yeah.
picrel is tschichold again

>>452852
yes! interestingly this fact is actually highly connected to the emergence of the swiss school and swiss typographical movement.

>>452855
the essays you linked are great!

thank you! wish this conversation could prove useful for everyone else!

File: AdrianFrutiger.png (725 KB, 1050x700)

725 KB PNG

>>452857
cheers!
y'know - just dudes headbutting a bit. we still love each other, I am sure! (heh)

picrel is adrian frutiger (creator of the avenir font, if I remember correctly). probably the best known one of the (many great) swiss typographers that arose from 'elementare typographie'.
it is amazing how you can't even oversee the impact all of this turned out to have up to this very day!

>>452860
*overlook
>baka

>>452855
>yes! interestingly this fact is actually highly connected to the emergence of the swiss school and swiss typographical movement.

Actually it's not- obviously his early books and ideas had an influence on that movement but his moving there had little to do with it and by the time it was in full swing he had gone in the opposite direction, wasn't an active part of that movement, and was openly critical of it-

>His abandonment of Modernist principles meant that, even though he was living in Switzerland after the war, he was not at the centre of the post-war Swiss International Typographic Style.

>Unimpressed by the use of realist or neo-grotesque typefaces, which he saw as a revival of poorly designed models, his survey of typefaces in advertising deliberately made no mention of such designs, save for a reference to 'survivals from the nineteenth-century which have recently enjoyed a short-lived popularity.'

Those "survivals from the 19th century" were the direct inspiration for and to the layman's eye practically indistinguishable from Helvetica. He absolutely promoted their use and his ideas were absolutely a major inspiration on the Swiss School, but that began in the 1920s, not after he arrived there.

1/2

>>452865
2/2

Rather than in post-war Switzerland, Tschichold wrote this in 1928, in what should be obvious to anyone paying attention was his trademark rigid, absolutist style...rejecting ALL but one style of type as being "in spiritual accordance" with contemporary life of that pre-war era, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean*-

>"Among all the types that are available, the so-called "Grotesque"...is the only one in spiritual accordance with our time. To proclaim sans-serif as the typeface of our time is not a question of being fashionable, it really does express the same tendencies to be seen in our architecture…there is no doubt that the sans-serif types available today are not yet wholly satisfactory as all-purpose faces. The essential characteristics of this type have not been fully worked out: the lower-case letters especially are still too like their "humanistic" counterparts...."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akzidenz-Grotesk

By the time the war was over and he was safely in Switzerland, he had recognized this attitude and rejected it as too rigid and authoritarian, and had gone back to using classical typefaces-

> Although Die neue Typographie remains a classic, Tschichold slowly abandoned his rigid beliefs from around 1932 onwards (e.g. his Saskia typeface of 1932, and his acceptance of classical Roman typefaces for body-type) as he moved back towards Classicism in print design. He later condemned Die neue Typographie as too extreme. He also went so far as to condemn Modernist design in general as being authoritarian and inherently fascistic.

*One thing this discussion has revealed is that now we know who popularized the current practice of rigid thinkers of an authoritarian bent qualifying graphic design and typography using nebulous and inscrutable spiritual stadards, ie references to its "soul" or lack thereof.

File: under the reign of idiots.png (680 KB, 636x850)

680 KB PNG

>>452865
>>452866
yeah well. I don't know how that disconnects these from each other nor why you neglect the following statement:
>swiss typographers that arose from 'elementare typographie'
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementare_Typografie
(tfw there is no english wiki entry for elementare typographie?! but at least the original language [german])

>not at the centre of the post-war Swiss International Typographic Style
earlier we established the fact that he was a trailblazer instead of being the main protagonist of later movements - his was the new typography. but I appreciate the reminder!

>by the time it was in full swing he had gone in the opposite direction
exactly!
>by the time it was in full swing
when everything is special, nothing is special anymore! this has always been following trends and curves. what has been true at some point doesn't need to be true at all times in order to contain meaning.
oh wait - déjà vu! >>452740

>authoritarian bent, rigid thinkers using nebulous standards, ie references to its "soul" or lack thereof
lol was this your personal crusade against nebulous terms à la *soul* all along or something that you just couldn't stand not mentioning?
I hope you were able to let that steam finally off, brother! by now I know how much that four letter word means to you! but by your definition anything that is not autistic = fascist... (?)

you do realize that your intolerance kinda makes me wanna use the shit out of that term now, right?
there is this vision of a raised forefinger that just nobody really likes in front of my inner eye that kinda screams for *disobedience!*.
ah - forget it! probably not your kind of joke. I am just a retarded ESL faggot - my impure blood (or something)!

>honestly I am surprised your journey into one of many historical designers for the last two days was enough to convince you about the origin of nationalism or spiritual elitism, but I am sure you are totally right!

TIL:
>soul = kinda nazi

File: DkgsXO.gif (1.69 MB, 400x300)

1.69 MB GIF

>>452870

>>452865
>>452866
>>452870
im sorry what did you say?

i cant hear you

File: toyboy.jpg (89 KB, 464x522)

89 KB JPG

>>452873
haha sort of. but not really.
actually having a much greater time than the guy in the clip. (what is the point in arguing online if you aren't even enjoying it?! there isn't even a name attached to my posts lol?!)
otherwise it isn't terribly far off, yeah.

although...
I can tell from your need to post gifs even when you otherwise have nothing else to say that the idea of being my little fuckboy is kinda turning you on, right?
do you imagine me talk with a thick accent when reading my posts? mmmmmrhmmmm. what a naughty boy you are!

but this puts me into an emotional dilemma, so I want to be completely honest with you: if you want what we are having to be lasting, then you'll have to come up with something more interesting again! you are kinda starting to bore me and I might leave when you can't provide any fun anymore... yea... so... ... SORRY, I guess!

>what's up with the boomer memes?
xoxo

>>452874
we said nothing. don't worry about us! thank you kindly

not a very clear discussion, imho but whatever

ive never really considered there to be a Swiss anything, but i guess some do! Its all Modernism and International Style to me, with small sub-moments and cliques and spheres of influence, better and less known players.

its not uncommon for some radical modernists to 'repent' as it were. modernism scared the fuck out of a lot of people. Malevich ended up painting clowns i think, but my history aint the best right now.

"there is no prescription which automatically produces art"

Jan T, 1965 from sym and asym typo essay

hmmm doesnt sound like the aged and regretful and retributive neo-classicist to me . . .

>>452735
1. It's openly racist, but you would expect this coming from Germans of that time, Hitler and Nazis where already mainstream.
2. Obviously from someone trying to promote modernist (Bauhaus) style while shitting on every earlier style to force his agenda.

>>452883
yeah its a poorly written and poorly conceptualized bit of trash

sure thats not Jan T.

i bet its some retard nobody

File: tired.jpg (403 KB, 676x1109)

403 KB JPG

>>452883
>>452885
>promote
duh
>shitting
duh

how is the obvious stuff still the interesting part to you? I was hoping the whole history discussion to enable us going beyond that.
wtf is holding you back from starting to subtract all the historical context and reflecting the technical information?? how many times do we have to repeat this shit?
on a gd board??

>when food is a scarcity the beauty standard favors fat people. (shows power - see venus of willendorf or the middle ages)
>when 95% of labor is hard manual work on fields, paleness is considered noble. (shows power - see ancient china or the whole idea of blue blood)
but these things can flip! and they constantly do!
>the moment hunger virtually dies out within a society, the beauty standard slims down!
>the moment people start working in huge, dim factories, those are considered attractive who can afford to sunbathe.
>and just like that, when means of production are getting cheap enough, so that ornamentation turns into repetitive, kitsch trash, then simplicity will have its rise.
NOT BECAUSE RACISM. BUT BECAUSE SOCIETAL CHANGES

how basic does a worldview have to be? does the amount of neurons in your brain limit your ability to keep that much context in mind while picking out the good parts about it?
one would think you are interested in graphic design knowledge, but instead you are seemingly unable to even consider that aspect about this manuscript... why?

THE WHOLE WORLD WENT WITH MODERNISM.
NOT JUST GERMANY.
these art trends evolved *during a time of rising totalitarianism* but in context of printing tech and the camera!
why would you not talk about that fact on a gd board, but be like:
>yeah, that person was a racist. end of story!
fcken charles darwin had a ranking for 'fitness of human races'
do you now start not believing in darwinism anymore?
wtf is the intellectual hurdle in just accepting that the shit is 100 years old, partly outdated and racist and then focusing on the actual useful bits??

File: image(69).jpg (119 KB, 672x672)

119 KB JPG

>>452886
context matters, simple as that
Also, modernism fell out of fashion, just like racism. Both is still there. Unfortunately more then ever. People want beauty, people want decoration, everybody hates modernist design.

File: audrey nuna.jpg (79 KB, 655x655)

79 KB JPG

>>452891
I think we are heading in the right direction here!

I kind of somewhat disagree that *everybody hates* (original) modernist design. don't know what kind of modernism you are having in mind here. or which exact use cases.
don't forget we are probably even beyond postmodernism at this point. - the kind of modernism we were initially talking about does not exist in that exact form anymore. it is not a movement anymore but a set of well understood tools that probably won't go away!

but it is of course true that there is a certain refreshing taste for flourishes and decoration again!

there will probably always be at least *some* instances where "modernism" proves to be the most practical solution.
but yeah, lifestyle products love em soul-charged ornaments for now!
(stoning incoming)

>a *low tier* ai image tho? - ouch!

>>452886
you didnt post anything technical, op, in your op.

so you should kinda shut the fuck up a bit.

you havent even posted a source or addressed the really scanty content of the op statement - it s really poor thinking and it contains ZERO technical information.

>>452891
plebs hate good stuff generally and some hate modernism in particular. but modernism was and remains excellent and beautiful.

>>452895
I said it before: I am not even OP...
read here >>452855

I agree that at least adding the name would have been necessary!

>>452897
i cant tll what youre arguing about

you have an issue with people bringing up the racist constructs of the past?

you have some issue with Germans and Modernism?

File: soy ink.jpg (110 KB, 450x654)

110 KB JPG

>>452901
oh!
no, racism bad.
but I do have an issue with the notion that the existence of racist constructs in the past alone should be reason enough to prevent meaningful inquiry into historical material at all cost.
you probably agree that this would make closer inspection of almost any qualitative historical records impossible? for that reason I would argue that this has to be condemned - at least as quite unscientific, but we could probably find even stronger adjectives!
additionally I have even more of an issue when it happens with the use of incorrectly established context...

I guess the principle of my main point culminates in a straight forward calculation:
>[historically biased graphic design book] - [historical bias] = [graphic design book]

>charles darwin had a ranking for 'fitness of human races'.
>>452886
would it seem productive to you if someone tried to kill off discussion about darwinism for this exact reason?
I think it would be a wasted opportunity! there is so much more insight hidden in this whole thought palace! so much to lose if you apply this kind of preemptively destructive logic to these things - just because the times when they emerged where fundamentally different to today!

but to be completely fair: a good portion of why the argument meandered so much is that anon and I had discussed at other places before. at some point of escalation we were kinda stirring each other up for the sake of it. I kinda don't actually think that the other anon would react as brusque if it weren't for some pre-charge lol. >>452779

>>452904
theres quite a bit to speak about here. however as ive previously posted above, I think op's example is particularly poorly thought out by its original author in assuming a rather ridiculous state of ignorance in "Indians" and not really contributing much conceptual or technical meat to start a real conversation about ornament.

reading through Jan's Form of the Book is proving excellent however.

File: eye.jpg (28 KB, 525x750)

28 KB JPG

>>452907
ey! I am so happy you found something helpful or even interesting in there!! thank you so much for telling me!
it is fair - I totally accept that there isn't a lot to work with in OPs post.
saying it with your clarity and commitment to sticking to the actual contents of the quote I am very much appreciative of!! these are very important notes of you to add!

I still think there to be a blind spot in common info processing ettiquette that can be seen in the disregard for my darwin example.
don't you think that it is a *really fcken good question*? personally I feel like it demonstrates a crucial problem with introducing a persons political opinions into their technical work! why no reaction?
newton thought god to be creating the circular movement of planets.
why would I care about such bs? I cant make him reconsider what he said... neglect newtonian dynamics alltogether?!

j.t. lived in ww1 germany.
by definition people have used a very different lingo to you and me today.
but honestly the language is not the interesting part!
but the gd is! the persons insight and technical knowledge.
you don't learn russian for the sake of learning russian. but in order to understand what russian people are saying.
blaming them for inherent biases in the language they use seems obstructive! context cannot be chosen but is given.

>biased gd book - bias = gd book
I do not understand why people would rob *themselves* from learning for such pretentious, shallow reasons (why tf disregard darwin?!)
wtf are people afraid of?

I wish I could elaborate but not enough space. read >>452886 again if unclear:
'indian' in this context is not a racial term, but a cultural one
cultural christians have different taste to cultural buddhists. not every christian or buddhist!
and still there are obvious tendencies

yeah idk. keeping myself and others from diving deeper for the reason of *past* racism being morally overemphasized seems like an intellectual insult.
thx again for the [you]!

File: comparison.jpg (281 KB, 1014x729)

281 KB JPG

>>452896
right? picrel took me 10 minutes (!)
you cannot tell me that it is worse, but only that the other one strikes some special chord with you.
>the original contains 6 to 7 different typefaces (depending on how you count)!!

>>452920
You keep accusing people of placing too much importance on the form and racial overtones of the original citation about ornament, accuse them of shortsightedness and ignoring some deeper principles within that citation that are true and valuable...

But about ten thousand words ago the case was made that the author of the original quote implied a false dichotomy: that a lack of ornamentation as an ideal of art and design "should be the aim of all mankind" and that the presence of ornamentation is an accurate determiner of art/design being "primitive" and of a "lower culture" and by implication, inferior.

That argument presented art and design that contained ANY ornamentation as "dependent" upon it as a means of hiding its inherently lower value.

The faulty logic of this position was addressed directly early on **independent of** any racial or historical underpinnings-

>(beauty in a woman or aesthetic design) might not *need* ornament to be legitimately beautiful, but ornament can serve to focus attention and highlight specific features that might be overshadowed by less attractive elements, or might be presented in a more ideal way that accentuates their beauty.

>It's certainly easy to overdo ornament and get the opposite effect, but there's nothing inherently "beautiful" about a lack of ornament.

Since that post you've been attacking *how* people read the OP and responded and keep saying there's some valuable point in the original quote that is being "ignored" but you've never once articulated it.

I contend that there is no practical value whatsoever in the quote regarding how and why one should apply ornamentation, or not.

NONE.

File: just your natural domino (...).jpg (67 KB, 820x565)

67 KB JPG

>>452925
aaaaw! terribly sorry for you feeling accused!
what a bummer!

dafuq? where is the false dichotomy? just where??? what he says might not represent *your future gd goals* - it doesn't even mine - but where is the false dichotomy?
I literally said one message ago that it is a cultural claim. not a racial one. that considering this aspect completely changes the meaning of the quote.
developmental stage of a society does indeed influence taste! it is a FACT. this statement isn't even racist?! genetics is just nowhere to be found in this idea!
put some other "race" into another cultural context and the taste does the same thing!

how often do you want me to repeat it?
it is the responsibility of us today to recontextualize historical statements adequately into contemporary language. (just like I did so many times now)
>obese, pale beauty standard
>means of production
remember???????

where did I say there is practical value in the one quote alone? lmao
>it was *me* who introduced the context of who the author was.
>*I* was the person insisting on establishing the correct context.
>*my hypergraphic ass* told you not to jump to hasty conclusions without considering what there is to be considered.
and now *you* want to tell *me* that I am trying to adulate the isolated quote?!

the knee-jerk attitude you instantly applied would negate darwinism as soon as someone just starts the discussion with a poorly chosen quote.
yes, to me that indeed seems shortsighted, even uninformed and self-oriented.
I am not interested in applying your axioms of inquiry and think your principles are vapid overall.

>>452926
>where did I say there is practical value in the one quote alone? lmao

>he clearly said, that there is a correlation between *the state of cultural development and emphasis on ornamentation*, which is a reasonable observation in general and a helpful one at their time.

It was not "helpful at their time" and still isn't.

>you've convinced me that you're not even open to considering the possibility that he captured something valuable.

I did consider it, found it fatally flawed and addressed it repeatedly in detail...now you backpedal and pretend to have never said there was or might be value in the quote.

>I remain convinced that one can derive a lot of truth and value from his observations

If this wasn't in reference to that quote, then you were changing the subject...typical of your approach.

>I told you that the information contained in the snippet comes from reading between the lines

In other words, the quote means what you want it to mean, and all other interpretations including taking it at face value based on plain language meanings of words are inferior to yours. LMAO

>keeping myself and others from diving deeper for the reason of *past* racism being morally overemphasized seems like an intellectual insult.

Nobody "kept" anyone from diving deeper and the original quote re: ornamentation was addressed repeatedly and found to be shallow and erroneous by multiple anons, based on aesthetic and other principles that have nothing g to do with any racial/ cultural/ ethic baggage.

You haven't refuted or really even addressed them other than to complain that they are ignoring context that would ostensibly reveal some practical value to the quote.

Now when called on it you lie and pretend that your words and actions are being mischaracterized.

>I do not understand why people would rob *themselves* from learning for such pretentious, shallow reasons

Learning WHAT from the quote in question?

>>452927
he created a whole movement
>not helpful at their time

he reframed it after the war
>fatally flawed

why would you conclude when you don't even consider who the author was?
>changing subject

we can actually see from other sources that nurture is an influences. calling it simpleton is shallow.
>that is what I want it to mean

where did I say there is practical value in the one quote alone?
>lies

obese, pale beauty standard
means of production
remember???????
>learning what?

sure!

maybe you wanna read our initial messages again?
>>452763
>>452771

File: cosmic tree.jpg (40 KB, 368x488)

40 KB JPG

>>452928
kind of 2/2, even though I didn't plan to.

just whatever you say, honestly. we keep going in circles and I don't want to keep repeating the same points.
if you really don't get what I am saying it doesn't really bother me anyways.
like. I already endorsed the ESL faggot meme anyways. so what do you even want at this point? where are we even going anymore? where will it end otherwise?
I am happy I was able to make my argument that there is a lot more to j.t. than what some people demonstrably want to give him credit for. (and -hey, look at that- so it is even with darwin!)

it was nice reminding myself how cultural change (maybe especially in the pre-internet era) is an important factor of taste and graphic design development.
personally I do profit from such knowledge in my career, and I invite every anons who thought this to be even somewhat interesting (or who liked the picrels I contributed) to consider doing the same in their own gd careers.

but if instead what you are after is demonstrating to yourself how great your political opinion is, then listen to that other anon. he seems to understand a lot about that!

>>452736
Idk man all the ghetto trash black ladies i know are obsessed with ornamentation
Weaves/wigs, gettin they nails did, clothing and "bling" that makes kitsch feel austere

>>452928
See, just more proof of your dishonest, dissembling rhetoric...you asked-

>where did I say there is practical value in the one quote alone? lmao

And then when an example is posted you start talking about something entirely different than that "one quote alone", that could never be inferred from that "one quote alone"-

>he created a whole movement

And then just to be even sneaker and more dishonest, take commentary that WAS about that one quote alone, and present it as if it were a response to your later comment that went much farther than that single quote-

>he created a whole movement
>>not helpful at their time

- which is not only blatantly dishonest on its face, but also tries to make it look like the history cited about starting a movement is being disputed, which literally no one in this thread has done.

So it's just lies on top of lies, from a serial liar who insists upon arguing in bad faith....and that is just in the first few words.

File: zzzZZZ.jpg (95 KB, 750x548)

95 KB JPG

>>452931
>meltdown initiated
I think something delicate might have shattered today D:

based guys know that form follows function and what's in it

>>452932
More blatant hypocrisy from the bloviating tool who said this-

>I can tell from your need to post gifs even when you otherwise have nothing else to say that the idea of being my little fuckboy is kinda turning you on, right?

>>452922
you should have lined up the t with the b and the j

thats what happens when youre glib about proportions and type and only give 10 minutes - not 10 minutes of thought, but 10 minutes of assumptions and indifference. ill get bcak on the other one later.

>>452922
hey are you the vogue magazine cover anon?

>>452941
yeah your 10 minutes example is filled with a lot of pretending to pretend to try something, but its doesnt really. i could shit on a plate and talk about how much i dont care for jackson pollock if i wanted to i guess.

the olde timey one looks like a black letter fetishization and te ornmental scrolling looks like it was done by a tradie with some templets and not someone with any visual talent. i think i even see the kitchen sink in there! its kinda as inattentively done as your 'modern' one. neither one strikes a chord with me.

>>452937
I have the feeling you aren't even reading half of my messages, hun
>>452929

>>452941
>>452944
good points. next time Ill make sure to spend 11 minutes for a quick example instead!

File: coque.jpg (171 KB, 568x777)

171 KB JPG

>>452942
no, do we actually have a person that does vogue covers here? did not know that!
>say hi if you read this?

>>452945
time matters - it gives you the opportunities to observe and invent, its allows you to see

but it cant make up for empty work

the fuck are you and that other guy fucking going on about?
illegible dialogue

>>452947
going in circles at this point. not worth your time.

>>452948
ok fuck it
tomorrow Ill post some Adolf Loos quotes and maybe some Jan quotes
cya

>>452950
https://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf

>>452735
that's a very protestant view of things

>>453457
the part about simplicity or the part about denigrating other cultures?

File: yeah you.jpg (102 KB, 912x952)

102 KB JPG

>>452922
>you cannot tell me that it is worse, but only that the other one strikes some special chord with you.

Go fuck yourself.