Construction vs. Composition
There are lots of argument about the construction and composition in design. As a constructionist, sometime I am confused I am actually compositing my designs, or constructing them.
During my recent research about Lissitzky, and read some of the thesis about his design journey, I think I have some raw idea about construction, composition, and the relationship of them.
First of all, I am very sure that my designs are almost all constructivism because, I always deconstruct my type, or graphic first, or let's say, I see deconstruct first, then bring them back to pieces of graphics. They are not for the final aim first, but the final effects are kinda achieve that goal, in my point of view.
The process of deconstruction in my works doesn't mean that my works are deconstructionism. The idea of deconstructionism is that the final reader need to construct art works based on their own culture, education, personality, and other features. Therefore, we can say the deconstructionism art works are "not" finished upon the time of delivery. The final finishing will be done while reader gathers all the information and combine them with their own point of view.
Second, as the process of composition, in which to put pieces of elements together to achieve final aim, is based on the goal first. It is very subtle to compare with construction. The later doesn't put goal achieving as final aim but the result does. For example of my previous working process. When I was assigned a design work, I put all elements together and trying to find out what I should delivery to the reader. After I found out my final goal, I played with the elements and follow the design principles, about line, dot, negative, positive...etc. Of course the final work might achieve the commercial goal, in which should catch reader's attention and delivered the information it tried to say. But from my recent eye, or brain, or whatever, it lost the power, which should be a strong feeling of movement, contrast, and grace.
The glory underneath only can be achieved by certain amount of elements, the shape of them, and the construction how we build them. That's the reason it is important to deconstruct elements first, then put them back to "construct" your feeling. The final result is not an aim, it is a composition, which is based on the aesthetics.
So what is the cole for construction? Definitely it is the aesthetics inside you. You are strong, your works are strong; you are sad, your works are sad. Therefore, constructivism is not for weak designers. Designer who can't see the very strong moment of live, and only concentrate on the beauty of life, can not be a strong constructionist. It is not about the design skill, it is about if you have guts to abundant the things you already have had, or break them apart, so that you can built a whole new, strong, and perfect art work, even life.
During my recent research about Lissitzky, and read some of the thesis about his design journey, I think I have some raw idea about construction, composition, and the relationship of them.
First of all, I am very sure that my designs are almost all constructivism because, I always deconstruct my type, or graphic first, or let's say, I see deconstruct first, then bring them back to pieces of graphics. They are not for the final aim first, but the final effects are kinda achieve that goal, in my point of view.
The process of deconstruction in my works doesn't mean that my works are deconstructionism. The idea of deconstructionism is that the final reader need to construct art works based on their own culture, education, personality, and other features. Therefore, we can say the deconstructionism art works are "not" finished upon the time of delivery. The final finishing will be done while reader gathers all the information and combine them with their own point of view.
Second, as the process of composition, in which to put pieces of elements together to achieve final aim, is based on the goal first. It is very subtle to compare with construction. The later doesn't put goal achieving as final aim but the result does. For example of my previous working process. When I was assigned a design work, I put all elements together and trying to find out what I should delivery to the reader. After I found out my final goal, I played with the elements and follow the design principles, about line, dot, negative, positive...etc. Of course the final work might achieve the commercial goal, in which should catch reader's attention and delivered the information it tried to say. But from my recent eye, or brain, or whatever, it lost the power, which should be a strong feeling of movement, contrast, and grace.
The glory underneath only can be achieved by certain amount of elements, the shape of them, and the construction how we build them. That's the reason it is important to deconstruct elements first, then put them back to "construct" your feeling. The final result is not an aim, it is a composition, which is based on the aesthetics.
So what is the cole for construction? Definitely it is the aesthetics inside you. You are strong, your works are strong; you are sad, your works are sad. Therefore, constructivism is not for weak designers. Designer who can't see the very strong moment of live, and only concentrate on the beauty of life, can not be a strong constructionist. It is not about the design skill, it is about if you have guts to abundant the things you already have had, or break them apart, so that you can built a whole new, strong, and perfect art work, even life.
posted by rightindex at 6:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home