... really don't know what to say other than i agree with Stefan. Actually all forms of art, both mainstream and off-the-cuff, can greatly influence the emotions of the masses. isn't that what we as artists strive for? emotional connection to our art...at least that is what i strive for with my art. i find that all i may really be searching for is reaction as opposed to action, leaving the "action" to the viewer to carry out as they see fit, wether they know so or not.
I may not really be hitting on anything with this response, but it seems to make sense to me.
further info on the article in question can be found via search under the tags: design issues, Design=Heart?, and the author of the article Carolyn McCarron Sienicki.
Thats all for now.
...until then...
2 comments:
Hey, if art is all about reaction, isn't that still some sort of -action? The point of the article isn't to get people's emotions stirred up. There's plenty of that out there already. What Sagmeister and Sienicki are saying is that we need to design with the purpose of reaching out to people instead of reaching out to their wallets. Does this mean that emotions aren't involved, no. On the contrary, if design touches someone's heart, obviously emotions will come. But is it just to sell a product or to meet a need? That's the idea. I'm sure you could say much more. We can't design just to design and illustrate just to illustrate. There's way more to it. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I think you can elaborate more. Think about it. While we're here we might as well learn, right? We can talk more later...
i agree totally with what you are saying. after rereading and considering what christy said in class i felt that there is more to it, i suppose i am just trying to find my way of expressing that more clearly.
Post a Comment