i had many thoughts on this essay when i initially read it because of a book i read in jeremias' digital photography class (on being a photographer- those of you who have been in that class will know what i am talking about) and a paper i wrote a couple years ago based on a few theories and subjects the authors approach in that book.
first, does 'photography' in moholy-nagy's essay include forms of illustration? or is he talking about photography specifically? i have to wonder if moholy-nagy believes that a typophoto is the most clear form of communication because he views photography as inherently truthful. if that is the case, then i disagree with his theory.
however, if he believes typophoto to be the most clear form of communication because the combination of image (whether the image represents reality or not) and typography is strong in and of itself, then i partially agree.
i look at it as situational: there is a solution to each design problem. what is appropriate for one project is not necessarily the best solution for every project. for example, typophoto may be the most effective solution. however, another project may best be represented through pure typography- there is something to be said for such simplicity.
either way, if someone cares to enlighten me on moholy-nagy's beliefs regarding photography, that would be grrreat. here are my notes on this (an enlightening quote about photography is on page 2):
and here is something cool i made yesterday.
also a photo i am currently obsessed with.
i like to share what i have been looking at and what inspires me in hopes that maybe it will be able to inspire you as well.
have a great weekend everyone!
sorry, photo needs to be rotated. oh wells
ReplyDeleteDanelle,
ReplyDeleteI think that in this case it is important to look closely at the context of the situation. I believe that Moholy-nagy's theory in this case was legitimate for its time, yet well glazed over with the onset of modernism moving into postmodernism. In his case the argument is sound, as the scrutiny of the photo as we understand it today had not yet reached maturity. They were still blinded to some extent through clearly defining the technology and process. His argument is that type functions in its purpose as communicator and likewise photo does the same. I like the definition "visual presentation of what can be optically apprehended." I do not think he was making assumptions about validity or authenticity in either the typography of photography, but was referring to the formal elements in both the type and in the photo when combined as a more accurate lens to see a concept within its given context. This idea is inclusive of manipulation but dose not assume validity of content.
Thanks for your comments.
Jay
that is the conclusion that i felt was most accurate, but i still wanted to explore my initial reactions to the theory. thanks Jay.
ReplyDelete