Discussions Questions for the Show Abstract the Art of Design

5 Lessons from 8 Episodes of Abstract: Art Of Design

And so here they are. All 8 episodes of Abstract: Art of Design, Flavor i. In this series, we've explored some common themes running among viii artists doing their work in vastly different fields. Information technology started with Christoph Niemann and followed with Tinker Hatfield, Es Devlin, Bjarke Ingels, Ralph Gillies, Paula Scher, Platon and finally, Ilse Crawford.

While they all operated in very different artistic endeavours, they are all artists. Being artists, I think there are few common threads that ran through all of them.

In my concluding postal service in this series, here are 5 lessons from 8 episode of Abstract: Art of Design.

Vision

This is perhaps the biggest one. Believe me when I say it. Every creative person in this serial had a vision of their piece of work. They knew what they wanted to say through their work. They knew what they wanted to say in each project. They had an opinion on the subject matter and they were willing to express information technology through their work.

If they did not know what their opinion was or how to express it fully, they worked at information technology. They did sketches in the back of a taxi, they congenital models until they realised what they wanted to say. They largely disregarded what anyone else thought (except for central stakeholders).

They but cared about their vision and finding ways to all-time express it.

Communicate

Apart from having a vision, these artists knew how to limited it boldly with the tools at their disposal. They knew their craft inside out. They understood the language of their craft. When Es Devlin stood Kanye Due west on a box, she knew that was the all-time way to communicate what she was trying to say almost the performers through her stage blueprint.

Information technology almost seemed similar that their genius lay in how well they knew their craft and how they worked with their materials to communicate their vision. They understood the linguistic communication.

Once they knew what they wanted to communicate, they focussed on it. They zoomed in. They went deep with it. Everything that did not fit into the narrative they wanted to communicate, they discarded. This resulted in piece of work that had a minimalist feel to it — considering every single element of their piece of work served the purpose of communicating their vision.

What Boundaries?

None of the artists worked within any capricious boundaries around their arts and crafts. For example, in this age of digital photography, Platon photographed on picture show.

All the artists, experienced, experimented, stretch and in many instances, shattered them the boundaries. They tried new materials, they tried new concepts.

Information technology'southward almost as if these artists took thrill in pushing boundaries and being provocateurs. But were they provoking for the sake of provoking? I doubt it. I remember they had a bold vision of what they wanted to say and they said information technology as strongly every bit they could without whatsoever regard for whatever capricious boundaries. If that ended up beingness provoking, so exist it — but I don't think they set out to be the provocateurs.

Criticism

With doing the work that they did, breaking the conventional rules of architecture came with plenty of criticism for Bjarke Ingles and the partners at Large. But that does not stop them from doing the work they desire to do and how they want to practice it.

While I believe we should invite critique of our piece of work, we should pay attention to who we invite it from and ignore the residuum. If y'all take a mentor, great, that'southward one voice to pay attention to while ignoring the rest.

All these artists paid picayune criticism to outside world — exterior of their customers or stakeholders. Anybody else'south criticism didn't matter.

Genius

All of the work that these artists did around design and symbolism fabricated total sense — but in hindsight. When Es Devlin stood Kanye on the box, information technology made full sense in terms of what she was trying to communicate — but in hindsight. I remember her genius lay in seeing that symbolism earlier anyone else. Her genius lay in agreement her vision and her craft.

Is their genius by nativity or something they've acquired? I would debate that it is something they've caused from years of work they've put in. They've shown upwards every solar day to every projection 24-hour interval subsequently day, year after year. After all this time, their genius has become intuitive.

If you enjoyed the story (or didn't) and would like to comment on it, y'all can get in touch with me on www.arshdeep.nz

harttrook1973.blogspot.com

Source: https://medium.com/@arshdeep.nz/5-lessons-from-8-episodes-of-abstract-art-of-design-8b8a740f96f3

Share this post