Mel Kadel

Mel Kadel used to skip school in Pennsylvania where she grew up. She went to art school in Philly, moved around some and then ended up in a log cabin with her partner Travis Millard in the hills of Ecko Park in LA and is now represented the Richard Heller Gallery. We had the pleasure of meeting her when we were down there for our show at BLK/MRKT last year and was instantly impressed with her personality that along with her work has a very relaxed understated confidence about it.

Creativity

Creativity is akin to training. It is simultaneously exhausting and yet renewing.  Its has to be a repetitively cycle of releasing and renewing.

Conceptual Art

Conceptual art is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns. Many of the works of the artist Sol LeWitt may be constructed by anyone simply by following a set of written instructions.^[1] This method was fundamental to LeWitt’s definition of Conceptual art, one of the first to appear in print:

“

In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. – Sol LeWitt, “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art”, Artforum, June 1967.

”

For the layperson, this quotation highlights a key difference between a conceptualist installation and a traditional work of art – that the conceptualist’s work may require little or no physical craftsmanship in its execution, whereas traditional art is distinguished by requiring physical skill and the making of aesthetic choices. As Tony Godfrey has put it, after Joseph Kosuth’s definition of art, conceptual art is an art which questions the very nature of what is understood as art.

A Great Hypothesis

A “great” hypothesis. Every scientist has them…these are the hypotheses that are high on creativity but lack quantitative data to test them. Usually, the hypothesis is a “big idea”, virtually untestable, and the only support is anecdotal. It’s more of a thinking exercise rather than a formal hypothesis.

Jim Houser

Jim Houser is a skateboarder who designs skate decks for Toy Machine. His art has been featured in Strength,Juxtapoz and Tokion Magazines. Houser’s installations feature flatly painted, cryptic, cartoon imagery juxtaposed with folksy text and found objects such as discarded skate decks ,skate shoes and old window frames.Houser was included in the show “East Meets West” at the Philadelphia Institute of Contemporary Art and was recently collected by the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Excerpt from an interview with Shepard Fairey about his friend Jim Houser.

“A viewers reaction to an image says as much about them as the image itself says about its creator. When I think of Jim houser and his art, I’m alway struck by the bond he consistently forges with his audience, the way every work of his shows me a piece of myself while at the same time reflecting his own catharsis. Jim’s paintings and installations span the entire spectrum of human emotion, but he never seems to pass judgment, leaving the bias up to the viewer’s discretion. Being Jim’s friend is synonymous with being a collector of his art – no one is more generous when it comes to requiting the admiration he gets from the people around him. The pieces in my collection all stand out individually, but there’s something about the gestalt of his installations, the way that each compartment melds seamlessly into the integrated whole, that creates an atmosphere of a bigger picture. Maybe that’s just my interpretation of it.

I met Jim in 1995 through Ben Woodward, a RISD student and a cohort in my Obey Giant/Alternate Graphics screen-printing studio in Providence, Rhode island. Ben had told me about his best friend from Philadelphia, a rippin’ skateboarder who was stuck in a security guard job and wanted a change of scenery. I offered Jim a job cutting stickers in the studio – the most tedious task we had, but he took it without thinking twice. That was one of the last jobs he ever held. He worked for me for six months, all the while progressing as an artist, and then spent a summer on Cape Cod, where he met his future wife, Becky Westcott, who always encouraged him to keep creating, even if it meant she had to support both of them. He moved back to Philly shortly after, where he became one of the founding members of the Space 10 26studio. He’s dealt with more than his fair share of tragedy and desolation, but he still embraces life with a pass ion that transcends all adversity. I’ve always admired Jim for everything he’s gone through to keep making art, and the fact that he’s still making art after all he’s gone through.”

Read the rest of the interview here.

More about Jim houser on Fecal Face here.

FOTOGASMA – Mitch Dobrowner

http://www.mitchdobrowner.com/

Photography by Mitch Dobrowner

Thats me

Being completely oblivious to the world as such and completely absorbed in a world of her own

Faith and Boundaries

Somehow faith creates boundaries.

If its supposed to free us. Why does it impose boundaries upon us?

Curse of The “D” Word

Article

Do you make things look nice? Do you spend more time worrying about nuance and aesthetics than substance and meaning? Do you fiddle with style while ignoring the big picture? If your answers are yes, yes, or yes, then you are a decorator.

Being a decorator is not how graphic designers necessarily want to perceive themselves. But what’s the big deal? Is anything fundamentally wrong with being a decorator? Although Adolf Loos, an architect, proclaimed ornament as a sin in his essay, Ornament and Crime, an attack on late-nineteenth century Art Nouveau, in truth decoration and ornamentation are no more sinful than purity is supremely virtuous.

Take for example the Psychedelic Style of the late 1960s that was smothered in flamboyant ornamentation (indeed much of it borrowed from Loos’ dreaded Art Nouveau). Nonetheless, it was a revolutionary graphic language used as a code for a revolutionary generation — which is exactly the same role Art Nouveau played seventy years earlier with its vituperative rejection of antiquated 19th-century academic verities. Likewise, Psychedelia’s immediate predecessor, Push Pin Studios, from the late 1950s through the 1970s, was known for reprising passé decorative conceits. In the context of the times, it was a purposeful and strategic alternative to the purist Swiss Style that evolved into drab Corporate Modernism, which had rejected decoration (and eclectic quirkiness) in favor of bland Helvetica. In their view, content and meaning were not sacrificed but rather illuminated and made more appealing.

Anti-decorative ideological fervor to the contrary, decoration is not inherently good or bad. While frequently applied to conceal faulty merchandise and flawed concepts, it nonetheless can enhance a product when used with integrity — and taste. Decorators do not simply and mindlessly move elements around to achieve an intangible or intuitive goal: rather, they optimize materials at hand to tap into an aesthetic allure that instills a certain kind of pleasure.

Loos and likeminded late-19th and early-20th Century design progressives argued that excessive ornament existed solely to deceive the public into believing they were getting more value for their money — when in fact they were being duped through illusionary conceits. These critics argued that Art Nouveau (and later Art Deco or Postmodern) decoration on buildings, furniture and graphic design rarely added to a product’s functionality or durability; it also locks the respective objects in a vault of time that eventually renders everything obsolete. Decoration was therefore the tool of obsolescence.

However, decoration also plays an integral role in the total design scheme. It is not merely wallpaper. (And what’s wrong with beautiful wallpaper, anyway?) Good decoration is that which enhances or frames a product or message. The Euro paper currency, with its colorful palette and pictorial vibrancy, is much more appealing than the staid U.S. dollar. While the “greenback” is comprised of ornate rococo engravings, the U.S. bills lack the visual pizzazz of the Euro. Of course, visual pizzazz is irrelevant if one is clutching a score of $100 bills: putting the respective face values of the currencies aside, the Euro is an indubitably more stimulating object of design because it is a decorative tour-de-force with a distinct function. One should never underestimate the power of decoration to stimulate the users of design.

Decoration is a marriage of forms (color, line, pattern, letter, picture) that does not overtly tell a story or convey a literal message, but serves to stimulate the senses. Paisley, herringbone or tartan patterns are decorative yet nonetheless elicit certain visceral responses. Ziggurat or sunburst designs on the façade of a building or the cover of a brochure spark a chord even when type is absent. Decorative and ornamental design elements are backdrops yet possess the power to draw attention, which ultimately prepares the audience to receive the message.

It takes as much sophistication to be a decorator as it does to be a wire-framer. A designer who decorates yet does not know how to effectively control, modulate or create ornamental elements is doomed to produce turgid work. The worst decorative excesses are not the obsessively baroque borders and patterns that are born of an eclectic vision (like the vines and tendrils that strangulated the typical Art Nouveau poster or page) but the ignorant application of dysfunctional doodads that are total anachronisms. A splendidly ornamented package, including the current crop of boutique teas, soaps and food wrappers, may cost a little more to produce but still have quantifiable impact on the consumers with discerning tastes who buy them (and who sometimes keep the boxes after the product is used).

There are many different kinds and degrees of decoration and ornamentation. While none of it is really sinful, much of it is trivial. And yet to be a practitioner of this kind of design does not a priori relegate one to inferior status branded with a scarlet (shadowed, inline and bifurcated) letter “D.”

Some designers are great because they are exemplary decorators.

Steven Heller

Debacle

It’s all about visual vocabulary. the design principles we all learn at university are of course necessary and irreplaceable, but how we implement them in a sea of niche-market relativity is the real test, imho. no matter what you’re working on, establish a visual vocabulary (or work within a pre-defined one) and run with it. and remember, most of the time, you’re designing for non-designers. wow them, guide them, don’t make them think too hard, and give a little something for the more observant viewer to nibble on.
Posted by: John Mindiola III on November 24, 2007 02:14 PM
ften I am asked to design when the client really just wants me to decorate something. As long as I know which near the start, I’m happy to attempt either, or to make a case for the opposite.
Posted by: leMel on November 24, 2007 08:26 PM

One conclusion I came to a while ago, that you hit on nicely here, is that setting the “emotional environment” is nearly tantamount to the content. We’re so cerebral so much of the time, we forget that a flourish can prick the heart in a way which is not so obvious to our reason.

Great job.
Posted by: Benjamin Allison on November 24, 2007 08:27 PM

Yes, some designers really are exemplary decorators. I think I belong to another faction who doesn’t utilize any means of decoration in their designs. My work has often been criticized by some peers and even clients as being too clean, sterile, and bland. I am usually not bothered by that view, because I believe in the way my designs function and what they communicate. Plus you can always pitch your design strategy to peers and clients as you are in direct contact with them. But when decoration becomes fashionable and trendy, even your actual audience starts looking for certain decorative elements in your designs, the lack of which might affect their impression negatively.So my question is, do you determine the level of decoration in your work based on audience expectations, and basically let trends interfere with your communication goals and/or functional specs and usability requirements?
Posted by: Onur Orhon on November 24, 2007 10:55 PM

I always liked Jan Tschichold’s stance on ornamentation in The New Typography, when he pointed out that the more primitive the society, the more intricate their ornamentation. He makes reference to some ancient tribe who even went as far as carving designs on their arrow heads. Of course, Tschichold, being a lover of architecture and a German himself, was probably coming from the same school of thought as Adolf Loos.
Posted by: Brad Estey on November 25, 2007 12:34 PM

Jan Tschichold made a stance on ornamentation (as mentioned by Brad above) but later in his life (1967) he rejected that statement and acknowledged that “the desire for ornament is elemental, and not so childish naive.”

I’m personally a fan of “decoration” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with making something look nice, and that can be done either by eliminating what isn’t making it look nice, or by adding something to make it look better. Either approach can have merit in the right situation.
Posted by: John D. on November 25, 2007 05:26 PM

Gunnar’s point is key. The issue/problem with being a decorator isn’t one of aesthetic style, but rather the [often true] notion that a Decorator is so interested in surface, formal issues, and pure aesthetics that they are prone to ignore the “big picture” strategic issues that often underlay the problems that designers are asked by clients to address. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with one decorative/aesthetic approach versus another. It’s when the tendency to decorate trumps the need to problem solve that problems arise (and designers get dismissed as flaky aesthetes). When the two disciplines are appropriately balanced and strategically and poetically delivered — then you’ve got something.
Posted by: Tom Dolan on November 26, 2007 10:06 AM

Graphic decoration is not a solution, it rarely communicates, and it has, to my knowledge, never changed the world. There is no question one can derive appreciation from beautifully presented expression, but it all ends there. What remains is sentimentality. Rarely does a singularly beautiful design resonate with me as compared to an individual designer who has so succinctly presented a message that shakes me to my core.
Posted by: Robert Dweck on November 26, 2007 05:35 PM

I have a mixed feeling about graphic designers being referred to as strictly decorators.

While as graphic designers it is our job to portray a message in a pleasing aesthetic that is appropriate and meets the demands and standards of both the client’s and one’s personal needs. I feel it is how we portray that information to the masses that will determine if decoration is indeed Graphic Design. While our main focus should reside on the ability to understand the information we are presenting quickly and clearly. Sometimes decoration design is what the client may be looking for, it all depends on the target market.

I feel it that the amount of decoration applied is determined by the client and consumer’s needs. I follow and compete in multiple “action sports” The trend these days in multiple magazines, and advertisements is basically senseless collages (decoration) that eventually promote the product, brand, or athlete. As we all know, popular image sells. The designers for these magazines and ads must concentrate more about style and aesthetics because that is what the companies are promoting and the consumer is buying. In my eyes this is making them effective Designers, while they may understand all of the typographic rules etc… They choose to ignore these rules in order to meet the needs of the client/consumer
Posted by: Ross Dantonio on November 28, 2007 02:41 PM

Always I am hearing concept/content in a manner which places it “vs” ornament and style or form. They are inseperable and mutually informative- whether the end result is austere or opulent. The talented designer can always keep them connected, where there is no choosing one or the other, because one is nothing without the other.
Posted by: kuebler on November 28, 2007 10:16 PM

Ornamentation can be viewed and applied both semantically and syntactically. It can serve both functional and decorative purposes. Ideally form and function re-enforce one another. Ornamentation can be used like a language of coded signs. It can also add value to an object by being beautiful according to some set of shared values. However, the syntax of the ornamentation (the elements that are used and the way they are organized) has meaning in and of itself in that it reveals the values that helped created it. The Corinthian, Ionic, and Doric orders in Classical Western architecture reveals something about Greek and Roman society, just as Islamic calligraphy and the Arabesque provides some insight into the values of traditional Islamic culture. Furthermore, the fact that some people still use the Classical Order in contemporary architecture reveals something about the people that use it, sponsor it, and admire it. The same goes for all other historic or emerging styles.

If the goal of decorating is to enhance value by making something more beautiful, the way a society or individual accomplishes this will reveal the values of that society:

What materials are used (gold, stone, bakelite plastic)?
What motifs are used (floral, geometric, typographic)?
How is it organized (hierarchically, modularly, randomly)?
To what objects is it applied (objects meant to last forever, object meant to be disposed of quickly)?
What reason was it applied (to inspire, to draw attention, to shock, to overwhelm)?
Who benefits from it (everyone, only the middle class, only the elite class, only the ruling class)?

Whether a designer views themselves as a problem solver, communicator, innovator, or decorator, I think the most important thing is that they have some idea what they are doing, even if their only goal is to make something nicer.
Posted by: kai salmela on November 29, 2007 12:28 AM

I always found it ironic that in one of his works, Loos ended up building a non structural column just to give symmetry to an interior. Or how Mies Van de Rohe wrapped in steel a group of columns that had to be built in concrete to comply with fire extinction requirements, only to give the columns his signature steel look. So much for form following function.
As the writer of this article points out, all time-periods are responding to their predecessors, usually in a radical manner. Designers are by definition concerned with the aesthetics of things, and have the tendency to want to leave their own mark; to innovate.
But as long as there is no dialogue between content and form, designers are simple behaving like the married couple fighting over wether having a home full of memorabilia and decorative items or having
a “simple” and minimalist space.
Every home is different. And ideally, it looks and feels like home to each one of its inhabitants. It should respond to everyone’s needs.
Graphic Design is no different. Think of content (and client, and audience) as the inhabitants of a graphic design piece. The designer should make all these elements feel at home. And, unless you want to repeat Le Corbusier’s machine of living, your designs will look different depending on who are the inhabitants.

Posted by: raul on December 4, 2007 03:03 PM
Source

Ornament and crime

Ornament and Crime is an essay written in 1908 by the influential and self-consciously “modern” Austrian architect Adolf Loos under the German title Ornament und Verbrechen. And it was under this challenging title that in 1913 the essay was translated into English: “The evolution of culture marches with the elimination of ornament from useful objects”, Loos proclaimed, thus linking the optimistic sense of the linear and upward progress of cultures with the contemporary vogue for applying evolution to cultural contexts.^{[citation needed]}

In the essay, Loos’s “passion for smooth and precious surfaces”^[1] informs his expressed philosophy that ornamentation can have the effect of causing objects to go out of style and thus become obsolete. It struck him that it was a crime to waste the effort needed to add ornamentation, when the ornamentation would cause the object to soon go out of style. Loos introduced a sense of the “immorality” of ornament, describing it as “degenerate”, its suppression as necessary for regulating modern society. He took as one of his examples the tattooing of the “Papuan” and the intense surface decorations of the objects about him—Loos considered the Papuan not to have evolved to the moral and civilized circumstances of modern man, who, should he tattoo himself, would either be considered a criminal or a degenerate.^{[citation needed]}

The essay was written when Art Nouveau, which Loos had execrated even at its height in 1900, was about to show a new way of modern art. The essay is important in articulating some moralizing views, inherited from the Arts and Crafts movement, which would be fundamental to the Bauhaus design studio and would help define the ideology of Modernism in architecture.