Paradox on the Graphic Artist.

The plethora of constraints that a designer faces in their work described by Lyotard all ring true. His talk of staying faithful to the source material and of considering graphic art to be a tool for revealing the truth are both honest and astute observations. However, there are a few things that he mentioned that I cannot help but disagree with. Specifically, his focus on aesthetics and what could be considered as “beautiful” and “pleasing to the eye”. Lyotard states that the task of graphic art is to create sensation, to draw the viewer in, while allowing them to retain their freedom and use this work of graphic art as a gateway to a new dimension where they are allowed to dream and reflect on their beliefs or even obtain a new belief system entirely. He talks of intrigue and of how important it is in the existence of graphic art. But is intrigue really synonymous with “beauty”? He does later on contradict himself and say that it is not everything, after he is done comparing graphic art to the likes of Tintoretto. While form is undoubtedly an important aspect, I cannot help but feel uneasy at such a quick dismissal of messages and information that shape this form.

I do believe that a graphic artist is capable of creating intrigue and suspense with a piece of work without relying too much on its formal qualities, sometimes not even at all. An example of this would be Sheile Levrant de Bretteville’s ‘Pink’, while retaining a few elements of control, she could not have predicted in which way the women would have filled in the sheets of paper, therefore no aesthetic purity and beauty is being considered. In my opinion, the messages and interpretations that a graphic designer conjures up according to the prompts of the “public" are already pieces of work themselves. At times, these messages do not need to be translated into something formal.

I did enjoy his comparison of graphic arts and acting, however. It is a thought that I had mulled over previously on my own, due to the fact that I am very invested in acting as a medium. One other paradox that is interesting to look at here is that acting is considered in a way a medium where a person becomes the centre of attention, while a graphic designer is considered to be someone that works behind the scenes. Is this assessment true though?


{
  "Name":"Uncreative Writing",
  "Type":Diagram,
  "Introduction":{"Perloff's unoriginal genius", 
   "-->Lethem's plagiarism", 
   "--> context is the new content/language hoarders/technological exploration of literature",
   "--> frauds of the past and past context", 
   "--> current state of literature",
   "--> UPenn course/ paradox of uncreative writing",
   "--> Uncreative vs Formalist",
   "--> Essays",
   "--> 50 years behind painting",
   },
  "Revenge of the Text":{"Reaction to better technology",
    "Power of language",  
    "Language fragmentation by machine",
    "Poetry as code/Code as poetry",
    "Error altering Language altering Media",
    "Quantity is the new Quality":{"The world is constructed with text"
    },
    "A Textual Ecosystem":{"Data like water/the text is wet"
    }
  }
}
  
From being a simple tool, the steel key assumes all the dignity of a mediator, a social actor, an agent, an active being.

This string of words raises questions, as there is no way for an inanimate object to assume any dignity whatsoever, because it's not alive, doesn't possess any kind of consciousness or ability and is as such cannot be considered as a social anything. A person can with a certain degree of imagination fantasize of some dignity in a key, but how a key can become an 'active BEING'[emphasis mine] is REALLY beyond comprehension. If a key from a sociological point of view can be seen indeed as a 'being', assuming of course we are using conventional definition (and that is the impression that I have acquired from this text), then the questions come pouring down and end with a piercing "Is sociology based on actual science?".
As a proposition for artistic play this text seems to be completely fine, though lackluster, but it's scientific merits to me are wholly questionable if not lost entirely.

···