-
Shadows are typically two-dimensional tagalongs, mere byproducts of three-dimensional existence. But for Sue Webster and Tim Noble, the art’s not done till the shadow is cast.
-
10 Amazing Sand Drawings →
Not all of them are earth-shaking, but some will delight you. I’m particularly fond of those using the beach as their canvas. Sand drawing at scale.
-
Nothing really matters - FT.com →
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/aac46b2a-b55d-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1xxzjrRiD
Nothing will come of nothing; speak again.” How do you express nothing in art? By silence in language or music – Lear’s Cordelia, John Cage’s mute pianist in 4’33”; by invisibility in visual art. But what sort of exhibition could that produce? The Hayward Gallery’s new show Invisible: Art about the Unseen is flawed, difficult and never more than a breath away from pretension. It is also bold, thought-provoking and timely.
With its record prices, rush of gallery openings and the success of fairs such as Basel and Frieze, the art world is in triumphalist mood this summer. Invisible is a corrective: still, contemplative – and also prankishly undermining market pieties.
A stark installation transforms the Hayward’s brutalist interior into a parody of the ubiquitous white cube selling machines: swathes of blank white walls, bare spaces, captions so pallid you can’t see them, art so conceptual you can’t find it or pin it down. Tom Friedman shows an empty plinth; he hired a witch to curse the space above it.
-
Artist Folds Creases On Paper To Form Architectural ‘Drawings’ - DesignTAXI.com →
German artist Simon Schubert folds paper to create architectural ‘drawings’.
In his series titled ‘Papierarbeiten’ (which means “paper work” in German), architectural drawings are created without any pen or pencil, color or shadings.
Schubert just meticulously folds the pieces of paper to create creases that resemble the lines of the buildings’ structures—and eventually form a ‘drawing’.
-
Design history books abound, but they tend to be organized by chronology and focused on concrete -isms. From publisher Laurence King, who brought us the epic Saul Bass monograph, and the prolific design writer Steven Heller with design critic Veronique Vienne comes 100 Ideas that Changed Graphic Design — a thoughtfully curated inventory of abstract concepts that defined and shaped the art and craft of graphic design, each illustrated with exemplary images and historical context. From concepts like manifestos (#25), pictograms (#45), propaganda (#22), found typography (#38), and the Dieter-Rams-coined philosophy that “less is more” (#73) to favorite creators like Alex Steinweiss, Noma Bar, Saul Bass, Paula Scher, and Stefan Sagmeister, the sum of these carefully constructed parts amounts to an astute lens not only on what design is and does, but also on what it should be and do.
—
100 Ideas That Changed Graphic Design | Brain Pickings
-
“Objects take on a kind of magical quality when viewed from this unusual perspective…and that’s exactly what drove photographer Alex MacLean to get a pilot’s license and take to the sky.”
Love love love.
-
The Golden Ratio Otherwise Known as Feng Shui | Blog | design mind →
Despite its perception in the West, Feng Shui does not involve mythology. Perhaps because of the manner it is talked about and presented, Feng Shui often gets brushed aside as superstitious hoo-ha. However, at the core, Feng Shui is an approach to energy, not an expression of religion. Feng Shui, referred as “qi,” can be described as the energy that surrounds everything in the world. For the West, this is recognized as electromagnetic energy or gravitational magnetic energy. While many Westerners believe that Feng Shui is only based on Asian mystical philosophy, it is in fact rooted much more in science.
-
![The answer to this question is an unqualified: Yes. They are. Nightmares.
theatlantic:
Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?
After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.
Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.
A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.
So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.
Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
Hello, nightmare fuel.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m31izp8leq1qcokc4o1_500.jpg "The answer to this question is an unqualified: Yes. They are. Nightmares.
theatlantic:
Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?
After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.
Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.
A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.
So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.
Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
Hello, nightmare fuel.")
The answer to this question is an unqualified: Yes. They are. Nightmares.
Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?
After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.
Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.
A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.
So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.
Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
Hello, nightmare fuel.
