The Death Of Cursive

[Madeline Blackbart]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Artists design stuff so that it looks good to them; engineers design stuff so it's functional.

Very rarely is the former usable.

I'd prefer a car that starts and stops when I ask it to than one that looks good, rolls when confronted by a deer in its tracks, and rusts to bits in one winter, which is what happened when supposedly good engineering companies allowed artists a say in developing a car.

The "art" object I hated most in my childhood home was a supposedly wonderful tea set. The bloody teapot dribbled hot liquid all over the table, the floor and bare flesh. An artist must have designed it.

As for doors that you have to push to open which have handles, because the designer artist likes handles . . .

And don't get me started on unintuitive user interfaces emanating from Cupertino that think the whole world is illiterate!

To say nothing of the Microsoft Start button which is actually how you stop the machine.

ETA: I had a fight with the guy that curated The Design Museum in London because he put a 3B1 (The Olivetti/AT&T Unix PC) on display to exemplify information technology design - Olivetti didn't actually sell a single ONE of these in the UK, because, although they looked good in profile, they offered absolutely nothing that the customer wanted.

---

There is such a thing as functional art.  Part of good design includes functionality. A nicely designed webpage is no good is not functional. But it is still art. There is art that is meant to be looked at and is not functional. It still enhances the lives of the viewer in some way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_Emotion (though wikipedia is not always the best source it is a starting point for research). There's a reason for graphic design, which is a form of art. It is because people buy things baised on suggestion. People buy things because they look nice. Weither you like  it or not that makes art valuable in some way. People trust a nicely designed webpage over a shoddy looking one because it looks professional. Part of lookin professional has to do with ART. There's something to be said for that.

Basically graphic design= art. Graphic design is functional ergo art is functional.

[Madeline Blackbart]

---

AveryGriffin wrote:

I think you're confusing form vs function. Let's take a simple chair, for example!

 

This chair was created more for comfort than anything and has a simple yet pleasing shape. This chair is functional for its created purpose. However, it was still designed by someone, and design is an art.

 

This chair, while still called such a thing, had moved on from its original purpose and is now more of a sculpture. This chair has turned into purely form design. You can't really sit on it. This was also designed, and is also art.

 

Then we have this bench, which still very easily performs its intended purpose (you can sit on it), however it has still been elevated to something more of an art form than a simple bench design. It is both a functioning piece of furniture and also a sculpture. It is art.

Your teapot, while unfortunate, was not designed as something with no function in mind. It may have been poorly designed, and therefore both useless and annoying, but it was still made with the idea that you can use it. A teapot made out of wicker, for instance, would be form and not functional design. However, both are still art.

And who do you think makes the sketches for the good, yet ugly, cars? Just because they aren't up to current standards aesthetic wise (even tho all cars look the same nowadays) doesn't mean it was just poofed into existence. There was still design and thought put into it. And thus, the car is still a work of art.

---

Very true also there is architecture. Which when done right is both functional and artistically beautiful. I think he's failing to see that art can exist for both the purposes of pure beauty (which has it's own value though perhaps not immediatly apparent) and function. Ergo art can (but is not always) functional.

EDIT: as having pics repeated is redundent.

 

Edit also art has done much to help with modern convience. There would certianly be no video games, television, movies, easily viewable webpages, BOOKS or MUSIC without art. Second life as a community is at least partially built upon artists. GUI which is functional does not design itself. It is an art to create good usuable webpages and GUI while still having it easthetically pleasing. Do artist sometimes fail at functionality when they meant for it? Of course. So do engineers fail. The only reason failed art makes it through is it still retains a value as an art peice to be looked at.

 

I think your forgetting art encompasses a lot of things. Music isn't functional. Books that arn't instructional aren't functional. Does that mean they do not deserve to exist? Did you not profess to be an avid reader? Yet you look down on art of which writing is a part of?

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

What I *was* stating is that it has been customary for people who cannot write (cursive or otherwise) sign any documents with an X - addressing the population that is not learning disabled in any way.  Someone who cannot not read nor write is considered illiterate which is simply a definition, not a denigration.

I was also addressing the specific point asked - how would someone who cannot write in cursive sign a check.  Maddy has given one example.  I gave one from my own frame of reference.

Using "ignorant" as a blanket term is well ignorant.

Edit: Typo

---

 I'm aware of the "X" being used to sign a name.  But, that method was not used because a person didn't know cursive, as there's no rule that says one must sign a check or document in cursive.   The scenes you've seen, of an able bodied person signing with an "X", was due to them being illiterate.  Because, any form of writing one's name is acceptable on a check.  (My son prints his name.  It does look primitive, and scrawled, but that means nothing regarding the validity of the name)

 

So, since the "X" signing was indeed due to a person being illiterate, and you even used the word "illiterate" along with the,"haha" it does indeed look like an insult.   I stand by my commentary. 

Your reading comprehensive is a bit off though, as I didn't make a "blanket" term regarding the comments in this thread.  I wrote,"The ignorant" commentary, not, "all", or "everyone's".  I was referencing, "the" commentary, that was recognizable to me as being ignorant.  Those that do not recognize "the" commentary, or disagree with such, won't see it. 

 

 

 

Section 3-401(2) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

Signatures also form the legal basis of negotiable instruments. Section 3-401(2) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides that "[n]o person is liable on an instrument unless his signature appears thereon." The UCC defines the term signature as any name, Trade Name, assumed name, word, or other identifying mark used in lieu of a signature (§ 3-401(2)). The term signed is defined by the UCC as any symbol executed or adopted by a party with the "present intention of authenticating a writing" (§ 1-201(39)). Thus, commercial instruments, such as checks and promissory notes, may be signed by affixing any symbol that an individual intends to represent his signature. Consequently, courts will enforce commercial contracts signed with an X without regard to an individual's mental or physical ability to sign her full name, though mental or physical incapacity may be relevant if a particular contract is alleged to be the product of overreaching, Undue Influence, or coercion.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Artists design stuff so that it looks good to them; engineers design stuff so it's functional.

Very rarely is the former usable.

I'd prefer a car that starts and stops when I ask it to than one that looks good, rolls when confronted by a deer in its tracks, and rusts to bits in one winter, which is what happened when supposedly good engineering companies allowed artists a say in developing a car.

The "art" object I hated most in my childhood home was a supposedly wonderful tea set. The bloody teapot dribbled hot liquid all over the table, the floor and bare flesh. An artist must have designed it.

As for doors that you have to push to open which have handles, because the designer artist likes handles . . .

And don't get me started on unintuitive user interfaces emanating from Cupertino that think the whole world is illiterate!

To say nothing of the Microsoft Start button which is actually how you stop the machine.

ETA: I had a fight with the guy that curated The Design Museum in London because he put a 3B1 (The Olivetti/AT&T Unix PC) on display to exemplify information technology design - Olivetti didn't actually sell a single ONE of these in the UK, because, although they looked good in profile, they offered absolutely nothing that the customer wanted.

---

Many artists do indeed design for their own pleasure, and their ability to get at some emotional truth we all share is what makes their works engaging, satisfying and therefore valuable to us. As for engineers designing for function, they often fall short when the function requires engaging and satisfying the user of a thing. And that's why we have the endeavor of Industrial Design, where art and engineering come together.

The failure of English cars to start is the stuff of Lucas Electric legend, not the look of the car.

Failure to stop is generally a brake or driver distraction/cognition issue, not the look of the car.

Vehicle rolling became an issue when consumers migrated towards truck based SUVs. Trucks have higher centers of gravity because their varied uses and longer wheelbases require greater ground clearance. It's not the look of the car.

Premature rusting is the result of poor design for water handling, poor choice of materials, lack of anti-corrosion treatments, etc. It's not the look of the car.

Apple's products generally score high in usability tests and user satisfaction surveys. If the world finds their products unintuitive, it certainly doesn't show in the consumer data. You might be an outlier.

You'll get no argument from me about Microsoft. Bill Gates is engineer and ran his company from that perspective.

"Attractive things work better" gives an example (using a teapot!) of the interplay of form and function, showing that each has utility. The overall function of the things in our lives is to improve them, and that means satisfying our physical as well as emotional needs. I've never used a teapot like Norman's copy of the Carelman design, but I imagine a good quality implementation could retain the absurd humor of the original while paying careful attention to how one would actually attempt to use it, to ensure that you actually could use it.

I don't recall my Mother ever waxing rhapsodic about gadgets, but after installing iOS 7 on her phone and iPad, she has commented to me on how soft and pretty those devices now seem, having picked up the fall colors in the wall paper she selected to reflect them throughout the user interface.

What a delight it is to hold something in your hand, whether a handwritten letter, a teapot or a phone, and feel that the designer of that thing cared about you. I think this is what people feel they're losing with the fade of cursive handwriting.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

AveryGriffin wrote:

I think you're confusing form vs function. Let's take a simple chair, for example!

This chair was created more for comfort than anything and has a simple yet pleasing shape. This chair is functional for its created purpose. However, it was still designed by someone, and design is an art.

 

---

I am most definitely NOT confusing form with function; the former is what has been generated by historical forces, and is associated with the resources which can be brought to bear upon provision of functionality; it tends to be the area where unthinking engineers fail, because they are unwilling to reappraise a design using new materials, technology or other resources. Artists largely ignore utility and function for effect.

If you really want to take the chair shown as an exmple, I would point out that it is an abysmal example of how an unintelligent engineering-influenced designer has interpreted the sort of chair that Chippendal carved. My parents have one, and it has been consigned to the spare bedroom because

* it is uncomfortable to sit in

* it is too low for the standard modern male body, making it difficult to get out of

* the seat cushion deflates on impact

* it has no lower back support

* it is too thin for the standard modern male body

* the arms are thin and bony, which make them uncomfortable to rest on

* you can't balance a can of beer with any confidence on those arms

* people sitting by your side can not see your face when you are sittig back, stifling conversation

* the back legs protrude slightly from the frame. causing stubbed toes

* the legs are wood, scratching wood floors or making permanent indentations in carpets

I could go on, but I think my point has been made.

I am not going to deign to give a response to your questions about who produces sketches for car designs. Five year olds could - and do - copy existing designs - usually badly - in the same way that car designers "invent" new basic shapes. Technologists put those shapes into wind tunnels and revise the design. No artists involved any more, and cars have improved immeasurably (actually measurably) since they threw out the amateurs.

ETA: What a waste of good wood that extended bench is. You could have made another useful bench instead, or even burned it and kept a homeless person warm for a night while sleeping on the useful bench.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

Many artists do indeed design for their own pleasure, and their ability to get at some

emotional truth

---

Sorry, I didn't read your post any further than this absolute bollocks.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Madeline Blackbart wrote:

---

 Yet you look down on art of which writing is a part of?

---

No, just visual art.

And I think you are mixing art up with aesthetics, a mistake made by many putative artists, particularly those who claim that websites are works of art. Get real; if they are not hobby-sites, then they are commercial vehicles, in one way or another, and art just gets in the way. What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page.

---

Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I actually typed and removed two posts about that If any page shows a lot of artistic dribbles, it's google.

EDIT and I usually enjoy them too!

[Studio09]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

...  What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality.

---

 That is where you show your ignorance of what art is.  That white space is a design decision, an artistic decision.  Art is not only the presence of color, forms, lines but about the absence of them too.  Just as music is not about filling every measure with notes, sounds but also about the absence of them.   One of the main principles of art is "form follows function".

Edit: change to correct synonym

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Studio09 wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

...  What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality.

---

 That is where you show your ignorance of what art is.  That white space is a design decision, an artistic decision.  Art is not only the presence of color, forms, lines but about the absence of them too.  Just as music is not about filling every measure with notes, sounds but also about the absence of them.   One of the main principals of art is "form follows function".

---

Years ago, I visited a client's office. The CEO and creative director were out, but I got a chance to peer into their adjacent offices. The contrast could not have been sharper. The CEO's office was austere. A small round conference table, two chairs, a simple sculpture on the floor, a desk with an iMac on it. The creative director's office was a hoarder's dream. Every horizontal surface was covered with toys, his desk, the conference table, shelves on the walls and in the windows. The company store downstairs had less merchandise.

That client of mine had been on my radar for years and I was thrilled to get the chance to work with them. I'd have done it for free (and I nearly did ;-). There was something about their aesthetic sense that resonated with me and it's taken me half a lifetime to absorb it. Never had I seen such a cohesive expression of a company's DNA, across everything they did, from their products to the design of their headquarters to their internal "University" for training anyone and everyone what it is they do, how they do it and, most importantly... why they do it.

I grew up in a cluttered house (still live here;-). We had stuff everywhere, tools, materials, books, driftwood and stones from the beach, antiques who's function we could only guess and all the stuff we got from garage sales to take apart, all taken apart.

The stark contrast of those two offices still haunts me. As much as I love my clutter, I find I'm more at peace in spartan surroundings and freer to think. Clutter is history and distraction. Free space is possibility and focus. So, I've begun thinning my hoard. I believe your surroundings affect your thinking, and I am working to change my surroundings.

[AveryGriffin]

Meanwhile Google is looking like this today~

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

AveryGriffin wrote:

Meanwhile Google is looking like this today~

---

Yep, and for as much as I dislike Google's sometimes making a mockery of "Don't Be Evil", the Doodles are clearly (to me) done with care by thoughtful people.

[Pamela Galli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/its-not-mess-its-creativity.html

 

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Ah, so the secret behind google's success IS the doodle, which makes us subjects enter more creative search phrases....

[Madelaine McMasters]

I've been reading for decades that my messy desk, office and house (the desk and the office are in the house), are all signs I'm creative. I'm a sample size of one and friends say I confirm the theory. Yet whenever I visit another home that's tastefully decorated, with lots of wall space and unobstructed windows, I want to live there. So, I'm reducing the clutter in my house, removing those things I never use and keeping only what I do. Gone are all the freebie coffee mugs I got from vendors, the plastic patio plates and the dog and pig corn holders from my childhood.

There's a happy medium here somewhere and I aim to find it!

Thanks for that link, Pamela. I don't think I'll ever be able to clear my desk, so there's a limit to how much I can stifle my own creativity.

;-)

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page.

---

It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history.

ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late.

ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage.

---

They employ a TEAM of illustrators to produce the occasional kitsch doodle? Presumably they are cheap labour.

ETA: It's its not it's.

 

[Keli Kyrie]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage.

---

They employ a TEAM of illustrators to produce the occasional kitsch doodle? Presumably they are cheap labour.

ETA: It's its not it's.

 

---

I think you will be surprised how crazy this whole doodle thing is: http://9to5google.com/2013/03/08/meet-googles-doodle-team-a-group-of-artists-and-technologists-who-create-10-seconds-of-homepage-happiness-video/

 

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Studio09 wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

...  What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality.

---

 That is where you show your ignorance of what art is.  That white space is a design decision, an artistic decision.  Art is not only the presence of color, forms, lines but about the absence of them too.  Just as music is not about filling every measure with notes, sounds but also about the absence of them.   One of the main principles of art is "form follows function".

Edit: change to correct synonym

---

On the side of my bed I have two books, which - by YOUR argument - must contain all the amassed knowledge of civilisation. One is "What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School" by Mark H McCormack, and the other is "What they teach you at Harvard Business School" by Philip Delves Broughton.

If art is things, and the absence of things, then we are all artists; however, there is then actually no such thing as art, because art is universal and infinite, and, it not being possible to distinguish art from non-art, art is therefore an indiscriminate concept which can not be identified and therefore not discussed.

Therefore, by your definition of art, you are wasting your time.

ETA: "form follows function" is not a generic tenet of art. It originates from architecture, Wolfgang Loos proclaiming that ornamentation was criminal, with the whole Modernist School jumping on board his bandwagon. If anything, "form follows function" is a denial of the necessity for the involvement of the artist in the design process. Try not arguing against yourself, eh?

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Keli Kyrie wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage.

---

They employ a TEAM of illustrators to produce the occasional kitsch doodle? Presumably they are cheap labour.

ETA: It's its not it's.

 

---

I think you will be surprised how crazy this whole doodle thing is:

http://9to5google.com/2013/03/08/meet-googles-doodle-team-a-group-of-artists-and-technologists-who-create-10-seconds-of-homepage-happiness-video/

 

---

Wow! They pay actual real money to a baker's dozen of tyro apprentices to commemorate the 107th anniversary of a culturally insignificant comic strip (Little Nemo in Slumberland? When does the box office smash movie premier?) to embellish a website with the  intent - doomed to failure of course - of making "everybody on earth happier for ten seconds"? Crazy understates it.

ETA: Yeah, they use Macs. It figures. They probably have to be reminded on a daily basis how to spell Google.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history.

---

And you base this all on..... ?

Google used a new algorythm, maybe it took a while before that translated into good results, but it's certainly the reason why Google became such a success.

"Far and away the biggest reason for Google's success is that they provide the best search results for their users",

"innovations in search technology made it the No. 1 search engine",

"Google delivered unusually relevant results compared to the existing search engines"

"Page and Brin began the Google project due to their belief that the system used by other search engines was not the best way of giving relevant results"

 

This list can go on and on, just google for it.

 

I'm sure the fact that there aren't too many distractions doesn't hurt one bit, but claiming Google's success is based on it is just ludicrous.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

ETA: "form follows function" is not a generic tenet of art. It originates from architecture, Wolfgang Loos proclaiming that ornamentation was criminal, with the whole Modernist School jumping on board his bandwagon. If anything, "form follows function" is a denial of the necessity for the involvement of the artist in the design process. Try not arguing against yourself, eh?

---

So the way you see it an artist only makes ornaments and without ornaments there is no art? That makes it pretty hard to explain why modernism is not just an architectural movement, but also one in painting for example. If anything in Loos' designs is important, it's not the lack of ornaments, it's the spacial composition. Not exactly a contractors field, I'd say that's an architect's one and architects are at the very least partially artists.

Ever cared to look at some of Loos' interiors btw? Even Adolf (not Wolfgang) himself knew very well that people can't live in a purely functional factorylike building. A beautiful example on this page.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

maybe it took a while before that translated into good results,

---

And that's the period during which the plug would have been pulled (as it was on other, more established search engines) if it had not proved so popular  because of its simplicity in providing good, bad and middling results. Remember, Google's business success has little to do with the efficacy of its search algorithm (note the correct spelling to improve the credibility of your arguments in future) and everything to do with its innovative and effective advertising sales model.