"Rethinking Modernism, Revising Functionalism" Katherine McCoy" 

The first thing i want to express after reading this is how happy and excited i am to start recognizing more and more what these designers are talking about without having to google every name and movement.  There is something to be said about Andrea having us read this piece  by someone who studied under Massimo Vignelli when she herself has studied under a comparable name such as Paul Rand.  Like in a game of telephone there is only Andrea's interpretation of the message between me and Paul.  A quote that stuck out to me is  "Text can be animated with vices and images can be read, as well as seen, with an emphasis on audience interpretation and participation in the construction of meaning"  i am currently reading "How to be a Graphic Designer without losing  your Soul" and this quote reminded me that when doing a design there are always three people you are designing for;  you as the designer/the design world, the client, and the audience all whom speak a different language.  In combining these thoughts i too agree with McCoys concluding statements that change is possible and it does matter in all lives.

"On Overcoming Modernism" Lorraine Wild

"Unfamiliar forms of work produced in response to major changes in technology are often classified as 'ugly' because of their formal strangeness, and interpreted as evidence of aesthetic malfeasance, the obliteration of standards and practices of craft." When looking at this statement in the context of Cult of the Ugly i look to the closing paragraph where the comment "Ugliness is valid, even refreshing, when it is key to an indigenous language representing alternative ideas and cultures" I think it is important for this sort of experimental work that has been classified as ugly work being produced. When deciding if something if something is ugly based on its functionality...well,  the functionality of this experimental work is given by us discussing its ugliness.  Its function is other designers looking at it and deciding it is "ugly" in order to to have something that is "beautiful," to see that it doesn't work or that it will work with a change to give it a function not just for designers to sit and discuss but to the audiences, clients, and designers as a whole. The concluding paragraph is another interesting subject and reminds me of ( i know one thing always leads to another) Remember Type and Image that we read for Jeremy and the kid is trying to explain to his grandma about his project only to have her ask what he really did, she didn't understand.  It goes back to the three audiences we design for.  Different aspects are seen and understood by different audiences. That is just the way it is, in my opinion at least.

"An Interview with Steven Heller"  Michael Dooley

"experiment" is too broad

This is interesting to me because i think that full out experimentation is supposed to be broad.  This kind of experimentation is when accidents happen, some good some bad.  A comment Andrea made about my book cover process was that i had a lot and most were really bad. But i was experimenting i needed to get those out of the way in order to get to the final.  There were already size requirements and other things that come with making a book cover title and author blah blah blah so with image i gave myself no boundaries sometimes i was just checking out effects sometimes placement then after realizing those things didn't work i was able to use those things i learned for the finished project and i am sure in other projects to come.  What are the limitations of Graphic Design? The marketplace determines these, if i do work for myself just to do it here are no limitations maybe it gets seen by someone and used in a way i never would have thought maybe it doesn't.  Failing is a part of success through experimentation and process of creating "ugly" work and "beautiful" work, we hope not to "diminish all of design" but to know all of its faces, ugly or beautiful.