I have been tossing all of this around in my head for the past day in a half... Fundamentals Studio was an amazing experiance for me. I believe during that semester I learned to think. And one of the things that has really stuck with me from that time has been the idea of Variations and Alternatives. These days I think of the same concept with the terms convergent and divergent thinking. Those ways of thinking I believe are very basic to making and coming up with newgoodgreat ideas/concepts and are both equally important in finding THE solution

When thinking of [New] fundamentals, as this discussion is focused on, I think of the importance of Audience (the people/person), Artifacts (the made thing/things), Context(space/existence/life-span) and how they all come together to accomplish that set goal whether it is a personal one or one for a client. Over the past almost 4 years I have learned and used these things time and time again. Really, a project can't be done without taking note of them.

More key fundamentals that we talk about all the time are also TIME, pacing, and space. These are also prime important.

It seems sort of that with the dive into graphic design our basic rather concrete fundamentals of color, layout, etc have turned to more conceptual ones.

Wow, this is weird...

under my bed/a flat long bin holding black binders that I once organized all of my early work into from my first year of fundamentals. I open the first binder labeled chair poster and beet studies.

I open up to a page where I had done a little reasearch on Eero Saarinen for my chair poster. I remember thinking this was such a big project, we finally got to arrange a few elements on the page such as the date, the cut-out image of the chair and one graphic element that was indexical even though I had no clue what that meant, Craft was crucial, only 2 layers of carefully cut-out construction paper could be used and applied and 2 colors were chosen. I spent hours on it, one project one final product.

Reflecting on the project briefs and the task of showing basic fundamental actions or words was not as evident then but now I see provided a basis and foundation for being confident and able to build upon what I have learned, showing process and being able to solve more complex problems. I love looking back and thinking, wow, that used to be so hard, now look, we barely think about it! Is that good or bad? I dont know, does that mean we are comfortable with fundamentals or does that mean we should revisit the fundamentals like we are now so we can take the knowledge that we know now and reflect again and again and again. Maybe we dont think about fundamentals enough. Scale,perspective, balance, instability, simplicity, continuity, compostition, symmetry, asymmetry, form, complextity, organic, geometric, depth, flatness, iterations, process, singularity, fragmentation, unity, stasis, activeness, random, sequential, sharpness, diffusion etc etc. Thinking about these I wonder if there are more b/c I think there are, and then I question if I really do know them all!!!!! I feel like I could go on, or I feel like maybe I went too far.

I used to think of things so sequentially and felt uncomfortable skipping, or beginning in a different way, or working my way backwards, etc. Time was crucial and more elements were being added to the picture and we had to deal with them. I focused on details but in a different way 4 years ago. I can see the whole picture now a lot better but still enjoy focusing on the details, it seems a little more clear when I opened to this quote in the binder by Eero Saarinen:

"All the curves, all the spaces and elements right down to the shape of the signs, display boards, railings and check-in desks were to be of a matching nature. We wanted passengers passing through the building to experience a fully-designed enviornment, in which each part arised from another and everything belongs to the same formal world."

"We should stop thinking of our individual buildings. We should take the advice my father gave me, 'Always look at the next larger thing.' When the prblem is a building, we should look at the spaces and relationships that that building creates with others...

I read these quotes and can relate to it eventhough I am not an architect. As a graphic designer, I am dealing with the same problems and coming up with solutions. I take elements and try to piece them together to make meaning and build a experience that makes sense to another person or receiver. HOwever, I can work from a bigger picture and work down too. But what I think these quotes are getting at is that I am not so concerned and focused on one thing anymore like you are when you are a freshman first learning. (eventhough it seems like 30 other things) but pieces come together now and you relate, form context and an experience that makes sense. I will be learning how to do this for forever more and will continually look back and reflect.

additional comments to come, but research tonight has given me some thoughts that i need to dispense before bed.

britt, your 6 (if i counted correctly) vocab terms are great starting blocks. the idea that they all come together is a key thought. context is the big idea i keep coming across tonight in the contemporary art research. recontextualizing and juxtapositioning is what is making this art new. but when you look at past art movements, the same holds true. duchamp and his "nude descending the staircase" was one of the first paintings to display movement in time in one instance. and he brought it to america. this was recontextualized. it was a new perspective. he also placed a urinal in an exhibition and called it art. this involved the audience and their reactions.

now we are dealing with some new ideas and ways of displaying art, but the idea of form, color, line, etc. is still holding ground within this new context.

what is also interesting is that we are dealing with issues about art that no one has found answers to yet. questions as to why have these museums and is all of this really art. we are about to graduate and enter a world where people are looking to us for the answers. another reason to be well-versed on the subject, know the history and where you're coming from, and take advantage of your resources.

i'm out.

Per my experiences, I see the world growing in complexity. Technologies (like public K-12 education) are fusing. Information is merging and compacting. For example, your phone can function as your palm pilot, alarm, web browser, camera, radio and movie theater and still fit in your pocket. [we are pushed to move faster and absorb MORE] I feel the way art and design is taught should continue to move in the same direction.

Although the present fundamentals are solid, we need to expand on them and incorporate design skills that will be needed to communicate in a complex, communication filled world that has the attention span of a 12 week old.

That would require us to examine juxtaposition, depth of field, the frame, diegetic sound, editing, lighting and duration as the [new] fundamentals. Perhaps it would be the second level of understanding line, color, texture, pattern, shape/form and space. Or better yet it is the act of making the present fundamentals live in 3D environments and react to the viewer.

On a different subject, I think knowing the software packages (Adobe, Macromedia products, etc.) you will use in practice is just as important as knowing the basics (space, value, texture, etc.). Without the knowledge of the tools, you can not produce the basics and will end up unhappy, unsuccessful and out of time.

initial areas to be expanded later today:

concept
materials
process
context - time+space
form

in 'Principals of Form and Design', Wucius Wong separates the formal aspects of design into these categories:

conceptual elements
visual elements
relational elements
practical elements

still trying to articulate a map of my updated list against those areas

i really thought that teaching technology earlier would be a good idea, but maybe it needs to be more about fearlessness with any material? i also think that graphic design could extend the use of the first three semesters...speaking to peers it seems a lot of people felt like they did the same project a lot.

ok - more later -

My experience with design fundamentals is different from you all, as I transfered directly into sophomore year. So truly, Martha's first studio exposed only a tad of the adventures freshmen go on.

At the college I attended previous to NCState, software was the focus. And advertising. And the audience. The FUNDAMENTALS of Design took a secondary role.
On the other hand, I majored in Art during my last two years of high school (it's standard to major in a certain area in grades 12 and 13 in Germany). The first year focused on painting, the second was all about sculpture.
Historically, stylistically, thematically, point-of-view, metaphorically. These approaches to me all speak to Fundamentals of Art. History provides us with a wealth of exemplary works and reactions to it. And I think it is important for us to hold on to this 'legacy.'
At the same time, as was said on multiple posts, we are in a fantastic position to be in at this point in time in this environment.
Design has become a solid profession with a discourse to follow, and hence offers the same historical benchmarks to feed off.
Form. Our understanding of forms. Relating form to emotion/living things/attitude - in a circular fashion.
Canvas. What are we working with?
Subject. What are we saying/// [what question would we ask in art?]
Color.
Psychology.
Communication.
Dimensions. Not only of the work of art but of the space it lives in. The place it refers to.
Narrative. Virtually but also traditionally told.

The NEW.FUNDAMENTALS mirror the OLD.FUNDAMENTALS. Yet considering true interactivity in all ways.

More later.

The duration of artwork is changing, the methods of distribution are changing, our idea of the lonely artist is being replaced by collaborative groups. Art is almost more temporary, public, accessible. If web-based work now has the possibility to be considered art, then why would an artist say no? Depending on who they want to talk to, or about, it may be their best opportunity. Private collectors and museum patrons are not the only ones who can be reached.

I agree with this whole reversal thing. It's not like the traditional fundamentals are less important, it just seems like we talk about them in a different order. New options make opening discussion of art about the scale of the audience, not the aesthetics. Aaaaand this is where the design/art line gets all crazy.

motion, sequencing, time, space, context, color, light, pattern, rhuthm, sound, mathematics, texture, era, size, scale, density, value, balance, dominance (hierarchy), proportion, closure, continuity, similarity, proximity, alignment, contrast, positive/negative space, typography, juxtaposition, dischord, resolution, compression, haptics, identity (personal identity in a virtual environment as well as perception of spatial self moving in a created environment), mutability, frame rate, brightness, simultanaety, transparency.

So this is a jumble of ideas all based on the concept that you can change (on or off) one aspect (fundamental concept) of one instance (each object) in a set of scenarios (a group of objects) and create discontinuity.

It seems for me that the artist community has necessarily incorporated engineers and number crunchers, because these individuals will often times be much more efficient at delivering a message. It seems now that psychology is the only thing that differentiates robot or construction worker from an artist. Robots and construction workers are both told to do a specific task, and task completion is analogous to success. If a robot or construction worker had an in depth or inherent understanding of human interaction and social/personality psychology, that entity would question the original orders given to be able to determine if the orders will effectively deliver the desired message or complete the desired task. We've had to incorporate new fundamentals into design as new populations are able to think the way we've been trained in simply a new medium.

As I sit here trying to think of new fundamentals of art and design that I may have come across through my past 4 years of study one thing comes to mind. I often feel there are no fundamentals that work in EVERY case. These fundamentals change from project to project, person to person, message to message. Part of the challenge of design is to make it unique. Is it possible to have guidelines for making something unique? Maybe you have an outline you follow in your process but it still must stay fairly loose to keep the ideas fresh and new. Fundamentals are standards. Standards can be limiting... maybe a good foundation to build from but not to be restricted by....hmmmmmm

OOORRRRR maybe that is a new fundamental...to break away from standards. (thinking out loud)

Language, Systems,....

and this:

quick thought: maybe since design, world, people, time, and even fundamentals are changing: and we can always refer to history, things that are stable and things that work, maybe new fundamentals are more a way of thinking and should be an action that is (pro)active rather than an adjective, or noun like scale. The word scale will always be an issue as designers and that is why its a fundamental, but now, its taking that word and not only understanding it but applying it, making it gel with other words and maybe even ask the question of how our new fundamentals is aksing ourselves how design is being perceived by the public?(culturally, economically, and educationally to name a few) Just like Jenna said earlier with everything merging together and having multiple uses, functions and purposes. Today, we have to take the fundamentals such as scale relationships, proximity, balance, etc and use them to communicate to the public and inform. We are problem solvers and our new fundamentals is communication and doing what Tony said, being story tellers, visual communicators through whatever medium that is appropriate. We see things with a holistic approach and therefore can appeal to many audiences and consider options, and alternatives with persistence to make something work. Today our fundamentals should be us acting rather reacting. WE need to get our ideas out there, inform, and find a way to make (art) and design to be perceived by the putblic, meaning all people. Because we are the communicators and understand how to communicate.

While my fundamentals experience (first semester, and I'm only choosing to look at the first semester since it addresses design as a whole) did pay attention to form, the major focus was on thinking/developing a creative thought process. I liked this approach to fundamentals since I felt that the focus on building process applied to all disciplines of design.

I think issues that should be discussed/taught in a new fundamentals should also include, in addition to the formal aspects listed above, but by no means be limited to:

Sustainability
Morals
Consequence/Repercussion
Objectivity
Acknowledgement of Cultural Differences
Power/Potential of Design

Fundamentals.

Fundamentals: forming a foundation or basis

The word foundation sticks in my head. Foundation. We may all agree that the fundamentals are scale, color, light, composition, rhythm, asymmetry, symmetry, form, depth, sequence and perspective. And we all may agree that they existed, still exist and must exist. But with this “new” fundamental theory approaching, are we placing the elements I fore mentioned on the back burner? Are we essentially replacing them, out with the in with the new? I would hope not. In my way of thinking, I see the basic, original fundamentals of art and design as the foundation of the house. And over time, as things change, you build upon the house with new materials and resources. In doing so, you never strip the foundation, out of fear that what you’ve built will fall apart.

After reading everyones posts, i would like to comment on how we are thinking.

i believe all of us would agree that the now fundamentals of color, scale, balance, etc. are essential in understanding effective communication.
Yet we seem to be talking/addressing the *new* fundamentals in different lights. One grouping addresses the audience, context, sustainability, morals, consequences, objectivity, time and environment. These are avenues for setting up guidelines for our process/artifacts. We should accept these responsibilities on every project and make them function in our final design. I believe this is the forward thinking required by all the 'design' fields (computer science, architects, communication, etc). If all designers worked by this *code*, in lamest terms, we would not have ads that tell you a way to get a wife is to buy XXX car.

Another grouping addresses more dynamic makeups/designs. Narrative, dimension, sound, juxtaposition, unity and fragmentation are more speaking to dynamic design practices. These should be applied as new fundamentals to interactive design, websites and print/branding campaigns (creating a cohesive connection from one ad to the next, etc.). We have to make sure our message is direct and cohesive.

All lights/views are relevant and all are needed to have a successful piece. I agree with Colleen that not all fundamentals are used in every project, yet we have to be conscious enough to make those decisions. In theory on thursday, meredith was talking about berlo's components of a message (content, elements, structure, code and treatment) and conveying how the world is moving toward more tailored messages. In order for us to be effective, we must know the research, we must know who we are targeting and we must know how to communicate with them.