This week’s readings had various sections which detailed how text–or even the paper itself–comes from a heavily politicized place. For example, Meggs and Purvis write about Alexander Rodchenko who was an “ardent communist” and “abandoned painting and turned to visual communication because his social views called for a sense of responsibility to society instead of to personal expression” (chapter 15 page 7). He was one of a few named Russian artists who saw a need to utilize their talents for political means.

Meggs and Purvis’s description of his “strong geometric construction, large areas of pure color, and concise, legible lettering” (chapter 15 page 7) makes me think of “the dynamic relationship of materiality and mattering in the page” as said by Mak. The description of Rodchenko’s art, in this case, would be the materiality and his communist philosophy would be the mattering. The “strong geometric construction” and “concise, legible lettering” makes evident Rodchenko was removing himself from abstract art in favor of direct and loud communication. Painting often consists of a scene or close-up which leaves much of the message up to the interpretation of the viewer. In line with modernist perspectives, Rodchenko moves on to a more “objective” form of art which leaves much less room for subjectivity.

Even later in his life, Rodchenko continued to use “bold, blocky type and hard-edged shapes…” (chapter 15 page 7). It makes me think of the Uncle Sam posters which featured huge letters and imagery that almost made it impossible to not read it. Out of curiosity, I looked up some of Rodchenko’s art and it looks stylistically similar. Presumably, the political messages of both were a major factor in why they are as eye-catching as they are. For the creators, it was imperative that they be read. Here, the message dictated the medium.