Graphic Design Discourse

In David Batchelor's 'Chromophobia' there's a great quotation from Le Corbusier's ‘The Decorative Art of Today’:

“What shimmering silks, what fancy, glittering marbles, what opulent bronzes and golds! What fashionable blacks, what striking vermilions, what silver lamés from Byzantium and the Orient! Enough. Such stuff founders in a narcotic haze. Let's have done with it... It's time to crusade for whitewash and Diogenes.”

Le Corbusier’s position is shared with Adolf Loos, who writes, in ‘Ornament and Crime’:
 
“I have therefore evolved the following maxim, and pronounce it to the world: the evolution of culture marches with the elimination of ornament from useful objects.”

These two bombastic quotes made me think about my position on novelty and newness - on design that tries to stay ahead of the game by adopting the latest trends, a tactic that could be seen as a form of decoration. Thinking of how graphic design styles are ‘recycled’ and how Modernism has been re-appraised in recent graphic design practice, I wondered if Modernism itself had become decorative - another style to be used at whim?

In the first volume of ‘Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design’, edited by Michael Bierut, William Drenttel, Steven Heller and DK Holland, there is a chapter titled ‘Modernism and its Malcontents’. In an essay called ‘Good History/Bad History’, the joint authors, Tibor Kalman, J. Abbott Miller and Karrie Jacobs introduce the phrase ‘Jive Modernism’:

“There’s a lot of confusion about Modernism these days, mostly engendered by the use and abuse of the term ‘Post-modernism’. Jive Modernism is not Post-modernism. In a way, it’s the opposite. In architecture, Post-modernism has come to mean the habit of affixing pre-modernist stuff - classical ornament - to the facades of otherwise modernist buildings. In graphics, the term has been used to mean just about anything, at least anything that departs form the most austere, Swiss-born, corporate-bred Modernism.”

“And in reviving Modernism, jive modernism is a denial of the essential  point of Modernism, its faith in the power of the present, and the potential of the future.”

“Jive modernism has invoked Modernism as nostalgia.”

Adopting styles from previous eras has always been a part of graphic design practice. In the 1980s, appropriation (to adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects (or the entire form) of man-made visual culture) could be found everywhere - in art, in music and, in particular, in graphic design. In an article called ‘The Age of Plunder’ published in ‘The Face’ in January 1983, journalist Jon Savage looks at the phenomena of appropriation as a form of “rampant nostalgia that acts as a major piece of weaponry for the militant New Right”. He continues:

“It is a characteristic of our age that there is very little sense of community, of any real sense of history, as THE PRESENT is all that matters.”

“The Past is then turned into the most disposable of consumer commodities, and is thus dismissable: the lessons which it can teach us are thought trivial, are ignored amongst a pile of garbage.”

If Modernism is not to become another style adopted meaninglessly and as decoration then we need  to understand the original ideas that shaped it. Massimo Vignelli, in an essay called ‘Long Live Modernism!’, published in ‘Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design’, writes:

“Modernism was never a style, but an attitude. This is often misunderstood by those designers who dwell on the form rather than on the content of Modernism. From the beginning, Modernism had the urgency of utopianism: to make the world better by design.”

(download)

Click here to download:

video.mov (13.85 MB)

A film, made in 1972, that expresses Charles Eames’ approach to the design process. The questions and answers were the conceptual basis of the exhibition ‘Qu’est ce que le design?’ at the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, Palais de Louvre in 1972. 

Charles Eames (1907-1978) was an American architect who designed buildings and objects including toys and furniture, in association with his wife, Ray Kaiser.

Questions by Madame. L. Amic, answers by Charles Eames.

Q: “What is your definition of ‘Design,’ Monsieur Eames?

A: “One could describe Design as a plan for arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose.”

Q: “Is Design an expression of art?”

A: “I would rather say it’s an expression of purpose. It may, if it is good enough, later be judged as art.”

Q: “Is Design a craft for industrial purposes?”

A: “No, but Design may be a solution to some industrial problems.”

Q: “What are the boundaries of Design?”

A: “What are the boundaries of problems?”

Q: “Is Design a discipline that concerns itself with only one part of the environment?”

A: “No.”

Q: “Is it a method of general expression?”

A: “No. It is a method of action.”

Q: “Is Design a creation of an individual?”

A: “No, because to be realistic, one must always recognize the influence of those that have gone before.”

Q: “Is Design a creation of a group?”

A: “Very often.”

Q: “Is there a Design ethic?”

A: “There are always Design constraints, and these often imply an ethic.”

Q: “Does Design imply the idea of products that are necessarily useful?”

A: “Yes, even though the use might be very subtle.”

Q: “Is it able to cooperate in the creation of works reserved solely for pleasure?”

A: “Who would say that pleasure is not useful?”

Q: “Ought form to derive from the analysis of function?”

A: “The great risk here is that the analysis may be incomplete.”

Q: “Can the computer substitute for the Designer?”

A: “Probably, in some special cases, but usually the computer is an aid to the Designer.”

Q: “Does Design imply industrial manufacture?”

A: “Not necessarily.”

Q: “Is Design used to modify an old object through new techniques?”

A: “This is one kind of Design problem.”

Q: “Is Design used to fit up an existing model so that it is more attractive?”

A: “One doesn’t usually think of Design in this way.”

Q: “Is Design an element of industrial policy?”

A: “If Design constraints imply an ethic, and if industrial policy includes ethical principles, then yes—design is an element in an industrial policy.”

Q: “Does the creation of Design admit constraint?”

A: “Design depends largely on constraints.”

Q: “What constraints?”

A: “The sum of all constraints. Here is one of the few effective keys to the Design problem: the ability of the Designer to recognize as many of the constraints as possible; his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints. Constraints of price, of size, of strength, of balance, of surface, of time, and so forth. Each problem has its own peculiar list.”

Q: “Does Design obey laws?”

A: “Aren’t constraints enough?”

Q: “Are there tendencies and schools in Design?”

A: “Yes, but these are more a measure of human limitations than of ideals.”

Q: “Is Design ephemeral?”

A: “Some needs are ephemeral. Most designs are ephemeral.”

Q: “Ought Design to tend towards the ephemeral or towards permanence?”

A: “Those needs and Designs that have a more universal quality tend toward relative permanence.”

Q: “How would you define yourself with respect to a decorator? an interior architect? a stylist?”

A: “I wouldn’t.”

Q: “To whom does Design address itself: to the greatest number? to the specialists or the enlightened amateur? to a priviledged social class?”

A: “Design addresses itself to the need.”

Q: “After having answered all these questions, do you feel you have been able to practice the profession of ‘Design’ under satisfactory conditions, or even optimum conditions?”

A: “Yes.”

Q: “Have you been forced to accept compromises?”

A: “I don’t remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have willingly accepted constraints.”

Q: “What do you feel is the primary condition for the practice of Design and for its propagation?”

A: “A recognition of need.”

Q: “What is the future of Design?”

We live in a society where we use the internet, newspapers, magazine and television to gather news. But are we restricted by the truth? Is there such a thing as free press? 

I have found an interesting article recently published in the Evening Standard by Laura Craik, which relates to screen, is Google making us stupid? The article speaks about how much we indulge in today internet without being aware of it.

Its title: ‘We are living one click apart from reality’.

This week, we have been mostly watching Annie. On a loop. Every night. My three-year-old is obsessed with it, to the point that I can now sing a word-perfect rendition of It's A Hard-Knock Life, should Jay-Z ever wish to reprise his 1998 hit single with a duet.

Nothing can prepare you for a child's capacity for repetitious behaviour: it starts in the cradle and continues to the grave. Because we're all at it, aren't we? While she is busy watching Annie, my husband is busy checking emails and I'm busy Googling mattresses, duvet covers and hypoallergenic pillows like a loon.

A typical week-night in our house: put daughter to bed, eat dinner, move upstairs to watch TV, flick through channels, proclaim TV “rubbish”, then settle down on our respective sofas with our laptops. There's always something to do: an email to reply to, a Facebook page to update, a ticket to book, a household object to buy. And when there isn't, I swear I invent one.

Do I live in the present? Rarely. Maybe when I'm writing, but even then I break off frequently to check emails and ebay and mumsnet and bbc.co.uk in a futile attempt to calibrate the myriad random thoughts that pop into my mind.

How many tabs were open on your computer today? Four? Five? Why? Did you only look out of the window because your eyes were so dry and your head so fuzzy that you couldn't scroll any more? Life has shrunk to the pale blue oblong of a computer screen.

A recent survey claims that more than a quarter of secondary school pupils are spending over six hours a day on the computer. Surely this is hardly surprising, when computers are now used routinely in the classroom and for homework. Compared with the 10-plus hours I spend on mine, it seems fairly moderate. Obviously, children will follow where adults lead.

So news that a London clinic is to start treating children as young as 12 for addictions to technology only prompts the thought “What took you so long?” I wonder whether the parents seeking treatment for these children are the same ones who plonked a TV in their rooms so they can watch their own DVDs without bothering mum and dad. To your average parent, addiction to TV seems more benign than addiction to computer games or the internet, because we are more complicit in it.

I bet the concerned parents freaking out over their children's gaming/internet usage are those who don't partake very much in either. Those who do probably wouldn't even notice.

None of us is aware of how bizarre, relentless and all-encompassing our computer usage has become. Tonight, I shall watch Annie with fresh eyes, a closed laptop and the bittersweet know-ledge that soon, my daughter will be singing the words to songs I don't know, with friends I'll never meet, who inhabit an online netherworld, just as we do.

Laura Craik (18.03.10) Evening Standard We are living one click apart from reality.

I completely agree, we are living one click apart from reality, almost inside our computer screens. We are so constantly surrounded by the net it almost seems unavoidable. If it’s not at work, it’s at home, if it’s not at home it’s on our smart phones. There’s always an easy way round. I feel this has got so bad that we are living in a bubble as we seem to be doing everything online. E-mailing, online shopping, social networking, blogging, the list goes on and on.  Seems like in today’s society, we have forgotten about reality and about living in the present. Like Laura Craik mentions ‘Life has shrunken to the pale blue oblong of a computer screen’.  Although the internet is without doubt an advancement to technology and a revolutionary information distributor, I believe it is also corrupting the human mind to a certain extent. Reading from a computer screen itself as Carr describes it ‘has become a struggle’. Our mind is being fed with too much mish mash and jargon. We are constantly bombarded with pop ups, commercial advertisements, uncensored information as we flick from one website to another without realizing it. All this fast information can be distressing to our brains. 

In Laura Craik’s article she raises the question ‘How many tabs were open on your computer today? Four, five, Why? Did you only look out of the window because our eyes were so dry and your head so fuzzy that you couldn’t scroll anymore?’ I believe she expresses what most of us feel. I find it hard to stay focused and feel myself loosing concentration most of the time. Carrs point of view is also very similar, ‘And what the net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects information the way the net distributes it’. This raises a few questions for debate.  Are we turning into machines?  & Are we being controlled by the net?

"Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?”  

So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial “ brain. “Dave, my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it.”

I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

Nicholas Carr (July/August 2008) The Atlantic Online What the internet is doing to our brains

You have two goblets before you. One is of solid gold, wrought in the most exquisite patterns. The other is of crystal-clear glass, thin as a bubble, and as transparent. Pour and drink; and according to your choice of goblet, I shall know whether or not you are a connoisseur of wine. For if you have no feelings about wine one way or the other, you will want the sensation of drinking the stuff out of a vessel that may have cost thousands of pounds; but if you are a member of that vanishing tribe, the amateurs of fine vintages, you will choose the crystal, because everything about it is calculated to reveal rather than to hide the beautiful thing which it was meant to contain.
From The Crystal Goblet by Beatrice Warde (1900 - 1969).

The democratization of graphic design through liberating technologies such as Microsoft Word has created a situation where anyone can have a go at being a graphic designer. Posters, leaflets, booklets and other documents can be designed and printed in black and white or full colour at the desktop and then distributed to a waiting world.

Andrew Keen, in an exchange with Emily Bell on the Guardian website in 2007, wonders “Is today’s internet killing our culture?”, decides that it is, and calls for “cultural gatekeepers” to safeguard our cultural heritage. As graphic designers, should we be worried about the cultural heritage of graphic design now that the ‘masses’ have the ability to produce quick, inexpensive design at the flick of a template?

New technologies have liberated not only the man on the street but designers too. Not so long ago design happened in several stages: rough designs on paper which were then translated into more detailed specifications; casting off of type; typesetting; revising mistakes; pasting up as artwork; scanning and preparing plates then finally printing. Any mistakes along the way were expensive to correct and the quality of the end product depended, to some extent, on the abilty of the designer to communicate their ideas to the various professionals who facilitated the design from initial idea through to printed product.

With liberation and the ability to revise designs at whim comes the double-edged sword of too much choice: with hundreds of typefaces to choose from and all accessible with a click of a mouse, is it not tempting to cruise through Font Book trying on typefaces like a rainbow of cheap Uniqlo t-shirts?

And what of default design? Most criticism of desktop design is centred on presets and default fonts - as if Times New Roman loses its cultural heritage in the hands of non-designers or that presets or templates haven’t, at some point, been designed by a designer. Of course, non-designers (and ‘real’ designers) produce bad work - text that’s difficult to read: too long or short line length; bad tracking or kerning; too much or too little leading etc. The paradox is that good typography, as Beatrice Warde notes in ‘The Crystal Goblet’ of 1932, remains invisible or transparent while bad typography shouts out its presence like a Versace Home wine glass.

In ‘The Rules of Typography According to Crackpots Experts’, published in Eye in 1993, Jeffery Keedy celebrates the “possiblities for the (imaginative) typographer that were unavailable ten years ago” and encourages typographers and type designers to look optimistically forward. Nearly twenty years later, many of the typefaces that Keedy designed such as ‘Hard Times’ or ‘Skelter’ and the designers such as Rudy VanderLans who used his work so imaginatively, have fallen out of fashion.

One of the problems of graphic design - and one that is directly connected to the democratization of graphic design and the attendant cornucopia of choice - is the constant desire by designers to re-invent it in ever-more self-referential ways. Take for example Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent’s Times New Roman, released to great aclaim in 1931 and used for over 40 years in The Times, then cast out in the wilderness because of its associations as a default type in programs such as Microsoft Word. The font is now at the tail-end of a revival which has seen designers use it because after years of the ubiquitous use of Helvetica, Times New Roman suddenly looks ‘edgy’ and new.

So, to return to my original question: are graphic designers “cultural gatekeepers”? Do we understand design better than the desktop publisher or do we merely have much better taste than him, setting styles and fashions that must be constantly revised in order to stay one step ahead?