Spread from I.D. magazine, July/August 2005, art directed by Kobi Nenezri, photographed by Yoko InoueDoes anyone devote as much energy to avoiding simple, sensible solutions as the modern graphic designer?
Among the design professions, graphic design is an embarrassingly low-risk enterprise. Our colleagues in architecture, industrial design and fashion design are tormented by nightmares of smoldering rubble, brutally hacked off fingers, and embarrassing wardrobe malfunctions. We graphic designers flirt with...paper cuts. Thus liberated from serious threats, we invent our own: skating on the edge of illegibility, daring readers to navigate indecipherable layouts, and concocting unlikely new ways to solve problems that don't actually exist.
Our daredevil ambitions are never so roused as when we're our own audience. The latest case can be found in the new issue of the otherwise exemplary publication
I.D. There, faced with the seemingly simple challenge of faithfully reproducing the winners of their annual design competition, the magazine's creators have opted to take the hard way out. Swerving wildly to avoid the obvious, they've driven right off the cliff of coherence.
Let me say this straight out: I love
I.D., I really do. Julie Lasky is a great editor — and a Design Observer contributor
to boot — who has produced some of the best issues ever in that estimable journal's long history. But the visual presentation in
I.D.'s 51st Annual Design Review is just plain nuts.
The issue is taken up by descriptions and photographs of winners (Best of Category, Design Distinction, Honorable Mention) in eight categories (Consumer Products, Graphics, Packaging, Environments, Furniture, Equipment, Concepts, and Interactive). The descriptions make good reading. The photographs are, well, problematic. Most of the winners are pictured not in isolation but
in situ, the
situ in this case being the other winners. This means that the reader is faced with page after page of stuff piled up all over the place, handsomely photographed in that flatly-lit deadpan way that's been so popular for the last decade or so, each flea-market-style composition daring us to guess which of the many things shown is actually the
subject of the photograph.
As a graphic designer myself, I know how this happens. Every edition of the annual design review presents the same problem. Every year, dozens of products, packages, chairs, posters, books, and devices win
I.D. awards, and every year the readers want to know what the winners look like. Simple descriptive images: well, that's been done, right? So obvious! How about if we evoke the confusion, the ennui, the sensory overload of the
judging process itself? A daring choice! Does it work? Not really, but as Dr. Johnson said of a dog walking on its hind legs, we're meant to be surprised not to find it necessarily done well, but simply done at all.
If this sounds familiar, it should. Rick Poynor lodged a
similar complaint on this site against
Recollected Work, the new monograph from graphic designers Armand Mevis and Linda van Deursen. The book consists largely of page after full-bleed page of piles of their work, cropped, partially obscured, more or less incomprehensible. To quote Rick: "Seventeen years of work blurs together, like grubby laundry turning over and over in a washing machine. Nothing has any space around it. Everything becomes flotsam. Any sense of development is erased." And that's putting it kindly. Of course, they could have just lined up all the images, foregoing the cropping, proper borders all around — insert sigh here — but that would have been...you know.
And then there was another incident back in pre-September 2001. In those more innocent days, the U.S. graphic design community was embroiled in a
gigantic debate over
Jennifer Sterling's design of the annual publication of the American Institute of Graphic Arts,
365: AIGA Year in Design. Sterling's design approach had been reliably iconoclastic, cropping posters, showing fragments of books and packages, and generally rendering the work unintelligible. An astonishingly long (for those days) thread piled up on AIGA's website with complaints about Sterling's hubris: you would have thought she was blowing up Buddhas in Afghanistan.
I myself have been guilty of this same kind of straining for novelty. Asked to design a catalog for the AIGA Fifty Books of the Year show back in 1995, I was determined to do anything to avoid shooting the entries on with a flatbed camera on a clean white background. Like laying out cadavers at the morgue, I remember sneering to a colleague. Instead, we brought in Victor Shrager, who lovingly photographed the books in unlikely, if beautifully lit, positions. I fondly remember one shot showing Paul Rand's
From Lascaux to Brooklyn masterfully astride a supine copy of David Carson's
The End of Print. Flipping through it today, I admire Shrager's beautiful pictures and wonder what those books actually looked like.
Graphic design is easy, of course, so we kill ourselves trying to make it hard. I should have remembered a lesson I received at one of my first job experiences, a summer internship in the design department at
WGBH-TV in Boston. I had been assigned a rare design project. Given my status — I was the most junior of three interns — it was probably something like a hallway flyer for the annual blood drive. I labored over this 8.5 x 11 inch opus all day, never forgetting what I then held as the twin tenets of responsible design practice (one, create something absolutely without precedent; and two, demonstrate to onlookers how clever I am). Given my predilections at that point in my nascent career, this probably involved merging the home-grown rigorous modernism of Lester Beall and Will Burtin with the formal experimentation of Wolfgang Weingart and April Grieman. My only inhibition was the lack of a Macintosh computer, which would not be invented for seven years.
Late in the day, the station's head of design, the legendary
Chris Pullman, came by my desk. "What's this?" he asked. Breathlessly, I described the visionary thinking that informed the yet-unfinished masterpiece before me. Pullman stared at the mess for a moment, and then his face brightened. "Hey," he said, as if a great idea was just occuring to him. "Why avoid the obvious?" He then took away everything but the headline: GIVE BLOOD NOW. "Try that!" he said cheerfully, walking away.
Poor, poor Obvious. Come sit by me. I'll be your friend.
Comments [59]
I agree with the statement that "Graphic design is easy, of course, so we kill ourselves trying to make it hard," but only if shortest-path completion of the project specs is the only goal. Logos are a good example of design where the greatest solutions often appear simple but involve going through every obvious and played-out solution there is and looking beyond them; taking the cliché to the next level or cutting to its core. In short, I don't think the above reality is a bad thing at all, but it should never get in the way of content and purpose to such a degree that both are destroyed and/or left unaddressed. Unless disrespect is the intent (or space constraints demand it).
06.28.05
10:41
06.28.05
11:06
Tangential question: Full bleed is good for our ADD era, and most magazines and books use it, no? But isn't that usually at the expense of the photograph?
06.28.05
11:09
On my second read I then noticed that there were some diminutive hairline arrows pointing to the entry you were supposed to be paying attention too. And I only discovered those because I thought it was a crumb from the delicious cupcakes I was enjoying at the moment.
Oh well. There is always next year.
06.28.05
12:16
06.28.05
12:19
06.28.05
12:40
06.28.05
12:50
Well, I've decide that when I put my senior portfolio together I will shoot all of my pieces with a few fresh cut flowers on the side.
06.28.05
01:17
Armin- Do you have any of those cupcakes left? Cause there's no sense in wasting them....
Manual- Nice comparison to 2x4's old site. Beat me to the punch.
06.28.05
01:21
You talk about a "sensible solution" to this age-old conundrum, yet you don't really say what that is.
The challenge of designing for graphic design is a terribly complex and meta idea--How to design a layout to show a layout? How to re-focus pieces of graphic design--initially created to engage a public or specific audience--for an audience of designers? (Which is not the object's original intention.)
The photographs in I.D. are a simple solution to a problem that very few art directors address: how to faithfully show a piece graphic design, not as a floating idea in a Quark spread, but as a printed object, tactile and tangible. The objects are shown in direct scale with each other, the objects themselves in direct scale with the hand holding it. There's something intuitive, human and almost... obvious, about this treatment. Yet very few art directors seem to think of the importance of context and scale. In this way, you are wrong to merely read this approach as a matter of style. It's as much a technical issue as it is a stylistic treatment.
It would be far more productive to try and battle the scale-less, context-less treatment of that is the preference of so many graphic designers. Nothing exists in white space. Why do designers insist on putting it there? As we know, design is never in insolation, always in situ.
06.28.05
01:44
The photo reminds me of the Arch&Design curation at the MoMA...a strange jungle of posters and lamps and chairs (oh my)
Kobi must be out there somewhere. Would love to hear from you.
06.28.05
02:03
Andrew, see any previous Annual from I.D. They have done a fine job in the past. I think last year's annual employed the same simple photographic style with the objects placed on tables and shelves. It gave a pretty good perspective of what was what.
> Nothing exists in white space. Why do designers insist on putting it there?
Because it's a design annual. A showcase of each piece. Not a context builder. The context of a design piece in an annual is exactly that: A design piece in annual. It's not white space, it doesn't float meaninglessly on a page. Its sole purpose is to be clear enough so that I can judge the piece on its own. For most of the winners, you can go to a bookstore or a boutique shop and see them, hold them and put them next to each other and see it in context. Also, how valid of a context is it to have a logo printed on a piece of paper hanging on wall, next to a copy of AIGA 365, a calendar by KarlssonWilker and museum brochures from the Walker?
06.28.05
02:10
Likwise, your column widths are relative, which means my largish monitor throws back what looks to be 100+ characters. 10/14 is acceptable even for tight resolution, but between the excessive line length and dark background, it appears someone decided to get a little too clever.
I'm not trying to be too much of a smart ass here, but I honestly skip coming because of the color issue. How about at least a toggle option for a style sheet that does the reverse. And how about a thread about the color decisions? I'm really curious because I can't think of another blog that displays text on a dark background that one wouldn't look at and think immediately was amateurish from a design perspective.
06.28.05
02:16
Armin, isn't that the whole point of being in an annual--to see your work next to your peers?
06.28.05
02:38
For 2-D the current ID layout works well for the way I read the magazine (and the way I think it's editors intend): as a magazine about design function and design process. Perhaps the problem is here that people are thinking of the design review in terms of an annual portfolio and not in terms of a magazine designed to generate narrative and visual interest.
06.28.05
02:38
06.28.05
03:26
Yes, but that doesn't mean I want to see my work literally next, superimposed or bundled upon to that of my peers.
06.28.05
03:59
I think we just have to accept that we cannot really have one without the other, just like there's no good design without bad design.
06.28.05
04:05
Once I figured out what was happening, I was totally fine with it. Impressed, even. Sorry if I'm not in the majority. But to tell you the truth, I haven't looked so closely at a "annual" design review in years. Usually I just flip through and look closely at the the pieces that catch my eye. But this time, I really looked at everything. Then I went back a second time to figure out how the photographs work together and what may have changed in each frame. I think it really gives a sense of scale to each piece as well.
I completely understand the argument that is happening here. But this isn't anything like Sterling's AIGA book. She actually changed the design of the winners work by placing the importance of her design above those of the winners.
Would it have made more sense to have each piece photographed on a white background? Of course, but then we wouldn't be having this argument. I appreciate that the boundaries were pushed.
06.28.05
05:37
Just to play the devil's advocate though, I'd also add a caveat. To keep creative juices flowing, it's important for us to innovate and experiment when we have the opportunity to - which isn't all that often - as such, I too applaud the fact that they had the balls to do that, knowing that they have a design sensitive audience.
Does that mean I'm sitting on the fence? No, not really. I see the reasons for the experimentative design, and respect them, but am conservative enough to still say that you've got to respect your content. Don't dilute it.
06.29.05
12:42
06.29.05
01:27
Post DI, I feel like it's ok for a layout to have emotion, to have soul. That doesn't come from level type and "nice" design. I have (or have seen) some prior issues of the ID annual and have to say that a lot of the time, it's just "nice" "good" design.
I normally side with Michael and Armin, but this time I can't agree. Seems to me like we need to stop taking ourselves so seriously (interesting, isn't that what Michael was saying, yet I come to a completely different answer). Oh, yes, an annual is about the pieces featured, not the annual itself. Well, to a point. But there's something more human about this approach (sure maybe the miscellaneous body parts have something to do with it). I find it refreshing to see something that's not "perfect."
I imagine that my first reaction, if my work were featured in this annual, would be to gasp in shock that things had been handled this way. But then my more reasonable self would step in and think for a moment: maybe this isn't so bad. Perhaps I'd be relieved that I was in an annual that wasn't the same ol' thing.
06.29.05
09:04
By choosing a 'first place' piece of design work, the publication is claiming that this piece of work is good design. Do the judges go out and put the designs to the test? Do they take the latest, greatest poster design and pin it on a wall and see if anyone reads it, let alone understands what the hell is going on? What about packaging design? Yeah, the first place winner may have a visually stunning piece of work, but what about the instructions? Try reading the recommended time for cooking your pasta just after you cut a bunch of onions.
I haven't learned much more than who likes what from a design annual. I think design annuals should point out good practice in design and say why - not just that the design is appealing to the eye. Again, design annuals are put together for a designer audience. Shouldn't they contribute more than choice picks of mis-scaled representations of design proposals?
06.29.05
09:18
I thought the presentation in ID this month was fresh; that the work had some relative scale (something almost always missing in annuals); that it placed individual designs within a larger context of award-winning work from this year; and that it was a successful editorial conceit giving the issue an overall visual coherence. I'm a reader of precisely for their editorial presentation not so I can see isolated and respectful images that please the winning designers.
I'm always surprised, as an editorial designer, that so many designers are so precious about their own work, actually desiring it to be presented in the most mundane and straightforward manner. Radical in their work for others, many designers become reactionaries when it comes to their own work. If one applied the same criteria to photography, we'd never see a cropped photograph in a magazine. One can argue this point in the case of "a design annual," as so many did about Jennifer Sterling's brave and controversial AIGA annual a few years back. But ID is first and foremost a magazine, not a house organ for designers.
06.29.05
09:32
If the aim is to document and analyse the work with the hope of understanding it better, then the question to ask is: does this way of presenting the visual material help this process? If you incline to think it does, then how exactly? What does it tell us about particular pieces?
If the aim is merely diversion or entertainment with no real attempt to understand the work, then it hardly matters how the work is presented. All that counts is the visual effect. Any visual device is OK so long as it gets the reader's attention and affords some passing amusement.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the editorial that does with the pics. I haven't seen the issue yet. Over the years these write-ups in I.D. have been good, sometimes among the best of their kind. How do they measure up this time? How do they work with the images? I don't see how you can reach a measured conclusion without assessing their relationship. This is not just a visual question.
06.29.05
10:11
Nevertheless, I am always looking for fresh ways to present new material and I like the fact that ID pushed the envelope here. If they don'twho will? I will go out and buy this issue asap.
06.29.05
10:30
I think there is another, implied, issue in this discussion: the desire by designers to "control" their own work. How it's pictured. How it's written about. Whether the work is provided to a journalist who might write a critical perspective. As a rule, designers control, or would like to, how their work is pictured. Hence, the outrage in comments to this post.
One of the reasons there is little good design criticism of contemporary design is that designer's control the work. If you are known as a journalist with a critical edge, try getting a designer to agree to give you images of their work. Why should they? You might write something negative.
It's hard to access contemporary design independently it's not in archives or libraries. So a writer is often dependent on the designer for the images that show the work. What we know of most contemporary architecture, and especially interiors where permission is even harder, is a heavily edited viewpoint shaped by the control of the designer and their mafia of favorite photographers.
Not commented on in this tread is the way many environments, equipment and concepts are photographed in this issue of ID. That new Heidelberg Speedmaster XL 105 Printing Press looks really good in its supplied press photographs. All those architecture projects photographed by the likes of Michael Moran, Richard Barnes and Todd Eberle look really good too.
Here, the opposite problem arises that the projects were judged based on photographs of the designs, as supplied by the designers. And, of course, no designer would submit a photograph of their work that did not look great. So when a judge commends the new Heidelberg press ("I've seen a lot of machines in a lot of factories and this is really beautiful."), the designer who hired the photographer should be really pleased. But I'm not sure what it says about the machine itself.
06.29.05
10:34
Who are these critical journalists who just can't get hold of the stuff?
Surely in the case of I.D. they did have access to actual printed copies of graphic design for judging? Aren't these what they photographed in the magazine? Larger manufactured objects are another matter.
06.29.05
11:25
I don't have any objection to finding new ways to represent design artifacts in reproduction. However, I find the visual conceit in this issue rather thin. It seems to simply be an attempt to evoke the judging process itself, from the unopened boxes of entries that appear on the opening page, to the tableau of judges in mid debate, to the resulting shelves of selections lined up with their mates.
There are some amusing variations. In the graphics, section, the Best of Category is photographed alone, held like an offering in some anonymous person's hands. The Design Distinction winners, one level down, are held in someone's hands (someone who owns the same exact Banana Republic shirt as me, by the way) but with the other winners in the background. The Honorable Mentions, in effect the third prize winners, are pictured just laying there amidst their fellow runners-up, held by nobody. Sad!
As Armin pointed out above, there are some advantages to missing the grand prize in this situation. My partner Paula was quite pleased to see that her entry, America (The Book) had won Best of Category and thus received the full page mit torso treatment. Then I pointed out that her entry appears only in one picture, where my less vaunted Honorable Mention appears in twelve pictures, albeit in most cases only slivers.
I do agree with many of the writers on this thread that it is interesting to see the work in context. My complaint is that the context of the judging process isn't particularly enlightening.
Wouldn't it more interesting to figure out a way to shoot each of the winners truly in situ? Shoot the Liberty Chair in the office of someone who owns one, the Kinko's logo on an actual storefront, the get-out-the-vote poster on a telephone pole in Dayton. That would truly be design in the real world.
06.29.05
12:24
06.29.05
12:37
When did serifs become un-cool, by the way? And why? Subjects for a good DO posting ...
06.29.05
12:40
Repeatedly, incessantly, and often beautifully.
As a student, I take the opportunity to invent (or attempt to) whenever I can, yet it seems to consistently obscure good design or concept.
Although I haven't bought the last I.D., I received my copy of Mevis and van Deursen's monograph and found that I would have really liked to see the obvious. In fact, all of my favorite design books prominently feature the obvious, and all of my favorite designers prominently use the obvious. But it's exciting to avoid it like the plague, isn't it?
My worst avoidance of the obvious was when I overdid it at the hands of another WGBH Design Director, Doug Scott. In his History of Graphic Design class, I was assigned a essay/poster on the Fourdrinier papermaking machine. Obviously, I would have to circumvent all the requirements, and make this a rather monstrous three-dimensional roll of essays, illustrations, and bad ideas. Only when I realized that this obscured and interfered with the material did I redesign the entire thing.
I'm a little bit happier with the poster now, but much happier with the fact that I learned to be careful when reinventing the obvious.
06.29.05
03:29
"As long as artists arbitrarily assume the right to decide what is or is not art, it is logical that the public will just as arbitrarily feel that they have the right to reject it."
"As is the case with all good things in life -- love, good manners, language, cooking -- personal creativity is required only rarely."
06.29.05
04:39
06.29.05
10:15
06.30.05
06:37
Serif typefaces suck bigtime when used as body copy on the internet because the low resolution of computer screens.
And no, serifs has not become "un-cool", quite the opposite I'd say...
06.30.05
10:15
What about mentioning some samples where it is done very well--not avoiding the obvious. Such as 365:AIGA Year in Design 24--the one with the fuzzy orange cover--so smartly designed by COMA (Cornelia Blatter & Marcel Hermans). Featured and "held by nowbody" in the present graphic design Honorable Mention section of I.D.
06.30.05
11:28
On the other hand, I was looking at Sterling's doorstop of a tome a couple weeks ago. So, the winning work isn't so legible. Her design of the book is fantastic and it makes flipping through its pages great. And (I think) it maintains respect for the work, even if she integrates it with her own design. Here's to taking risks.
Type Tangent: I learned from the AV guy running the slides at the awards dinner that when it comes to tvs, monitors and things that emit light, the reverse of print is true of legibility. White type on 70% to 80% black is the best for reading. However, If the type is too thin (serifs) or the ground is too dark, then you start getting the vibration thing (not good). So looking at black type on a white screen is harsh on the eyes. I found this very interesting. I guess you could make the argument: people read best what they read most. The verdana seems tight, but this may be due to the inadequate leading. I made the text pretty big, turned down the brightness and that helped. Read on MacDuff.
Occam's dull razor: I realized earlier today, while mocking-up an exceedingly far-fetched, fancy, folding folder, that I'm a primadonna. Welcome to the club, I guess. An appropriate post.
06.30.05
10:21
so, why not do the obvious and show the pile?
(interesting word, "pile")
07.01.05
09:42
07.01.05
10:24
I like what Bill Bernbach said: "Just be sure your advertising is saying something with substance, something that will inform and serve the consumer, and be sure you're saying it like it's never been said before."
Easy.
07.01.05
10:35
07.01.05
11:14
so, my point is, that i really do believe that most designers don't look at recent annuals to study "good" design (whatever that is), and seldom look at older annuals, if they even have access to them. magazine contests suffer an even worse fate of immediate obsolesence. there is a sort of "designer" that looks at old design annuals to steal ideas, but that's a different story.
design 'contests' are simply promotional tools to promote active designers while they generate needed income to keep the design journals alive to promote more significant work. good and/or significant lasting design has little to do with these contests and seldom actually makes it into the ranks of the "winners". these contests serve a purpose, but that purpose has so little to do with design that the idea of presenting them in the way ID chose to present the winners is far more real than, say, the CA annual. it may not be as pretty, or as "designerly" as we aesthetes may desire. but, it has far far far more TRUTH.
don't get me wrong, i've participated in hundreds and hundreds of design contests (as judge and entrant) and i have spent a huge amount of money on them and have benefited greatly (hundreds of awards). but i do see these things for what they really are, i have no illusions about them.
07.01.05
12:31
It hits the jugular of what was wrong with the way I approached graphic design at art school and my early years in the profession. I wish I could have nailed the pathology back then so clearly: It wouldn't have taken me so long for me to climb out of my valley of confusion.
07.01.05
10:43
Thoughtful thread. But consider the fact that the issue may not be obvious vs. non-obvious, but instead important vs. unimportant. I keep wondering when graphic designers will stop waiting for clients to be switched on and instead create their own valuable problems to solve... No matter what their specialty, designers ought to care most about their impact, not their novelty.
Here'e a thought experiment for you: what are the ten most important issues that powwerful graphic design might affect?
07.02.05
05:06
07.02.05
05:28
First, I would like to wholeheartedly agree with Mr Chantry's comments. I.D.s design annual commemorates the achievements of those designers who chose to drop $100 per entry for the opportunity of having their work reviewed, critiqued, and hopefully chosen for publication, by a panel of respected colleagues.
As such, it seems nice and honest of the photography to show the work in the context of the reviewing: that is to say a gallimaufry of unrelated work, whittled down to a small pile. (Some categories are not well-served by this approach: the three Equipment "tabletop" photos are entirely interchangeable.) Page 59 precedes the action and features a large photo of the accumulation of boxes which carried entries to I.D.s offices. This image sets the context nicely.
I'd like to respond to Mr Wassung's comment: "I look at [old design annuals] every other day. If you want to be good, you study from the best." My advice for Mr Wassung, who identifies himself as a student, is to study not the work itself, but to study with the people who make the work. Watching Roger Federer play tennis will not make you a better tennis player; taking lessons from him possibly will, should you have the talent. Don't look at the annuals. Make work from your experiences and pleasures. When you graduate, go and work with the best designers who will have you, and sit and work with them. Learn from them. Learn for yourself how to be good, because good comes from within.
As for the obvious and preferred display of graphic design in an annual... Ugh. Little thumbnails of cover and two representative spreads, with a tasteful little drop shadow - usually added post-photography in PhotoShop - don't say anything about the work. It's like a 30-second television commercial for a 2-hour movie; intended to excite the viewer and galvinise them to drop $10 on a ticket to see the other 119.5 minutes. These commercials are all formatted the same way: show the funniest bits and the biggest explosions. If your film is a period drama, replace the explosions with decolletage. If there are no funniest bits, don't bother advertising, and just send the film straight to Sunshine or Film Forum.
The I.D. review seems to acknowledge the impossibility of doing the work justice, so it abandons any attempts at being precious, and presents something like the experience of judging: either interacting with the object or viewing it.
Of course, I lost it when I came across this passage concerning the entry of Glenmorangie's "Drink me" vodka packaging: "All the judges missed the literary reference..." Perhaps this is why design is in the state it's in: because nobody knows anything anymore.
With respect,
c
07.03.05
02:46
07.03.05
11:48
But I find it incredulous to assume that a single piece of design is considered representative of a lifetime's work. Graphic design is too recent as a discipline to make that kind of statement. Proof of this is the fact that the majority of designers consider annuals to be some sort of "public record" and should be handled with some sort of "neutrality" (as if neutrality itself were not already a loaded category: The moment modernism could be recouped as a historical style, modernism became a statement and "neutrality" went out the window... but I digress). There are too few designers that have taken to interpret design as a mode of communication, as a statement. This was the point the historical avant-garde sought to make in the 1920s and '30s. Our society has changed since then, so why not consider new forms (if we truly want to echo the methods of the Modernists)? Statements in the arts take a lifetime to achieve and cannot be gleaned from a single piece in an annual. These are only the faintest of hints.
When I see a piece by Mevis+van Deursen, 2x4, Fella, Greiman, Blauvelt, or Valicenti to list a few, I know that I am looking at a continuity that stems from their attitude toward contemporary societyits visual and textual culture. I am aware of this because I have taken the time to be interested in their work, and more precisely, the meaning behind their work. Whether Rick Valicenti were to address an art catalogue, essay in Emigre or license plate, his output is consistent with his position on graphic design.
Annuals are best served by letting the award-winning firms take their kudos (which are usually textually listed on their firm's accomplishments anyways) and allowing the annual designer to do what expands the possibilities of design. Trade journals are geared toward an audience of visually and textually astute designers. After all, what appears in an annual is just one representation of a workhopefully just one among many.
07.05.05
12:36
Having said that I can't say I'm a fan of the stacked on the table business. It's kind of like going to an art museum and seeing the paintings "cleverly" stacked on a table for you to sort through.
07.05.05
02:23
07.06.05
11:27
You make a very strong point.
Graphic designers are in a good place to make a big impact, but it's true, almost no one does. It'd be cool if more designers had the balls to step out of line. The first stuff that comes to mind is charity work. If a designer believes in something, they'll probably do a more emotional (hopefuly better) job. Some war time design also comes to mind, but beyond that, ways of doing important work seem few and far between in a corporate driven world. I'd be interested in potential avenues for more 'important' work.
07.07.05
03:29
So much of what we do as designers involves making things seem obvious when they aren't. We go to great lengths to make seemingly easy connections with an audience. None of the things we do are inherently obvious. The accepted rules are often rules simply because that's what's been done for years.
So, I fail to see any problem with a designer looking to further explore or expand that vocabulary. I think this is a great solution to the design problem (blasted homonyms!) presented.
After looking through the issue, I did have some issues (homonyms again!) with the execution. The arrangements of objects on the tables or shelves could have more clearly indicated which were being showcased. Where this really fails, you get the sort of stopgap arrow pointing out the correct object. With the printed pieces, some of the photos seem to be blurry so that it's tough to get a good look at the featured piece.
But those problems are just with the execution of the solution. All in all, I fail to see the fault in not going with the most obvious solution to some design problem. Who's to say what's the most obvious solution? Is a coated stock more obvious than matte? What about 4 color vs. spots?
This blanket "obvious" is also problematic. It seems to assume that the design problem for every situation is to simply present the content in the most stark, straightforward manner possible. This has been touched on above, but the objective here probably wasn't that - and, here I'm assuming, it probably wasn't to show off as some might cynically assume.
07.07.05
11:56
One model for doing important work is Tibor Kalman, a guy with a great revolutionary sensibility whom I miss very much. I remember a time when we invited him to address a group of designers in Chicago--500 people showed up to listen to him. One question that came up was: "What do you do if you want to do great, pathbreaking work, but the client says their whole budget is, like, 75 bucks?"
Tibor said "You do pathbreaking work for $75."
Like Chris Alexander, he taught us that the budget can be unrelated to the importance of the work if you bring a great sensibilty to it. He was also in the habit of being his own best client.
In terms of getting started, I suspect the best place is to plumb the depths of your own passions, especially to find something you are outraged by: the lack of vision that prevails around the environment; the Bush administration's approach to about 25 major topics; extremism in all its forms; whatever gets your goat.
As a graphic designer then you work to make a powerful, thoughtful, compelling message about it. My guess is that, over time, those passionate messages you do principally for yourself will start to become: a) the most remarkable elements of your personal portfolio, and b) the biggest draw you have for business development.
One last stray thought... This thread begins with Michael's lament about the obvious having power. I tried to jujitsu the momentum of the thread to powerful work having power. In case it is non-obvious there is a string of logic that connects both arguments directly. It goes like this:
1.
If I am a designer I want to do good work, especially work that expresses my personal vision.
2.
If I do enough of that I will be visible and famous.
3.
If I am visible and famous I will get more work.
4.
As I get more work I will get more money and have more impact on the world--and that will make me fulfilled as a designer and a person.
My suggestion is cut all the middle steps out of this logic train. Focus whenever possible on the smallest number of projects that have the greatest impact. Believe it or not, the money and fame (if those matter to you) will follow.
07.10.05
02:30
07.12.05
09:12
07.13.05
11:58
07.14.05
01:44
07.21.05
02:31
Has anyone tried figuring out what they themselves think, after reading posts on this site? That would be a good starting point (even for the AV guy). I personally find that small white text on dark backgrounds tend to bleed real easy, simply because the text on screen is the main lightsource (this is especially true with very little ambient light). I'd like to think that when writing dark text on white backgrounds it would be even worse, but my own experience is different. I personally believe that the eye relaxes most when reading screen-based text that is dark grey on a light grey background. This goes against the practice of trying to heighten contrast in the letters as you would in print, but promotes less strain on the eye.
Re: this I.D. discussion; The initial post more or less implies that there is no room for forward thinking, taking chances, evolving. What if the previous designs of the Annual weren't actually the best ways to convey that specific information? What if Kobi's intentions weren't to take centerstage at the expense of the winning artwork? I look at it like I do web design - everyone thinks THIS IS IT, but we haven't even started yet. It is all part of a movement forward, even if it seems to be the other way around. Shaping what stuff will look like in the future - just like decades of brainwashed design students have shaped what stuff looks like now.
08.26.05
08:48