Is "Newer" Always "Better"?

Several months ago I had the pleasure of having dinner with Chip Kidd, the celebrated book cover designer. Also there were my wife, several art students from the University of Michigan and a rather intoxicated Canadian gentleman. At one point, the conversation turned - as it inevitably does with designers - to which software was used to produce the work. The canuck was disheartened to hear that Kidd used Quark XPress instead of Adobe's InDesign to create the book covers.

"You really should use InDesign. It's got all these amazing features," said the Canadian, staring muzzily in Kidd's direction. Politely, Kidd explained that Quark was what his employer had and that it worked well for him. His position was remarkably similar to mine: I have something that works; it's effective and allows me the creativity to give the client exactly what they're looking for.

I consider myself an oddity in the design world. While I use and understand the technology, I'd prefer not to use it. I love the look and feel of type-set lettering; computer-set type always looks too sterile. I also believe that technology results in advertising losing individuality; everything has a slick homogeneous look to it. Years ago you could tell who designed the ad based on the look (type treatment; art style). Now, you need to study the ad to differentiate the milk ad from an ad for the GAP.

Yes, technology has allowed graphic designers to produce work faster and more efficiently, but it has come at a cost. There's no stylistic individuality in the work; everything has a sterile mass-produced feel. Very few designers have integrated the technological world of design while retaining the ability to creatively merge image and type.

Efficiently using the technological tools at your disposal is paramount in the field, but why should this come at the cost of individual creativity?

(re)Design #1

My wife and I subscribe to Vegetarian Times, a magazine dedicated to providing health news and recipes to the vegetarian community.

Recently they revealed a redesign of their magazine and masthead:


The creative director stated she wanted a "modern, contemporary look", which is fine - but shouldn't the logo in some way be in harmony with the product? As I see it, there are several issues with the new look:

1. The font. Angular and pointed, this sans-serif font - while "contemporary" - would look more at home on a catalogue of high-end housewares than on a magazine extolling healthful advice on a vegetarian lifestyle.


2. The "leaf" element. Again, "contemporary", but hard to tell what exactly it's doing there or what it is. Is it a random graphic element? A stylized dot over the "i" in "times"? Perhaps a random apostrophe or foot mark?

Redesigning an old logo is a valid method to re-invigorate a brand and create a renewed interest, but care needs to be taken so the new design meshes with the underlying message of the magazine/business/person. As I stated in my first post, I will provide a better designed solution, seen here:


Why is this a better solution? First, the font. It's still a sans-serif, but unlike the font Vegetarian Times' creative director chose, it's organic. Not angular or pointed, it's more in tune with the magazine's overall aesthetic. Secondly, the leaf element. While stylized, it is recognizable as a leaf; a part of a plant, and won't be confused for some random element. Third, the colours. Green and a warm brown; earthtones.
Is this a perfect solution? No. Is it a better solution? Definately.
Too much graphic design focuses on being slick or modern or contemporary, with no real concern given to what the design is for. A little research into whatever you're designing for (company, individual, product, etc.) will give better insight into how the final design should look, and results in a much better finished product.

Here, There, Everywhere...

I've been busy updating my professional networking. Here's where I (and my work) can be found online:
Coroflot

JobFox

BrightFuse

Behance

LinkedIn

Introduction

It is my firm belief that there is too much bad design in the world today. Some of it is produced by people with no formal training; some of it is produced by designers who either don't know better or simply do not care; some of it is produced by talented people but are burdened by micromanagers and clients who simply refuse to let designers design.

I fall into the last category. My last position was with an automotive dealership as a graphic & web designer. Dealership ads are, as I have heard everywhere, are the worst forms of design. While I tried to bring a classic, organized look to the advertising I produced (which fit with the look of the dealership) I was hindered by my boss' incessant need to eliminate white space, fill areas with wide swashes of bright yellows and reds and use only one typeface - Arial - for all advertising.

My goal with this blog - without sounding pompous or harsh - is to examine graphic design from a variety of sources and, where possible, present a better designed result along with an exploration into the process.

I feel this will generate a two-fold result: first, to educate and inform; second - and most important - it will sharpen my skills and improve my abilities, both in critical thinking and technical proficiency.