Check it out here: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=stock_photos

Be warned: the site above is definitely not safe for work, uses rather vulgar language quite frequently, and should in no way ever be used as an academic resource.

-rgm

The three lists linked to include some of the biggest perpetrators, however I have listed a few more for your pleasure.

1. Hand-written type
Hand-written type has become synonymous with naive, child-like, and hipster-cool.

2. The White Box website
For some reason, a ridiculous number of graphic designers’ portfolios follow the template of having just a white background with small text links on the left side of the screen and image on the right.

3. Distressed/Graffiti-esque type
“Grunge” typography has been, and will be, around for a really long time. Unfortunately.

4. Shepard Fairey’d
Once considered an underground, rebellious street-artists, Shepard Fairey is loved by all, even the government Fairey is rebelling against. Now, everyone is riding the OBEY wave, from Facebook photos to billboard ads to Optimus Prime.

5. Helvetica Bold
The most popular, most  clichéd typeface of all time.

6. Rounded edges, and the Apple-esque
Many—if not every—website nowadays seems to conform to the web 2.0 standard of rounding off the corners of each and every rectangular box on screen. This is epitomized by Apple’s style that is copied over and over again in advertisements and posters. How many more iProducts must we suffer before the fad dies?

That’s all I’ve got for now. Be sure to look for a  Clichés Continued post in the future.

-rgm

The moment I knew I wanted to become a designer was the moment I first acknowledged the poster designs of the Swiss De Stijl movement. Yes, I had seen some of those iconic posters as a young lad, however, I had not truly acknowledged them as pieces of design. Once I learned the basic principles of typography and layout, the beauty of Swiss modernist design really shone and spoke out to me; I am sure that this happens to many, if not all, aspiring and current graphic designers. The use of simplified form, simplified type, and logical layout in De Stijl, as well as Bauhaus posters was—and still is—utterly captivating. I knew then not only that I too wanted to make graphic works of art, but that my mentors would be the modernists of the 1900′s.

Like many young designers, I believed that modernism was merely a visual tool—a style that could be used in a poster or project to evoke a type of simplified designerly sophistication. This often included an overt use of Helvetica Bold, Univers, and Akzidenz. I cared mostly about the pretty facade of modernism in order to make my own schoolwork pretty in the same way; at that time I was truly missing the point of modernism. Like many other design students, I was lacking the understanding of the ideological meat and potatoes behind modernism that made it so significant.

In Modernism in Design, author Paul Greenhalgh breaks down modernism into two eras: pioneer and international. Pioneer modernism occurs from 1915 to 1930 and is primarily concerned with ideology—this is the true beginning of the movement. This is what I never understood before—modernism is not truly a style, or at least does not begin as one, but is rather a series of ideas created by intellectuals and artists of the time. International modernism, on the other hand, is truly a style. This is the era, from 1930 to the late 70′s, where image evolves, creating visual movements such as De Stijl. Unfortunately for the pioneer modernists, they never sought to create a style. Instead, the pioneers sought to use design as a method to change the world completely and finally; the hope was that their ideologically driven design wold pretty much stick forever. This is perhaps the greatest problem with modernism: the belief that the “modern” ideas and designs of the 1920′s-30′s would be timeless, even though they were clearly created to deal with problems of the time period.

All world-changing movements are inherently problematic. This is simply because there will always be too many variables caused by human-nature to take into account when making societal changes. In Modernism in Design, Greenhalgh gives us twelve tenets that generalize the modernist ideals. The first, and “most overarching concern” is “Decompartmentalisation”—the idea that “the Modern Movement was to break down barriers between aesthetics, technics and society, in order that an appropriate design of the highest visual and practical quality could be produced for the mass of the population.” This summarizes the goal of the movement. Modernists wanted to make the world a better place; at the time, World War I had just ended resulting in the greatest loss of human lives in history, and people felt betrayed. They were betrayed by politics in the form of monarchies and dictatorships, by the economy in the form of capitalism, and by technology/industrialism in the form of weapons. In order to combat these things, many European artists and intellectuals turned to communism and socialism. Karl Marx taught that capitalism was bad because it alienated the working class, keeping the working class from rising in social hierarchy, and thus psychologically and spiritually harming the underclass. Thus, modernist designers and artists sought to redesign life for the common man in hopes that this will in turn fight capitalism, industrialism, and bring about democracy.

Most of the twelve tenets described by Greenhalgh are based on the Marxist ideas of de-alienation/decompartmentalisation/design for the commonfolk. The more formal-design oriented tenets describe how objects should visually show how they function, should be as simplified as possible, and should not visually reference history, which lies in the same camp as simplification, as any decoration would have been a form of historical reference. Of these, the biggest problem is the overall idea of design for the “universal common man.” With the main camps of modernist designers being located in small gatherings in Germany, Switzerland, and Russia, how would they know what exactly the “universal man” is? Is there such a thing as the “universal common man?” I do not necessarily think so. There are far too many cultural and historical traditions and ideas that make up the individual, and these cultural differences vary somewhat drastically from area to area throughout the world. By stating that universal design is the way to change the world, the modernists strip away history and culture. By their standards, history and culture and two things that helped create WWI and suffering. However, when one strips away culture and history from a person, there can not be individuality, and individuality is part of human nature. Unbeknownst to the modernists, when a country is stripped of its culture/history and individuality is replaced with nationalism, we have something very similar to fascist Nazi Germany. Therefore, “international design” is in itself, problematic.

Other than universalizing design at the cost of individualism, the modernists found problems in the sheer idea of utilizing design as a method of creating change. Let’s take Marcel Breuer’s Wassily Chair for example. Breuer designed the chair within the constraints of modernism: it shows its method of fabrication by not hiding any of its components; it uses extremely limited decoration, if any at all, in order to universalize it; it’s made of steel which is a modern material; it uses simple, functional, logical geometry such that form follows function. Now, in order for this chair to start altering peoples’ lives, it needs to be distributed amongst the masses. Short of getting the government to take control of the chair’s production and forcing it upon families, there is no guarantee that a family or person is going to purchase this chair. Why? Simply because products will always be subject to human opinion, and as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This proves a problem, as the modernists need to rely on the idea that society will change first in order to accept modern design, and modern design is needed in order to change society. The problem is reminiscent of the classic “chicken versus egg.”

Finally, perhaps the greatest problem pioneer modernism faced was that of attempting to be a timeless solution to all of mankind’s social, economic, and humanitarian problems. This issue is clearly seen in the fact that pioneer modernism became exactly what it did not wish to become—a style occurring at a specific point in time, and not a theosophical, internationally-adopted-worldview. All movements, regardless of whether they choose to be or not, are products of their time, and thus, will always be remembered and seen as such in future times. As Greenhalgh states, “…the specific conditions of the period 1900-30 which provided the stimulus for the creation of various manifestos and it is in terms of that period that they are best understood.” Pioneer modernism was created as an answer to “the secular materialism of Freud and Marx….[and] the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of mainland Europe.” As the world slowly adjusted to these technological changes through democracy and economic stabilization, modernism began to be adopted as an aesthetic instead of an impractical ideology.

-rgm

My beef with Garland’s manifesto was:
1) It was based on speculation and not fact.
2) It was based in circular logic—designers needed to try and change society, yet society needed to change in order for designers to help it.

Thirty-six years later, design writer, Rick Poynor, was approached by Adbusters to write a contemporary version of Garland’s manifesto, aptly titled, First Things First 2000. Poynor’s new manifesto solves a few of the old one’s problems.

First, it replaces Garland’s dated list of trivialities with a more contemporary, varied, and thorough one featuring “dog biscuits, designer coffee, diamonds, detergents, hair gel, cigarettes, credit cards, sneakers, butt toners, light beer and heavy-duty recreational vehicles.” This first change is rather minor, but at least it lets the reader understand that the manifesto is talking about the here-and-now.

Second, and more importantly, First Things First 2000 makes a more concrete call-to-arms to designers while avoiding circular logic. Poynor makes the problems known: “unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand[ing] our attention.” He then lists—in a nearly identical fashion to Garland—different outlets for design work through which the designer can attempt to answer these environmental, social, and cultural concerns. The big call to other designers is in the last paragraph of the manifesto, where Poynor states that designers should set world-conscious design at a higher priority than ad design in order to essentially make the world a better place. This is done in contrast to Garland, who states that society needs to change itself, while he asks designers merely to “share [their] experience and opinions and to make them available to colleagues [and] students.”

Poynor’s First Things First is more concise and to-the-point, and rejects the idea that society needs to change before designers can change it. Therefore, he makes an active call to his readers, which makes his article/argument infinitely stronger than Garland’s.

Personally, I believe that morally conscious design is a great thing that every designer should aspire to work for in an ideal world. However, nothing is ever ideal. Designers, for the most part, get jobs where they can. If you are well-known enough that you can pick your own projects, or companies/jobs/projects seek you out instead of the other way around, then yes, I think those few designers are obligated to aid moral causes with their abilities. In the same vein, celebrities and CEOs and people with money should be doing their part to give back to the community/world in a positive way.

-rgm

-rgm

I have been interested in designers’ monograms ever since four years ago when I saw Chip Kidd’s, Stefan Sagmeister’s and Paula Scher’s monographs (not to be confused with monograms) in Design I and saw the little symbol either on the back cover or spine of the book. They were well designed little combinations of the designers’ initials, forming both a distinctive logo as well as a way for the designer to sign his/her work. The moment I laid eyes on those little symbols was the moment I knew I wanted one for myself.

Just today I stumbled across a site called Logo Design Love. As the title promises, the blog highlights cool and innovative logo designs. Think of it as a purely logo’d-out version of FFFFOUND. The Logo Design Love site is kept and designed by a guy named David Airey. His design portfolio is pretty much solely made out of—you guessed it—corporate logos. As I was looking through the annals of Logo Design Love, I rekindled my want for my own monogram, and well, attempted a few basic sketches at one. Perhaps once I get my portfolio site up and running, you’ll recognize the logo.

Some sketches:

{Overlayed an M over an R both set in Akzidenz Bold and deleted out some of the overlapping pieces; I tried to balance form/counterform to highlight elements of both the R and the M.}

{Set in Baskerville Book, squeezed the R and the M together in a way such that the tail of the R forms the stroke that creates the M’s downward point.}

{Same idea as the above sketch, but set in Akzidenz Bold, and focusing more on how the counterforms allude to both the R and M shapes.}

-rgm

Recently, a friend of mine came to me asking me to design an album cover for a record his band wants to put out in the summer. He came to me knowing that I was studying graphic design, although, much of the work that goes into an album cover falls into the category of illustration/painting or even photography. I said yes, however, I am not a painter. I am designer, with some knowledge of the basics of painting merely due to the fact that I attend an art school and am required to take classes outside of design. Working on this project sort of made me wish I had taken more drawing/painting classes in school. Maybe they should be requirements of design students also.

In any case, the album cover project had me looking at album covers and at cover-designing artists—these guys bridge that gap between artist and designer. Three artists who have done beautiful album work—as well as other paintings and prints—are John Dyer Baizley, Jacob Bannon, and Aaron Nagel. All three have their own bands (Baroness, Converge, and DESA, respectively) and design for themselves, as well as other bands. They all play music, paint, and design more than just album covers. Baizley and Bannon are both art school alumni, Baizley majoring in painting at RISD and Bannon in Design at the Art Institute of Boston. Nagel is self taught. All three make a career out of music, but still show work regularly in gallery shows.

A few images of the artists’ work:

By John Dyer Baizley—

{Baroness Red Album cover; 2-tone silkscreen print}

{Untitled; silkscreen run}

{Baroness Blue Record cover}

By Jacob Bannon—

{Converge Axe To Fall cover; silkscreen, spray paint, oil}

{Winter’s Hearts; silkscreen print}

{Poseidon; oil on canvas}

By Aaron Nagel—

{Blue Blood Bleed Red; oil on canvas}

{Pedictable (cover to The Resignation by the RxBandits) ; oil on plywood}

{Look Left (cover to …And The Battle Begun by the RxBandits); oil on plywood}

Well, that about covers it. Check back tomorrow for some more updates here. I have to post a few assignments for class, but also stay tuned for updates on my thesis as well as updates on the album cover I’m working on.

-rgm

I suppose I have a few problems with Garland’s argument. First, his argument is based on speculation. He states that designers “have been brought up in a world in which … advertising [has] persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative … and desirable use of [designers'] talents.” He goes on to describe how designers are pushed by all sorts of outside forces into the vein of advertising design. These statements may well be true to his experience as a designer, but he cannot possibly be describing a universal truth, at least, not without some sort of empirical evidence.

Second, Garland states that the majority of adverting that designers create work for are “trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.” Another bold claim with no factual evidence to actually back it up. As quoted earlier, Garland lists out a series of seemingly-insignificant products, yet, how does he—let alone the reader—know for sure that these trivial products make up the majority of graphic design work?

Third, and most problematic, is the fact that there is no concrete call for action to the undersigned designers made by this manifesto. At the end of the fourth paragraph, Garland lists options for other projects designers can work on rather than advertising, such as: “signs for streets and buildings, books and periodicals, catalogs, instruction manuals, industrial photography, educational aids, film, television, etc…” He concludes this list by stating that designers should focus on means that “promote trade, education, culture, and greater awareness of the world.” Unfortunately, much of which he lists, including “trade, culture, and awareness” can all fall under the umbrella category of “advertising.” Also, not all of the projects he lists can be considered socially-just causes. Are all signs, books, magazines, catalogs, instruction manuals, photographs, films, and television programs socially-just? I think not. Garland does bring up the idea of promoting education, which may be the closest thing to being socially-just in the list, however, even education must be put into the context of what is being taught in order to analyze whether it is promoting a “just cause.”

Garland’s aim, to create a better society through “moral design” suffers from the same problems that the modernists had at the Bauhaus in the early 1900′s. The modernists’ argument was that design was needed in order to create a better society, however, society needed to improve itself before it could embrace socially-conscious design, thus resulting in circular logic. Garland calls designers to choose projects carefully in order to create a better world, yet he hopes “that our society will tire of gimmick merchants …. and that the call on our skills will be for worthwhile purposes;” we have a chicken-and-egg paradox.

-rgm



David Gauntlett’s Media, Gender and Identity, however, provides a less biased, and slightly more nuanced view of the media’s effect on the individual, as compared to Ms. Klein’s No Logo. My opinion of this fact itself is skewed, as I have only read the introductory extract essay to Gauntlett’s book, whereas I have read No Logo in its entirety.

Gauntlett takes a holistic, sometimes contradictory, view on the mass media, as he aims to “demonstrate, that popular media has a significant, but not entirely straightforward relationship with peoples’ sense of gender and identity.” I suppose it is unfair to compare Gauntlett’s seemingly obvious, easily proved claim to Naomi Klein’s more restricted, negative view of product branding, however, I feel that a more ambiguous position is required to be taken when talking about how products and media can affect humankind. As Gauntlett states, “Media messages are diverse, diffuse, and contradictory.” This being the case, a simple positive/negative stance on something so all encompassing cannot be taken.

In any case, Gauntlett’s thesis resides not in the fact that the media can and will affect people, but more so in how the media achieves this. He believes that the media is anti-traditional, pushing ever more “radical uncertainties and exciting contradictions,” thus capturing the interest of young people who Gauntlett states are more likely to rebel against old, or, traditional values, such as heterosexuality. Gauntlett frequently alludes to magazines—men’s magazines in particular—as they depict men as being “caring, good-humored, and interested in relationship and health advice.”  Although this anti-traditionalism is used as a selling point, not every reader of a magazine will agree with its progressive content, and therefore, will not take every word to heart. This creates, as Gauntlett says, the use of media “as tools which can be used in this work … [of] your life as your project.” The media is a tool for “knowing the social construction of identity.”

The Media, Gender and Identity extract/book covers a huge breadth of content and arguments, yet the idea of how the media dictates identity, or vice versa, is probably the most important in regards to graphic design, or design in general, as designers are heavily responsible for the depiction of the media. David Gauntlett’s idea that elements of the media are like an a la carte menu from which we pick and choose aspects to appropriate unto ourselves makes a lot of sense to me, logically. For designers, this means that regardless of what we create and put out for public viewing, it is ultimately up to the public, or the individual, of what they want to make of it. Designers do not dictate to people what to think; designers are merely giving the public options to do with what they will. I am not a slave to the media, as much as I choose what to make myself a slave of, so to speak.

One major point I would have to disagree with Gauntlett on is the fact that the media is ultimately anti-traditional. The Bauhaus modernists would probably agree with that statement. Perhaps this is so in the progression of ideology—for instance, the media is constantly updating what is moral/immoral, and what is acceptable/unacceptable as changes occur within culture, however, I would argue that cultural changes are still affected by history and the socio-cultural movements of the past. In a visual way, I would argue that the media is certainly not anti-traditional, as artists and designers are constantly looking back to designers/artists of the past for inspiration. If there is nothing in the past, how do we create a future, or have anything to compare to in order to know that we are moving ahead or making progress?

-rgm

Naomi Klein is upset with the fact that large contemporary businesses are outsourcing their factories and means of production to independent contractors in third-world and developing countries such as China. She claims this is due to an increasing need for cheaper production in order to spend more money on branding; “branding” includes advertising, product design, and packaging design. Klein concludes that this is a problem due to the fact that with outsourcing, come the consequences of mass-firing of factory workers, lack of product quality, and lack of responsibility of workers’ conditions which leads to human-rights violations at overseas independent factories.

What Klein does not take into account at any point in her article—or in the book the article is taken from—is that branding is a function of capitalism. If there is capitalism, then there are brands, and it is as simple as that. This is due to the fact that capitalism breeds competition; if your company is making the same product as another, then branding is the only conceivable method letting the public know that yours is better. The only other method of distributing advertising information would be by public word of mouth, which obviously, would not be as strong as being allowed to have control over your own advertising—your own message.

As long as we live in a democratic, capitalistic society, branding is inevitable. Now, Klein’s argument is not completely invalid; part of her argument includes the fact that outsourcing production is a function of greed. This is true. Large companies do not have to send their production elsewhere in order to be profitable or well branded. There are a few rather successful companies who are vertically-integrated. One of such companies that immediately comes to mind is American Apparel. American Apparel began in 1989 by Tufts freshman, Dov Charney, who began the business making t-shirts. In 2000, the business expanded to Los Angeles, where it houses its headquarters and factory. Now, the company has numerous retail storefronts around the country, many of which are in large, popular, malls and shopping complexes. American Apparel is currently the largest clothing manufacturer in the United States. As far as branding is concerned, they focus on simplicity, with their logo consisting of the company name set in Helvetica Bold, and their ads consisting of non-professional models posing in the clothing, shot in front of a plain white backdrop using consumer-affordable digital SLR cameras. Unfortunately for American Apparel, the fact that they use American labor prevents them from making the multi-billion dollar profits that companies such as Nike make—this is entirely derivative of how much the company big shots want to line their pockets with, however, and not really about design, advertising, or branding.

The moral of the American Apparel story is that spending more money on branding does not necessarily yield a more well known brand. As Dov Charney has proved with American Apparel, it’s about smart advertising and good design that represents the company well, and not necessarily about expensive design. Levis might be able to buy a minute or two of time for a tv-spot during the Super Bowl, but for a fraction of the cost, American Apparel is pushing bands and artists to use their t-shirts for screen printing, then in return, posting their banner advertisements on those bands’ websites. Like I said, smart design, versus needlessly expensive design.

-rgm