Oh dear. It seems 26 member John spotted a flock of pigeons gathering, and decided to chuck a cat at it. Brace yourselves, designers. (John's a freelance writer, so I've made an executive decision to save his career by protecting his identity.)
"This is generalising but I often find many designers think on the surface. They try and make things simply look better rather than communicate better. They don't get under the skin of the problem - as writers have to. This in turn leads to a feeling that some designers don't 'get' words and what they can do. Their eye is tuned into style and not content. They run scared of words. Too often they look at them as objects that clutter up a layout. I'll bet most of the designers I've worked with don't read books, or newspapers. They prefer the cosmetic lure of the eye-candy."
Blimey. John says he's generalising, and he certainly is. From my perspective, I genuinely haven't had the sort of negative experience John clearly has. I've certainly come across designers who seem to concentrate entirely on styling the surface, but I'm pretty sure even most of them picked up a book from time to time.
Indeed, one of my long-term design partners frequently turned up to the studio with imposingly hefty novels tucked under his arm - and hefty in a Tom Wolfe rather than a Tom Clancy sort of way. Mind you, he was very much an 'ideas-first' designer rather than a pure stylist. So maybe John's right.
Is he? And if he is, what's to be done about it - if anything? Maybe in some contexts style really is everything. Is it? Do you read books, designers? (Other than just the D&AD Annual and big books full of logos, of course.) I think you do. Go on, prove me right. (Or tell me why it doesn't matter anyway.)
Moby Dick is pretty much the single greatest creation of any kind, ever. Not counting beer.
Reading Moby Dick should be a prerequisite for being allowed to breathe air.
Posted by: SwineFactory | Dec 03, 2007 at 19:05
There you go: instant confirmation.
Posted by: Mike Reed | Dec 03, 2007 at 19:34
I believe John is generalizing, but he does have something right. There are some designers that pay too much attention to style. An aesthetic appeal to a work is as important as the utilitarian function. But, in many cases, the utilitarian function is more important.
Designers are meant to communicate while applying good style. As a college student in design, I see many of my fellow classmates paying too much attention to the style rather than the communication.
I think that design education programs need to start focusing on communication better rather than focusing on the appearance. For example, most (if not, all) of my fellow classmates critique only the style of our assignments. Very rarely do I hear a classmate critique the effectiveness of the meaning nor communication.
Posted by: Dusty Fields | Dec 03, 2007 at 20:16
He is generalising, but maybe this is because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I often look at magazines and modern newspapers, particularly the free ones which seem to wallpaper public transport, and wonder if some journalists are writing simply because they have to fill column space and get paid. I'm sure many could very well use their literary skills to critique something worthwhile or perhaps to think about a subject intensively, apply some understanding and sense to develop an appropriate response which the reading public might disseminate as a 'good idea'. But I'm not a journalist so perhaps I don't know what I am talking about.
Posted by: Mat Ranson | Dec 03, 2007 at 21:46
I'm an ideas-first man and I love words. I insist on having content first and design from that outwards. If content doesn't exist, I'll do what I can to make it. Sometimes that means developing a copy platform or writing something more extensive myself, but "I'm no writer" of course, so I'd often get one in. For the work I do I think this is essential. I know people in the industry that are close to me that insist no-one will read it (I think they're very wrong).
I also think there are times when style IS everything; even style can be deployed strategically and I think, more often than not, even the most style-lead design work, when analysed, can be rationalised. Sometimes, "the cosmetic lure of eye-candy" is just what the doctor ordered. I supposed the skill is to recognise when which approach is most suitable. And have a reason for doing whichever.
I think John is right. And is generalising. So is wrong too.
Posted by: Richard | Dec 03, 2007 at 23:35
Definitely a generalisation too far! Having said that, I have to admit that a fair percentage of designers I have worked with / met put style first. It's like meeting a good-looking person without a personality though - you quickly get bored. The personality, or idea, goes a long way to make up for any shortfalls in the style. I will often fight to change wording that I don't feel conveys the message properly, only to be told I'm 'just' a designer...
Posted by: Steve O | Dec 04, 2007 at 07:41
design is about communicating to the masses and when these masses probably also tend to shy away from tom wolfe in favour of a tom clancy (or more likely than not a copy of the sun or fhm) its no wonder that writers have it hard. Everyone understands “eyecandy”, the challenge is of course successfully mixing the too. I don´t think designers underestimate the power and importance of good writing it just that they (we) dont often have the need for it especially when people in general (clients/ the public/consumidor) dont appreciate the bad from the good anyway. Maybe its not the designer we should be educating but the nation as a whole.
Posted by: Robin | Dec 04, 2007 at 08:52
while i certainly think designers could embrace 'content' words a whole lot more and i always encourage more reading/writing type stuff, i do think there may be a reason for the swing away from word-based design.
words (especially lots of them) have a much greater inclination to be exclusive than lots of pictures. attaching an idea to words has the possibility of alienating those for whom words aren't easy (ie those with literacy and language difficulties).
given that loads of ideas these days are concerned with being 'global' and having a far-reaching effect, across a wide demographic, the exclusivity of words, language, vernacular (etc, etc, etc), becomes far more of an issue and the need for communicating through images and universal design principles, greater.
Posted by: lauren | Dec 04, 2007 at 10:04
Picking up on Robin's point: I totally agree with the first bit but I'm not so sure about people in general not appreciating good writing. I think people in general don't appreciate good design, but because like good writing, good design should be invisible.
I think on the most basic level you "enjoy" good writing more than you "appreciate" it, it's an experience rather than art. It's only when you have reason to be more conscious of writing that you appreciate it. Like if you're a designer and have to set words on a page so they can be read easily and in the right order.
(I know I need to be more careful with my words here, "enjoy" and "appreciate" are quite close but hopefully you get the jist.)
Posted by: Richard | Dec 04, 2007 at 10:34
One of the pernicious generalisations here is that designer = graphic designer!
Posted by: Matt | Dec 04, 2007 at 13:20
Fantastic to see all these comments, thank you everyone. Matt, you're right of course, but in this context I think we can assume we're talking graphic design. It would just be a bit unwieldy to be writing 'graphic designer' every time. Forgive me/us.
Posted by: Mike Reed | Dec 04, 2007 at 14:02