Style in Graphic Design

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design Is there a place for style within graphic design, or does it detract from communication?

This essay will look into the relevance and application of ‘style’ within graphic design. Is there any place for individualism within design, or does this result in poor work that doesn’t prioritise the client and audience? Is the use of decoration and ornamentation worthwhile, or does it just make design even more ephemeral due to the constantly changing definition of ‘trendy’?

‘Style’ within graphic design reveals the identity of the designer. Moreover, it ties together: works from a particular movement. Anne Burdick explains the formation of style as, “A vocabulary or set of formal characteristics constitutes a particular style, recognized most frequently in retrospect”. (Burdick, 1994:136).

‘Style’ is a unique stamp on the surface of the design that instantly makes it identifiable. The intended audience, purpose, and meaning of the design can change, but the aesthetics must remain constant for it to be recognised as ‘style’.

The oxford online dictionary defines style as: “A manner of doing something”, which suggests that style is the process of designing, solving problems, and changing the format in which they deliver the solution, all of which embody the ‘style’. Designer and illustrator Kevin Brissaeux reinforces this definition by saying: “I'm starting to discover more and more these days that for the designer in general, the concern should be less about style and more about the concept. If you have an innovative way of thinking, the style shows through via the conceptual process.” (Parrott, 2008)

Style is born out of meaning and purpose, a reaction to the aesthetics or politics of the time, or specific design decisions to suit the audience and application of the work. Bruce Mau clarifies this as; “ the work arises as a methodological consequence-­ not from streaming projects through some stylistic posture.”(Keedy, 2006:94) design was born out of purpose, it rejected art for arts sake and used design as a catalyst for social change, the style that was used to communicate was very bold and powerful using bright colours, photographs and few words to reach the vastly illiterate audience. The style that arose from this movement was a by product of the purpose and intention of the posters or campaigns. Within the context of Constructivism this style is relevant and effective but when the meaning is taken away and all that is left are the aesthetics the design simply becomes decoration. “Non-­‐designers sometimes look at our work…and ask us, “Does that colour (line, space, illustration, form, texture, shape etc.) mean anything, or is it just there because you think it looks good?”(Rheinfrank and Welker, 1994:165) It is this lack of purpose that is the problem within design and it is this factor that stops design solving the brief as well as it could. A similar example can be made from the work of Neville Brody: “Brody intended his stylistic inventions of The Face to encourage a closer engagement with the content, which he insisted was the priority, and he rejected the idea that design was about fashion. Brody used ‘style’ to improve the communication of the content, by applying various aesthetic nuances he made the content of The Face, a British music and culture magazine, and New Socialist, a left wing political publication, more engaging to the specific audiences. As these publications gathered more publicity and success, ‘he watched marketing, advertising and fellow designers

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design assimilate his inventions, stripped of any deeper critical content.’ ’ (Poynor, 2003:151) This argument of style with purpose versus style as fashion is still relevant today.

“Today the emphasis on style over content in much of what is alleged to be graphic design and communication is, at best, puzzling.” (Rand, 2005:94). If the style is irrelevant or obstructing the content then communication suffers, and without communication there is no design. Anne Burdick reinforces the view that style without purpose is counter-­‐productive by saying, “Style that develops from within is considered pure, while style applied from without is presumed to corrupt the marriage of content and form.”(Burdick, 1994:136) The modernists summarized this idea with the phrase :’Form follows function’, meaning that all design should firstly function perfectly and any style or embellishment added should only enhance the functioning of the design and not get in the way of it.

The best example to illustrate the difference between functional design, and design that has emphasis on style and embellishment, is the disparity between modern and post modern ideals. Modernism looked forward and designed to create a better and more efficient world. Whereas, Post Modernism was cynical and pessimistic, looking backwards in order to reference design from the past, resulting in busy and confusing design. The work of David Carson, April Grieman, and other Post Modernists, in retrospect, look very tired and dated due to garish colours, bad typography and unsettling layouts. The reason for this was that the post modern ideals and design were not user friendly. In fact, the goal was to do the opposite of modernism and fill design with decoration and confusion.

However, at the time, this approach would have been perceived as very ‘fresh’ and up to date, especially in comparison with the international rule of modernism and Helvetica. Massimo Vignelli explains that, “Post Modernism didn’t know what it was caring for, it just new what it was against, and that was Helvetica.” (Hustwit, 2007) This lack of purpose in the artistic decisions that were made produced ephemeral design that doesn’t translate well out of the context of it’s own mission. Supporting this statement is the fact that many of the brands designed with modernist ideologies are still, more or less, the same today. In fact, Helvetica still dominates within design. “The cultural energy of the modern movement is still burning, fuelling intellects against shallow trends, transitory values, superficial titillations brought forward by the media, who’s very existence depends on ephemera.” (Vignelli, 1994:52). Post Modern graphic design was very much for the younger generation, it was anarchic, new, and unconventional, which angst filled teenagers could relate to. It was a fashionable new breath of life in relation to the standard aesthetics of the time, but it was not timeless. The style of post modernism (from 1988 onwards) was very much formed as a result of the of the computer, this made new, unimaginable things possible within typography and design. It allowed non experienced designers to transform and mis-­‐shape typefaces, that, previously would have taken years to craft and are considered ‘perfect’. Where this allows new and interesting avenues of design to be opened, it also causes “[work of this fashion to] become old and tired very rapidly as more and more people hop on the bandwagon,

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design transforming graphics that originally appeared fresh and innovative into hack work.”(Meggs, 1994:161).

The success of modernist design can be accredited to its non-­‐reliance on ‘style’, “Modernism was never a style, but an attitude. This is often misunderstood by those designers who dwell on revivals of the form rather than the content of Modernism” (Vignelli, 1994:51). The attitude of modernism was to make the design as useable as possible and considering what would be the most suitable solution to the problem with regards to the audience, and content that is being communicated. A misconception of this is that Modernism is just a ‘style’ in which all text is set in Helvetica and left aligned, if this ‘style’ were to be applied to something where it wasn’t relevant or effective it would not be ‘modernist’ design. The reason why Helvetica is so popular among modernists is because it is a very neutral font, it has no ‘style’ that can become tired, it doesn’t have a lot of character, but it is that which makes it so timeless and re-­‐useable, it is a vessel that carries a message. ‘The meaning is in the content of the text and not in the typeface, and that is why we loved Helvetica very (Crouwel, Hustwit, 2007 [?] ). In contrast, typefaces with a lot of character and unique aesthetics become familiar, and after becoming familiar they grow old and look outdated.

The main point that most designers would make when asked why Graphic Design is important would be to improve the communication of information, to a specific audience as effectively as possible, whether this is way finding systems or delivering the qualities a brand portrays through an effective choice of colour or typeface. David Carson suggests that you should not, “confuse legibility with communication. Just because something is legible doesn't mean it communicates and, more importantly, doesn't mean it communicates the right thing.,” (Hustwit, 2007) This suggests that simply because something is written or printed doesn’t mean that it is going to communicate and strike a chord with the audience; it needs to be visually engaging and representative of the message it is delivering.

On the other hand, Massimo Vignelli argues: “I don't think that type should be expressive at all. I can write the word 'dog' with any typeface and it doesn't have to look like a dog. But there are people that [think that] when they write 'dog' it should bark.” (Hustwit, 2007) Vignelli leaves the communication to the content itself, and thinks that the typography should just be a vessel for delivering that information. An observation of how these two approaches exist within industry is made by the editors of Dotdotdot magazine: “Looking at other magazines from all fields it seems that "serious" content-­driven publications don't care how they look, whilst "superficial" content-­free ones resort to visual pyrotechnics.”(Keedy, 2006:94). When it comes down to decoration enhancing, or hindering communication, the most important aspect that will determine what is appropriate is the content of the work. Carson is able to apply his style to his design because the majority of work he does is for music, magazines, and sports advertising, all in which the delivery of information is not essential. The primary goal is entertainment and engagement. Whereas, Massimo Vignelli’s work consists of the delivery of essential information, such as the 1976 New York Underground map. In this example, if he were to use an expressive typeface and chose a layout that ignored any presence of a grid, as would a Post Modernist, then there would be confusion and miss-­‐communication that would render the design useless.

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design Attempting to put your own unique stamp on a project or brief, can interfere with the message that the client wants to deliver, “ An early article about the new wave…quotes a senior New York designer: ‘I don’t consider graphic design to be an opportunity to advance art forms . It has to advance the clients interest.’”(Poynor, 2003:26). It is this element of a client that separates design from fine art practice. “Clients are the difference between design and art” (Hustwit, 2007) is because within ‘art’ you are able to explore form and style at your own will; in this field of work there is no client to satisfy. Within design this push and pull relationship demands compromise and understanding. “Designs unspoken secret is that we have to find ways to combine satisfying our own desires with serving our clients.”(Shaughnessy, 2009:64) Most clients want the product they are selling to be portrayed to the public as clearly and effectively as possible, to achieve this any personal, stylistic expression needs to be reigned in, in the interests of the brief. The Modernist designer Dieter Rams says that “Good design means as little design as possible” (Vitsoe) the information being delivered should be paramount and there should be no extra distractions or ornaments to distract from this. Whereas, by the stylistic, post modern mind set: “No convention was too unassuming to challenge and any structural principle could be disregarded in the cause of ‘expressive’ design.”(Poynor, 2003:56). This approach creates a very one sided design process in which the designer doesn’t always put the clients best interests first, it may look new and appealing but,”rapidly becomes exhausting and tedious. ‘It is like listening to six radios playing at once, each with a different station. This is not charged complexity; it is noise.” (Poynor, 2003:26)

Style without purpose is fleeting, it looks good for a while but then the practicality and relevance of that style is questioned, and ultimately has no reason for being used. If design fulfils its purpose well, then there are no aspects that the audience could misinterpret or confuse; the design should be timeless, dependent on the presence of a relevant audience. The argument for or against decoration within design comes down to ‘fashion’. To use an analogy: a white shirt and black suit is timeless, there will always be demand and there is a definite need for it. It has a basic appearance which serves a purpose. The purpose is to give the wearer a professional and sophisticated look allowing them to have an instant impression on people they meet, as being trustworthy and hard working people. The design of this is well suited to a professional environment but it’s not the outfit that you want to be wearing for exercise, cleaning up, socializing, relaxing etc. you would wear something more casual that gives you a bit of individualism and style. To put this in terms of design: Swiss modernist design serves it’s purpose very well, it is perfect for delivering important information and it’s neutral personality gives it timeless qualities. But if a product or service calls for a bit of personality, lightheartedness and humour; then the design needs some style and personality to help it function better as a design solution. And today there are so many designers and brands that are all trying to stand out and be noticed that it is impossible to not add some ‘eye candy’ to work. But is this a bad thing? ‘Postrel (economic columnist for New York Times) breaks up the old bipolar debates between style and substance, or as designers say it, form and function, by recognizing that pleasure is an equally important part of the equation.’ (Keedy, 2006:98). This consideration for

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design pleasure is something a traditional modernist wouldn’t touch with a barge pole, but now it is very important to design a balanced relationship of form, pleasure, and meaning.

Within the vast array of design that is constantly emerging there are always new trends and fads that take over disciplines of design such as branding, editorial, typeface, etc. With the relatively recent addition of internet blogs such as Tumblr, Pinterest, Designspiration, etc, work is posted and circulated faster than ever before. How can you decipher what style is intrinsic to the communication and what is merely surface value. ‘’Style’ itself is the visual language of a culture: in fashion, in consumer goods, in art, in literature, in all varieties of media. Style is ephemeral: it is timely. To be ‘in style’ is to embody the influences and values of your time.’ (Burdick1994:136) So to follow these trends may be worthwhile for the short run, but isn’t going to give the design any leg to stand on when the fashions change. There is also danger of trends becoming too popular and actually becoming ‘trendy’ which Anne Burdick aptly describes as: ‘”trendy” is a death sentence. When stylistic change in graphic design is tied to the rapid turnover and imitative nature of fashion, we begin to suspect that our work is merely shallow trend following and empty form pushing.’ (Burdick1994:137) As soon as something becomes ‘trendy’ it is instantly not ‘trendy’, and the chances are if you notice certain aesthetic touches and stylistic decisions emerging on design blogs then they are probably well on their way to facing that demise.

“History is no longer five, ten fifteen years ago….history is last week.” (Weber, 1992 as cited in Burdick, 1994:140)

In conclusion, style should be a natural extension of the purpose of the design.

The heart of graphic design is communication, and if this is affected because of trying to apply surface style then priorities need to be changed. It is this ‘purpose’ that defines the answer to “Is style ever relevant in graphic design?”, if communication is paramount within the design then style should be kept to a minimum. If the nature of the brief is to sell a product or other entertainment purposes then style has more room to move. When thinking about ‘style’ it is easy to fall into strict modernist ideals and forget that pleasure is important as well, if design simply fulfills the brief then the work will not stand out from the sea of other designers, it must interact and engage with the audience, have instant aesthetic impact and communicate its message. It is these three factors that can help justify and determine the relevance of using a particular style. The client within the world of graphic design is what sets it apart from other art disciplines, the designer isn’t free to do whatever he or she pleases and attach vague reasoning to it, they must work in the interests of the client and design to clearly communicate with the target audience, if the application of ‘style’ assists this then it is pure and intrinsic and would be accepted by most strict modernists. Is being bang up to date with emerging fashions essential to being recognised as an important designer? Knowing what trends are current is important but following them isn’t, trends should be decoded to determine if they have any communicative value or if they are simple aesthetic, if it is the latter then they will be gone by next week.

Chris Shuttleworth Style and Graphic Design

References

Poynor, R (2003). No More Rules: Graphic Design and Post Modernism.

London: Laurence King.

Vignelli, M. (1994). Long Live Modernism. In: Beirut, M. Drenttel, W. Heller, S and Holland, DK. Looking Closer. New York: Allworth Press.

Burdick, A. (1994). Neomania: Feeding the Monster. In: Beirut, M. Drenttel, W. Heller, S and Holland, DK. Looking Closer. New York: Allworth Press.

Welker, K and Rheinfrank, J. (1994). Meaning. In: Beirut, M. Drenttel, W. Heller, S and Holland, DK. Looking Closer. New York: Allworth Press.

Meggs, P (1994). The Obscene Typography Machine. In: Beirut, M. Drenttel, W. Heller, S and Holland, DK. Looking Closer. New York: Allworth Press.

Mr. Keedy. (2006). Style is Not a Four Letter Word. In: Beirut, M. Drenttel, W. Heller, S and Holland, DK. Looking Closer 5. New York : Allworth press.

Shaughnessy, A (2009). Graphic Design: A User's Manual. London: Laurence King. 64.

Parrot, D. (2008). Unique Style: A Designers Perspective. Available: http://abduzeedo.com/unique-style-important-or-not. Last accessed 27th Jan 2013.

Vitsoe. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good design . Available: https://www.vitsoe.com/gb/about/good-design. Last accessed 27th Jan 2013.

Helvetica (2007) Directed by Gary Hustwit. USA, Swiss Dots [Documentary]