Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my Mum for her constant support.
List of Illustrations
Figure 1: 1989 Cranbrook Academy Poster, http://go.distance.ncsu.edu/gd203/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6fe59d48bbacb3a4fa65ea6c8e4dd371.jpg
Figure 2: Oceaan, http://crapisgood.com/oceaan/
Figure 3: Modem, http://crapisgood.com/modem/
Figure 4: Subway Map, http://go.distance.ncsu.edu/gd203/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6fe59d48bbacb3a4fa65ea6c8e4dd371.jpg
Introduction
Aesthetics has always dealt with art in an attempt to determine its
value. In recent past, however, it has been applied to a wider variety of art
forms, including graphic design.
This purpose of this study is to ascertain the value of aesthetics
within graphic design. To do so, it shall examine existing ideas of aesthetical
judgment in order to discover the most appropriate for modern day. Explicit
attention shall be paid to Modernism and Post-modernism and the various ways in
which these impacted upon aesthetic standards. It shall also look into other
factors that currently shape the aesthetic of today.
Chapter One
To begin the discussion of aesthetics within graphic design, one must
first understand its meaning and significance throughout history. In addition
to this, concepts of numerous theorists and philosophers, such as Kant, Hegel
and Hume, shall be examined in order to understand the various ways in which
aesthetic judgments are made.
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that deals with art, beauty, and
taste; along with ethics it forms axiology which is the study of value in its’
broadest sense. Sometimes referred to as the philosophy of arts, aesthetics has
been a highly debated topic for centuries, its observation being evidenced in
the literary works of theorists as early as Plato and Aristotle. The etymology
of aesthetics originates from the Greek ‘aisthetikos’,
meaning ‘I perceive, feel, sense’, which philosopher Hegel relates to when he
explains the meaning of aesthetics as being ‘more precisely the science of
sensation or feeling.’ (Inwood, 1993:3)
The judgment of aesthetics is a very intricate topic and the discourse
that surrounds it provides proof of this. Aesthetics can be defined as the
study of sensory values, often referred to as judgments of
sentiment and taste by many, including philosopher David Hume, who
believed it would be possible to construct rational arguments in order to
debate beauty in a philosophical manner. He stated,
‘It is natural for us to seek a standard of
taste; a rule by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled; at
least a decision, afforded, confirming one sentiment, and condemning another’.
(Hume in Aaberg)
Edmund Burke, in his book titled ‘A Philosophical Inquiry Into The
Origin Of Our Ideas Of The Sublime And Beautiful’, attempted just this and
created his own criteria for beauty:
‘Beautiful objects must seem to have a small
scale, must have a visual and tactile smoothness, must possess a gradual
variation of lines, must possess a fragile delicacy, and must display gradients
and variations of colour.’ (Mark Foster Gage, Aesthetic Theory: Essential Texts
For Architecture And Design, Page 93) Similarly, Nick Zangwill believes that
something can only attain beauty if it has ‘specific aesthetic properties’, and
so concepts such as ‘the soul, and laws of nature, cannot be beautiful.’ (Gage,
2011:291)
Kant, however, believed that the rules of judging beauty were empirical;
they were based entirely on observation and experience as opposed to logic or
theory, and therefore could not ‘serve as stated laws a priori’. (Kant in Aaberg)
Theodor Lipps stated that the ‘task of aesthetics is not to prescribe what or
how has to be judged as aesthetics, but to understand aesthetical judgement.’ (Lipps
in Aaberg) Kant believed that judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and
intellectual simultaneously; he used this theory as a basis to create three
critical concepts in order to further understand and explain aesthetical
judgment:
Firstly,
‘Aesthetic judgment, or what Kant would call
a judgment of taste, is made independently from how the object is ‘subsumed under
concept’, that is, independent of the function, language, context, or other
criteria extraneous to the form itself.’ (Gage, 2011:81)
Conrad Fielders’ work ‘could be considered an extreme stance against the
Hegelian notion that art is merely a vehicle leading toward greater truths’.
He, like Kant, discusses the ‘separation of aesthetic judgments from
cognition’, continuing to emphasise that ‘aesthetic judgments take place before
cognitive ones.’ He believed that the judgment of aesthetics was instantaneous
and therefore couldn’t be affected by the aforementioned criteria. (Gage, 2011:115)
Secondly,
‘Kant introduces the concept of
‘disinterestedness’’… which explains that ‘when making an aesthetic judgment,
he says, it is critical not only to avoid cognition of the objects’ identity or
use but also to be free from desire regarding the object.’ (Gage, 2011:81)
When discussing objects of beauty, Hegel states, in agreement with Kant,
that ‘if we have an interest, by way of curiosity for instance… then the
objects are not important to us for their own sake, but for the sake of our
want’, going on to suggest that this isn’t beauty, which should be allowed ‘the
external existence to subsist free and independent, giving license to the
object.’ (Inwood, 1993:64)
Thirdly, Kant describes the idea that the judgment of beauty requires a
cultivated mind, which he calls a ‘subjective universality’. ‘Beauty lies not
in the eye of the beholder; it requires a skilled interpretation.’ (Gage, 2011:82)
Hegel too agreed with the concept of the spectator of art being equally as
important as the maker. Despite stating ‘each mind perceives a different
beauty’ (Hume in Korsmeyer, 1998:139) Hume too believed that
‘Though the principles of taste be
universal, and nearly, if not entirely the same in all men… few are qualified
to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the
standard of beauty.’ (Hume in Korsmeyer, 1998:145)
According to Kant, it is only if these three criteria are met that
something can be labeled as having aesthetic value. This being said, the
beliefs of Kant, Hegel and Hume all date back to the 18th and 19th
century, and are discussing aesthetic judgment in relation to fine art; the
ways in which we now make aesthetic judgments has altered. This essay shall
focus on the third Kantian rule and, more specifically, shall extract from it
and explore the main theory within aesthetic judgment: subjectivism.
Subjectivism dictates that people have their own sense of beauty, hence
something is judged to be beautiful simply if someone say it is beautiful; and
for the same reason, something is art purely because someone says it is. Often,
this will result in people declaring the beauty of an object without being able
to reinforce their thoughts with theory or reasoning, echoing Kant’s notion of
aesthetical judgments being empirical. Subjectivism would indicate, then, that
the beauty of an object is indisputable; although different people will have
varying opinions, an individual’s judgment of beauty cannot be wrong. ‘An
aesthetical judgment does not demand everybody’s agreement, it only invites to
such an agreement. It permits other opinions.’ (Aaberg)
Despite having always dealt with art in an attempt to determine its value,
aesthetics has more recently been applied to other art forms including, but not
exclusively to, poetry, film and graphic design. It is very hard to explain what beauty is to
someone. Elaine Scarry describes beauty by the things it makes us want to do,
stating that beauty ‘makes us draw it, take photographs of it, or describe it
to other people.’ (Scarry, 2006:3) Stephen Bayley instead
suggests that, regardless what the object in question is, ‘we know something is
beautiful if we want more of it.’ (Bayley, 2012:212) What makes a
painting beautiful is altogether different to what makes music beautiful, and
the same can be said across all disciplines. Within graphic design, certain
traits help to determine
the aesthetic value of an object, whereas, ‘it is much more difficult to say what
beauty unattached to any object is.’ (Scarry, 2006:9) This concept implies, then, that each art form
has its own language for the judgment of aesthetics, reinforcing the idea that
much of the theories previously discussed are now out-dated, as they were
written during a period in which fine art was the only form of visual culture.
The distinction between fine art and design is a very unclear one and is
the cause of much deliberation. Jacques Aumont suggests that there are three
functions that graphic images perform, which are: the ‘symbolic’, the
‘epistemic’ and the ‘aesthetic’. Aesthetic images are ‘intended to please the
spectator (or) to produce in the spectator specific sensations’, Aumont stating
that any image that does so is automatically perceived as ‘art’. (Jacques in
Barnard, 2005:13) This would, in turn, imply that design is unable to produce
such feelings within its audience. Other people use meaning and communication
as aspects that differentiate art and design, such as Jonathan Jones who, when
writing about a sculpture, said that ‘this is an object so forthright, so
plain, that it falls short of being art’. This also infers that due to
communicating as ‘unambiguously and easily’ as possible, design cannot be art.
(Jones in Barnard, 2005:163) Malcolm Barnard argues this, stating that this
logic doesn’t take into account ‘cultural, class, national, gender, age, ethnic
or indeed any other differences.’ Despite the struggle to distinguish art from
design, it is these criteria, as listed by Barnard, that collectively shape
modern societies aesthetical judgments. Aesthetic judgment is based around a
cultural understanding and agreement on beauty, which in modern society can
change rapidly. Jan Mukarovsky’s work on the aesthetic function discusses how it can be
separated into norms and values:
‘An aesthetic norm arises from
interaction with other norms in a social formation. It structures what is and
isn’t held to be ‘aesthetic’’ and ‘aesthetic value, which is usually harboured
by individuals, is stabilised by the norm.’ (Mukarovsky, in Cobley and Jansz, 2004:151)
What Mukarovsky is implying is this idea of subjectivity; an individual
decides the beauty of an object and the aesthetic norm, which represents
society, governs aesthetic value through a shared cultural understanding of
preconceived ideas about beauty and taste.
However, in the 21st century, the term ‘aesthetics’
has become hazy and frequently used incorrectly, wrongly replacing words like
style and form. Wolfgang
Welsch questions the meaning of the word ‘aesthetics’ within modern society,
asking ‘if the polysemantic use of the word aesthetic does not make it a ‘passepartout-word’ which fits
everywhere because it does not mean anything.’ (Welsch in Aaberg) Due to the
interchangeable relationship the word has adopted, the evaluation of aesthetic
value has become a much more arduous task; first one must clarify the
difference between the three. Form and style are branches of aesthetics within
modern design, tools that, when used correctly, help to increase the aesthetic
merit of a design. These are things considered during the design process in
order to achieve aesthetic quality, to achieve beauty. Therefore it is
impossible to talk about aesthetics within modern design without also
discussing form and style, as well as function, and the relationship between
them.
Chapter Two
Having come to
terms with the meaning of ‘aesthetics’ and the way in which its value is
affected by society, both Modernism and Post-Modernism shall now be examined in
order to comprehend the ways in which their ideologies and beliefs shaped the
value of aesthetics within design; the intentions of both movements shall be
compared, their successes and failures reviewed and discussed. Both movements
have caused drastic alterations in the way different 21st century
designers approach style, form and function. Within this section, the
relationship between the three shall be put under scrutiny in an attempt to
determine the impact they have had upon the aesthetics of graphic design.
Modernism was a movement founded on the belief that ‘form is legitimised
on the basis of content – form is truthful or aesthetically valid when it
faithfully represents content.’ (Blauvelt, Eye Magazine) In relation
specifically to graphic design, Blauvelt links the ‘problem’ with the content
and the ‘solution’ with the form; thus emphasising the inseparable relationship
between the two, whilst also making reference to the Modernist mantra of ‘form
shall ever follow function’. (Blauvelt, Eye Magazine) ‘What we specifically
perceive as form, and therefore as beauty, is the natural, self-evident, and
functional appearance.’ (Bill in Blauvelt, Eye Magazine) The underlying concept
of all Modernist design was that form shall always be dictated by function, as
‘beauty lies in fundamentals while ugliness, as it were, was only skin-deep.’ (Bayley,
2012:210) By ensuring that the form of a design was a direct result of the
function it was to perform, the Modernists believed that they could achieve a
true beauty, ‘an aesthetic absolute.’ (Wild in Bierut,
Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:56) They equated cleanliness and purity, to beauty. The hierarchy of
function over form, of fundamental elements over superfluous decoration,
resulted in design with communication its foremost by-product. ‘Our ethic then
was one of discipline, clarity, and cleanliness. The highest praise for a piece
of graphic design was: ‘This is really clean.’’ (McCoy in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:50) The basic idea behind this principle was
simple: if all non-essentials were removed, a timeless aesthetic would be
attainable. Understanding the way in which beauty functions within society, our
idea of beauty constantly fluctuating, the Modernists established boundaries
within which eternal beauty was achievable; they realised that it was, in fact,
the indulgence of form that was anathema to this. This was not to say, however,
that strictly adhering to this principle would result in design that would
transcend the idea of subjectivity. As with the nature of subjectivity, there
will always be people who disagree with the beauty of an object.
It is imperative to understand the difference between ‘form follows
function’ and ‘form and function’; it is the inseparable relationship between
the two that Modernists believed resulted in beauty. Paul Rand appreciated that
beauty is not the only desirable trait of a design and ‘rarely has beauty been
an end in itself’, (Rand, 1985:3) but stated ‘that the separation of form
and function, of concept and execution, is not likely to produce objects of
aesthetic value has been repeatedly demonstrated.’ (Rand, 1985:3)
Rand hints at the idea that both form and function are essential components in
the creation of aesthetic quality; that to suggest a dichotomy between the two
would be counter productive in the search for beauty. He implies that design
was frequently produced with
functionality as its sole concern, the consideration of form, and consequently
aesthetics, falling by the wayside. It is in fact the harmony between form and
function that creates beauty; the way in which they work together that creates
design of real aesthetic merit.
‘Aesthetic considerations may certainly influence, and in some cases
even dominate, the process whereby a designed object comes finally to look the
way it does, but they are seldom the first causes of shape and form.’ (Petroski,
1992:32)
What Petroski is acknowledging, in agreement with Rand, is the idea that
despite the importance of aesthetic value within design, function is the
driving force behind all design and, whilst aesthetic value is aimed for, it is
not an end in itself. The
disciples of Modernism truly believed that it
‘Was and still is the search for truth, the
search for integrity, the search for cultural stimulation and enrichment of the
mind. Modernism was never a style, but an attitude.’ (Vignelli in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:51)
To them, Modernism was a way of approaching design that would improve
the world, to make it better through design. Figure 4 shows a subway map
designed by Vignelli, which showcases the clear ambition to remove any
confusing elements within a design to ensure it becomes functional, and can
withstand the test of time (Fig 4).
‘The reality is that graphic design is a
profession wholly in thrall to its own visions of formal beauty. Beauty is the
single quality designers most value and crave.’ (Poynor, Page 44)
The attitude of Modernist designers, their intention to de-clutter the
visual environment, was a clear attempt to attain true beauty, impervious to
time, and ‘improve the design of everything that can be made – to make it
better.’ (Vignelli in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and
Holland, 1994:51) It
is inherent within all designers to aspire to create beauty; this is viewed as
being the ultimate reward. By focusing their efforts on creating functional,
clean design, Modernists shaped the way in which society viewed beauty within
design, setting aesthetic standards that had to be met.
What designers of the Modernist era perceive as beauty is different to
what others may perceive as beauty. In his book, The Conduct Of Life, Ralph
Waldo Emerson discusses the issue of ugliness and states that ‘the secret of ugliness consists not in irregularity, but in being
uninteresting.’ (Emerson in Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland,
1994:157) Heller
discusses, in relation to Emerson’s theory of ugliness, that design is
therefore only ugly when lacking in aesthetic or conceptual forethought;
implying that when design involves considerable contemplation of these factors,
its ‘beauty and ugliness are mitigated by context and purpose.’ Modernist
designers sought to purify the visual environment and created design that was
free from ornamentation, prioritising function in lieu of form; in doing so,
Heller suggests, they created work that was arguably ‘uninteresting and
therefore as ugly as any non-designed newsletter or advertisement.’ (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:157) This is of course, as with
beauty in any circumstance, entirely subjective; the design created during this
era perfectly reflects the existing archetypes of beauty established throughout
Modernism and appeals to the Modernists’ sensibilities. However, ‘it becomes
necessary to suspend popular notions of beauty so that alternative aesthetic
standards can be explored’ (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel,
Heller, and Holland, 1994:157) As Heller suggests, it is essential for the progression of design
that existing archetypes of beauty are questioned in order for alternatives to
be explored. Many designers, tired of the monotony of
Modernist design, went in search of new aesthetic standards, much to the dismay
of the old guard. Rick
Poynor states that ‘new forms of expression and a new kind of beauty were
emerging, and some people didn’t get it’; (Poynor, Page 44) he was referring to
Post-modernism.
A reaction of the Modernist movement, Post-modernism, or New Wave as it
was known within graphic design, occurred in the late 20th century.
The focus of this movement was to challenge the preconceived notions of beauty
that were established within the Modernist era. Unlike the Modernism,
Post-modernism didn’t concern itself with conforming to existing ideas of
beauty or the betterment of mankind, rejecting the idea of social progress.
Instead, it reintroduced the application of ornament and decoration within
design, allowing for self-expression and new styles to emerge.
Massimo Vignelli
believed that, despite having upmost faith in the modernist movement and all
that it stood for, Post-modernism was essential in order to provide ‘a critical
evaluation of the issues of Modernism’. It helped to improve, correct and
expand the issues of Modernism and without it ‘none of us would be the same’. (Vignelli in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:51) Instead of viewing
the work of Post-modernists as being counter-intuitive in the search of a new
aesthetic standard, Vignelli suggests that it be viewed simply as a critique of
Modernism that, in turn, enabled it to tackle its flaws.
The work of New Wave designers often seems chaotic and arbitrary;
clarity and communication have been replaced by noise and distortion, due
heavily to a self-indulgence of form. However, functionalism, which many claim
belongs to Modernism, continued to be a part of the design process.
‘Despite those who would attribute
functionalism solely to Modernism, functionalism can be seen as inherent in the
definition of design itself; a series of actions taken to produce a desired
effect.’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and
Holland, 1994:57)
As Wild indicates, the process of
design itself involves intentional thought towards purpose and function,
regardless to the way in which something finally comes to look. Despite much
Post-modern design being dismissed as ‘‘empty formalism’ whose excesses mask a
poverty of content’, (Blauvelt, Eye Magazine) this idea of reasoning and
functionalism is embedded within the process of creation, and therefore within
Post-modern design also.
‘(It) seems to be a habit of functionalism
that shapes my process… I have never lost my faith in rational functionalism,
in spite of appearances to the contrary.’ (McCoy in Bierut,
Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:50)
Katherine McCoy, looking for a more expressive outlet than Modernism
couldn’t provide, went to study at Cranbrook Academy of Art, an institution
that became infamous for its role in the production of New Wave design. Whilst
there, she created this poster (Fig 1). Although at first glance it may appear
any consideration of function or purpose has been ignored, she explains that it
is, in fact, the contemplation of these that actually shape and inform her
design decisions and her use of expressive form. The idea of functionalism
within decorative design is reinforced by Alice Twemlow, who believes that
‘Sometimes the decorative elements in a
piece of work are not merely sampled from a palette of choices but emanate
directly from content and are integrated at a deep level with concept. They do
as much work as the word or the image in communicating.’ (Twemlow in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:91)
She, too, understands the way in which form can be utilised as a tool to
enhance the function of a design, to aid in communication of the intended
messages. Due to its sheer divergence from the ‘rules’ of design enforced by
Modernists, there has much discourse surrounding the work that came out of
Cranbrook Academy regarding its aesthetic value.
In order to discuss the idea of ‘ugly design’, we must first identity
exactly what this implies.
‘Let us say that ugly design, as opposed to
classical design (where adherence to the golden mean and a preference for
balance and harmony serve as the foundation for even the most unconventional
compositions) is the layering of unharmonious graphic forms in a way that
results in confusing messages.’ (Heller in Bierut,
Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:156)
Here, Heller is referring to ugly by comparing it to the work of the
Modernist era, the aesthetic that it embodied. Ugliness is the antithesis of
beauty, and in the same way that beauty is based around the theory of
subjectivism, so must be ugliness. In this sense then, nothing can be ugly;
ugly is simply a word that represents notions of beauty that are contradictory
to the existing consensus as to what beauty is.
Steven Heller opens ‘Cult Of The Ugly’ with a metaphor, taken from
‘Philosophical Dictionary’ by Voltaire, which discusses beauty, involving a
comparison between what a toad would define as beauty, what Paul Rand would
define as beauty and what Heller assumes a student from Cranbrook would define
as beauty. (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and
Holland, 1994:155)
‘Those who value functional simplicity would
argue that the Cranbrook students’ publication, like a toad’s warts, is ugly.
The difference is that unlike the toad, the Cranbrook students have
deliberately given themselves the warts.’ (Heller in
Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:155)
Here, Heller is recognising the intentional attempt to go against the
former aesthetic standard, challenging the ideas and beliefs cemented by
designers of the Modernist movement. He picks up on the idea of preconceived
notions of beauty, any attempt to challenge this idea resulting in ‘ugliness’.
Steven Heller continues to discuss how, despite the lack of intention
for their work to function in the commercial world, work of Cranbrook students
was distributed to thousands of practicing designers across America, ‘so rather
than remain cloistered and protected from criticism as on-campus “research”, it
is fair subject for scrutiny.’ (Heller in Bierut,
Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:159) Heller sees the work produced within Cranbrook Academy as being
purely for research purposes, experimentation in order to discover the
limitations of design. Cranbrook students utilised the safety of the
institution, the opportunity to experience complete creative freedom, to
investigate and explore the use of expressive form and meaning within design.
‘The Cranbrook theorists’ aim, derived from
French philosophy and literary theory, is to deconstruct, to break apart and
expose, the manipulative visual language and different levels of meaning
embodied in a design.’ (Poynor in Stiff in Bierut,
Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1997:34)
The intention of the work was to force the spectator to truly ‘read’ the
text, as opposed to just ‘look’. It was deliberately ambiguous in an attempt to
allow for multiple interpretations and meanings, based on shared cultural
understandings. Paul Stiff discusses this, stating that the work of
institutions such as Cranbrook was intended to make the reader work and
actively engage; this concept reinforced by Phil Baines who says that he was
‘trying to involve the viewer as an active participant rather than as a passive
recipient.’ (Baines in Stiff in Bierut, Drenttel,
Heller, and Holland, 1997:34) Lorraine Wild
introduces ‘reception theory’, which she says is ‘another Post-modern construct… a revision of
Modernist notions of function, use and meaning.’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:59) Reception theory relates to the way in
which a reader interprets text. It states that when a group of readers have a
shared cultural background, they will interpret the text in similar ways; so
conversely, the greater the difference between the reader and artist, the less
likely the spectator will be able to recognise the intended meaning.
Referring back to Emerson’s theory of ugliness and applying it to the
design of the Cranbrook Academy, for example, would indicate that their work
actually contained aesthetic merit in its chaotic nature, as it does in fact
pay explicit attention to concept and the creation of unusual and interesting
compositions. So, by challenging the notions of beauty set by Modernism,
designers like McCoy accomplished a new standard of beauty based around
expressive form. However, due to its vast difference in appearance compared to
the aesthetic standard that precedes it, thus greatly challenging what had
become the norms of beauty, it was dismissed as ‘ugly design’.
Heller also discusses the work of American designer Art Chantry, stating
that despite horrifying those designers who favour the more traditional style
of design, favouring functionalism to the punk vernacular, ‘Chantry’s design is
decidedly functional within its context’ and his ‘compositions prove that using
ostensibly ugly forms can result in good design.’ (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:157) This demonstrates a perfect
example of the beauty, and therefore ugliness, of design being mitigated by
context and purpose. The style and form of Chantry’s work appeals to its
intended demographic who, according to reception theory, can all interpret his
intended message as they share a cultural background and understanding with
him.
The problem with work from Cranbrook Academy and other similar
institutions, however, came with the distribution of their ‘experiments’ into
the real world.
‘The problem with the cult of ugly graphic
design emanating from the major design academies and their alumni is that is
has so quickly become a style that appeals to anyone without the intelligence,
discipline, or good sense to make something more interesting out of it.’ (Heller
in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:159)
What Heller is discussing here
links back to Kant’s third rule of aesthetical judgment, in which, a cultivated
mind is needed to judge and determine the beauty of an object. The work of the Cranbrook Academy was taken
on-board by neophytes and misunderstood as a viable model, individuals
mistakenly interpreting this experimental approach as empty formalism, causing
a new style to emerge which inevitably led to its misuse. (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:159)
This sudden revival of decoration quickly became popularised and used as
a style by designers in order to gain temporary success. This abrupt change in
aesthetic standard meant that the new vision of beauty consisted of expressive
form, decoration and ornament, the complete antithesis of the aesthetic
Modernism endeavored to create. This is not to say, however, that the timeless
aesthetic of Modernist design was no longer appreciated. Despite this renewal
of ornament and decoration within design, Modernist designers continued on
their mission to purify the visual world in strive of eternal beauty. New Wave
designers, less concerned with complying to old notions of beauty, continued to
question our idea of aesthetics; more interested in breaking free from the
restrictions of Modernism in order to reveal new standards of beauty and
expression. Society now finds itself in a situation where two contradictory
notions of beauty co-exist. One, influenced by Modernism, focused around the
principle of ‘form follows function’, in which ornament has been removed to
produce design that’s beauty can withstand the test of time. The other, driven
by Post-modernism, involves the indulgence of form in order to create design
that is expressive of both the designer and the spectator. Both movements
striving towards the creation of beauty; be it by adhering to old standards or
by exploring new ones.
Chapter Three
After having explored the ideas of Modernism and
Post-modernism, it is clear that both have had significant impact on the
aesthetics of design and its value, both promoting their own visions of beauty.
The study shall now turn its attention to contemporary graphic design;
examining the influences both movements have had on the way in which graphic
designers currently approach aesthetic value, as well as looking into other
factors that shape modern day aesthetics.
Contemporary graphic design is now divided over which version of beauty
it finds most satisfying. It consist of designers influenced by both movements;
some designers remain true to the Modernist ethos, creating design that is
simple and clean in the hope to imitate the timeless beauty the Modernist
ideology provides, whereas, other designers search for new forms of beauty
through the exploration of self-expression and the indulgence of form. Beauty,
as previously mentioned, can make its spectator feel or do various different
things; one of which is evidenced within the earliest examples of fine art:
imitation. ‘Sometimes it gives rise to exact replication and other times to
resemblances.’ (Scarry, 2006:3) This idea of replicating beauty can be
seen within recent graphic design; many current practitioners have recognised
that by emulating the style of either Modernism or New Wave, they can cash-in
on the movements aesthetic success and, by way of association, grant themselves
instant popularity.
The use of style within graphic design has a stigma attached to it,
which it adopted during the Modernist era and still cannot shake off. However,
the role of style within society is very intricate and important; it is an
aspect of design that, if utilised correctly, allows the designer to
communicate directly to a precise section of society. This is done through the
associations that come with the style; what the style represents. Contemporary
designers apply the styles associated with Modernism or New Wave in order to
attain the aesthetic that the style conveys.
‘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.’ (Burdick in
Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:136)
The use of a certain style allows the designer to visually embody the
beliefs of an entire movement without actually having to consider any of the
fundamental principles, ignoring the underlying principles that gave substance
to the movement. ‘If style has a function, it is to be recognisable and
categorisable. It must communicate with specific pockets of culture and
lifestyles.’ (Andrew Blauvelt, Eye Magazine) This would enable the designer to
be instantly associated with a movement, thus gaining arguably undeserved
popularity amongst its enthusiasts. Effectively, they are buying into a
lifestyle and culture that pre-exists in order to gain temporary success and
recognition.
‘Dismissals of style ignore the complex ways
in which style operates in society: how styles circulate as communicative codes
that distinguish cultural groups and social classes.’ (Blauvelt, Eye Magazine)
They play a vital role in the formation of current aesthetic standards;
constantly renewing societies view of preconceived aesthetic standards.
Since beauty is entirely subjective, there is a constant battle between
what ‘true beauty’ is. This constant struggle to understand true beauty hasn’t
gone unnoticed, and, whilst some believe that ‘the current trend may never be
properly explained until it has passed’, (Frere-Jones in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1997:16) others have already begun examining and
discussing the zeitgeist. In ‘Notes On Modernism’, Timotheus Vermeulen and
Robin van der Akker discuss the stage that we are at today, giving it the title
of ‘metamodernism’; a term that addresses the way in which we are constantly
shifting between antitheses yet simultaneously surpassing both in ‘search of
new ground.’ (Adbusters, Jan/Feb 2015) Alice Twemlow refers to the early 2000s
as what she broadly characterises ‘neo-modernism’. She continues, equating the
design world to a pendulum; forever swinging between contradictory notions of
beauty and aesthetic value. (Twemlow in Bierut,
Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:87)
Another factor that has substantially
perpetuated our need for aesthetics within design is the Internet. A phenomenon
that has transformed the way in which society views and interacts with design,
the Internet has become the main source of inspiration and exposure for
designers. Despite having always strived to create beauty, as previously
discussed, designers are finding the consideration of aesthetics to become a
much larger part of the design process. Anne Burdick explains this, suggesting that in
circumstances when our work is compromised due to ‘budget constraints or
client-imposed parameters’, and therefore falls short of our aesthetic
expectations, the projects are demoted to ‘job’ status, regardless of its
success in terms of function. She claims that the work which allows us creative
freedom is the same work that wins awards and grants us our ‘good designer’
status. (Burdick in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and
Holland, 1994:138)
‘Functionalist ethics no longer apply. How
could they, when the work is judged out of context, in split-second time, by
criteria that goes no further than immediate impression?’ (Burdick in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:138)
What she is discussing here is the way in which graphic design is
displayed online, through design platforms that only reveal a small preview of a project;
amidst the plethora of thumbnails it becomes very easy for work to blend in and
become invisible.
‘When
scrolling quickly through a blog, we are only examining the visual;
consequently the visual becomes more and more important to the highly strategic
practice of graphic design.’ (Olivia Diaz, Idealisation and Standardisation Of
Aesthetics)
Modern society demands much more
from designers; expecting a greater quantity of work at a much more frequent
rate. ‘Today’s
obsession for speed and quantity has profoundly influenced the ways in which we
think and feel.’ (Kepes in Bierut, Helfand, Heller, and
Poynor, 1999:98)
This obsession for speed has meant that aesthetics are key to modern design,
which must appeal to the spectator instantaneously or risk going completely
overlooked.
The field of graphic design is an
ever-increasingly competitive market due to the Internet making it accessible
to everyone. Mr.
Keedy discusses the idea that what designers consider to be ‘specialist
knowledge’ is rapidly becoming basic literacy and software skills; yet goes on
to question whether everyone will ‘have good taste, talent, skill, and a sense
of style?’ (Keedy in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller,
2006:98) Stating
that graphic designers consider their expertise to be in ‘problem solving,
communicating, organising information, and branding’, Mr. Keedy concludes by asking
‘to whom should people go for style and taste? Isn’t style too important to be
left in the hands of amateurs?’ (Keedy, in Bierut,
Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:98) This harps back to Kant’s theory of a cultivated mind being needed in
order to judge about beauty. Newcomers are now able to create and release work
into the world at an increasing rate that, due to their lack of expertise,
could be detrimental to the portrayal of aesthetic standards within graphic
design of today.
‘The uncertainty of values in contemporary graphic design practice and
the discourse that surrounds it now… has led to a notion that there has been a
loss of consensus as to what constitutes ‘good’ design.’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:55)
Designers must take charge of the industry once more and lead the way
towards ascertaining beauty.
It is not unheard of for current ideas of good design and beauty to be
challenged and criticised by its forerunners. ‘As difficult as it is, we must
keep questioning preconceived notions of what good design is.’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:59) Not unlike the way in which designers of
the Modernist era questioned the intentions of Post-modernists, critics are
starting to discuss the work of more recent times.
‘Unfamiliar forms of work produced in
response to major changes in technology are often classified as ‘ugly’ because
of their formal strangeness, and interpreted as evidence of aesthetic
malfeasance, the obliteration of standards and practices of craft.’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:5958)
What Wild is suggesting here is that advancements, especially those that
directly impact graphic design, are prone to casting doubt in the minds of some
which often results in their disapproval. The popularisation of design
platforms and blogs, such as Crap Is Good, has meant that a surge of design,
which some refer to as ‘aesthetically questionable‘, (Heller in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:155) has emerged which once again
begins to question our notion of good design, of our aesthetic standards. Figure
2 and 3 are examples of work featured on the site, typical of the current trend
with graphic design (Fig 2 and 3). Heller questions the origins of this current
trend, suggesting perhaps ugliness has ‘simply been assimilated into popular
culture and has become a stylish conceit.’ (Heller in
Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and Holland, 1994:157)
‘We have to be bad. Not bad as in crap, but
bad as in subordinate and disobedient… We can break the cycle of blandness… We
can say “Why not do something that forces us to rewrite the definition of ‘good
design”’. (Kalman in Bayley, 2012:246)
Designers of the modern era are starting to once again explore new
aesthetic standards, whilst simultaneously some designers continue to make a
living from repeating past aesthetics through the process of applying certain
styles.
Elaine Scarry suggests that ‘conversation about the beauty of these
things has been banished’, implying that the word beauty has become sparse in
the discourse of modern design. (Scarry, 2006:57) It has become a word that’s
meaning contains too much ambiguity. ‘Quantifying aesthetic value is very
difficult. It’s not like there is one thing you can measure.’ (Postrel in Keedy
in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:99) Linking back to the theory of
subjectivity, Postrel describes the difficulty in making aesthetic evaluations.
She appreciates that there is no singular criteria by which this judgment can
be made, but in fact, it is based around cultural understandings and individual
preferences.
‘As the educator Jacques Girard states about
critiquing work in the classroom these days, “Someone who refers to a design as
beautiful, ugly, good or bad is not talking as much about the object as about
himself.”’ (Wild in Bierut, Drenttel, Heller, and
Holland, 1994:59)
Both Modernism and Post-modernism have had a significant impact on the
ways in which designers attempt to achieve aesthetic value within design.
Whether it is through the imitation of the Modernist style, or the application
of superfluous decoration that was re-introduced through Post-modernism,
designers of the modern era all have their own individual ideas of beauty. And
thanks to the Internet, their thoughts can be instantly shared with the rest of
society, thus helping to form a consensus as to what constitutes the modern
aesthetic. The answer to which is, there is no singular aesthetic. Instead,
there are numerous, sometimes contradictory, notions as to what true beauty is.
Conclusion
As Poyner points out, ‘it makes no sense to talk about design and leave
beauty out.’ (Poynor in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller,
2006:45) Beauty is a
part of everyday life and a ‘vital human need. It is an experience from which
people have everything to gain and nothing to lose.’ (Poynor in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:45) The endeavor to create design that
attains true beauty is the driving force behind progression and change; it is
the reason that people want to become designers, to become creators of beauty.
As Mr. Keedy constantly states, we live in an ‘age of aesthetics’, (Keedy in Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller, 2006:98) in which it is becoming increasingly more
important to strive for aesthetic value.
‘The challenge is to learn to accept that
aesthetic pleasure is an autonomous good, not the highest or the best but one
of many plural, sometimes conflicting, and frequently unconnected sources of
value.’ (Postrel in Keedy in Bierut, Drenttel, and
Heller, 2006:98)
Beauty has always been, and will always be, an integral part of design
that holds great value. After all, ‘design is not for design’s sake… design is
for man.’ (Kepes in Bierut, Helfand, Heller, and
Poynor, 1999:99)
Images
Figure 1 (Last Accessed 11th
January 2015)
Figure 2 (Last Accessed 11th
January 2015)
Figure 3 (Last Accessed 11th
January 2015)
Figure 4 (Last Accessed 11th
January 2015)
Bibliography
Books:
Barnard, M. (2005) Graphic Design As
Communication, Oxon: Routledge
Bayley, S. (2012) Ugly: The Aesthetics Of
Everything, London: Carlton Publishing Group
Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S. and
Holland, D.K. (1994) Looking Closer: Critical Writings On Graphic Design, New
York: Allworth Press
Bierut, M., Drenttel, W., Heller, S. and
Holland, D.K. (1997) Looking Closer 2: Critical Writings On Graphic Design, New
York: Allworth Press
Bierut, M., Helfand, J., Heller, S. and
Poynor, R. (1999) Looking Closer 3: Critical Writings On Graphic Design, New
York: Allworth Press
Bierut, M., Drenttel, W. and Heller, S.
(2006) Looking Closer 5: Critical Writings On Graphic Design, New York:
Allworth Press
Carroll, N. (2001) Beyond Aesthetics:
Philosophical Essays, New York: Cambridge University Press
Cobley, P. and Jansz, L. (2004) Introducing
Semiotics, Royston: Icon Books Ltd.
Eagleton, T. (1990) The Ideology Of The
Aesthetic, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Gage, M. F. (2011) Aesthetic Theory:
Essential Texts For Architecture And Design, New York: W. W. Norton &
Company
Inwood, M. (1993) Hegel: Introductory
Lectures On Aesthetics, London: Penguin Group
Korsmeyer, C. (1998) Aesthetics: The Big
Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Lupton, E. and Abbott Miller, J. (1996)
Design, Writing, Research: Writing On Graphic Design, New York: Kiosk
Petroski, H. (1992) The Evolution Of Useful
Things, New York: Vintage Books
Rand, P. (1985) Paul Rand: A Designer’s
Art, London: Yale University Press
Scarry, E. (2006) On Beauty And Being Just,
Second Edition, London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Websites:
Magazine:
Unknown (2015) Adbusters, Blueprint For A New
World Part VI: Aesthetico
Online Articles:
