Mixing+messages

MESSAGES
MIXING
MESSAGES
MIXING

SPREAD FROM THE SEVENTH ISSUE OF OCTAVO, 1990

T Y P E I S T H E
F O R M A L
E X P R E S S I O N O F
W R I T I N G , A N D
W R I T I N G I S T H E
P H Y S I C A L
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N
O F L A N G U A G E
[ . . . ] C O D E S
T H A T R E P R E S E N T
I D E A S T H A T
C O N V E Y
M E A N I N G S T H A T
T R I G G E R
U N D E R S T A N D I N G
S T E V E N H E L L E R

IN
JEFFREY KEEDY
STEVENHELLER
No tempo actual, graças ao aceleradíssimo avanço tecnológico,
podemos dizer que vivemos numa sociedade em constante mutação,
numa cultura sujeita à complexidade e mudanças de valores, onde
a informação é composta por diversas camadas de entendimento.
Esta evolução dá-se não apenas pelo aparecimento do computador
mas também pela evolução cultural. O tema de grande enfoque era
o comercial, o interesse pelo popular, o vernacular: inicia-se
a desmontagem e a exposição de novas formas visuais, the “low”
was transformed into higher form, it´s crude energy cultivated
into a new aesthetic value”.
Este novo método não se baseia apenas nas colagens de elementos
do quotidiano mas sim numa cumplicidade com o conteúdo.
O objetivo é quebrar as regras e expôr a linguagem visual
manipulada e os vários níveis de de sentido implícito no design.
Estas mudanças sentem-se, principalmente, no uso e construção
da tipografia. A tipografia ganhou uma fluidez e facilidade de
manipulação que há três décadas atrás era impossível imaginar.
O acesso ao computador pessoal permitiu a fusão entre dois
ofícios: designer e tipógrafo. A fonte deixa de estar
exclusivamente dependente de especialistas.
Há uma maior facilidade de controlo sobre os arranjos da letra
que, anteriormente, dependia de técnicas caras e muito
trabalhosas; o computador possibilita ao designer produzir e
experimentar a um baixo custo e curto espaço de tempo, with the
advent of the computer and the death of the type shop, all
graphic designers hat to be their own typographers.
Contudo, inicialmente, este novo meio trouxe uma desvantagem:
a baixa qualidade das interfaces gráficas (estética do pixel
e do bitmap) que, para os designers, foi muito difícil
ultrapassar: o designer teve de se adaptar e encarar a linguagem
do computador como uma nova forma de comunicar, typography has
to keep on moving because it is attached to language, witch is
always in a state of flux.
Esta ferramenta permitiu que pessoas com falta de experiência e
má ou inexistente noção sobre a arte da tipografia, “imitassem”,
por assim dizer, determinadas expressões; daí resultou um caos
onde o processo de comunicação falha, yet good typography does
not happen with the flick of a switch. Fluency means having the
hability to draw from reservoir of knowledge and experience on
order to make considered choices, witch is the paramount result
of a good education.
Como consequência da facilidade de acesso ao “computador
pessoal”, surge uma reavaliação e colocam-se em causa os
princípios do design empírico: para muitos críticos esta
distorção da tipografia é vista como declínio de uma formação
nos tempos modernos; mas este período representa uma nova era,
um tempo em que a tipografia passava a ter outro tipo de
legibilidade, passou adquirir um papel principal no contexto
visual, adquiriu o valor de imagem, text can be animated with
voices and images can be read, as well as seen, with the
emphasis on audience interpretation and participation in the
construction of meaning.
3.
4.
“REMOVE SPECIFICS AND
CONVERT TO AMBIGUITIES”
TEACHINGTYPOGRAPHICFLUENCY
RETHINKING MODERNISM,
O
LOW AND HIGH:
M
TYPEISFORREADING”

, REVISING FUNCTIONALISM
OUT
TYPE IS FOR READING // VISIBLE LANGUAGE
ART CHANTRY LETTERING AND TYPE
ELLEN LUPTON
DIG TAL /
IMAGEM
THENEWDISCOURSEMEIOS
KATHERINE MCCOY
FUSE_FREEFORM
EMIGRE
RUDY VANDERLANS
ZUZANA LICKO
PIXEL
VALORES SOCIO CULTURAIS // VERNACULAR
: DESIGN EVERYDAY LIFE
í n d i c e
1.
.2
5.
e:
MY BACKWARD TO LETTERING
/
PHIL BAINES

you can read to research,
read to be informed, or re
to relax. Sometimes you ca
look more than you read,
sometimes you read just a
bit, or with interruptions
and then you read for a
while again.”
LEGIBLE?
...
re many
nt ways
ing [...]
TRANSLATED BY RUDY VANDERLANS

1.
GRAPHIC DESIGNERS HAVE ENGAGED IN THEIR
OWN TRANSFORMATIONS OF LOW INTO HIGH
WITH THEIR MORE RECENT FASCINATION WITH
THE SO-CALLED “VERNACULAR”
DESIGNERS MUST FIND A PLACE TO
SPEAK FROM WITHIN CULTURE, AND
NOT THEMSELVS ABOVE IT.
THE WORM LOOKS
UP AT THE WORLD
FROM THE INSIDE
THE EXERCISE IS AN OBJECT LESSON IN
DISCOVERING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
“US” AND “THEM”
DESIGNER AS SOMEONE WHO IS BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CULTURE: THE
DESIGNER IS A SPECTATOR OF HIS OR
HER OWN WORLD
‘Ask a toad what is beauty… He will answer that it is a
female with two great round eyes coming out of her little
head, a large flat mouth, a yellow belly and a brown back.’
(Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1794).
Ask Paul Rand what is beauty and he will answer that ‘the separation of form and function,
of concept and execution, is not likely to produce objects of aesthetic value.’ (Paul Rand,
A Designer’s Art, 1985). Then ask the same question to the Cranbrook Academy of Art
students who created the ad hoc desktop publication Output (1992), and judge by the
evidence they might answer that beauty is chaos born of found letters layered on top of
random patterns and shapes. Those who value functional simplicity would argue that the
Cranbrook student’s publication, like a toad’s warts, is ugly. The difference is that unlike the
toad, the Cranbrook students have deliberately given themselves the warts.
Output is eight unbound pages of blips, type fragments, random words, and other graphic
minutiae purposefully given the serendipitous look of a printer’s make-ready.
The lack of any explanatory précis (and only this end note: ‘Upcoming Issues From: School
of the Art Institute of Chicago [and] University of Texas,’) leaves the reader confused as to
its purpose or meaning, though its form leads one to presume that it is intended as a design
manifesto, another ‘experiment’ in the current plethora of aesthetically questionable graphic
output. Given the increase in graduate school programs which provide both a laboratory
setting and freedom from professional responsibility, the word experiment has to justify a
multitude of sins.
The value of design experiments should not of course be measured only by what succeeds,
since failures are often steps towards new discoveries. Experimentations is the engine of
progress, its fuel a mixture of instinct, intelligence or discipline is in the mix. This is the case
with certain of the graphic design experiments that have emanated from graduate schools
in the U.S. and Europe in recent years work driven by instincts and obscured by theory, with
ugliness its foremost byproducts.

THE QUESTION OF HIGH AND LOW CAN ALSO BE
VIEWED FROM THE BOTTOM UP - FROM THE WORM´S
EYE VIEW OF EVERYDAY LIFE RATHER THAN THE
BIRD´S EYE VIEW OF THE DISTANCED CRITIC.
MASS CULTURE HAS CHANGED THE
VERY STRUCTURE OF ART, BOTH HIGH
AND LOW.
THISCRISISOFMODERNISMLIESINTHECONTRADICTORY
DESIRETOOCCUPYAPLACEOUTSIDEOFSOCIETYWHILEAT
THESAMETIMETRANSFORMINGIT;IT´SCRITICALSTANCE
MUSTNOWBERELOCATEDASANANALYSISFROMWITHIN
CULTURE,RATHERTHANACRITIQUEFROMABOVE
How is ugly to be defined in the current Post-modern climate where existing systems are up
for re-evaluation, order is under attack and the forced collision of disparate forms is the rule?
For the moment, 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.
By this definition, Output could be considered a prime example of ugliness in the service of
fashionable experimentation. Though not intended to function in the commercial world, it
was distributed to thousands of practicing designers on the American Institute of Graphic
Arts and American Center for Design mailing lists, so rather than remain cloistered and
protected from criticism as on-campus ‘research’, it is a fair subject for scrutiny. It can
legitimately be described as representing the current cult of ugliness.
The layered images, vernacular hybrids, low-resolution reproductions and cacophonous
blends of different types and letters at once challenge prevailing aesthetic beliefs and
propose alternative paradigms. Like the output of communications rebels of the past
(whether 1920s Futurists or 1960s psychedelic artists), this work demands that the viewer
or reader accept non-traditional formats which at best guide the eye for a specific purpose
through a range of non-linear ‘pathways’, and at worst result in confusion.
But the reasons behind this wave are dubious. Does the current social and cultural condition
involve the kind of upheaval to which critical ugliness is a time-honoured companion? Or in
the wake of earlier, more serious experimentation, has ugliness simply been assimilated into
popular culture and become a stylish conceit?
The current wave began in the mid-1970s with the English punk scene, a raw expression
of youth frustration manifested through shocking dress, music and art. Punk’s naive graphic
language – an aggressive rejection of rational typography that echoes Dada and Futurist
work – influenced designers during the late 1970s who seriously tested the limits imposed
by Modernist formalism. Punk’s violent demeanour surfaced in Swiss, American, Dutch and
French design and spread to the mainstream in the form of a ‘new wave’, or what American
punk artist Gary Panter has called ‘sanitised punk’. A key anti-canonical approach later called
Swiss Punk – which in comparison with the gridlocked Swiss International Style was
menacingly chaotic, though rooted in its own logic – was born in the mecca of rationalism,
Basel, during the late 1970s. For the elders who were threatened (and offended) by the
onslaught to criticise Swiss Punk was attacked not so much because of its appearance as
because it symbolised the demise of Modernist hegemony.

THIS PAGE IS U
CONSTRUCTIO
2.
I´VE NOTEDTHAT EVERYTIME NEWTECHNOLOGY
ENTERSTHE FIELD OF DESIGN,THERE ISA HUGE
LEARNING CURVETHAT HASTO BE OVERCOME.
I JUST MAKE WORDS FIT MY IDEAS
Ugly design can be a conscious attempt to create and define alternative standards. Like warpaint,
the dissonant styles which many contemporary designers have applied to their visual
communications are meant to shock an enemy – complacency – as well as to encourage new
reading and viewing patterns.
The work of American designer Art Chantry combines the shock-and-educate approach with
a concern for appropriateness. For over a decade Chantry has been creating eye-catching,
low-budget graphics for the Seattle punk scene by using found commercial artifacts from
industrial merchandise catalogues as key elements in his posters and flyers. While these
‘unsophisticated’ graphics may be horrifying to designers who prefer Shaker functionalism
to punk vernacularism, Chantry’s design is decidedly functional within its context. Chantry’s
clever manipulations of found ‘art’ into accessible, though unconventional, compositions
prove that using ostensibly ugly forms can result in good design.
Post-modernism inspired a debate in graphic design in the mid-1970s by revealing that many
perceptions of art and culture were one-dimensional. Post-modernism urgently questioned
certainties laid down by Modernism and rebelled against grand Eurocentric narratives in
favour of multiplicity. The result in graphic design was to strip Modernist formality of both its
infrastructure and outer covering. The grid was demolished, while neo-classical and
contemporary ornament, such as dots, blips and arrows, replaced the tidiness of the
canonical approach. As in most artistic revolutions, the previous generation was attacked,
while the generations before were curiously rehabilitated.
The visual hallmarks of this rebellion, however, were inevitably reduced to stylistic
mannerisms which forced even more radical experimentation. Extremism gave rise to
fashionable ugliness as a form of nihilistic expression.
I DISCOVEREDTHATTYPOGRAPHYWASAWHOLE NEWWORLDTO EXPLORE ITWASAWORLD CON

UNDER DE-
ON
MYWORK HAS BECOME
FREE FROMTHE RULESTHAT
ACTAS HER MANTRA,AND
MYWORK HASTAKEN OFF
IN DIRECTIONSTHAT I´M NOT
QUITEABLETO DESCRIBE
NTAINING ITS OWN SCIENCEAND LANGUAGEANDART,AND ITWASAWORLD CRITICALTOTHE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAPHIC DESIGN

IN SHORT “ TYPO
LONGER DESCRIB
DOING, BUT “LET
In ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ (1819), the Romantic poet
John Keats wrote the famous lines: “Beauty is truth,
truth beauty, – that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye
need to know.” Yet in today’s environment, one standard
of beauty is no more the truth than is one standard of
ugliness. It is possible that the most conventional-busting
graphic design by students and alumni of Cranbrook,
CalArts and Rhode Island School of Design, among
other hothouses where theoretical constructs are used
to justify what the untutored eye might deem ugly,
could become the foundation for new standards based
on contemporary sensibilities.
Certainly, these approaches have attracted many
followers throughout the deign world.
“Where does beauty begin and where does it end?”
wrote John Cage in Silence (1961). “Where it ends
is where the artist begins.” So in order to stretch the
perimeters of art and design to any serious extent it
becomes necessary to suspend popular notions of
beauty so that alternative aesthetic standards can be
explored. This concept is essential to an analysis of
a recent work by the Chicago company Segura, who
designed the programme/announcement for the 1993
How magazine ‘Creative Vision’ conference and whose
work represents the professional wing of the hothouse
sensibility. Compared to the artless Output, Segura’s
seemingly anarchic booklet is an artfully engineered
attempt to direct the reader through a maze of
mundane information. Yet while the work might
purport to confront complacency, it often merely
obstructs comprehension.
A compilation of variegated visuals, the How piece is a
veritable primer of cultish extremes at once compelling
for its ingenuity yet undermined by its superficiality.
Like a glutton, Segura has stuffed itself with all the
latest conceits (including some of its own concoction)
and has regurgitated them on to the pages. At first
the juxtapositions of discordant visual material appear
organic, but in fact little is left to chance.
The result is a catalogue of disharmony in the service
of contemporaneity, an artifact that is already ossifying
into a 1990s design style. It is a style that presumes
that more is hipper than less, confusion is better than
simplicity, fragmentation is smarter then continuity, and
that ugliness is its own reward.

OGRAPHY” NO
BES WHAT I´M
TTERING” DOES
I JUST
LOOKED
AT
WORDS
AS LET-
TERING.
But is it possible that the surface might blind one to the
inner beauty (i.e. intelligence) of this work?
Ralph Waldo Emerson in The Conduct of Life (1860)
wrote: “The secret of ugliness consists not in
irregularity, but in being uninteresting.” Given Emerson’s
measure, it could be argued that design is only ugly
when devoid of aesthetic or conceptual forethought
– for example, generic restaurant menus, store signs
and packages. Perhaps, then, the How booklet, which
is drowning in forethought, should be ‘read’ on a variety
of levels wherein beauty and ugliness are mitigated by
context and purpose. Perhaps – but given the excesses
in this work, the result can only be described as a
catalogue of pretence.
During the late 1940s and 1950s the Modernist mission
was to develop design systems that would protect
the global (not just corporate) visual environment from
blight. Yet while Modernism smoothed out the rough
edges of communications by prescribing a limited
number of options, it also created a recipe for
mediocrity. If a Modernist design system is followed by
rote, the result can be as uninteresting and therefore as
ugly – according to Emerson’s standard – as any
non-designed newsletter or advertisement. So design
that aggressively challenge the senses and intellect
rather than following the pack should in theory be
tolerated, if not encouraged.

3.For a new generation’s ideas of good design – and
beauty – to be challenged by its forerunners is, of
course, a familiar pattern. Paul Rand, when criticised as
one of those ‘Bauhaus boys’ by American type master
W. A. Dwiggins in the late 1930s, told an interviewer
that he had always respected Dwiggins’ work, “so why
couldn’t he see the value of what we were do
ing?” Rudy VanderLans, whose clarion call of the ‘new
typography’ Emigre has been vituperatively criticised by
Massimo Vignelli, has not returned the fire, but rather
countered that he admires Vignelli’s work despite his
own interest in exploring alternatives made possible by
new technologies. It could be argued that the language
invented by Rand’s ‘Bauhaus boys’ challenged
contemporary aesthetics in much the same way
as VanderLans is doing in Emigre today. Indeed
VanderLans, and those designers whom Emigre
celebrates for their inventions – including Cranbrook
alumni Edward Fella, Jeffery Keedy and Allen Hori – are
promoting new ways of making and seeing typography.
The difference is that Rand’s method was based strictly
on ideas of balance and harmony which hold up under
close scrutiny even today. The new young turks, by
contrast, reject such verities in favour of imposed
discordance and disharmony, which might be
rationalised as personal expression, but not as viable
visual communication, and so in the end will be a blip
(or tangent) in the continuum of graphic design history.
THE COMPUTER INFLUENCESTHE CREATION OF
IFTHIS ISTHE CONSTRUCT OF OUR FUTUREWORLD,
THEN IT´STHE GRAPHIC DESIGNER´STHATWILL BE
CREATION OURTOTAL“HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
MR KEEDY ISAN EDUCATOR
WITHATTITUDE
M Y I N T E R E S T H A S B E E N F O R D

MEANING
E S I G N E R S T O B E C O M E A U T H O R S
YOUR EXPERIENCETELLSYOU.IFYOU SEE 10,00O
TYPEFACESAND STUDIEDTYPOGRAPHY FOR SEVERAL
YEARS,THATWILL HELPYOU DECIDE.THE ONLYTHING
YOU HAVETO GO ON INTHAT RESPECT IS EXPERIENCE.
YOU CAN´T HAVEAN OVERRIDINGTHEORETICAL IDEA.
MAYBEYOU COULD USETHATAT SOME POINT,BUT
YOU CAN´T RELY ON IT
ITHINK IT´S BESTTOTEACHTHE STUDENTS
HOWTO DESIGNA FONT BEFORETHEY GET
INTOWHY.ONCETHEY KNOW HOW,IT IS
EASIERTO UNDERSTANWHY
JEFFERY KEEDY, CALENDARS CREATED FOR LACE, 1988/90

HOW DOYOUTEAC
WE START OFF EITH CALLIGRAPHY,BROAD NIBBED PENAND
INK ON PAPER,TO UNDERSTANDTHE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
LETTERFORMS,STREKES,STRESS,WIDTHS,AND LETTERFORM
CONSTRUCTION.NOT ONLY ISTHE BESTWAYTO LEARNTHE
ANATOMYANDVOCABULARY OF LETTERFORMS,BUT ITALSO
GROUNDSTHE STUDENTS´ UNDERSTANDING OFTHETYPE IN
WRITING,LANGUAGE,AND HISTORY
WE´REATA CRITICAL POINTWITHTHE MILLENNIUMWHERE NO
ONE SEEMSTO KNOWWHATTO DO,INTHE POST-MODERN SENSE
EVERYTHING IS NOW POSSIBLE.THERE´STHE NEWTECHNOLOGY
ANDTHERE´SA LOT OF CONFUSIONAND DIRECTIONLESSNESS.

CHTYPE DESIGN?
IFYOU SEEA FEW LETTERSYOU CAN PRETTY MUCH GUESSWHATTHE REST
OFTHE FONTWILL LOOK LIKE.IWANTEDATYPEFACETHATWOULDWIFULLY
CONTRADICTTHOSE EXPECTATIONS.ITWASATYPICALLY POST-MODERN
STRATEGY FORAWORKTO CALLATTENTIONTOTHE FLAWSANDARTIFICE
OF ITS OWN CONSTRUCTION
JEFFERY KEEDY, EMIGRE TYPE SPECIMEN SERIES/2002

THE RESULTING COMPLEXITYANDAMBIGUITYTHE RESULTING COMPLEXITYANDAMBIGUITY GIVETHE

PHIL BAINES, SPREAD FROM YAK MAGAZINE/1987
TYPOGRAPHERA GREATER POTENTIAL RANGE OF EXPRESSION

U N C O N -
V E N T I O N -
A L A P -
P R O A C H
T O P R I N T
A N D D I G -
I T A L C O -
M U N I -
C A T I O N
-
F R E E F O R M
L A N G U A G E
LANGUAGE
RESEARCH
PROJECT
FUSE 3-6, POSTER/1991-93

LET´SADMIT
ONCE IT FOR
ALL,THATTHE
LINESTHAT
WE DRAWARE
NOT STRAIGHT.
HEREWEARE.
LET US SAY
YESTO OUR
PRESENCE
TOGETHER IN
CHAOS
JOHN CAGE, SILENCE, CALDER AND BOYARDS 1968

FUSE CREATESAN OUTLETTHATALLOWSTYPE
DESIGNERSTO CHALLENGE CONVENTIONALTHINKING
ABOUTTHE FORMAND FUNCTION OFTYPOGRAPHY

THE DIGITAL FORMAT OF COMPUTER
DISK IS PACKAGEDWITH FIVE
POSTERS INA CORRUGATED CARD
CASE,REFLECTINGTHE HYBRID
STATE BETWEEN PRINTAND SCREEN
Edward Fella’s work is a good example. Fella began his
career as a commercial artist, became a guest critic
at Cranbrook and later enrolled as a graduate student,
imbuing in other students an appreciation for the naïf
(or folk) traditions of commercial culture. He “convinc-
ingly deployed highly personal art-based imagery and
typography in his design for the public,” explains
Lorraine Wild in her essay ‘Transgression and Delight:
Graphic Design at Cranbrook’ (Cranbrook Design: the
New Discourse, 1990). He also introduced what Wild
describes as “the vernacular, the impure, the incorrect,
and all the other forbidden excesses” to his graduate
studies. These excesses, such as nineteenth-century fat
faces, comical stock printers’ cuts, ornamental dingbats,
hand scrawls and out-of-focus photographs, were
anathema to the early Modernists, who had battled to
expunge such eyesores from public view.
Similar forms had been used prior to the 1980s in a
more sanitised way by American designers such as
Phil Gips in Monocle magazine, Otto Storch in McCalls
magazines, and Bea Feitler in Ms. magazine. For these
designers, novelty job printers’ typefaces and rules
were not just crass curios employed as affectations, but
appropriate components of stylish layouts. While they
provided an alternative to the cold, systematic typefaces
favoured by the International Style, they appeared in
compositions that were nonetheless clean and
accessible. These were not experiments, but ‘solutions’
to design problems.
IT´S LIKE NEVILLE BRODY´S FUSE PROJECT,USINGTHE DIGITAL FONT
TECHNOLOGYTO MAKEYOUR OWN GRAPHIC DESIGNTOOLTHAT
CAN BE USEDTO GENERATE NUMEROUS DESIGN POSSIBILITIES

AGE OF COMPUTER,LEARNINGTOACTUALLY DRAW LETTERS
OR COMPOSETYPE LANGUAGE ONA PAGE BY HAND DEEMED
UNNECESSARY,SO STUDENTS BYPASSED BASICTYPOGRAPHIC
APPRENTICESHIPS,WHERETHEYWOULD HAVE LEARNEDTHE
SUBTLETIES OF COMPOSITION,ANDWENT DIRECTLYTO SETTING
THEIR OWNTYPE,USING PROGRAMS
THEWORD“CHOOSE”,AS

THEREFORE,MOST STUDENTSWHO LACK SUCH EXPERIENCE DO
NOT KNOWWHY CERTAIN LETTERFORMSARE HARMONIOUSWITH
DIFFERENTWEIGHTS OR FAMILIES,ORWHY OTHERSARE NOTTwo decades later, Fella too re-employed many of the
typically ugly novelty typefaces as well as otherwise
neutral canonical letterforms, which he stretched and
distorted to achieve purposefully artless effects for use
on gallery and exhibition announcements. Unlike Gips’
and Feitler’s work, these were aggressively
unconventional. In Cranbrook Design: the New
Discourse, Fella’s challenges to “normal” expectations
of typography are described as ranging from “low
parody to high seriousness”. But the line that
separates parody and seriousness is thin, and the result
is ugliness. As a critique of the slick design practised
throughout corporate culture, Fella’s work is not without
a certain acerbity. As personal research, indeed as
personal art, it can be justified, but as a model for
commercial practice, this kind of ugliness is a dead end.
“Just maybe, a small independent graduate program is
precisely where such daunting research and invention
in graphic design should occur,” argues Wild. And one
would have to agree that given the strictures of the
marketplace, it is hard to break meaningful ground while
serving a clients needs and wants. Nevertheless, the
marketplace can provide important safeguards – Rand,
for example, never had the opportunity to experiment
outside the business arena and since he was ostensibly
self-taught, virtually everything he invented was “on the
job”. Jeffery Keedy and Allen Hori, both of whom had a
modicum of design experience before attending
Cranbrook, availed themselves of the luxury of
experimenting free of marketplace demands. For
them, graduate school was a place to test out ideas
that ‘transgressed’ as far as possible from accepted
standards. So Wild is correct in her assertion that it is
better to do research and development in a dedicated
and sympathetic atmosphere. But such an atmosphere
can also be polluted by its own freedoms.
4.
THE SEEDS OF LESS RIGOROUSTYPOGRAPHY
WERE PLANTED INTHE EARLY NINETIES,WHEN
THE DESKTOP COMPUTER ENCOURAGED BOTH
SERIOUSANDVOGUISH EXPERIMENTATION
INADDICTIONTOTHE NEW
STYLES OFTYPOGRAPHY,THE
COMPUTER GAVE GRAPHIC
DESIGNERS,AS OPPOSED
TO OTHERWISE-TRAINED
TYPEFACE DESIGNERS,THE
OPPURTUNITYTO CREATE
CUSTOMIZEDALPHABETS,
OFTEN FOR USE INTHEIR OWN
MAGAZINE,POSTER,AND
BOOK LAYOUTS
OPPOSEDTO“COMPOSE”

5.
WHEN
I
THINK
OF
THE
UNDERCURRENTS
THAT
SHAPE
MY
GRAPHIC
DESIGN,
I
THINK
OF
IDEAS
ABOUT
LANGUAGE
AND
FORM.
IDEAS
ABOUT
CODING
AND
READING
VISUAL
FORM,
ABOUT
CHALLENGINGTHE
VIEWER
TO
CONSTRUCT
INDIVIDUAL
INTERPRETATIONS,
ABOUT
LAYERS
OF
FORM
AND
LAYERS
OF
MEANING
KATHERINE MCCOY, CIRCUIT/1973

The ugly excesses – or Frankenstein’s little monsters
like Output – are often exhibited in public to promulgate
“the new design discourse”. In fact, they merely further
the cause of ambiguity and ugliness. Since graduate
school hothouses push their work into the real world,
some of what is purely experimental is accepted by
neophytes as a viable model, and students, being
students, will inevitably misuse it. Who can blame them
if their mentors are doing so, too?
Common to all graphic designers practicing in the
current wave is the self-indulgence that informs some
of the worst experimental fine art. But what ultimately
derails much of this work is what critic Dugald Stermer
calls “adults making kids’ drawings”. When Art Chantry
uses naive or ugly design elements he transforms them
into viable tools. Conversely, Jeffery Keedy’s Lushus, a
bawdy shove-it-in-your-face novelty typeface, is taken
seriously by some and turns up on printed materials
(such as the Dutch Best Book Designs cover) as an
affront to, not a parody of, typographic standards. When
the layered, vernacular look is practised in the extreme,
whether with forethought or not, it simply contributes
to the perpetuation of bad design.
TEXT CAN BEANIMATEDWITHVOICESAND IMAGES CAN
BE READ,ASWELLAS SEEN,WITHAN EMPHASIS ON
AUDIENCE INTERPRETATIONAND PARTICIPATION INTHE
CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING
IN FACT IT HAS BEEN
THE PROVOCATIONTO
QUESTIONACCEPTED
NORMS IN GRAPHIC
DESIGN,STIMULATING
THE SEARCH FORA
NEW COMMUNICATIONS
THEORIESANDVISUAL
LANGUAGES
THE ONLYTHING LOSTWASANABSOLUTE DEDICATIONTO
MINIMALISM FORM,WHICH ISA COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
ISSUE FROM RATIONALIST PROCESS
“Rarely has beauty been an end in itself,” wrote Paul
Rand in Paul Rand: A Designer’s Art. And it is equally
mistaken to treat ugliness as an end result in itself.
Ugliness is valid, even refreshing, when it is key to an
indigenous language representing alternative ideas
and cultures. The problem with the cult of ugly graphic
design emanating from the major design academies and
their alumni is that it 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. While the proponents are following their various
muses, their followers are misusing their signature
designs and typography as style without substance.
Ugliness as a tool, a weapon, even as a code is not a
problem when it is a result of form following function.
But ugliness as its own virtue – or as a knee-jerk reaction
to the status quo – diminishes all design.
5.
SPREAD“FRENCHCURRENTSOFTHELETTER”,CRANCBROOK/1982

NEWTECNOLOGIESAND
ENVIRONMENTS PRESENT
NEW PROBLEMS FORTHE
DESIGNERTOADDRESS.
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
EXPERIMENTALTYPEFACE
DESIGNSARE OFTEN
THOSETHATADRESS
THE POSSIBILITIES OR
LIMITATIONS OFAYET
UNCHARTEDTECHNOLOGY

IT´S NOTA PROBLEM OF BEINGAWOMAN
INA MAN´SWORLD.IT´S BEINGATYPE
DESIGNER INAWORLDTHAT GIVES LITTLE
RECOGNITIONTOTHISART FORM
THE ESTABLISHMENT´S NEGATIVE REACTION
TOWARDS NEW FORMSANDTECHNOLOGIES
IS NATURAL.SO IFTHISWORK EVENTUALLY
BECOMEACCEPTED,IT´SA COMPLIMENT IN
HINDSIGHT,BECAUSE IT MEANSTHEWORK
WASTRULY INNOVATIVE
INTHE1980YOURTYPEFACESWERECRITICISEDASBEINGEITHERUGLYORHARDTOREAD.
HOWDOYOULOOKBACKONTHOSEREACTIONS?
ZUZANA LICKO, INTERVIEW BY RHONDA RUBINSTEIN, EYE 43

DESIGN DE COMUNICAÇÃO IV
MIXING MESSAGES
2011/2012
1º SEMESTRE

Mixing+messages

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Mixing+messages (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Mixing+messages