Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Design help

As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
MacKenzie999

I can only but agree that for every 1 David Carson, there are 10,000 wannabes floating around........ If young designers are going to take anything from David Carson, it shouldn't be the style of the work, it should be how he's followed his own process, and believed in his intuition!!

But it's impossible to gauge what is good or bad design, design is subjective.... just because somebody doesn't like it, or it isn't typographically perfect.... does not make the work any less relevant or meaningful..... And the same with people with 8 years design school training does not necessarily make their work more meaningful than someone who has no formal design training and has only just started doing design.....

A computer is merely a tool for art, and if used with imagination, flare and intuition can produce some astounding design work....... I have seen examples of design work that were been produced with years of training and before the advent of the Macintosh, that were in my opinion, just as bad as the worst work been done now.....

The amount of design work that is currently being done, is only because computers have become more affordable, and the design packages more accessible..... and I for one am glad that the technology has become more accessible, and can allow people to produce what is in their eyes design...... and I do not feel threatened by this!! The same way as I can go and buy myself paint, a brush, canvas, paint a picture and call myself an artist...... is unlikely to worry Damian Hirst......

Its wild though that you studied under Malcolm Garrett, I used to work with him at AMX in London..... an absolute blinding chap..... and one of the most friendly designers I have ever met!!!
 
Clarification

My point was not that computers make bad design; I'm just pointing out that just because David Carson manages to create work of substance without formal graphics training doesn't mean that that is the norm. I wouldn't advise people to skip art school just because Carson (and my other favorite untrained designer, Tom Bonauro) pulled it off successfully.

"But it's impossible to gauge what is good or bad design, design is subjective.... just because somebody doesn't like it, or it isn't typographically perfect.... does not make the work any less relevant or meaningful"

This argument applies more to painters than designers. I admit that what constitutes good or bad design is a grey area that varies from viewer to viewer, but I still feel one can make judgements about what is good and bad design. In design you are communicating a message, often not your own message, for an audience of varying sizes. You can make all sorts of arguments about vision and intuition and whatever else, but the bottom line is if the piece fails to communicate effectively to it's intended audience it is not succesful. If you are a painter then sure, whatever your vision is, you've achieved it and you only have yourself to please, but design has to live in the world beyond galleries and if it does not engage the viewer and communicate its intended message than I'm not afraid to make the judgement that it is a failed design.
 
Of course everyone can make there own mind up about what to them is good or bad design... hence the term 'design is subjective......'

But we should consider that not all design is about communicating a message, Alot of CD covers for instance, do not convey a message, sure the viewer can interpret several meanings.... but there are times when there simply isn't a message to be communicated, this design is not any less relevant or better/worse/failed than those with a target message or meaning to the design.

We should not confuse failed design with good or bad design...... they are very different. A design can fail, this does not necessarily make it bad...... there are many variables about what make up a design, and it really isn't as black and white as "if it does not engage the viewer and communicate its intended message, it is failed design" what about groups such as Tomato?? whom happen to like keeping their work open-ended enough to allow the viewer to make up their own mind?? this type of work engages people very differently to how other work might..... it doesn't mean it is bad design, nor does it mean it has failed because it might not have the initial impact of a more conventional design, or enagage as many people.

It may make the viewer or make the suggestion to the viewer to think in a different non-linear way, exploring the possibilities of different approaches, having to make the viewer decode on a different level to what they may be used to!! But if a design only succeeds in enaging only one person?? does this mean it's bad or failed?? or could it be that the one person who managed to decode it IS the only target audience for that piece of work!?

I would say it's successful........ But it wouldn't necessarily make it good!

But how do you measure if a design fails to engage the viewer and communicate its intended message??

When ultimately design is subjective??
 
Originally posted by krossfyter
design elitists argue for the objectivness of it and artists understand that most of it is subjective.
Click to expand...

The philosphical ideal surrounding art is that any thing can be considered art, so long as its put in context as 'art'.

I can walk down a beach, see a piece of wood being washed up on shore. It looks weathered and interesting, so I take it home, clean it up and put it on my desk. Voila! Art.

Some one else walking down the beach could have seen exactly the same thing, but instead thought that it would be perfect fire wood.

Different perspectives.

My point is that 'art' is only a part of 'design', in one sense art is a tool of design to help get the idea, meaning across. Art in and of itself doesn't need meaning.

jefhatfields next thread 'mac and philosophy.....'
 
to me...art is about expression...

the way one sees something...the way one wants something to be...the way one understands an idea, a feeling...etc...etc...

design does rely on art to make it work...but as said above...design does not equate art completely...

man...I feel like I could go on and on in here today.... :cool:
 
"but there are times when there simply isn't a message to be communicated,"

How can a cd cover not have a message to communicate? It may not be literal, such as band/cd titles, but whatever is put on that cover usually at least attempts to serve to represent the content in some way, literal or abstract. The painting on the cover of Led Zeppelin IV communicates, not literally, but by conveying moods, textures and aesthetics representative of the band and music. This is a risky approach but when you are as big as Zeppelin you have huge audience awareness built in so you can be a bit more adventurous.

"what about groups such as Tomato?? whom happen to like keeping their work open-ended enough to allow the viewer to make up their own mind??"

I believe that falls under the category "engaging the viewer." In fact these are often more sophisticated solutions than simply band photo & logo because it makes the viewer think. "dubnobasewithmyhead" is a brilliant cd cover in that it evokes the feeling of the music without being a literal snapshot.

"...But if a design only succeeds in enaging only one person?? does this mean it's bad or failed?? or could it be that the one person who managed to decode it IS the only target audience for that piece of work!? "

Ok, let's say you are in a band and you hire me to do your cd jacket (and by extension all promotion graphics for said cd). Just one person is intrigued enough by the visuals to actually pick it up. Would you consider that design a success? (This does not take into account pre-existing band popularity; again, U2 can take more risks than a new band.) Maybe it's super cool-looking and sophisticated, but if it fails in it's purpose for exisiting than it is a bad design. If your target audience is one (and this is sometimes the case) and you reach that audience through your design, it's successful.

"When ultimately design is subjective??"

The purpose of design is to communicate. The subjective part is on what level/s that communication should take place. Sometimes all you need is handwritten text to advertise your yard sale. That is a cheap, effective solution for that problem. I'd call that good design.
 
Art is a way of life...

i think that i have a slightly different perspective on what art is than most. i believe art to be a method for living, a way of dancing with the relationships which surround you. There is no inherent art in a painting or sculpture or poster or CD cover, rather the art lived in the focus and attention while it was created and continues to live whenever it is engaged by a perceiver. One could create a flow chart to diagram the emergent existence of art at primary and secondary levels, but that would be missing the point as to what art is intended to do. i liked iGav's point about designs which engage the perceiver and challenge them to think in new ways about something. And while this isn't always the most marketable strategy for design, it might be considered "high art of design."

i can also relate to eyelikeart's perspective on "print house blues." i too was once awash in a sea of Publisher documents and hack design, and fear that do-it-yourselfers will push the opportunities for passionate designers to a fringe position. But more likely it will just make it difficult for mediocre designers to occupy a "middle class" design niche. Unfortunate for them, but perhaps they will find a line of work more suitable to their true talents.

The computer is a wonderful tool for increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the translation of an idea into reality, but it is no substitute for the vision and creativity of its controller. i guess if you got it, you got it.

As far as design schooling:

i'm at a school with a great many instructors whose skill and reputations are very strong. i'm glad to be in this environment where i can learn from people sho have already "been there and done that." It saves me the headache of trial and error, but as far as being brainwashed by a cult of design dos and don'ts, that is a matter of personality. i find the most success when i obey my intuition. Breaking rules is part of escaping the dullness of the everyday barrage of cookie cutter information. However, receiving input from others is also an important part of refining your work. It is a social relationship: no one knows you like you know yourself, but people seek out friends to share parts of themselves with and to attain feedback and advice from.

Everything is a relationship in dynamic balance. If you can dance within it, you will find the beauty which you seek.
 
speaking of schools...

that's exactly where my signature quote came from...

basically...just because u like your idea...doen't mean the client is...;)
 
Okay then......

first off...... Design is about communication....... agreed, but Design cannot not fail to communicate something......... it might not have an intentional or defined 'message'...... It can be left up to the viewer to make up their own mind about what it is saying, as opposed to some singular vernacular meaning.

Somebody might not get the intended message that a design is trying to convey, someone else might......... Is this design flawed because it only engages 50% of the audience?? Of course it isn't, we can presume that the other 50% simply are not the target audience.

The discussion with regards to music covers, I didn't say that all CD covers do not convey or communicate a message, the example you gave is a superb cover, but there are many dance artists for instance that release just a plain white cover, with their name set in Helvetica in Black. Some of these artists do not have cover artwork because they believe it's whats on the vinyl that matters, not the artwork...... of course people (mainly designers) will turn around and have or will attribute meaning to the cover when there isn't any.... there is nothing wrong with either releasing a plain white cover with no meaning, attributing meaning to the plain white cover, or releasing the most stunning piece of design ever........ variety... it is a wonderful thing!!

The cover of 'dubnobasswithmyheadman', whilst fantastic and can be interpreted as a visual reaction to the sound of the record, the actual style of the cover is taken from the book 'mmm... skyscraper i love you' a book concieved by Underworlds Karl hyde and Tomato's John Waricker, the book is a Typographic Journal of New York, it formed part of the creative process and development work of the album......... it really is a fantastic book, but it could just be possible that the book/cover design relates more to to the creative process and inspiration for the creation of the album, as opposed to been inspired by the sound of the music and concieved after the album was completed.

Not all music cover artwork tries to convey the style of the music, I personally would try to endeavour to make the design fit the sound of the CD as how I would interpret it, the same way as that in an earlier email, I suggested that if you were to do a magazine spread for a band, listen to the music, and read the content of the article before you start designing...... I believe that this is a good starting point, it may not be to everyones tastes, or people might not agree with me....... but that's the way I would approach it, the same as if I was a CD sleeve designer I would want to listen to the album first before I even ventured anyway near a mac......

With regards to if I was in a band, and hired you as a designer to do all the graphics, if one and only one person outside of the existing fanbase, bought the album, because they liked the cover, then yes I would deem that a success, but that ultimately is a personal opinion and relates to how you quantify success, whether it be in 10, 100's, 1000's, 10,000's etc.... if it reaches ONE person I would deem it successful, others might measure it in millions...... it's a personal opinion on what is successful and I don't think you can put numbers on that.

In relation to the above I wouldn't necessarily agree that covers are there to sell millions of copies or make or break records, for instance look at REM's 'New Adventures In Hi-Fi' I think a stunning sleeve design, it represents the albums content beautifully, the fact that the album was recorded on the road, whilst on the tour, the album both in sound and artwork captures the dislocation of touring beautifully, yet this album wasn't hugely successful when compared to Monster, or Out Of Time...... it doesn't mean that the design for this album failed because it didn't match the sales of the previous 3 albums..... there are other factors at work to why this album wasn't as successful. But in my eyes the design of the album was successful and worked with the album as a whole package.

Sometimes all you need is handwritten text to advertise your yard sale. That is a cheap, effective solution for that problem. I'd call that good design.

Depends doesn't it.......? I'd call it effective and economic design..... But only if they sold atleast one item..:p

My take on design school is that it's a good thing to a point, when I finished school, I went straight to college to study Graphic Design and New Media, then after I finished college I went to study Graphic Design and New Media at University, I personally am fascinated by design, and this includes all design whether it be product, architecture, automotive I simply am inspired by it all. I'm very glad that I studied design at an educational level for 5 years, and like quanta I was taught by some people with excellent reputations. I personally really like trial and error, and find that this is a very important part of my own creative process, I'm in the school of thought that it is better to try and fail than not try at all.......and I'd rather try and climb Mount Everest than listen to someone tell me what it was like to climb it.....

I consider myself very lucky to have formal design training behind me, and I personally do not think I'd be a good a designer as I am now without the lecturers and my fellow students who have questioned and pushed me, my work and my process, as opposed to if I didn't have had design training..... But I really believe that formal design education is only one route, and I would never dissuade someone from not doing a design course if they felt it was what was best for them, as it can be done and sometime's the most original work is done by people without formal design training or any idea of the 'pain in the arse' rulebook that some designers strictly adhere to!

I really agree with what quanta said about trusting your own intuition, but not ignoring what other people say or suggest...... that indeed is one of the great things with discussing or working with other designers/creatives, they suggest things that maybe you haven't considered, they open up other avenues and question what you are doing and why. It's good to realise that you don't/can't work in a creative vacuum.

I really like what everyone is saying here, and I think it's great that there are so many passionate people on this site, it makes for good intelligent discussions and it's refreshing for me to hear different opinions and experiences on what they believe is or constitues what design is!!! ;)

Respect.

Gavin
 
don't just do everything on the computer. take the time to sketch layouts and stuff. theres heaps of great websites out there, just keep looking and something will inspire you. and always keep the layout consistent, unless it is deliberate. nothing annoys me more than an inconsistent site.
 
Re: Okay then......

"
Originally posted by iGAV
first off...... Design is about communication....... agreed, but Design cannot not fail to communicate something......... it might not have an intentional or defined 'message'...... It can be left up to the viewer to make up their own mind about what it is saying, as opposed to some singular vernacular meaning.

Somebody might not get the intended message that a design is trying to convey, someone else might......... Is this design flawed because it only engages 50% of the audience?? Of course it isn't, we can presume that the other 50% simply are not the target audience."

Hmm...I don't believe I was disputing this but maybe I'm reading it wrong. Moving along...

"...but there are many dance artists for instance that release just a plain white cover, with their name set in Helvetica in Black. Some of these artists do not have cover artwork because they believe it's whats on the vinyl that matters, not the artwork...... of course people (mainly designers) will turn around and have or will attribute meaning to the cover when there isn't any.... "

You are kind of contradicting yourself here...you say your example has no meaning and you then go on to explain some meaning. Design exists outside the context of its creators, you have to look at the bigger picture for meaning. The message can be far more complex than simply being a signifier for a typical genre (although there is value and meaning even in that). The minimal graphic approach you describe could say something about the label's attitude towards promoting the band, the band's attention to detail or concern for visual aesthetics, there are many potential meanings, and just because they may not have been intentional does not mean they are not valid. Also, there's a whole nation of Swiss folk who would probably get into fistfights over the meaning of the graphics you describe. Very orderly fistfights. And in case this horse isn't dead yet, let's look at Tomato again. Add a small blue dot to your minimal description and you have Underworld's final studio release, "Beaucoup Fish."

And since we are on Tomato again...

"...and can be interpreted as a visual reaction to the sound of the record, the actual style of the cover is taken from the book 'mmm... skyscraper i love you' a book concieved by Underworlds Karl hyde and Tomato's John Waricker, the book is a Typographic Journal of New York, it formed part of the creative process and development work of the album......... it really is a fantastic book, but it could just be possible that the book/cover design relates more to to the creative process and inspiration for the creation of the album, as opposed to been inspired by the sound of the music and concieved after the album was completed."

I could be wrong (it's been quite a while since I was heavy into Tomato) but it is my understanding that they were all simultaneously inspired, that the main product of their NYC visit was a film to which the book and then the cd were derivative (in very individual ways). I'm not sure what you are arguing against here. If the cd artwork reflects the creative process as you describe, is that not communicating something, is that not meaning? Maybe I'm making the wrong argument here.

"I would want to listen to the album first before I even ventured anyway near a mac...."

Good general advice, no argument there.

With regards to if I was in a band, and hired you as a designer to do all the graphics, if one and only one person outside of the existing fanbase, bought the album, because they liked the cover, then yes I would deem that a success, but that ultimately is a personal opinion and relates to how you quantify success, whether it be in 10, 100's, 1000's, 10,000's etc.... if it reaches ONE person I would deem it successful, others might measure it in millions...... it's a personal opinion on what is successful and I don't think you can put numbers on that.

If I were a professional musician, and wanted to remain a professional musician, I would be dissatisfied with sales of 1. Maybe having a day job isn't such a bad thing, but I'd rather concentrate my energies on music than on some crappy day job because no one was buying my music.

"In relation to the above I wouldn't necessarily agree that covers are there to sell millions of copies or make or break records, for instance look at REM's 'New Adventures In Hi-Fi' I think a stunning sleeve design, it represents the albums content beautifully, the fact that the album was recorded on the road, whilst on the tour, the album both in sound and artwork captures the dislocation of touring beautifully, yet this album wasn't hugely successful when compared to Monster, or Out Of Time...... it doesn't mean that the design for this album failed because it didn't match the sales of the previous 3 albums..... there are other factors at work to why this album wasn't as successful. But in my eyes the design of the album was successful and worked with the album as a whole package."

There are millions of bands that would kill to sell like REM's failures. It's difficult but necessary to exclude pre-existing popularity if we considering things from a purely graphic approach. REM could issue a blank cd in no sleeve at all (and I know that can be argued as a graphic approach) and people would buy it simply because it is REM, they have promotion and word of mouth.

I'm not saying, or maybe I am but not intending to say, that the ONLY function of cd jackets is to move product, but in a capitalist society where I must move product to continue doing what I love that is absolutely a major consideration. Once I have achieved the status of a band like REM I can indulge my design whims without risking my career but I really would care about selling more than one cd.

Wish I could babble more but I'm late for work. You've taken the time to express a lot more stuff I'd like to reply to, maybe I'll have time later today. I'm sure you're all be waiting with baited breath...

[
Click to expand...
 
we is filling up pages...

Woah..... that's a reply and a half...... I like it......;)

I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting myself..... :rolleyes: ooops!!:p I'll try and simplify what I meant...... (but'll probably end up in 1000 words!!:p

Not all, but some dance records, regardless of labels will just put a plain white sleeve out, Probably because they are quite cheap to buy in bulk... I don't know, and then print the name of the artist and song on it (with a ink stamp). that is all. I know some musicians who do this, as they don't give much for the design (which is a shame), purely because they have no interest in a visual look for their band or there music. So when they put out there record, there was on their part no consideration to the design aspect of the sleeve. Hence this sleeve was intended to have no meaning from the music artist that created it.

However, designers as you know, will discuss these types of things, and in their esteemed wisdom, will maybe try and add meaning, try to explain why they used a white cover, what it means in relation to the music etc. When infact it wasn't intended by the artist/designer/whatever to have any of the meanings attributed to it when he bought the white discount record sleeves and rubber stamp!!

I must have misunderstood your post regarding 'dubnobasswithmyheadman' I wasn't arguing anything with this post, I wasn't sure whether you were aware of the whole creative project around 'dubnobass' as very few people seem to be aware that it is more than just an album, and that there was a film and book aswell. What I was saying is that it's quite a rare example of sleeve design, where by the actually look of the album evolved with the production of the record as opposed to being an after-thought at the end of the project like alot of cover designs are.

With regards to the designer/musician debate, the sale of one would be buying speculatively, so this person would be an extra sale on top of your existing fan base. If you are a new musician, then you'll need alot more that just good design to sell records, with music it is the music that counts (Obviously) the design I feel is secondary, no less important (I would say that been a designer though wouldn't I!!:p ) Again though I would say it's how you quanitfy success.... that 1 person could easily be 10, could be 10,000 who knows....

Alot of people, particularly the general public do not buy records on what the design looks like, but because they like the record... the design to them is transparant..... of course there are exceptions, I do make a habit of going out and buying maybe 5 CDs a month by artists I've never heard of in the off chance of being introduced to new music, I do buy albums because I like the cover design, and my rationale is that if I like the artwork, then I might just maybe like the music too, I've also bought CD's because I like the name of the band!! Suffice to say both approaches have let me down !!:p

Anyway, I have to go, work to do...... am abit of a busy bee today......
 
Graphic Marketing

What is it about design that we, as designers, find so intriguing?

i think that, simply put, it gives us pause and we think to ourselves, "That's cool."

It comes from some place inside of us which recognizes what we've just encountered as being something which we had been seeking, something which we may not have even known we were searching for—but we recocgnize it. This is why people might buy that CD which looks so cool. This is why Kellog's Corn Flakes at first glance would seem to most to be tastier than the same product in a white box with Helvetica type saying: Baked Corn Cereal.

It is so wonderful that we have the opportunity for expressiveness... i was just imagining the sheer dullness of a record store all filled with white sleeves reading: Music. White posters on the wall saying: Buy Music. Even in our colorful, diverse world, if you peel all of the labels and stigma and artistic ennui, rationalization, and aspirations to "self-expression" away from CD sleeves, that is fundamentally what is going on: Buy Music.

i am a bit of a musician as well as a designer, and thinking about what my band should be called or an album title, or the CD artwork... well, i'm kind of thinking about why. Why would it need any of these things? My first answer is: because that's what you do. You make music, record it, put it in a case that can be catalogued and recognized, and then you either sell it or give it away. (or throw it away) It seems like such a hassle to think of the most brilliant concept to tie it all together in a way that's meaningful and relevant not only to the subject matter of the album, but also to the consumer, especially when it is the fleeting moment of marriage between performer and audience which is the real product here.

i'm sure that there is no right answer to most questions of substance. In fact i'm far more entertained by the dialogue than by the lecture, so i'll just slip out now, leaving behind this piece of conjecture....

[this piece of conjecure... now there's an album title!]

q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back