Restraint in Design
Design is both form and function. But because of a factor of issues when it comes to designing products for consumption by consumers, designers must conform to many rules. In design school, or art school, creative students are tasked with creating pieces from their own tool boxes of invention. They can be as off-the-wall as they want, but they will always be critiqued and told to conform more to "standards".
Art, for personal consumption, can be whatever the artist desires. But if the artist wants to make a living off selling their pieces they may tend toward creating art that mirrors what other artists are selling. They must show restraint in how far off the other art is.
When designers (graphic or other) create pieces for their employers there are many restraints holding them back from going to far off the rails. Their are questions of ethics, legality, usefulness, and safety. Sometimes the restraint isn't self induced, but a requirement by your employer or various level of government oversight.
I feel that restraint in designing products for consumers is a good thing, but artists creating for their own pleasure usually don't show much restraint, and they shouldn't. Art is a form of self expression, where as design is usually done as a way of making a living, albeit by artists.
Art, for personal consumption, can be whatever the artist desires. But if the artist wants to make a living off selling their pieces they may tend toward creating art that mirrors what other artists are selling. They must show restraint in how far off the other art is.
When designers (graphic or other) create pieces for their employers there are many restraints holding them back from going to far off the rails. Their are questions of ethics, legality, usefulness, and safety. Sometimes the restraint isn't self induced, but a requirement by your employer or various level of government oversight.
I feel that restraint in designing products for consumers is a good thing, but artists creating for their own pleasure usually don't show much restraint, and they shouldn't. Art is a form of self expression, where as design is usually done as a way of making a living, albeit by artists.
Interesting. You bifurcate "design" (commercial) from "art" (personal). I can see how you might arrive at this equation. You also -- very interestingly -- use the word "restraint," when I asked you to think about "constraints" in the design process. Are they so similar? How do they differ? Additionally, I asked how do constraints shape the existence and practice of institutional "brand guidelines," and can these constraints be seen in a particular light? You start to get after this question when you write, "Their are questions of ethics, legality, usefulness, and safety. Sometimes the restraint isn't self induced, but a requirement by your employer or various level of government oversight." But then you don't move it along in a particular direction. So, what of this question of ethics? How much oversight should an institutional wield over their brand design? Were you a designer employed by a company using BGs, how easily or how difficult would it be for you to be constrained by BGs? What would happen, say, if you had a truly brilliant idea for a design that you felt reflected the brang in the most productive ways but went against BGs? How often do you think this happens? And then, as a user, do you ever "see" an institution's brand in ways that are unpleasant? (Take, for example, Wendy's. What's going on there? I ask because I've always genuinely been troubled by their brand visuals, even if it is supposedly a simple image of the girl who inspired the name. Help me figure out why this bothers me so?). Thanks, Ryan!
ReplyDelete