anti design
- Started
- Last post
- 55 Responses
- lukus_W0
Re: 'anti-design' not being a trend, I'd argue that even though it's existed as a part of critical theory, or philosophy, for a long time - it still can (and is) emerging as a trend. We might be scraping the barrel - but as society progresses, society needs more sophisticated methods of (aesthetically) separating the wheat from the chaff.
However nauseating and non-descriptive the term 'edgy' might be, I think it will always be applicable to people who wish to _appear_ associated with a perceived cultural vanguard - regardless of their own personal merit. There will always be people who will superficially follow trends - and most of us are culprits (whether we admit it or not).
As ugly as it is to think about, design is (obviously) often a clear reflection of ego. The ego of the designer, the ego of the client and ultimately the ego of the audience that chooses to consume it.
Anti-design is desirable because it monopolises on this sense of ego by setting a psychological game in motion. Those who 'get it' are rewarded, at the expense of those who don't. I think it's just another extension of the playground.
- fresnobob0
"but as society progresses, society needs more sophisticated methods of (aesthetically) separating the wheat from the chaff."
Correct, and one of these ways is to embrace what is considered to be not sophisticated. This is where the whole deal comes from. "Anti-design" as you are referring to it, being the opposite of what is considered aesthetically pleasing, is what brought aesthetics to where they are now.
If you want an easy to understand example look at the name Akzidenz Grotesk. Its called weird, odd, and ugly by name, but almost no one now considers it ugly. When sans-serifs were first created they were known as such because the "high design" point of view at the time was that type should have serifs. Cutting that shit off made the letters totally undesirable to most designer dudes at the time, but now its aligned with "sophisticated" design. It was ugly, but things changed and society progressed.
Anyways, separating the high from the low is the creation of the ego. Having an all embracing point of view (i.e. embracing anti-design as a valid philosophy, embracing the lowbrow as well as the highbrow and using them interchangeably) would be to understand that everything is equal, no matter what. That's the opposite of the I, not the contrary.
I love "anti-design" because thats what I grew up with. Thats what I saw on a regular basis. Thats what I used to create, photoshop shit with flame filters and drop shadows and flame filters and shitty animated gifs and websites with <blink> tags. Thats what most design is, "bad design." Only where dudes think they know do they not know and their design comes from the ego. Theres no "getting it" because that's what everyone already gets because thats what they are the most exposed to.
- lukus_W0
Yeah, but I think there's still a sense of 'getting it'; especially when dissonance is created, and the aesthetic that the audience expects is markedly different to the aesthetic that's supplied. I think the notion of 'anti-design' suggests that dissonance will be a noticeable feature.
If the audience is already exposed to the aesthetic in everyday life, maybe they're going to be even more confused when it's used in a very different context - and therefore less likely to understand it.
I see what you're saying about 'Akzidenz Grotesk'. It's the shock of the new - I guess it took a while for the whole of society to grow accustomed (or 'to get') the typeface.
The same can probably be said for the 'ugliness' of skinny jeans. For a long while their appearance seemed a bit odd and jarring outside of a rock band. Then, much later still, even my dad started wearing them. (though, the ugliness didn't really fade in that particular case..)
I'm really thinking about the idea of 'anti-design' as a highbrow concept, where the primary motivation isn't just straightforward communication. I suppose, in this case, usual rules of good design still apply - but .. by changing the cast and props, the task of telling the story is made challenging in a non-usual way.
I like your idea of embracing lowbrow and highbrow and using them interchangeably - and I think this is the approach that all designers would hopefully choose to take. I think it's more difficult for clients to think like this though.
If this line of thinking is accepted, sooner or later it's probably worth asking "why work according to anti-design principles?". Cynically, I think, once again, it's down to the shock of the new. I think trends are unavoidable. People will always flock like sheep.
But maybe it would be more realistic to start viewing 'anti-design' as just another range of techniques - a set of techniques to create contrast against traditional good design, rather than a fad.
I reckon 'anti-design' can also refer to a straightforward embracing, of the trashy design associated with disposable culture. I understand your fondness for the aesthetic .. and I think there's a lot of merit in using it to create design and art - maybe because it's interesting to create reflections of society as it actually stands. I think nastynets.com is good.
- noob123450
There's no lack of clients out there who want stretched type and layouts. You should be a zillionaire by next week.
- decisionman0
If you can grab Design Anarchy by Kalle Lasn, I highly recommend it. Of course A) I hate Adbusters and B) it's a "how-to" guide to use for Capitalism blah blah blah
Sandwiches
- cannonball19780
id assume that anti-design protects the human experience from the dependency on the expectations that good designs engender
- ukit0
But what is good design? You can't really define it outside of the time and place you live in.
There's no eternal unbending rule that says, for instance, you can never stretch type, or that clean modernist typography is the way to go. We think you can't and it is but it's all just cultural programming. Which was different 50 years ago and will be different 50 from now.
All this "anti-design" thing really is, is the latest movement to flip the middle finger to what's typically considered "good." But that doesn't mean it's easier to produce or somehow takes no talent.
- cannonball19780
Ukit, although you're mainly talking about applied style, I'm going to have to disagree with you in general terms. Good design is an effective arrangement of elements that was successful in it's intent. The rubric is in the solution.
- ukit0
Sure, but "effective arrangement of elements" doesn't tell you much, does it? It's basically like saying "good design is good design."
The details that make it good are the hard part, and that's always going to depend on the culture and the mindset of the audience. So I think we're basically saying the same thing. Even if you can come up with some kind of definition for design as a general approach, the details that matter are always going to change.
- hans_glib0
"Good design" means good communication. A well designed piece of print or website will get it's message across quickly and clearly. A well designed product will work well, and will be built to last.
Poorly designed print/websites will not communicate anything very much as the message will be too difficult for the reader/user to be bothered to extract. A poor piece of product design won't work, or last, or both.
Anti-design is surely just retarded marketeers thinking that irony will sell a few more boxes to those who get the "joke", or make their company seem edgy and knowing. Those UO/Gap fiascos smack of companies (whose message has got lost through poor design) trying anything to get noticed. The danger is of course that it backfires and everyone decides the companies are shit.
