Design vs. Style
Out of context: Reply #41
- Started
- Last post
- 68 Responses
- NegativeSpace0
Depends on how you define style, a good summary of this little issue is in the Phillip Meggs History Of Graphic design book where traditionally its real meaning is to describe ones approach and philosophy behind their work, so a designer with a consistant style approached their work in the same way each time. He goes on to say that the way the word is used today is to describe a visual aesthetic, or the superficial aspects of a work.
Without using the word style to avoid confusion, and using the words aesthetic and philosophy, I'll say:
Ive never been a big fan of designers who approach their work with an individual aesthetic that becomes recognizable ie: No Pattern, Carson, etc.
It seems like it is getting away from what design is about, however it depends on how you define design.
I gues my views are more modernist, but I see graphic design as being something where the overall goal is creating objective design. It should communicate the content in the most efficient way without being subjective as much as possible. So for each piece of work you do, providing you have done sufficient research and understand the nature of the content, you should be able to create a solution, and thus the form and construction of the work will come from that as opposed to making the piece self indulgent in a sense, and making it about you with your own individual aesthetic. In the end, the piece is to facilitate the clients needs, not necesarily your own. I say if you need to fufil that urge perhaps find different type of clients that don't rely on longevity, or become an perhaps become an artist.