'Bad design is irrelevant'
Out of context: Reply #42
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- Dolan0
Design with purpose (as opposed to 'superficial' or 'pretentious' design) need not be ugly. What Rand is championing in his comment is simply that a design connect in an intelligent way with what it is communicating, and not be only a veneer (however plain or fancy) that is applied without any conceptual connection. Good design has reasoning behind it, what Rand calls 'bad' is design that is only skin deep --- a style layer applied as fancy frosting to disguise a lousy cake. Often this disguise gets extra fancy, becoming pretentious (literally 'pretending' to have some significance or meaning when there is none) or ostentatious, like a magician's classic misdirection technique. There have always been experimental graphic stylings, unconnected to any project or purpose, and they're eye candy which is often wondrous. By Rand's definition those things wouldn't be considered design, simply graphics. His admonition certainly isn't to quit, but to think. Designing means thinking.