That Design Thing
- Started
- Last post
- 5 Responses
- fate
It's a design theory thread!
"1. Less is more 2. Gimmicks are for kids "
Well, this is an excerpt from lycerk in an older thread. And basically I agree with that first statement a lot, but the second one bothers me. And here's why.
Lately I've been pondering 3 classifications. The artist, the designer, and the marketer. The lines between these 3 are very blurred, and defining yourself as simply designer while forgetting the 2 other categories many times draws criticism.
Point: WhosWe brought up the gimmick comment. Now, would you say that they base many of their sites on gimmicks? I would, to some degree. But the more important question is: "Is that bad?" I'd say no, WhosWe makes a profit, company that hired them makes a profit. But at what point is it no longer design and more marketing?
Yes this is a rambling. I'm hoping some nice ideas and thoughts can be brought forth on some very obvious divisions I have witnessed growing up as (what I call myself) a designer. The shitty designers, the trendy kids, the uber trendy kids, the uber flash sites, the "iconoclastic minimalistic" and the bland professional to name a few.
opinions are appreciated ;)
- fate0
Adding a little more onto the "Gimmick" subject. I thought that's what gets you publicity, popularity, what makes people remember your site above all others. Sure that little Honey Bee for Honey Nut cheerios is a gimmick, but I still remember and eat the cereal.
- vena0
"design" is oft referred to as commercial art.
- fate0
Then would you say a fusion of marketing and art?
- quamb0
all that I love could be said to be based on an attractive gimick.
a blury subject with no end.
- fate0
If my new site has a photo-realistic 3d hot ninja chick with a sword, will I get berrated for not having 3 pieces of text and images loaded into flash or be praised for the graphically forward-thinking execution?
Both.