|
|
| PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
 |
| On the different styles in design — Cranbrook, Emigre, New Wave, Deconstructivist — What do you think about 'labeling' in design if it comes to style? |
| RVDL: Labeling is a necessary evil when you're trying to compare or explain work. The problem is that your understanding of a label such as deconstructivist may be slightly different from mine. So the labels become quite useless. |
| If you had the chance to write the history of graphic design from scratch, what would be your most important 'correction'? |
|
RVDL: To do away with labels. Just kidding. I am not a historian, so I think I would pass on the opportunity. Also, there exists no single history of graphic design to correct. There have been various histories published using different approaches. Philip Meggs's ''A History of Graphic Design'' is different from Robin Kinross's ''Modern Typography,'' and one needs to read all of them to get a sense of the fullness and complexity of the profession.
|
You've been quoted as saying: ''Where, for instance, do we stand on the modern versus postmodern argument? It is simple. To us, there's not enough room for personal expression in the former and too little interest in craft in the latter. We want the best of both worlds.''
Isn't it the Bauhaus modernism, specifically, which didn't leave room for personal expression? Isn't it that we, graphic designers, talk mostly about Bauhaus when we talk about the modern? Modernity in music, art and literature seems to be totally different. Is the freedom of expression we see in the writings of James Joyce, in the paintings of Picasso, or in the music of Schönberg not the outcome of modernity? Shouldn't we see the formal language of modern design and the modern thought apart from each other? In short, did not the modernity give us our personal freedom?
|
  |
RVDL: You are right. But within graphic design modernism reached a point where it became stale, reductivist and formulaic in its formal expressions. It became primarily concerned with methodologies of production (craft). Postmodernism, on the other hand, opened the doors to new possibilities of communication, but this happened at the expense of the finer points of producing and the making of design. We are interested in both personal expression and the craft involved in producing design. But these are terrible generalities, and I see now that my comment falls in the same trap as most comments that rely on ''labels''. |
| Did the modern have any interest in craft? |
| RVDL: I believe Modernism is very much about craft and process. It's about fitting the technologies of the time with the ideas of the time to create communications that can be universally understood. |
| ''Objectivity is an impossibility.'' Did Deconstruction set graphic designers free? |
| RVDL: Deconstructivism is a method of questioning certain traditions and it allowed designers to try out new avenues. Whether that set designers free is debatable, though, because the designer's work still had to function within the same society with the same hangups and preconceptions. |
| In Emigre 19, you pose the question regarding designers like Brody, Weingart, Friedman, Tschichold: ''Does all experimentation in graphic design lead to the simplification of graphic design?'' (Emigre 19, p.3) Did you find the answer? |
| RVDL: I did find the answer. I was asking a rethorical question. The above mentioned designers all went through periods of experimentation, but later in their careers returned to much simpler designs. Which is not to say their work became ''easy'' or ''simplistic.'' On the contrary, their work became more powerful. |
 |
Is it necessary for a designer to have a personal style in order to express her/his personal point of view? If someone's style is not personal does it mean her/his work is not personal? |
| RVDL: I'm not sure how you would go about expressing your personal point of view without a personal style. It wouldn't be very personal if you used somebody else's style, would it? On the other hand, there are many designers who think it's not the purpose of design to express the designer's personal point of view. The purpose of design is to express the client's point of view. And there are many who believe it is their function as designers to mix and match the existing styles of past and present in order to make visual statements that will resonate within the culture. That's what graphic design is really all about, to them. |
| Where does personality in design come from? |
| RVDL: A personal style comes from honest investigation and experimentation. It comes from the ability to recognize what comes naturally to you and what feels good to you, and the ability to express those feelings honestly without much concern for what is currently in style. |
| Why are designers always in search of 'this has not been done before'? |
| RVDL: It's a natural human impulse to want to create new things, or at least to want new things. It has to do with curiosity and the idea that the ''grass is always greener on the other side.'' We are curious creatures. It's how we entertain ourselves, it's how we keep our minds occupied, how we keep ourselves from getting bored. |
| Does a new style always contain new thoughts? |
| RVDL: Any new style must contain a combination of new and old ideas. The viewer must be able to at least recognize parts of the work, otherwise they may dismiss it as uninteresting or unintelligible. |
P A G E | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  |
|
| back to top |
