Do graphic designers read or just look?

It was 1980. I was judging the graphics section at D&AD. Amongst the other members on the jury was George Hardie. We were thumbing through some stationery when we were distracted by rather a startling range. It was both by and for the Dutch consultancy Studio Dunbar and consisted of a bizarre collection of dots, dashes, boxes, gradated rules, grids and letter spaced san serif type - a sort of mélange of isms from the previous six decades...

Studio Dumbar's stationary crated in 1979.

We both acknowledged that this piece of work was going to have an effect on the British graphic scene. Sure enough those little graphic devises used on that stationery range started to weave their way into the fabric of our industry.

At the time mainstream British graphics was dominated by a classical approach to typography, with lashings of nostalgic pastiches thrown in. One of the key exponents of this genre was John Gorham, whose work was everywhere in the 70s…

More adventurous directions were happening in the music world absorbing the influences from the Constructivist and Bauhaus periods. This was evident in the sleeve designs of  Barney Bubbles, George Hardie and Storm Thorgeson…

George Hardie's Souther Comfort album design from 1972.

The classic cover for The Dark Side of the Moon 1973 by Storm Thorgeson with George Hardie.

Generation X Day By Day album cover by Barney Bubbles 1977.

Barney Bubble's 1977 cover for The Dammed. Below his inspiration by Wassily Kandinsky from 1923

Above Joost Schmidt while at the Bauhaus 1924
They in turn were influencing a new breed of graphic designers that were incubating in the bustle of Manchester City during the late 70s – Ben Kelly, Malcolm Garrett and Peter Saville…

Malcolm Garrett's Buzzcocks cover of 1977

Above 3 creations by Peter Saville in 1981.  Below the original source.

Above an advertisment by Paul Schuitema c. 1927

Meanwhile Dunbar’s work became more challenging and highly decorative, evolving in to eccentric three-dimensional cut-outs and exaggerated perspective. It was embraced open-armed by designers in Britain and a crazy fusion of classicism, modernist and Dutch design appearing at a rate of knots…

Above Studio Dumbar's 1984 cover for the Dutch Post Office Year Book.

Above two theatre posters by Studio Dunbar's in 1988 during their increasing eccentricity. They won a D&AD silver award that year.

Another Dunbar piece from 1991 

And some examples of British design that followed Studio Dunbar's lead. Above pages from BA's annual report 1987

The Royal College of Art's yearly report from 1987.

Spreads from Seymour Powell's 1986 work brochure designed by Siobhan Keaney.

Vaughan Oliver's work for the Young Vic from 1994.

An album cover designed by Nick Bell in 1991.

This patchwork of borrowed styles and influences became increasingly popular around the world especially on the American west coast.

Then in 1986 this appeared…

8vo (Octavo) the International Journal of Typography. It was the brainchild of  Mark Holt, Simon Johnston and Hamish Muir. They planned 8 issues, hence the title. Their quest was to debate and reflect only modernist design principles. None of the idealised serif, symmetrical classical forms of typography for them. Just a series of grid systems and sans type to harness their world view of design and typography, which followed the more deconstructed, an  almost Swiss punk feel created by one Wolfgang Weingart …

Above 3 examples of Wolfgang Weingart's hyped-up Swiss style from the 1970s.

I remember at the time of the first publication of 8vo there was a general buzz about this new ‘serious’ journal. It read and looked like a technical specification manual - painfully small type and a myriad of footnotes and cross-references. It was quickly viewed as the clinical antidote to the decorative style excesses of the period. Over the next few years’ it was 8vo’s influence that was to work its way into the studios and consultancies across town. Their take of modernism was now de rigueur.

Poster designed by Cartlidge Levene 1991 picks up on 8vo's mantra.

But over the span of the 8vo’s six-year life the typography became increasingly problematic to read. I have to admit that I bought all the issues but I never read past the first few pages.  Here are some examples of what I mean…

Interestingly the 8vo trio was very critical of what they termed, ‘over stylized’ or ‘superficial design’ (like Neville Brody’s work for The Face) on BBC2’s The Late Show in 1990. They favoured  ‘client, user and functionality’. But they too fell into the same trap. Take this for example…

8vo number 6 1988

Does it really ‘favour the user’ or just geeky designers high on all things typographic?

What links much of the above work is its intentional exclusion of the reader. There seems to come a point where the designer disconnects with the reader in favour of a decorative playground. It is a highly seductive visual landscape, but alienates most people other than like-minded folk, rendering the notion of communication redundant.

A surprise item of the 90s was the above D&AD silver and gold award winning magazine, designed by Paul Elliman and Peter Miles (who now works in the United States). This crude photocopied style, with echos of the Jamie Reid's punk era, spawned some imitators for a while.

Let’s look for a moment at the work of one of the key figures in the creation of modernist  design, Jan Tschichold. His work was just as eccentric and startling as Dunbar’s, but some 50 years earlier. But Tschichold turned his back on his brainchild… in favour of this approach…

Why? Well, my own view is that he wanted to rid himself of the rigid dogma that he had in part created and that the classical form had a spirituality and beauty that increasingly appealed to him in his later years, as well as during his years in Switzerland. His most important work being with Penguin books in the late 1940s…

A post by Ben Terrett recently struck me, over at his noisydecentgraphics blog. It was his (plus the mum and dad test) reaction to the work this man...  

Wim Crouwel

 and one of the many typefaces designed by him. This one in 1967.

– a man celebrated in an almost evangelical way by many young British designers - at recent London exhibition. This is what he said… ‘Crouwel is a very good designer but a lot of the work, in fact all of the work, left me very cold. It felt like design for designers. If I took my mum and dad to the exhibition I don't think they would enjoy it. Whereas they would have loved the Alan Fletcher exhibition… Crouwel's work is too cold. Too inaccessible. It needs more warmth, it needs a way in. But there is no way in. I realise Crouwel's work is modernist and part of that is an inaccessibility and a coldness (like it or not, that's how it presents). But this for me raises a bigger question about graphic design. Is there any point to it if it's inaccessible? If my mum and dad can't enjoy it, is it irrelevant? ". I think Terrett makes a very valid point.

The fact is designers get bored. The idea of sticking to one typographical discipline can become tedious. Younger designers always want to displace the status quo. It is in the natural order of things.

Design can only move forward by reassessing what has gone before – questioning, deconstructing, and experimenting has, and will always, happen. Out of that new approaches emerge.

Today designers in their early 40s are hanging on to their versions of borrowed modernism. Meanwhile the 30 something designers have reengaged with a more literary approach to design, using classical styles and techniques from the 40s and 50s.

Above just 2 examples by David Pearson who's work pursues a more traditional 'literary' design style.

The balance and elegance of Tschichold and Gorham’s work are back and perhaps with it designers will once again have sympathy with the words that have been written and for the readers who really want to read them. 

If you read this I would love to know. So please do leave a comment, even if it is just to say 'Yes'.

Mike

 

 

Comments

[Rich Morgan]

Yes.

[Naomi Farrar]

I read this! I found it really interesting! I'm in the third year of my graphic design degree, and am writing my dissertation around the topic of the use of typography as a functional method of communication, as opposed to simply a visual feature.
I enjoy reading your blog Mike, thank you!

[Theo]

Hi Mike im a graphic design student and I read and enjoyed your article! I try to read as much as I can generally. David Pearson came and gave a lecture at my uni, love all his work. Id say generally designers my age dont take much inspiration from the postmodern typography your talking about. But maybe that just the people I know!

[Greg Sweetnam]

I enjoyed your blog, Mike, as always. Good to see John Gorham's work mentioned here. I posted something about him early this year (see link). His work should be more widely known.
http://gregsweetnam.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/john-gorham-the-graphic-john-betjeman/

[Alistair Hall]

Mike, some interesting thoughts there. I think the fact that 30-something designers (I can still just about include myself in that group) are looking to a different period for their inspiration may just be the cyclical ebb and flow of influence - any generation is likely to look to a different period for inspiration than the one their predecessors did. Perhaps it's something to do with what surrounds you as you grow up...

The other question, about designers not really caring about words - it reminds me of the hoary old debate about design vs. art. Whenever I'm asked about that, I always reply that it is the job of design to communicate a definite and specific message; whereas art can allow for lots of multiple interpretations.

As such, design for design's sake doesn't do it for me at all - if it shouts louder than the content, then it's not working right. A bit like the editing of a film - if it's too visible, then it fails. Of course, sometimes, the visual communication IS the prime message. But rarely.

I'm always glad to see design that celebrates its content, and that does its best to help it work.

[Malcolm Garrett]

Yes !!!

[Mike Dempsey]

Hello Alistair - For me you have always been the kind of designer that really appreciates words. In my view that is something to hold onto whatever the current stylistic trend.

I hope your leg mussels have returned to normal after your epic ride.

Mike

[Nat Hunter]

Yes!

[Anthony Smith]

yes

[David Pearson]

Yes!

[Sarah Brownrigg]

Yes

[Phil Dobinson]

Yes

[graham peake]

Yes

[Gerry Simons]

Yes

[Sjef van Gaalen]

Yes.

[Simon Griffin]

Yes

[Iancul]

Hello Mr Dempsey,
great article, as usual. I've always found it a bit weird how western designers seem to be so desperate to adhere to one style or another, to have design idols instead of inspiring sources.

Hopefully, the eclectism of the internet era has broken a bit this old vicious circle of style vs style, but even now, too many are designing just for themselves or other designers. We need to let go of the 'horse blinders'.

Best,
Iancu

[Paul Bardo]

Hi Mike,

You might remember me – I worked at CDT a while back… Anyway, yes, I read your blog and find myself torn. I thought Jan Tschichold's Neue Typografie was exactly what the world needed after 500 years of centred serif type! I too remember being influenced by the Designers Republic, WNA, April Greiman et al. We want people to push boundaries. Maybe we want to be the ones pushing them. We all still constantly look at other designers' work for inspiration. (Well, I can only speak for myself!)

But I could never bring myself to treat type like Carson did in Raygun. My contemporaries thought me a heretic at the time when I said that it might be art but made no sense as design if you couldn't actually read the type! I agree very much with Alistair there. Practical design must communicate the client's message as clearly as possible. If it doesn't, it starts to become self-indulgent art rather than design–which is fine if it's a personal project, but not so good if someone is paying you to communicate their message and you end up pushing yours. I always think of Beatrice Warde's wineglass analogy.

[Rebecca Foster]

Yes - absolutely!
I believe my job as a designer is to provide accessibility in it's purest and simplest form (however it is dressed up) - but I think the onlooker should be made to think a little too, not just to deliver the clients expectations but add something unexpected, beautiful, humorous - that's what drives me anyway, not the style but the thought process to delivering something special. P.s. Hello! x

[Tom Callaghan]

Mike, I enjoyed many of the examples you cited, and always loved Peter Savile's work, but ultimately, form follows function, and that function is to communicate content and meaning clearly. Of course, fonts, layout and so on add to emotional messaging, artistic intent and so on, but if I can't read it, then what's the point. If you get noticed but not understood, then you've wasted the clients' cash. I remember arguing with Paul Arden that advertising/design is not art, since they already have a pre-determined intention underlying their creation, or what we call propaganda. Maybe that's true of Christian figurative art as well (though not, I think of the abstract styles used so much in Islamic art). Or perhaps, as a mere copywriter, I'm missing the point...

[Graphic design los angeles]

Amazing how simple it can be to communicate with people and have them understand a certain topic, you made my day.