arche final1

8/4/2019 ARCHE FINAL1

1/33

2011

Typograhy3

Project

Wood

&Acril


2/33


3/33

First.

Discovery by design /Zuzana Licko

Cult of Ugly /Steven Heller

Second.

Swiss Poster ExhibitionThird.

Archetype Project

1 - 8

9 - 23

24 - 25

26 - 53


4/33


5/33

First.


6/33

DcouverteparDesi

gn

-E

llenLupton,The100Show.Thesixteen

thAnnualoftheAmericanCenterforD

esign.

Bienquelascienceetledesignsonttoutlesdeuxbasssurdelinvestigationexprimentale,lacomparaison

nestpasdirecte;lascienceinvestitnatu

rellementlephnomneapparent,tandisqueledesigninvestitcul-

tu

rellementetcredesphnomnes.Ma

issiunparallledoittrefait,nouspourrionssurementremplacer

unarbretombantparunepossibilittypographiqueetainsiposerlaquestionest-cequunphnomne

ty

pographiqueexistesipersonnenelere

connais?

Potentiellement,sitoutelespossibilitsg

raphiquesettypographiquesexistentd

j,etquechacunedelle

attenddtredcouverte,nousnavonsb

esoinalorsquedecreruncontexteapproprietenordrepour

donnerviechacunedelle.

Commeexemple,regardezles26lettres

denotrealphabetetcommentcombinesellesformentdesmots.Il

y

aunnombredfinidecombinaisons,oudemots,sinousnouslimitonsauxmotsdunecertainelongueur;

disons5lettres.

Pourlafacilitdelaprononciation,omet

tonstoutlesmotscontenantsunesrie

de3ouplusconsonnes

conscutives.Mmeaveccesrestrictions

pourdonnerunsensdansnotrecom

prhensiondesmots,ily

aurabeaucoupdemotsquinauraientpasdesenspournous.Est-cequecelaveuxdirequilnesontpasdes

m

ots?Est-cequeunesquencedelettreneformepasunmotquandonnerec

onnatpassonsens?

...Est-ceque

lenouveaudesigncommelasciencemoderne

adcouvert

desphnomnesdjexistantsdanslafabrica-

tiondespossi

bilitstypographique

s?Celatant,quiappar-

tiennentcesd

couvertes?

Il

estimportantdenotericiquelessignif

icationsdesmotsne

so

ntpasintrinsquesauxmotseneuxm

me;leurssignifica-

tionssontarbitrairespuisquunmmemotpeuxavoirdiffrentes

significationsdansdiffrentslangages.Enfait,leconceptentier

dutiliser26lettresestarbitraire.Nouspouvonsjusteutiliser20

le

ttres,ou30lettres,oudesmilliersdid

ogrammescommeles

cu

lturesorientales.Bienquecessystmesdecommunication

etsignificationssontarbitraires,unefois

quilssonttablis,ils

se

rventdefondationspourlacrationde

nouvellessignifica-

tions,etnapparaissentainsipasaussiar

bitrairesquilsnele

so

ntvraiment.


7/33

Discovery by Design

This article was first published in 1994 in Emigre 32.

...Can new design - like new science - discover phenomenathat already exist in the fabric of typographic possibility? If so,who owns discovery?

ArchetypeProject

It is important to note here, that the meanings of words are notintrinsic to the words themselves; the meanings are arbitrary,since the same word may have different meanings in differentlanguages. In fact, the entire concept of using 26 letters is anarbitrary one. We could just as well have used 20 letters, or 30letters, or thousands of ideograms like the Oriental cultures.

Although these systems of communication and meanings arearbitrary, once they are established, they serve as the foundationfor the creation of new meanings, and therefore do not appearto be as arbitrary as they really are.

532

- Ellen Lupton, The 100 Show. The sixteenth Annual of the American Center for Design.

Although science and design are both based upon experimental investigation, the comparison is notaltogether straightforward; science investigates naturally occurring phenomena, while design investigatesculturally created phenomena. But if such a parallel is to be made, then we might replace a falling tree bya typographic possibility and thereby ask the question Does a typographic phenomenon exist if no onerecognizes it?

Potentially, if every graphic and typographic possibility already exists, and each is waiting to be discovered,then we need only create an appropriate context in order to bring life to any of them.

For example, consider the 26 letters in our alphabet and how they are combined to form words. There is afinite number of combinations, or words, if we limit ourselves to words of a certain length; say, five letters.Then, for the ease of pronunciation, lets omit all words that contain a string of three or more consecutiveconsonants. Even with these restraints to give some meaning within our understanding of words, therewill be many words that will have no meaning to us. Does this mean that these are not words? Does a

sequence of letters not form a word when we do not recognize its meaning?


8/33

As another example, consider the grid of acomputer video display, or that of a laser printerrasterizer; each point on the grid can be on oroff; black or white. Given a fixed resolution,again, there is a finite number of combinationsthat these on/off sequences will compose. If acomputer is programmed to run through all ofthe possible combinations, some will appearto us as pure gibberish, while others will berecognized as something that we already know

or might be interested in getting to knowbetter. Even though all these compositions arerandomly generated, only those few that fit intoour preconceived notions of context will havemeaning. Therefore, it is the meaning, and notthe form itself that has been created.

New design is the creation of new meanings; that is, new contexts for typographic possibilities. HEven that design which pushes the envelope must build upon existing preconceptions. For unlesentire piece will be dismissed as complete nonsense. On the other hand, if no portion of the desiging that it might result in boredom and therefore be equally dismissed. Intriguing consumers with

information spurs their interest. By initiating these changes of meaning, design educates the consis a very powerful component in controlling our collective consciousness. However, design is alsonearly impossible for a designer to intentionally alter a specific cultural concept.

Sicestpossibledefabrique

rlescomposantsdunevoitureoudun

rfrigrateurpourquils

cessentdefonctionnerapr

suncertaintempsdutilisation,alorsceladfinitbienlaproduction

obsolescente.

Maisest-ilpossibledefaire

lammechoseavecundesign,unepo

liceouuneformety-

pographique?Contraireme

ntauxproduitsindustrielsquiontuneviephysique,laduredevie

dunepossibilittypographiqueestpurementconceptuelle.

Lesdesignsdeviennentobsoltes,ilssontconsommsparnotrecu

lture,etparlasuiteoublis

auprofitdesautres.Pourtant,cequitaitobsolteilyaquelquesannesestsouventreprisde

lobsolescencepourtrer-

assimiloulargit,lecaschantpour

tenirdansunnouveausens

culturel.Ceprocdserp

teencoreetencore,cequirendlobsolescenceuntattemporaire

danslemondedudesign.

so involves the filtering out of inappro-heless occupy the same time line. Theerefore never so apparent when weree time line.

n be explained as an outcome of anyis does not mean that any particularore inevitable. The sometimes arbi-

ng every step subsequently become aents, but there are usually many parallel,

overies, if we are facilitating theirte contexts? It may be true that allographic possibility. However, since notsame time, there must be some way tothat will have meaning; that intelligent

Ceprocessusder-assimilationetdadditionou

dechangementdese

nschaquetapecreun

environnementdansnotreculturepopulairequi

estpropicelassimilationdidesprcises.Les

changementsdecetenvironnent,permettent

certainesidesdem

rir,oudedevenirpromptes

treaimes.


9/33

ver, must be linked to existing ones.critical portion is understandable, thenew, then it will appear so uninterest-the right amount of unrecognizable

r to the changes in culture. Thus, designbconscious process, and it is therefore

ArchetypeProject

Commesecondexemple,considronslagrilleduncran

dordinateur,oudunetramedu

neimpressionlaser;chaque

pointdelagrillepeuttreallumouteint;blancounoir.Selon

unersolutiondfinie,encore,il

yaunnombrefinidecombinai-

sonsquecessquencesallumes/teintespeuventcomposer.Si

unordinateurestprogrammpo

urparcourirtouteslescombinai-

sonspossibles,certainesvontno

usapparaitrecommeuntotal

charabia,alorsquedautrespourronttrereconnuescomme

quelquechosequenousconnais

sonsdjouquenouspourrions

avoirenviedemieuxconnatre.M

mesitoutescescompositions

sontgnresalatoirement,seulescesquelquesunesrentrant

dansnosnotionsprconuesde

contexteprendrontdusens.

Ainsicestlesens,etnonlaform

eelle-mmequiestcre.

Undesignnouveau

estlacrat

iondunsensnouveau;cestdirede

nouveauxcontextespourdenou-

vellespossibilitstypographiques.Ilsdoiventcependanttrelisde

scontextespr-existants.Mmes

cesdesigns,endehorsdessentiersbattus,doiventtreconstruitssur

desprconceptionsdjexistantes.

Carsiunepartimportantenestpascomprhensible,lensemblesera

rejetcommetotalementabsurde.

Dunautrecot,siriennestnouveaudanscedesign,ilapparatrasi

inintressantquilenrsultera

unennuiquilamneratregalementnglig.Desconsommateurscurieuxmisfacejustecequil

fautdinformationinconnuevoientleurintrtstimul.Eninitiantce

schangementsdesens,ledesign

duqueleconsommateurauxchangementsdelaculture.Ainsi,ledesignestuncomposanttrspuissant

danslecontrledenotreconsciencecollective.Cependant,ledesign

estaussiunprocessussubconsci-

ent,etilestainsipresqueimpossiblepourledesignerdaltrerintentionnellementunconceptculturel

spcifique.

In this manner, meanings change, and over time great shifts takeplace. Since the creation of new meanings usually results in thereplacement, displacement or change of older meanings, we mayalso wonder if some meanings become obsolete. We may ask,Does obsolescence exist in design, and can we plan obsoles-cence?

It is possible to engineer the components of a car or refrig-erator to break down after a certain duration of use, therebydefining the products obsolescence. But is it possible to dothis with a design style, typeface, or typographic form? Un-like industrial products that have a physical life, the lifespanof a typographic possibility is purely conceptual. Designsbecome obsolete as they are consumed by our culture, andsubsequently forgotten in favor of other ones. Yet what was

obsolete years ago is often revived from obsolescence to bereassimilated or expanded upon as appropriate to fit intonew cultural meanings. This process repeats itself again andagain, making obsolescence a temporary state in the worldof design possibilities.


10/33

Because this ongoing change is af-fected by many different forces fromnumerous directions, it is impossibleto predict what will happen next,or even how long-or short-lived anyparticular design idea might be.Since the life, or lives, of a designidea are dictated by its appropriate-ness for currently accepted ideas,it would be impossible to specifi-cally plan the longevity of a designwithout also controlling these forcesof style.

This evolution of meanings is alsounpredictable over time. Somemeanings change very quickly, likethe second hand on a stopwatch;others change so slowly that wedont even see them change, like

the hour hand on a grandfatherclock. These slow changing ideasare seen as timeless, while thosethat change quickly are perceived asbeing timely. The words timelessand timely often have very strongnegative or positive connotations,although neither is good nor bad,per se. The value of either of thesequalities lies in the appropriate-ness of use, and appropriateness isusually a question of efficient use

of design resources, or financialviability.

However, more often than not, it is timelessness that is seen as mostvaluable. Timeless creations are seen as the result of the process ofrefinement, and give us the impression that we are always workingtowards an ultimate goal of perfection, independent of the whims of

fashion. This may appear so because history is told as a logical andprogressive development. However, histories are composed in hindsight;actual events do not occur with such 20/20 vision. For example, oncewe identify a design idea as being fully developed, historians then workto explain its development by referring to the appropriate chain ofevents. However, this process also involves the filtering out of inappro-priate events; events that nonetheless occupy the same time line. Theinevitability of design ideas is therefore never so apparent when werestanding on the other end of the time line.

Although each development can be explained as an outcome of anynumber of preceding factors, this does not mean that any particularcourse of development is therefore inevitable. The sometimes arbi-

trary choices that are made along every step subsequently become afoundation for future developments, but there are usually many parallel,equally viable paths not taken.

So, who owns these design discoveries, if we are facilitating theirexistence through the appropriate contexts? It may be true that alldesigns exist in the fabric of typographic possibility. However, since notall possibilities can exist at the same time, there must be some way tointelligently choose possibilities that will have meaning; that intelligentforce comes from designers.

Bienquechaquedveloppementpuissetreexpliqucommelersultatdunnombre

indtermindefacteursprcdents,celanimpliquepasquechaquesuiteparticulire

dvnementsestdecefaitinvitable.Leschoixparfoisarbitrairesquis

ontfaitchaque

tapedeviennentparlasuitelafondationdedveloppementsfuturs,m

aisilyaaussisouventplusieursvoies

paralllesetgalementviablesq

uinesontpasempruntes.

Donc,quiappartiennentcesdcouvertesdudesign,sinousfacilitonsleurexistenceviauncontexteappro-

pri?Ilestpeuttrevraiquecha

quedesignexistedanslatramedespo

ssibilitstypographiques.Cependant,

puisquetouteslespossibilitsne

peuventexisteraummeinstant,ildo

ityavoirunefaondechoisirintel-

ligemmentlespossibilitsquiau

rontdusens;cettecapacitchoisires

tcelledesdesigners.

5


11/33


12/33

The discovery of a design possibility is therefore largely a matter of the de-signer being in the right place at the right time. However, it is the designersability to recognize the opportunity, the talent to apply the idea to a specific

creative work, the willingness to sometimes go out on a limb, and the perse-verance to convince others that the idea has validity, that deserves claim toownership. Because, in the end, it is the expertise to communicate new ideasto others that gives credibility to the designers existence.

7


13/33

ArchetypeProject

Ladcouvertedunepossibilitdedesignestdoncengran

departieunequestiondeprsencedude

signerla

bonneplaceetaubonmoment.Cependant,cestlacapacitdudesignerreconnatrelopportunit

,letalent

dappliquerlideuntravailcratifspcifique,lavolont

deparfoisprendredesrisques,etlapers

vrance

convaincredela

validitdecetteide

,quimritentlareco

nnaissance.Car,finalement,cestlexpert

isedecommu-

niquerdenouvellesidesauxautresquidonnelacrdibilitlexistencedesd

esigners.


14/33

ternsandshapes.Thosewho

valuefunctional

simplicitywouldarguethattheCranbrook

studentspublication,likeatoadswarts,is

ugly.Thedifferenceisthatun

likethetoad,the

Cranbrookstudentshavedeliberatelygiven

themselvesthewarts.

eup

andthe

er

bal-

nfo

r

ns)

i

msin

inconfusingmessages.Byth

i

tcouldbeconsideredaprim

e

no

ended

cialwo

itwas

ofpr

desi

teof

rts

sign

tered

usresearc,tisa

legitimatelybe


15/33

Askatoadwhatisbeauty

Hewillanswer

thatitisafemalewithtwog

reatroundeyes

comingoutofherlittlehead,alargeflat

mouth,ayellowbellyandabrownback.

(Voltaire,PhilosophicalDictio

nary,1794).Ask

PaulRandwhatisbeautyandhewillanswer

thattheseparationofformandfunction,of

conceptandexecution,inno

tlikelytoproduce

objectsofaestheticalvalue.

(PaulRand,A

DesignersArt,1985).Thenaskthesameques-

tiontotheCranbrookAcademyofArtstudents

whocreatedtheadhocdesk

toppublication

Output(1992),andjudgeby

theevidence

th

i h t

th tb

ti

h

b

Cult of the UglyArchetypeProject

In the early 1990s Steven Heller takes on the word ugly as he sees it applied to graphic designand design education. En route, his views of art history, pop culture and recent design trends are

considered in his essay about style and meaning in design.

5310

,

,

.

(, , 1794)

Paul Rand

,

.

( , , 1985)

(1992) Cranbrook

, ,

.

( )

Cranbrook

.

, Cranbrook .


16/33

, ,

,

.

,

( :

)

. ,

,

.

11

HowisuglytobedefinedinthecurrentPost-

modernclimatewhereexistingsystemsareup

forre-evaluation,orderisunderattackandthe

forced

collisionofdisparateformsistherule?

Forthemoment,letussaythatuglydesign,as

oppos

edtoclassicaldesign(whereadherence

tothe

goldenmeanandapreferenceforbal-

anceandharmonyserveasthefoundationfo

r

eventhemostunconventionalcompositions)

is

thelayeringofunharmoniousgraphicformsina

waythatresultsinconfusingmessages.Byth

is

definition,Outputcouldbeconsideredaprim

e

exampleofuglinessintheserviceoffashion-

ablee

xperimentation.Thoughnotintended

tofun

ctioninthecommercialworld,itwas

distrib

utedtothousandsofpracticingdesigners

ontheAmericanInstituteofGraphicArtsand

AmericanCenterforDesignmailinglists,so

rather

thanremaincloisteredandprotected

fromcriticismason-campusresearch,itisa

fairsu

bjectforscrutiny.Itcanlegitimatelybe

describedasrepresentingthecurrentcultof

ugline

ss.


17/33

Outputiseig

htunboundpagesofblips,type

fragments,ra

ndomwords,andothergraphic

minutiaepur

posefullygiventheserendipitous

lookofaprintersmake-ready.Thelackofany

explanatoryprcis(andonlythisendnote:Up-

comingIssue

sFrom:SchooloftheArtInstitute

ofChicago[and]UniversityofTexas,)leaves

thereaderco

nfusedastoitspurposeormean-

ing,thoughitsformleadsonetopresumethat

itisintended

asadesignmanifesto,another

experiment

inthecurrentplethoraofaestheti-

callyquestionablegraphicoutput.Giventhe

increaseingraduateschoolprogramswhich

provideboth

alaboratorysettingandfreedom

fromprofessionalresponsibility,theword

experimenth

astojustifyamultitudeofsins.

Thevalueofdesignexperimentsshouldnotof

coursebemeasuredonlybywhatsucceed

s,

sin

cefailuresareoftenstepstowardsnew

discoveries.Experimentationsistheengin

eof

progress,itsfuelamixtureofinstinct,inte

lli-

ge

nceordisciplineisinthemix.Thisisthecase

withcertainofthegraphicdesignexperim

ents

thathaveemanatedfromgraduateschoo

lsin

theU.S.andEuropeinrecentyearsworkdriven

by

instinctsandobscuredbytheory,withugli-

ne

ssitsforemostbyproducts.

.

,

.

.

.

?

( ,

.)

.

,

.

.

, American Institute of Graphic

Arts American Center for Design

mailing lists

.

.

.

5312


18/33

, ,

,

.

(1920

1960

),

.

.

? ,

?

1970

,

.

-

- 1970 ,

.

, ,

Gary Panter

sanitised punk .

-

- 1970

.

( )

.

Uglydesigncanbeaconsciousatt

empttocreateanddefinealternativestandards.Likewarpaint,

thedissonantstyleswhichmanycontemporarydesignershaveappliedtotheirvisualcommunica-

tionsaremeanttoshockanenemycomplacencyaswellastoencouragenewreadingand

viewingpatterns.TheworkofAmericandesignerArtChantrycombinestheshock-and-educate

approachwithaconcernforappro

priateness.ForoveradecadeChantryh

asbeencreatingeye-

catching,low-budgetgraphicsfortheSeattlepunkscenebyusingfoundcommercialartifacts

fromindustrialmerchandisecatalo

guesaskeyelementsinhispostersand

flyers.Whilethese

unsophisticatedgraphicsmaybe

horrifyingtodesignerswhopreferShak

erfunctionalismto

punkvernacularism,Chantrysdesignisdecidedlyfunctionalwithinitscon

text.Chantrysclever

manipulationsoffoundartintoaccessible,thoughunconventional,comp

ositionsprovethat

usingostensiblyuglyformscanres

ultingooddesign.

Post-modernisminspiredadebate

ingraphicdesigninthemid-1970sbyrevealingthatmany

perceptionsofartandculturewereone-dimensional.Post-modernismurg

entlyquestioned

certaintieslaiddownbyModernism

andrebelledagainstgrandEurocentricnarrativesinfavourof

multiplicity.TheresultingraphicdesignwastostripModernistformalityo

fbothitsinfrastructure

andoutercovering.Thegridwasdemolished,whileneo-classicalandcontemporaryornament,

suchasdots,blipsandarrows,replacedthetidinessofthecanonicalappr

oach.Asinmostartistic

revolutions,thepreviousgenerationwasattacked,whilethegenerationsbeforewerecuriously

rehabilitated.Thevisualhallmarksofthisrebellion,however,wereinevitablyreducedtostylistic

mannerismswhichforcedevenmo

reradicalexperimentation.Extremismgaverisetofashionable

uglinessasaformofnihilisticexpression

3


19/33

.

(

)

.

.

.

,

.

.

1

1970

.

.

.

. , ,

.

. (

) ,

.

.

Thelayeredimages,vernacularh

ybrids,low-resolutionreproductionsan

dcacophonousblendsof

differenttypesandlettersatonc

echallengeprevailingaestheticbeliefs

andproposealternative

paradigms.Liketheoutputofcommunicationsrebelsofthepast(wheth

er1920sFuturistsor

1960spsychedelicartists),thisw

orkdemandsthattheviewerorreader

acceptnon-traditional

formatswhichatbestguidethe

eyeforaspecificpurposethrougharangeofnon-linearpath-

ways,andatworstresultincon

fusion.

Butthereasonsbehindthiswavearedubious.Doesthecurrentsociala

ndculturalcondition

involvethekindofupheavaltow

hichcriticaluglinessisatime-honoure

dcompanion?Orinthe

wakeofearlier,moreseriousexp

erimentation,hasuglinesssimplybeen

assimilatedintopopular

cultureandbecomeastylishcon

ceit?

Thecurrentwavebeganinthemid

-1970swiththeEnglishpunkscene,arawexpressionofyouth

frustrationmanifestedthroughsho

ckingdress,musicandart.Punksnaivegraphiclanguage

anaggressiverejectionofrationaltypographythatechoesDadaandFuturistworkinfluenced

designersduringthelate1970swhoseriouslytestedthelimitsimposedb

yModernistformalism.

Punksviolentdemeanoursurfaced

inSwiss,American,DutchandFrenchdesignandspreadto

themainstreamintheformofanewwave,orwhatAmericanpunkartistGaryPanterhascalled

sanitisedpunk.Akeyanti-canonicalapproachlatercalledSwissPunkwhichincomparison

withthegridlockedSwissInternationalStylewasmenacinglychaotic,thoughrootedinitsown

logicwasborninthemeccaofrationalism,Basel,duringthelate1970s

.Fortheelderswho

werethreatened(andoffended)by

theonslaughttocriticiseSwissPunkw

asattackednotso

muchbecauseofitsappearanceasbecauseitsymbolisedthedemiseofM

odernisthegemony.

GaryPanterScreamersredux


20/33

Ode on a Grecian Urn(1819),

John Keats

: .

- ,

.

,

.

, Cranbrook, CalArts

Rhode Island School of Design

. ,

.

(1961)

,

?

,

.

Segura

.

1993 HOW

. ,

.

,

.

Butisitpossiblethatthesurface

mightblind

onetotheinnerbeauty(i.e.intelligence)ofthis

work?RalphWaldoEmersoninTheConduct

ofLife(1860)wrote:Thesecret

ofugliness

consistsnotinirregularity,butin

beingunin-

teresting.GivenEmersonsmea

sure,itcould

bearguedthatdesignisonlyuglywhendevoid

ofaestheticorconceptualforeth

oughtfor

example,genericrestaurantmen

us,storesigns

andpackages.Perhaps,then,the

Howbooklet,

whichisdrowninginforethough

t,shouldbe

readonavarietyoflevelswhereinbeautyand

uglinessaremitigatedbycontextandpurpose.

Perhapsbutgiventheexcessesinthiswork,

theresultcanonlybedescribedasacatalogue

ofpretence.

,

.

,

.

,

. (

)

.

, .

, 1990

.

, ,

.

.

(: )

? Ralph Waldo

Emerson (1860) :

, .

,

,

,

.

,

, ,

. ,

,

.


21/33

InOdeonaGrecianUrn(1819),theRomanticpoetJohnKeatswrotethefamouslines:Beauty

istruth,truthbeauty,thatisall/Yeknowonearth,andallyeneedtoknow.Yetintodays

environment,onestandardofbe

autyisnomorethetruththanisonestandardofugliness.Itis

possiblethatthemostconventio

nal-bustinggraphicdesignbystudents

andalumniofCranbrook,

CalArtsandRhodeIslandSchoolofDesign,amongotherhothouseswh

eretheoreticalconstructs

areusedtojustifywhattheuntu

toredeyemightdeemugly,couldbecomethefoundationfor

newstandardsbasedoncontem

porarysensibilities.Certainly,theseapp

roacheshaveattracted

manyfollowersthroughoutthed

eignworld.

Wheredoesbeautybeginandwheredoes

itend?wroteJohnCageinSile

nce(1961).

Whereitendsiswheretheartistbegins.So

inordertostretchtheperimetersofartandde-

signtoanyseriousextentitbeco

mesnecessary

tosuspendpopularnotionsofbeautysothat

alternativeaestheticstandardscanbeexplored.

Thisconceptisessentialtoanan

alysisofa

recentworkbytheChicagocompanySegura,

whodesignedtheprogramme/announcement

forthe1993HowmagazineCre

ativeVision

conferenceandwhoseworkrepresentsthe

professionalwingofthehothousesensibility.

ComparedtotheartlessOutput,

Segurasseem-

inglyanarchicbookletisanartfu

llyengineered

attempttodirectthereaderthro

ughamaze

ofmundaneinformation.Yetwhilethework

mightpurporttoconfrontcomplacency,itoften

merelyobstructscomprehension.

Acompilationofvariegatedvisuals,theHow

pieceisaveritableprimerofcultishextremesat

oncecompellingforitsingenuity

yetunder-

minedbyitssuperficiality.Likea

glutton,Segura

hasstuffeditselfwithallthelate

stconceits

(includingsomeofitsownconco

ction)andhas

regurgitatedthemontothepages.Atfirstthe

juxtapositionsofdiscordantvisualmaterialap-

pearorganic,butinfactlittleislefttochance.

Theresultisacatalogueofdisha

rmonyinthe

serviceofcontemporaneity,anartifactthatis

alreadyossifyingintoa1990sdesignstyle.It

isastylethatpresumesthatmoreishipper

thanless,confusionisbettertha

nsimplicity,

fragmentationissmarterthenco

ntinuity,and

thatuglinessisitsownreward.

Thec

ompletesetofcollateralmaterialsforHowMagazines

1993

DesignConferenceheldinChicagoattheWestinHotel

fromApril25ththruApril28th.


22/33

40 50

.

,

.

,

.

.

.1930

,

W. A.Dwiggins

.

?

(Emigre)

Rudy VanderLans

Massimo

Vignelli .

.

.

Bauhaus boys

.

Cran-

brook Edward

Fella, Jeffery

Keedy and Allen Hori

. ,

.

Thenewyoungturks,bycontrast,rejectsuch

veritiesinfavourofimposeddiscordanceand

disharmony,which

mightberationalisedas

personalexpression,butnotasviablevisual

communication,an

dsointheendwillbeablip

(ortangent)inthe

continuumofgraphicdesign

history.

EdwardFellasworkisagoodexample.Fella

beganhiscareerasacommercialartist,became

aguestcriticatCranbrookandlaterenrolledas

agraduatestudent,imbuinginotherstudents

anappreciationforthenaf(orfolk)tradi-

tionsofcommercia

lculture.Heconvincingly

deployedhighlype

rsonalart-basedimagery

andtypographyin

hisdesignforthepublic,

explainsLorraineW

ildinheressayTransgres-

sionandDelight:G

raphicDesignatCranbrook

(CranbrookDesign:theNewDiscourse,1990).

Healsointroduced

whatWilddescribesasthe

vernacular,theimp

ure,theincorrect,andall

theotherforbiddenexcessestohisgraduate

studies.Theseexce

sses,suchasnineteenth-

centuryfatfaces,comicalstockprinterscuts,

ornamentaldingba

ts,handscrawlsandout-of-

focusphotographs,wereanathematotheearly

Modernists,whohadbattledtoexpungesuch

eyesoresfrompublicview.

Similarformshadbeenusedpriortothe1980s

inam

oresanitisedwaybyAmericandesigners

such

asPhilGipsinMonoclemagazine,Otto

StorchinMcCallsmagazines,andBeaFeitlerin

Ms.m

agazine.Forthesedesigners,noveltyjob

printerstypefacesandruleswerenotjustcrass

curiosemployedasaffectations,butappropri-

atecomponentsofstylishlayouts.Whilethey

providedanalternativetothecold,systematic

typefacesfavouredbytheInternationalStyle

,

theyappearedincompositionsthatwerenone-

thelesscleanandaccessible.Thesewerenot

experiments,butsolutionstodesignproble

ms.

,

.

(

) .

.

,

.

.

Lorraine Wild :

( :

,1990) .

,

,

.

19 , ,

,

.


23/33

Duringthelate1940sand1950stheModernist

missionwastodevelopdesignsystemsthat

wouldprotecttheglobal(notjustcorporate)

visualenvironmentfromblight.Y

etwhileMod-

ernismsmoothedouttheroughedgesofcom-

municationsbyprescribingalimitednumberof

options,italsocreatedarecipeformediocrity.If

aModernistdesignsystemisfollowedbyrote,

theresultcanbeasuninterestingandtherefore

asuglyaccordingtoEmersonsstandardas

anynon-designednewsletteroradvertise-

ment.Sodesignthataggressivelychallenge

thesensesandintellectratherth

anfollowing

thepackshouldintheorybetole

rated,ifnot

encouraged.

Foranewgenerationsideasofgooddesign

andbeautytobechallengedb

yitsforerun-

nersis,ofcourse,afamiliarpattern.PaulRand,

whencriticisedasoneofthoseBauhausboys

byAmericantypemasterW.A.D

wigginsinthe

late1930s,toldaninterviewerthathehad

alwaysrespectedDwigginswork,sowhy

couldntheseethevalueofwha

twewere

doing?RudyVanderLans,whoseclarioncall

ofthenewtypographyEmigrehasbeenvitu-

perativelycriticisedbyMassimoVignelli,hasnot

returnedthefire,butrathercoun

teredthathe

admiresVignellisworkdespiteh

isowninterest

inexploringalternativesmadepossibleby

newtechnologies.Itcouldbearguedthatthe

languageinventedbyRandsBa

uhausboys

challengedcontemporaryaesthe

ticsinmuch

thesamewayasVanderLansisd

oinginEmigre

today.IndeedVanderLans,andthosedesigners

whomEmigrecelebratesfortheirinventions

includingCranbrookalumniEd

wardFella,

JefferyKeedyandAllenHoriarepromoting

newwaysofmakingandseeing

typography.

ThedifferenceisthatRandsmethodwasbased

strictlyonideasofbalanceandh

armonywhich

holdupunderclosescrutinyeventoday.

1980 Monocle

McCalls

Ms.Magazine

Bea Feitler

. ,

.

.

,

.

.

.

8

EdFella(born1938)is

anartist,educatorandgraphicdesigner

whoseworkhashadan

importantinfuenceoncontemporary

typography.


24/33

20 ,

.

,

.

Gips Feitler

. :

,

,

, .

,

.

, ,

.

,

.

Two

decadeslater,Fellatoore-employedmany

ofth

etypicallyuglynoveltytypefacesaswe

llas

othe

rwiseneutralcanonicalletterforms,which

hestretchedanddistortedtoachievepurpo

se-

fully

artlesseffectsforuseongalleryandex

hi-

bitio

nannouncements.UnlikeGipsandFeitlers

work,thesewereaggressivelyunconvention

al.

InCranbrookDesign:theNewDiscourse,

Fella

schallengestonormalexpectations

of

typographyaredescribedasrangingfrom

low

paro

dytohighseriousness.Butthelineth

at

sepa

ratesparodyandseriousnessisthin,an

d

theresultisugliness.Asacritiqueoftheslick

designpractisedthroughoutcorporatecultu

re,

Fella

sworkisnotwithoutacertainacerbity.

Asp

ersonalresearch,indeedaspersonalart,it

canbejustified,butasamodelforcommercial

practice,thiskindofuglinessisadeadend.


25/33

BeatrizFeitler(1938-Ap

ril8,1982),wasaBraziliandesignerandartdirectorbest

knownforherworkinHa

rpersBazaar,Ms.,RollingStoneandthepremiereissue

ofthemodernVanityFair.


26/33

,

.

.

,

,

,

.

Cran-

brook

,

.

.

.

.

-

-

. ,

.

,

,

.

?

-.

.

.

Lushus (

)

.

. .

1

Rarelyhasbeautybeenanendinitself,wrote

PaulRandinPaulRand:ADesignersArt.Andit

isequallymistakentotr

eatuglinessasanend

resultinitself.Uglinessisvalid,evenrefresh-

ing,whenitiskeytoan

indigenouslanguage

representingalternative

ideasandcultures.

Theproblemwiththecu

ltofuglygraphic

designemanatingfrom

themajordesign

academiesandtheiralu

mniisthatithasso

quicklybecomeastylet

hatappealstoanyone

withouttheintelligence,disciplineorgood

sensetomakesomethin

gmoreinterestingout

ofit.Whiletheproponentsarefollowingtheir

variousmuses,theirfollowersaremisusingtheir

signaturedesignsandtypographyasstylewith-

outsubstance.Ugliness

asatool,aweapon,

evenasacodeisnotaproblemwhenitisa

resultofformfollowing

function.Butugliness

asitsownvirtueoras

aknee-jerkreactionto

thestatusquodiminishesalldesign.

Jeffery

Keedy

KeedySans,

Lushus

,

.


27/33

{J}ustmaybe,asmallindependentgradu-

ateprogramispreciselywheresuchdaunt-

ingresearchandinventioningra

phicdesign

shouldoccur,arguesWild.And

onewould

havetoagreethatgiventhestricturesofthe

marketplace,itishardtobreakm

eaningful

groundwhileservingaclientsneedsandwants.

Nevertheless,themarketplaceca

nprovideim-

portantsafeguardsRand,fore

xample,never

hadtheopportunitytoexperimentoutsidethe

businessarenaandsincehewas

ostensibly

self-taught,virtuallyeverythingh

einvented

wasonthejob.JefferyKeedyandAllen

Hori,bothofwhomhadamodic

umofdesign

experiencebeforeattendingCranbrook,availed

themselvesoftheluxuryofexperimentingfree

ofmarketplacedemands.Forthe

m,gradu-

ateschoolwasaplacetotestou

tideasthat

transgressedasfaraspossible

fromaccepted

standards.SoWildiscorrectinh

erassertion

thatitisbettertodoresearchan

ddevelopment

inadedicatedandsympatheticatmosphere.

Butsuchanatmospherecanalsobepollutedby

itsownfreedoms.

TheuglyexcessesorFrankensteinslittlemon-

sterslikeOutputareoftenexhibitedinpublic

topromulgate

thenewdesigndiscourse.In

fact,theymerelyfurtherthecauseofambiguity

andugliness.Sincegraduateschoolhothouses

pushtheirwork

intotherealworld,someof

whatispurelye

xperimentalisacceptedby

neophytesasaviablemodel,andstudents,be-

ingstudents,willinevitablymisuseit.Whocan

blamethemiftheirmentorsaredoingso,too?

Commontoallgraphicdesignerspracticingin

thecurrentwaveistheself-indulgencethat

informssomeoftheworstexperimentalfine

art.Butwhatultimatelyderailsmuchofthis

workiswhatcriticDugaldStermercallsadults

makingkidsdrawings.WhenArtChantryuses

naiveoruglyde

signelementshetransforms

themintoviable

tools.Conversely,Jeffery

KeedysLushus,

abawdyshove-it-in-your-face

noveltytypeface

,istakenseriouslybysome

andturnsupon

printedmaterials(suchasthe

DutchBestBookDesignscover)asanaffront

to,notaparody

of,typographicstandards.

Whenthelayere

d,vernacularlookispractised

intheextreme,whetherwithforethoughtor

not,itsimplycontributestotheperpetuationof

baddesign.

,

.

.

,

.

,

.

.

,

. ,

,

.

.


28/33


29/33

Second.


30/33

SWISS POSTERDESIGN EXHIBITION

. 1914,

(F4:

128X90.5cm)

.

1900 APG(General

Poster Society)

.

,

.

(Zermatt,

1908),

(Grisons, 1918), (, Spalentor)

(Basel, 1939) .

WORLD FROMAT

905

128


31/33

.

. .

. ,

,

.

,

,

.

.

, .

.

.

,

.

.

.

. .

.

.

905

128

:

.

,

. 128X90.5cm

.

.

.

,

.

.

.

.

.

, ,

.

(

)

.

(Stampa) ,

.

, .

(Kunst-

gewerbeschule) , ,

- . IBM

1961 ,

. 1971

.

2553


32/33


33/33

Third.

arche final1

Documents