reading between the lines

I always imagine that if you read this blog then you probably read the same collection of blogs that I read - at least as far those related to design are concerned. Which means that you would be keeping up to date with what Mike Dempsey has to say. But on the off-chance that you don't, this post is a reaction to Mike's latest call to arms: for fellow designers to follow the lead of their 30-something compatriots and re-engage with a more literary approach to design, using classical styles and techniques from the 40s and 50s.

Because the thing is, I don't think I agree with Mike. And I say that because although I've read his post several times, I'm not entirely certain that I understand his argument.

But let's start with his first example - the 1980 stationery range by and for Studio Dumbar:

As Mike quite rightly points out, this was a piece of work that was going to have an effect upon the British graphic scene. And so it proved to be, for anyone who was working as a designer in 1980 (as both Mike and I were) would have immediately recognised that this was ground-breaking work. The graphic equivalent, perhaps, of hearing (in your youth) the Sex Pistols or Nirvana for the very first time.

Now I can tell you a little more about this stationery range, for it was in fact designed by Ko Sliggers. And assuming that you haven't been reading this blog since the very beginning, it was first mentioned in the first few days of my blogging life. The result of which was that Ko became a friend and occasional contributor to this blog.

But what puzzles me is that Mike seems to suggest that this piece of work in some ways opened the floodgates for all manner of self-indulgent typographic flights of fancy during the following two decades. Well, that may or may not be the case. But I find it difficult to understand that its subsequent effects should undermine or devalue the quality of the work itself. Of course, we now look back with different eyes and place different interpretations upon its values, especially if you've never seen it before now. Just remember that this received a D&AD Silver Award, and that Mike himself was one of the awarding judges.

It's of its time, though - nobody would deny that. Just as Wim Crouwel's work is of its time, as he himself would agree (just watch his little trailer to the Helvetica movie). And Wim Crouwel's work will be reinterpreted, as sure as eggs are eggs. You know, when I made my visit to his Design Museum exhibition there was a design student very carefully sketching into his notebook the new alphabet. "You can download that for free from the internet, you know", I remarked. But that wasn't the point of course - he needed to understand it. Mark my words, that will resurface in some other iteration in the next 10 to 15 years. Maybe it already has. What goes around comes around: 'twas ever thus.

But look at it this way - without Gert Dumbar and his studio, it's doubtful that why not associates would have emerged in the 1990s in the way that they did:

And if that work isn't of its time, I don't know what is. And that style itself led on to all manner of crimes against typography. Not least the suggestion to design students that it was quite acceptable to create Quark XPress files with 48 linked text boxes on a single spread. But without that we wouldn't have today's typographic trees or comedy carpet:

And surely anyone's mum or dad can understand and enjoy those, can't they?

It's not that I'm entirely against classical principles. And I'm certainly not against respecting the reader. Balance and elegance are very often all that's needed, such as demonstrated by Brian Webb in his excellent Design Series:

But if everyone's going to revert to classical principles, then we're going to miss out on a lot of vibrant, exciting and challenging influences. Because sometimes what's required from a brief is to 'push the envelope'. And if you wonder what I'm talking about, it's not the branding for the Olympics. Let me point you instead across the English Channel and to the work of Pierre di Sciullo:

And Philippe Apeloig:

So, sorry Mike. I'm afraid I'm not yet ready to give up my isms.

Comments

[Gerry Simons]

Well put and although I tend to agree with Mike you have got me thinking and isn't that what this (blogging) should be about.

[Ian Dennis]

Not sure I follow Mike's argument either, but it's not helped by the dozen or so spelling and punctuation errors.

Some graphic designers do read as well as look!

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=817573674]

This is a very British discussion, but I’m amazed to see that hope is coming from France.

[ko sliggers]

hello david, i will paste my emailed response to mess the whole thing up (i'm not serious, in the following remarks i'm very serious)

1 it is a pity also youwrite the name of dumbar
with a 'n' that gives me right away a sloppy feeling of the approach, i know designers are a bit dyslectic but that's not an excuse
but maybe i am exeggerating...

2 in his 'chronical' dempsey only concentrates on the outside form and neglects the embedding of our profession in the social-cultural sphere, in that way you never can understand why things look as they are

3 the major question 'do graphic designers read or just look' is too general and the examples to illustrate his 'essay' are too diverse (do you read blanco stationery)

4 to speak about the design i made for studio dumbars stationery the scope was to make a distinguished vocabulary which was ment to
be read on a more abstract level and (as it should be i thought*) was formally just a frame, a paper-borne ambient to embrace its content (which is unfortunately absent in the presentation, i mean a
real letter, a real send envelope..etc) which is the expressioin of a mentality (versatile, flexible, open)
* and still think

5 it is an open door to establish creative minds and so called followers
(not interesting as well)

6 to be more personal, i found it always very demotivating that the main designers scope is form and the contemporary style recycling shows that nothing has changed, it even got worse (unfortunately there are very little critical people working in design education and little students are receptive...they are already spoiled by consumentism)