My name is Davinia Clarke, studying BA Illustration and Visual Media. I was unfamiliar with the term Anti-design and I believe this was my first time hearing it. The first thought that came to my mind was that Anti-design describes an individual that doesn’t value a designer's work even though design is everywhere. From researching the term I found that Anti-design was a movement used as an expression of rebellion by re-interpreting the rules of graphic design. It started in Italy from 1966 to 1980 and the movement consisted of using bold clashing colours, scale distortion, incorrect alignment, ‘bad’ font choice and/or illegible typography. This was in response to Modernism that was heavily focused on style and aesthetic. However, in order to successfully break the existing rules they need to be learned in order to challenge them. This made me think about colour theory, composition, rule of thirds and other fundamentals of art that artists and illustrators learn. Leisure turned into research I was online browsing on the Boohoo app then switched to Pretty Little Thing. At some point I had forgotten which brands app I was on as they both look identical, from the logo design to the overall structure design (see image below).From that I then checked both brands' webpage to see if there were still any similarities between the two, which there were. The only thing that helped me differentiate between the two were the brand’s name at the top of the page. This is something I’ve consistently seen with brands recently not limited to fashion but as food, tech and social media. Recently, I’ve paid close attention as an multimedia designer intern for a skincare brand. In this role I have to create and design content for social media, that includes images and videos. This has challenged me as an illustrator as graphic design and brand identity isn’t a familiar area for me, as one of my tasks is to essentially rebrand the company’s style. One of the tasks is to find appropriate fonts to see across their platforms that communicate and give a sense of who they are. I researched existing skincare brands and noticed that most aren’t distinctive or everyone is playing it safe by recycling ideas. Brands are “Blandling” The article by ‘whatson’ used the term ‘blanding’ to describe how companies' rebrands are conforming to existing trends, the bold, san serif fonts that are minimalist looking. The purpose of branding is creating an element that is identifiable and recognisable. However, top luxury brands like Balenciaga, Burberry, Dione Von Furstenberg have all removed special quirks about their logos to black and white uppercase sans serif fonts. Some would argue that due to the new technology that these logos appear on sans serif fonts make them more legible and easier to read. (Refer to image 1). Graphic designer Gavin Day talks about how the original logos wouldn’t have been designed for these technologies but now in the present time “It's all about reusability and perfection, and less about individual quirks.” - Prospectus Magazine
This makes sense as simpler and clean designs are easily-transferable and universal. However, I believe another reason for this conformity in redesigns is accessibility. With the rise in popularity of street wear style perhaps have made brands rethink their target market, to a younger generation like gen-z. Whilst these brand price tags are unattainable for most, the appearance, style and overall feel of the brands feels accessible. As the clothes they market aren’t the daring designs you see on fashion catwalks but more so any average person could wear (even me). They are portraying an image of accessibility and the style of these fonts I think plays a role in that. Adding on, I would argue that established brands can get away with conformity, redesigns and revamping as they have the money for PR and marketing that smaller brands do not. Also, they've built up a loyal audience and space that contributes to them being universally recognised. I personally think it made it more challenging for smaller brands to stand out, especially if they conform with current brand identity trends. Especially on Instagram, where everyone is almost fighting for each other’s attention. To counteract, there's also the pressure for reproduction and how it leaves little time to come up with something new. So the safe option is to recycle and reuse ideas that other brands are using but adding a twist. It leaves me with the question of what does it means to be ‘original’ or perhaps distinctive as nothing is completely new. This is where anti-design should re-emerge to encourage designers to take more risks. Although, I believe that they will always be designers out there challenging rules and bringing in new ideas that can inspire existing brands to become more experimental (or just copy their design without credit). Written by Davinia Clarke References https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/questions/51/what-is-the-difference-between-a-graphic-designer-and-an-illustrator/ https://designbuddy.com/what-do-worlds-top-brands-logos-have-in-common https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/when-did-every-brand-start-to-look-the-same https://www.nngroup.com/articles/brutalism-antidesign/ https://www.creativereview.co.uk/anti-digital-graphic-design/
2 Comments
sare temple
1/7/2022 03:44:24 am
Excellent argument and counterargument Davina on the 99% Bad design landscape in 2022 - scared and unsettled by the disruption of the pandemic. Looking forward to seeing your practice celebrate the anti-bland with unapologetic, unadorned value. Designers should be ruthless, critical, brutal creating differential.
Reply
Robert Urquhart
1/7/2022 12:36:18 pm
Excellent, I'd not heard the term ‘blanding’ before - thanks for sharing!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2022
Categories |