Category: Uncategorized
4 ways to assert creative leadership
- Through delegation
- Through integration
- Through evaluation
- Through coaching
Each team is different so you may need to arrive at which style is most purposeful through trial-and-error.
The Visual Language
“Typography is what language looks like.”
– ELLEN LUPTON
In order to analyze and discuss design in a meaningful way, we must first agree on a common framework, a common terminology. More specifically, we must accept a basic approach to design which allows us to classify its components and discuss them in a rational, concrete and objective manner, even if the discussion by nature is usually highly abstract. For example, it is an absolute necessity to be able to relate to the rudimentary building blocks of design, say a shape or form, in a neutral and analytical way in order to have a constructive discussion about composition and visual arrangement. Exchanging subjective preferences for round vs. square shapes would not be particularly productive – we must be able to assess their properties and suitable uses without bias.
Perhaps the most established metaphor is to consider the principles of design as components of a language, in which the elements (shapes, colors, patterns, lines, etc) constitute the “vocabulary” of the language. These elements can then be organized into a “grammar” which governs their relationships (stability/instability, asymmetry/symmetry, soft/hard, straight/curved, dark/light, etc).
The theory of a visual language is not new: it was part of Johannes Itten´s foundation course at the Bauhaus school in the early 1920’s, and later became part of modern psychology through the so-called “Gestalt Theory”. It could even be argued that the concept borrowed from elements of taoism; early Chinese philosophy. To exemplify how this theory was expressed, let´s compare two triangles: one with the base down and the tip facing upward, and the other balancing on the tip, with the base facing upwards. According to Gestalt Theory, we perceive the first triangle as stable, and the other as unstable. The two triangles can also be used to indicate direction, where the tips of each triangle indicate the directions up and down respectively. Similarly, Gestalt Theory stipulates that we perceive a round shape as soft, warm and human (perhaps a visual association to an eye, a face, or even the shape of the sun), while a square shape is stable, static and perceived as mechanical. Sharp, jagged or diagonal shapes and lines are similarly considered to indicate danger and drama.The statements on behalf of the properties of these shapes are intended to be neutral and normative, so as to allow for a more concrete discussion about and logical analysis of how and where to apply them.
While one can certainly assume a position of skepticism vis-à-vis these abstract principles, one should still be cognizant of how intrinsically embedded Gestalt Theory has become in visual artistic expression of the past 100 years. Our relationship to design is often subconscious, part of our modern cultural heritage, and thus also a part of how we relate to color and shape in a broader sense.
2. Contrast and balance
The theories on visual language, or the parts of Gestalt Theory that can be applied to contemporary graphic design, are perhaps a bit too complex to make full justice in a brief blog post such as this. Therefore, it may be preferable to take a more simplified approach in the form of a simple recommendation.
When working with graphic design, it may be useful to imagine your work as a process aimed at achieving an ideal compromise between two extremes: contrast and balance. The idea is for the designer to be working iteratively at adjusting the design so that it at the same time carries a measure of contrast, so as to be clear and interesting, while also having a sufficient degree of balance, so as to be pleasing and harmonious.
Too much contrast – for example in the size ratio between header and body text, the relationship between different colors or in the relationship between different textures – is generally perceptually disruptive and discordant. Unless this is the express ambition, working to reduce contrasts (i.e., reducing the difference between the sizes, colors or textures) to achieve a greater degree of balance between them would probably be preferable. Too much balance, however, is not good either. If your elements are too equal, too similar, then the design becomes static, unengaging and unclear. For instance: a text, whose different levels of headers are too close in size and emphasis, becomes very garbled and unstructured. A composition whose colors are too similar in hue will become flat and uninteresting. A magazine layout where columns are too similar in width and placement becomes repetitive and dull.3. Cadence
It may also be useful to think of design as an exercise in systematic repetition. After all, it is not always the case that graphic design is imbued in one single instant, in one inhalation. Quite often, the consumer of graphic design is taking in the contents of let´s say a web site or a brochure over an extended period of time, and is therefore exposed to the design over and over again, in a repetitive fashion, as time passes and he or she navigates through the content.
Therefore, consider the results of graphic design work as a visual sequence in which the elements are arranged in a certain graphic rhythm. Imagine, for example, a reader browsing through a magazine. Each new page he or she takes in represents a new pattern, where headlines, images, text and other graphic elements are repeated in an almost rhythmic fashion, with slight variations on a familiar theme.
A page consisting solely of large chunks of text is not particularly exciting, and not particularly rhythmic. On the other hand, a page with lots of similar, smaller graphic elements creates a stressful, staccato-like visual rhythm that is not particularly pleasant. A page with well diversified elements, in terms of size, placement and emphasis, creates a softly repetitive rhythm that can be both pleasant and interesting on the other hand – much like the rhythm of music, or the cadence of poetry.On Creativity
“Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”
-ALBERT SZENT-GYÖRGYI
1. Creativity
Creativity is a Big word. It is indeed a rare luxury to be allowed to spend each and every day working with ideas and inventions; to be in the middle of the creative process and realize the conceptual embryos that are born in the inner depths of the brain. There is definitely a certain element of magic to it. But this kind of romanticizing makes it very difficult to relate to creativity in a practical, constructive way.
There is definitely a point in demystifying the entire creative process. For many people, the mere word “creativity” evokes an almost voodoo-like mystique, sometimes disenfranchising people and creating a stigma that prevents them from actually thinking creatively. Many people therefore instinctively and defensively reject all creative propositions, perhaps feeling that they are somehow less capable of creative thought than others, as if creativity is somehow a threat to them.
But creativity is not a supernatural force. Inspiration is not some sort of spiritual revelation or magical phenomenon that affects only a select few creative people, like a lightning bolt from above.
Creativity is an attitude. The more openly you approach the creative process, the more creative you will be.
In psychology, it is suggested that the natural creativity we all inhibit as children wears off as we grow up, and are conditioned to obey and follow the rules of society and the expectations of how adults are supposed to behave. In this perspective, the creative process is a method of freeing ourselves from the yoke of these rules, and return to our childlike selves.
2. Of course you are creative!
The first and most important step in the creative process is to shake off all the skepticism and doubt. A person who believes him- or herself to be incapable of creative thinking is very rarely creative. This has very little to do with innate capacity for creativity – you ARE creative. Anyone can plant the seeds of a good idea, it´s just a question of releasing the brain´s associative powers and give the subconscious a little more room to maneuver. This may sound hokey, but basically it’s about relaxing, letting go of that inner critic and freeing oneself from the many mental constraints we are forcing upon ourselves in our daily lives. An idea in itself is just a thought and a thought can never be harmful. But in the world of thoughts, anything is possible.
True creativity requires a certain amount of spontaneity. This is something that can seem uncomfortable for many people, especially in our inhibited Western intellectual climate. As people, we have a penchant for applying common sense and practical methodology; to submit to unwritten laws and regulations at all times. But creativity rarely germinates in an atmosphere of caution and anxiety. Do not be afraid to make yourself look ridiculous – good ideas are usually born out of spontaneity. Be generous with yourself! 4. Creativity and triviality
A misconception that often stymies the best of creative intentions is the expectation that one´s first ideas will be brilliant. This is very rarely the case. To be creative, you have to allow yourself to make mistakes. Do not be worried if your first ideas are trivial. The brain often requires time to get up to speed – consider it an initial discovery process, where all parameters and facts must be shaken and stirred to blend together. The worst thing you can do at this stage is to begin to censor yourself. Let out the cheapest, most trivial ideas and clear the brain from all its initial superficial associations. Eventually, you will notice that your ideas are gradually becoming more and more discerning and relevant. 5. Creativity and flexibility
The French 19th century philosopher Émile Chartier supposedly said: “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when it’s the only one we have.”
Forget any thoughts of The Perfect Idea. It does not exist, or rather, it will not manifest itself in splendid isolation. Avoid tunnel vision. The path to the truly good, useful ideas lies not in striving for a single optimal solution, but rather in searching for as many potential solutions as possible. Only when you can compare several ideas to each other will you be able to decide which of them are the most appropriate. Do not evaluate your creative efforts too soon. Write down everything, establish categories and seek flexibility. Eventually, you will see a pattern in all the ideas and get a clearer picture of which of them you will be able to build on.
6. Creativity and multitudeIt’s very easy to fall in love with one´s ideas. The itch to move on and start realizing those ideas is very hard to resist. That eagerness often tricks people into diving into an idea way too early, which is where the idiom “kill your darlings” comes from. Imagine that there are always another ten solutions around the corner, at least five of which are going to be better than your last idea. 7. Creativity and tenacity
It is easy to despair when one feels that one has milked the brain of every ounce of creativity it could muster. But not all solutions are simple and obvious. Sometimes, the brain needs a break, to process all the accumulated thoughts. Do not give up if you hit the wall. Take a break and start anew, with fresh thoughts and rejuvenated inspiration. 8. Creativity requires nourishment
Perhaps the biggest fear of every professional designer is to face creative blockage. The way out of this dilemma is to not overstate the problem. This type of mental freeze is very common and almost always the result of the brain not having been given enough nourishment. The brain needs to be fed with new impressions and new input in order to function, much like fuel in a car. Learn to recognize the warning signs when you are trying to create something out of nothing.Take a step back, release your ambitions and seek out new inspiration and information. Eventually, the blockage will clear.
9. Creativity is open source
Creative, collaborative teamwork is very difficult, because the creative process is very tender and newborn ideas are very delicate. We often feel that criticism of our ideas is equal to criticism of us as individuals. Therefore, the best approach to creative collaboration is to refrain from premature criticism – it is impossible to say when a single idea has reached maturity, and it is usually better to allow it time to solidify and take shape. By doing so, people have time to take stock of their own ideas and become less attached to them. In the end, if the process itself is engaging enough, people may not even always remember who came up with which idea. Everything is shared, and everyone can feel some degree of ownership. That increases the chance that there can be a consensus on which ideas to move forward with.
On Logo Redesign
- First, we need to fully understand: what is the company´s position on the market? Do clients recognize us, what do they think of us (if they think of us), what do they think we stand for? In short: who are we to them?
- Second, we need to ask if the company needs to be repositioned on the market, which would ultimately potentially result in a logo refresh or redesign, among other things.
- Third, if so, why and in what way is the old position inadequate? (Could be for instance that the brand has become associated with something negative, such as the BP oil spill, or that the old position just doesn´t fully reflect the company´s current identity).
- Fourth: Which position is the company trying to move to?
- Fifth: Are there competitors in that space and, if so, how do we differentiate ourselves from them?
- And, finally: Do we need to ensure some level of continuity in the brand, to preserve brand equity? Usually, the answer would be yes, even if there´s a BP oil spill disaster in the company´s history. Otherwise, the company should probably be renamed altogether.
The Designer and Design History
” ‘Design history’ should be understood not as a catalogue of styles or a canon of formal rules, but as a complex enterprise that engages political, economic, and intellectual culture.” – Ellen Lupton & J. Abbott Miller
One may relate to the designer’s duties in a historical perspective, seeing each designer as a bearer and cultivator of design traditions – knowledge that has evolved through the continuous development of media, tools and forms of expression over the course of hundreds of years. How one ought to conduct oneself as a designer in relation to design history is of course a very personal matter, and it is ultimately up to each designer to find the answer for themselves. Questioning and even breaking with traditions and norms is every professional´s prerogative, but if you decide to go against something which you have not fully understood, you may be making a mistake. It is worth noting that design traditions do not materialize out of nothing. They have been shaped by time, by millions of designers and the ever-changing conditions that new applications and technologies bring with them. Some principles and techniques will be directly applicable to your own work, while others may require an adaptation to modern circumstances. The rule of thumb ought to be to never reject an established tradition until one has analyzed and evaluated it and judged it against the conditions shaped by your mission and your goals. Creativity is a great asset, but be wary of using it as an excuse for replacing youthful enthusiasm with youthful arrogance.
Judging Design Subjectively
First: opinions are irrelevant. Our own opinions on design should not matter, we are not designing for ourselves. Nor are we in fact designing directly for the client, our design is always meant for a specific target: The Client’s Client, The Recipient, or The User.
Third, there is always a purpose for design, beyond pleasing ourselves or even our clients – beyond just making things look good. Design needs to communicate to serve that purpose. If design happens to be aesthetically pleasing, that is just a bonus, not a goal in itself. In fact, aesthetics can sometimes even be an obstacle, drawing attention to itself when focus should be on the message the design is intended to convey.
Design should be judged objectively, with the ultimate purpose as a yardstick.
On Art, Architecture and Beauty
When discussing the concept of Art, I commonly come across a certain set of preconceived notions and subjective preferences that I cannot help but object to. For various reasons, these often involve art as it relates to beauty.
1. Restrictive definitions of art.
First of all, there are those who want to place art in a box and define it as something with a very limited scope or meaning. This is in itself, to me, a contradiction, almost an oxymoron. Art is, the way I see it, the complete and total opposite of narrow. It represents a widening of perspectives, an opening of possibilities, an exploration of reality and beyond. Shrinking its scope or trying to define it in a restrictive sense just seems counterproductive to me.
2. Art as an object.
Second, there are those who cannot approach art in an abstract sense, but who treat it as an object or a commodity. This strikes me as a rather bourgeois classification of art, as if art is merely something meant to hang on the living room wall and match the furniture. Art is not a product, it is ultimately a thought process. You often hear the argument that “my kid could have made that”, as if this somehow invalidates art. Whether a kid could have made something that shares physical properties with art does not relate to the concept of art. Art is not an ISO standard that can be quantified and measured in terms of quality of detail – that discipline is called craftsmanship. Case in point: Jackson Pollock. The groundbreaking aspects of Pollock’s artistry have very little to do with aesthetics, or assessing his skills as a painter. Instead, they are related to his almost scientific exploration of the physical properties of paint; how the material itself can be expressive and resonate with the eye and mind of the viewer, thus turning the concept of art, and the perception of the artist, upside down. Pollock’s work can in fact be seen as a criticism of the conventional concept of art.
3. Art as beauty.
Third, many people equate art with beauty, something I profoundly disagree with. The concept or beauty carries with it certain normative aspects – every age has beauty standards that are an expression of cultural preferences and norms, and thus, the idea of beauty can be discussed in an objective light, entirely without being muddled by personal preferences. This has virtually nothing to do with art – I believe art occupies a higher stratosphere than that.
Even accepting a very broad definition of beauty, I find this to be a much too restrictive description of art. I also believe it trivializes art, and strips it of meaning. If art is only meant to capture beauty, and if the perception of beauty, as it is frequently said, is individual, then it follows that art would only hold meaning for us as individuals. Hence, art could not carry significance to us as a society, which is a conclusion I just have to fundamentally reject. To me, art is the advancement of all things cerebral, spiritual and visual, and it benefits us as a species by widening our horizons and pushing the boundaries of our perception.
A few examples: the artistic discipline of sculpture enhanced our appreciation for the human form. The discovery of perspective refined our spatial senses. Impressionism captured the zeitgeist of an era in a way that still helps us understand it. Cubism and constructivism helped us process and humanize industrialism, something that was absolutely necessary to our mental health.
4. Architecture as art.
Fourth, perhaps mirroring the perception of art as linked to physical objects, discussions of art and beauty often slide into discussions about architecture, which I find misleading. To me, the architect has always first and foremost been a steward of the practical and functional aspects of everyday life, of laying the foundation for increased quality of life. The perspective of the architect as an artist is a romantic echo from the days when either the nobility or the church acted as patrons-of-the-arts, to further their own interests. This was a detour, even if a lengthy one. It had very little to do with the practical implications of daily life for people in general.
5. Beauty in architecture.
Fifth, those who object to modern building styles often see them as the end of beauty in architecture. There’s this notion that organic lines and irregular shapes are inherently more artistic, and that mathematics are somehow taking the art out of architecture. But who’s to say straight lines can’t be art? To argue the contrary frankly just seems a bit silly. In fact, who’s to say mathematics can’t be art? The people of antiquity explored this possibility at length, the golden ratio being but one expression of this; an observation and appreciation of the mathematical correlations to the proportions of the human body. Also straddling the border between art and mathematics, we find for instance scientists like Fibonacci and the mathematic principles of fractals, the implications of which resonate with the natural beauty found everywhere on the planet, allowing beauty to be viewed through the prism of mathematics, elevating both principles to something actually resembling art.
Because norms change, and the concept of beauty changes with the times, it can be said that we as a society are actually engaged in a whitewashing of things we consider ugly, even though those very things may have once been considered expressions of beauty. This is especially true of America, where architecture today is a slave to business interests, and buildings are razed because they’re worth more to investors if they are rebuilt in a style more consistent with popular preferences. This is leading architecture down a path of silly pastichery, completely unmooring architecture from its progressive role in channeling and shaping modern lives.
Modern architects like Frank Lloyd Wright or Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe did not end beauty in architecture, but contributed to translating previously romanticized aspects of architecture into something more attuned to modern lives in an industrial age. Frank Lloyd Wright was most definitely a herald of change, and I happen to think it was mostly a change for the better. I don’t find anything worth romanticising in the living standards of the 1800s.
6. Art as divine inspiration.
Sixth, even among art aficionados, there is sometimes a notion that art needs to be aspirational, somehow reaching for the stars, imbued with a divine presence. This type of audience often rejects art that is perceived as ugly or disparaging, but I must confess I find it hard to relate to. Art reflects human nature, meaning, art can help us understand ourselves and our limitations, warts and all.
Rejecting art on the grounds that it is ugly fundamentally reflects whether you want to see art through rose-tinted lenses, or whether you want art to be true.
Coincidentally, the same holds true for theism and religion.
7. Modern art is meaningless.
Lastly, people who have a romanticized perception of art often end up rejecting modern art, expressing an opinion that art has gotten unmoored from its purpose, as if art has somehow failed, or is somehow “broken”. Personally, I find that art is nothing on its own accord. Art is a reflection of humanity. If art is indeed “broken”, it is simply because humanity is broken. If art can help highlight and diagnose what is broken, I think it is ultimately a good thing.
That, to me, is the promise of art.
On The Golden Ratio
In design, it has always bothered me how a lot of people subscribe blindly to established design principles such as the Golden Ratio, as if it has some kind of magical properties, a component in some kind of design voodoo.
Noone ever bothers to ask WHY the Golden Ratio is so prevalent and why you see it everywhere in ancient art and architecture. A lot is made of the fact that it correlates with proportions found in nature and in the human body, as if those naturally occurring proportions were somehow magically influenced by this ancient, supposedly “supernatural” ratio.
In truth, it is of course the other way around: the Golden Ratio was defined in a way consistent with nature, because that is precisely what ancient philosophers and artists were trying to mirror in their endeavors of artistic expression – they were attempting to reflect the essence of nature and the human soul in dead matter.
So, what does this mean for design? Should you simply be content with calculating your design proportions so that they mirror those dictated by the Golden Ratio, hinging the success of your design on a belief in a supernatural aesthetic?
Of course not!
The conclusion is obvious: if you want to create a semblance of harmony, an impression that seems balanced and natural, you can safely assume that the Golden Ratio will get you there. It’s been established through aeons of design practice. However, balance and harmony and a natural appearance is not always automatically the goal of any given design. Sometimes, design needs to provoke, to challenge perceptions, to wake us up from our preconceived notions and generate some kind of response, some kind of action. This is what is called COMMUNICATION.
More specifically: bring proportions closer than what the Golden Ratio dictates, and you create RELATIONSHIPS in your design. Push proportions further apart and you create CONTRAST.
Uncritically adopting anything referred to as “universal rules” without questioning them is always a bad practice, in design and elsewhere. If you don’t stop to question what is supposedly ”universal” and why, you will not understand those rules and you will most likely not apply them in a constructive, meaningful fashion.
Use the Golden Ratio dogmatically and all you create is a giant, standardized snooze fest which, I assure you, was not what the old Greeks and Romans intended.
The Case Against Minimalism
Being a graphic designer, carving out a livelihood in a field so mired in visual subjectivity and aesthetic dogma, I find it impossible to navigate without comparing myself to other designers, and framing my own style in relation to other styles; other design paradigms.
Something I have struggled with for a very long time is the predominant preference amongst designers towards minimalism – the stern and unforgiving principle of less-is-more. It does not agree with me, or perhaps it is I who do not agree with it. And this despite my being Swedish, growing up in the Land of Minimalism, where white and off-white are sometimes your only available color choices.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the appeal of simplicity very well, and know its ins and outs well enough to pretend-design the odd minimalist pastiche here and there. But it never feels quite right to me, and it is as much an intellectual disagreement as an emotional one.
I am a humanist at heart and I believe design is in essence a way of connecting people through aesthetics; of communicating with images and telling stories through visual metaphors. In that perspective, I simply cannot accept that human nature and minimalism are compatible. We are not simple organisms and our psyches are not simplistic. I think that we, as human beings, live our lives to a large extent through the details, in the many nooks and crannies of human existence. I believe we are fundamentally closer to being sensual, self-indulgent hoarders than ascetic monks living in austere sensory deprivation.
This is not to say simplicity in visual expression has no value. For us as humans to be able to learn and evolve, we sometimes need clarity, reduction, precision. But it is a very restricted need that does not merit exposure in many circumstances beyond education and instruction. A large part of the human need for communication is founded in emotions, in our hardwired emotional resonance with themes and stories that connect us to the universe – the big, beautiful, complex universe. If our ancestors were truly visual minimalists, they would have left those cave walls alone. The urge to scribble, to doodle, is a profoundly human one.
To be perfectly frank, I actually find minimalism to be a form of aesthetic fascism. It dictates the eradication of visual impulses that the designer’s super-ego conformistically rules to be superfluous to an imagined singular, simplistic purpose, even though any form of communication is a two-way street and really ought to strive to open up as many touchpoints as possible between sender and recipient, to allow for more ways for us as individuals to relate and connect.
So, before you start singing the praises of the shiny designed new world order of minimalism, recognize in yourself and in others that we aren’t necessarily ruled by a need for straight 90-degree angles, flat surfaces and squeaky clean logic. We are beings with hardwired emotional, sometimes irrational responses, born out of chaos, and we live in a world of endless details, of complex correlations between multitudes of interwoven systems and principles.
Sure, there may be a certain easy, accessible beauty to be found in simplicity but, ultimately, I submit that this is a homogenous beauty quite alien to human nature. There is a greater, more human beauty to be found in chaos, in the details, in the pluralism of a multifaceted world where we suspend judgment and try to assimilate new, more complex, layered impressions.
When we minimize, we exercise a form of intolerance.
The Checkbox Syndrome
The biggest threat to the success of any creative effort is The Checkbox Syndrome.
In short, this is where people with a vested interest in the creative solution (usually on the client side) treat the concept as a set of checkboxes that can be independently checked or unchecked. This betrays a lack of understanding of what it is that truly makes a successful concept tick. A strong, convincing, communicatively powerful concept is greater than the sum of its parts. It hits the spot, not by accumulation of many little creative touches, but by Big Picture thinking. Start messing with the details and you will alter the concept from within, hollowing out the very core until you’re left with something that probably doesn’t reflect your intentions anymore. The X-factor that made you select that one concept from the beginning is no longer present. Because there was too much focus on getting the details right, noone noticed that the overall result took on a different shape. It’s a little like changing anatomical parts on a sculpture – eventually, the finished product will look less than Michelangelo’s David and more like Frankenstein’s Monster. Good creative concepts are not always neat and tidy and never entirely logical. Some details might not always seem right when you look at them up close, but they make sense as integrated parts of the whole – perhaps not to every single stakeholder, but details can’t all be individually assessed by committee. Trying to make a concept mean one single thing to many different people will inevitably lead to the concept not meaning anything to anyone. If, during the process of developing a concept, the required qualities fail to materialize, it is often better to start over and try a different approach, than to micromanage the creative process and disintegrate the whole into a myriad of parts that in and of themselves are useless. Once the concept is disassembled and some parts are altered or taken out, it doesn’t matter how much you polish the remaining parts. They most likely won’t fit together again.
Instead of Lorem Ipsum 