It's getting late, but I thought I'd touch on the subject by my boy KM:

I personally think that a distinct creative language (specific syle or look) can work in certain instances. In other instances, it can wind up becoming stale and dated.

I'm hoping I won't get a bottle thrown through my window for saying this, but I think that in the case of Black Market, although I dig alot of what they have done - to me it already looks dated. It has a very specific feel and tone that most likely will not stand the test of time. And when you see it, you know exactly who did it.

But in the case of someone like Jeff Kleinsmith (Sub Pop) or Vaughan Oliver, I feel like it can work to their advantage. While each has their own specific language, there is definate variances. Each project seems to be taken in the same creative process, but the end result seems fresh and diverse - yet still grasping their own style.

Am I making sense? Does anyone agree or think I'm a complete moron? I could definately elaborate and go on, but I'm going to crash on my laptop here. I'm trying to grasp the positives and negatives of the 'one trick pony' - and personally I see that there are both - depending on the artist.

> depending on the artist

KEY WORD ARTIST. The age old question. Quick, think of a design piece that evokes great emotional reaction. I doubt anyone thought of a piece that came throught a corporate design firms trademarked creative process.

Not that there is anything wrong with a process. I think we all have a process or develop one over the years, but when you are selling the process instead of the results�

Over the last decade the big name firms have focused on 'their' process to set them apart from the hot small firm down the street using the same low cost computer set-up. The trademarked process also helps come billing time to justify the much higher invoices.

Then the small firms realize this and trademark 'their' process. What results is marketing/brand managers selecting process driven firms(cause a 'strategic' process also looks good to the brand managers boss) that produce 'safe' focus group directed, unemotional designs.

I plan on going in more depth on this subject in my forth coming article "Are We Designers or Are We Cow Pokes?", but to me it is the clients/brand/marketing mangers responsibility to select the designer whose 'style' best connects with their brand. Let's focus on the art of design.

I think Tom is right. The more the work becomes about the process, the more the client inadvertently becomes involved in the creative output. BAAAAAAAD!

This waters down the final product and ultimately deminishes the special value of the service you provide.

I think the reason a lot of firms promote their processes (complete with flow charts and schematics) is to cover their a** with the clients. Corporate honchos like to feel "insured" that the creative product will produce results. However, the best results often come from taking risks.

The reason for the backlash against 'graphic design processes' is that they are typically nothing more than sales hype. Few design firms actually embrace research, test studies, heuristic evaluations, etc...they are pretty much just 'winging it' and claiming it as a process.

A visual style is important, but not more important than anything other element in the process of designing a solution.

People like CSA and David Carson aren't really graphic designers anymore, they are graphic decorators. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that...one can be highly succesful (in more ways than one way) utilizing that approach, but the distinction should be made.

Advertising a 'process', cliche stigma aside, pushes the concept of design. Advertising a 'style' pushes the concept of unique look.

> Few design firms actually embrace research, test studies, heuristic evaluations, etc...they are pretty much just 'winging it' and claiming it as a process.

You would be amazed at the 10's/100's of thousands of dollars corporate clients are shelling out for over tested/researched processes. That is why many firms are embracing these things. $$$

> A visual style is important, but not more important than anything other element in the process of designing a solution.

My thinking is that the elements of design are color, lines, type, composition, etc. The style in which those elements are implemented are part of the results.

> People like CSA and David Carson aren't really graphic designers anymore, they are graphic decorators.

I totally disagree with this statement. A decorater applies ideas/artwork. A graphic designer creates ideas/artwork.

I believe that those often picked on for only having a unique style are those who have achieved success because they have a unique intuitive talent for seeing things. CSA for example, although they are tagged with a style, if you look through their portfolio, there are many different looks and solutions. His early work could have been labeled as 'layered and dark' but a lot of his new stuff is 'clean and bright'. It just all has great ideas with attitude behind it.

TrueSystems OnlineThe on-line demo also increased the number of prospective customers who requested an on-site protype of their software.

Does Darrel mean �prototype’? Sorry, just can't help picking up on these things. I used to proof editorial pieces for a living. That said, I think you do nice work. Your Flash portfolio is rather hefty even by broadband standard though. 1Mb is not best business practice. But like I said, I think your work is nice. : )

When I addressed "creative process" I didn't mean to suggest methodologies and test studies but rather how a 'designer' approaches a visual solution.

My thinking is that the elements of design are color, lines, type, composition, etc.

Those are the elements of aesthetics and presentation. Design is that, plus the process of problem solving, among other things.

Admittedly, this can turn into a debate on semantics, but I think it's very important for designers to understand that the term 'design' is an incredibly broad term.

I totally disagree with this statement. A decorater applies ideas/artwork.

Uhh...yea, right. Carson applies his very carsonesque look to all projects. CSA applies there retro-clip-art style to all their projects. Yes, they certainly both design as well, but people hire them for their decorating abilities over their design abilities. Again, this isn't a bad thing at all...it's a very good way to run a design business.

I believe that those often picked on for only having a unique style are those who have achieved success because they have a unique intuitive talent for seeing things.

I'm not picking on them (tangental side-stories aside). They are a very talented crew and have made a very good name for themselves by doing what they do. I don't see the term 'decorator' as derogatory at all. Do you? And, at the risk of repeating myself, I'm not saying they aren't talented designers, just that their clients perceive them as talented decorators and that is the reason they pay them the big bucks that they do.

Lup-lup...my website is an embarrassing orphan. I need to take a lot of it down. The flash work was up specifically to show some work for a flash proposal and I never got around to putting up anything else.

I'm so damn lazy. I'd rather comment on blogs than actually do anything productive with my own site. ;o)

The only reason I link to it is that Armin requires thos fields to post (hint, hint, wink, wink).

But thanks for catching the typo and thanks for the compliment!

KM - sorry if I went off on the wrong tangent. To answer your original question, I think a designer should focus on developing their process of thinking/creating. I believe a style will eminate from that process. If you focus on the style, then all you have is a pretty picture with little meaning or distinction. My problem is with a defined process that leaves little room for creativity and opens the doors to design by committee.

Darrell - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think graphic design should be an incredibly broad term. I do think decorator is a derogatory term for a designer, because to me carsonesque and retro-clip-art-style is what I would apply to someone who has 'decorated' a brochure or website with those looks after seeing the original designs of Anderson and Carson.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the disagreement. I know this has been a debate within the industry for years. Especially for those two designers.

I don't think graphic design should be an incredibly broad term.

True. To clarify, DESIGN, alone, is a very broad term. Graphic Design certainly is a much more narrowly defined term.

>The only reason I link to it is that Armin requires thos fields to post (hint, hint, wink, wink).

Oh c'mon! otherwise we would have a bunch of people leaving anonymous comments saying how much this site sucks and run to mommy. With required fields people are less bound to do that kind of stuff.

As for the topic at hand, I think that as a designer evolves and grows both aspects (process and style) should grow along together. And at some point the process will be something that is done by routine and one that you just follow by instinct and that's when the visual style will find room to blossom (I know I sound like a school girl, I mean... who says blossom?). But the style must grow and change, if it stays stagnant it becomes boring.

As far as �the decorator’ term, I agree more with Tom on this one, a design �decorator’ would be like being a hot blonde chick with no brains [bimbo] that is just there for appearance. But I know what you are saying Darrel, that you didn't mean it as a derogatory term and in Carson's case it is very appropriate. He just designed this web site, and it's nothing more than that, a cool carsonesque-looking site.

Oh c'mon! otherwise we would have a bunch of people leaving anonymous comments saying how much this site sucks and run to mommy. With required fields people are less bound to do that kind of stuff.

Not necessarily. If someone wants to do the 'your site sucks' post, they will just enter fake data. Typically, forced fields are just a hassle for the honest people, and a very minor hurdle for the trouble makers (think copy protection schemes, car keys, etc...)

But it IS your site, so certainly you're free to do whatever you feel is right. ;o)

As for the topic at hand, I think that as a designer evolves and grows both aspects (process and style) should grow along together.

I agree.

a design ‘decorator’ would be like being a hot blonde chick with no brains [bimbo] that is just there for appearance

That's a rather crass analogy ;o), but yes, you are absolutely correct. People do not hire CSA for their ability to create a unique look that specifically addressed the needs of the specific problem. They hire CSA because they LIKE their look. Period. If CSA were to come out with a trendy, streamlined, 3d look for a client, they'd probably be fired.

you didn't mean it as a derogatory term

Absolutely. I honestly think that it is great that people like CSA have been able to do what they do. They get a lot of crap from fellow designers because of their one-style look. I don't know why that is.

He just designed this web site, and it's nothing more than that, a cool carsonesque-looking site.

And there is nothing wrong with that in that the client obviously wanted his look and hired him to do it. Client's happy. Carson's happy.

Perhaps I'm waxing a little poetic, but I think the ARTIST distinction brought up at the beginning of this Blig by Tom, is a good reference point.

I have always thought of the difference between art and (graphic) design as the difference between expression and communication, and that this difference is based on intention. Obviously there is an incredibly wide gray area which is why this vein of discussion is brought up so often. however I think the distinction still holds.

If a design firm has a distinct visual language that expresses a limited scope of ideas, and a client comes to them because they think that look is 'cool', and the designers apply this language to create an inappropriate (if 'cool') solution... is that good design? of course not.

And not to pick on Carson(well.. maybe a little) That Mixture site is horribly designed. There's nothing holding it together, and the logo(oif that's what it is) on the side....

I think design really needs to remember to be about communication again. The world is more designed than ever now, and most of it really doesn't say a thing. I'm all for a beautiful aesthetic style, but it needs to communicate something tangible, about more than itself, if I 'm going to categorize it as graphic design.

Art can't communicate?

Art can communicate, but design must communicate.

What about the art of design? :0

I don't think we should even go there.

Art vs. Design

No. No.

Unless anybody else wants to. But it's one of hardest debates ever. Heaven vs. Hell would be an easier debate to settle. An easy way to settle it:

Google fights >

ART (9 600 000 )

DESIGN (77 400 000 results)

Winner: DESIGN

Round Two

Fine Art: 3 410 000

Graphic Design: 2 760 000

WINNER: Fine Art

More fuel for the fire, The bathing ape has no clothes by Adam Greenfield

V2 Org, great link. Great article by Adam Greenfield.

The importance of visual language is an obvious and resounding YES. No one questions the Bauhaus for its distinct visual aesthetic and yet work from that period is regarded as some of the most important in the history of graphic design. The line between something being good design for the ages and something being good right now is whether or not the work is actually GOOD. Shitty design doesn't age well. The work of the Bauhaus is a beautiful example of good design with a unique visual language. Always true to its aesthetic and yet its concept still thrives.

Your form must obey your content.

Wow! Well said Marcus

>Shitty design doesn't age well.

Probably one of the best quotes so far : D