“Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! How well it fits him!” All who saw him exclaimed.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. One whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people.
- From Hans Christian Andersen ‘The Emperor’s New Suit’
�
Recently, our beloved Armin Vit commented on Emigre’s Rant, and he did so at the threshold of the beast itself, Emigre 65: �If We’re Standing on the Shoulders of Giants�’. Presumably he was invited to retort based on the veracity of the arguments presented in the book club section here. When I first heard about this, my immediate thought was: “starfucker”.
I softened. Would this genuflection be compelling or repulsive? I was certainly intrigued.
On review, I didn’t get the pink belly of Mr. Vit that I had braced against. There were teeth there.
So, in the �glass house’ spirit of this forum I thought it was time to open Vit’s comments to our review. If not us, then who? It is in this spirit that I invite you to consider the following.
�
“Cause what I got to tell you is more powerful than a head on collision going 90 miles per hour on a one-way street. Are you ready girl? I’m a motherfucking pimp.” — Rosebudd, in �American Pimp’
Vit comes out swinging, or err� kicking. The tone of his response is quick and sharp. The language throughout is easy and at times gutteral. He sets up the document as an honest overview of how he experiences the design community as a “young pup” — and a bit of a street fighter at that.
Nodding to the old guard, Vit is critical of designers of his generation but unapologetic for Clinton Bubble that got them there to begin with: a sort of “crap for sale” philosophy regarding the late 90s sweatshop aesthetics. Over a few pages he manages to visit the question of what is vacant in our present community and points us towards some heroes that he thinks are heading in the right direction.
There is much within to be vetted and the economy of his essay wasn’t such to follow through on some of the larger questions. To follow is a breakdown of some of the bigger points.
…
Part One: the “Problem”
The problem is getting to what the “problem” is. The format that Rudy VanderLans provided in Rant allowed everyone participating to invent their own grievance. However wide the arguments, a general response to the book could be summed up, and was by Vit:
“I also felt like I was being ganged up by cranky old designers (not my words) and had nothing to defend myself with. For a moment I even thought that I deserved such beating,that I was and am, part of the “problem.” �We did not question our motives as designers, we simply churned out stylistically correct work.”
The “problem” may continue to elude us as long as the old guard (Eye, Emigre, CA, How) still has the keys to the zeitgeist. The content hasn’t changed but the context is irrevocably different.
Rudy’s curated selections for this current issue of Emigre shows that he is sympathetic to the younger voice. Perhaps he always was? It remains to be seen what the paperback format will ultimately do to the Emigre. Already, the reduction of visuals has created a new VanderLans. In the Rant thread here, he offers this reflection:
“Someone mentioned that Rant was trying to hint at something that’s on the tip of our tongue, but we can’t quite articulate it. I can’t speak for the other writers, but to me it feels exactly like that.”
From that discussion also came the Tan Le paradox, “The clash of young vs old, craft vs computer, etc. pushed criticism to a level that has been unmatched since. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that design has become shit. Maybe design has become more uniformed, or mature, or more deep, or more shallow. My answer would be yes, yes, yes, and yes.”
And Finally, Armin from his essay, “Well, I beg to differ� and to agree.”
Both old and new seem to agree that the “problem” remains the greatest problem.
Part Two: Forum over Function
“People are buying into your dream…To create that world sucks the soul and personality out of a designer.” - Tom Ford, designer for Gucci and YSL
“What they are looking for is something familiar, perhaps a solution that has already worked for others in their particular field and was, rather likely, designed by one of (y)our competitors. Style follows profits. We need to remember that we are a service industry, we are here to serve our clients’ needs, not the canons of design criticism.” -Vit
Style follows profit? Though assertive, this accusation isn’t gospel. It’s cast in the same mode as form following function. However the vagaries in style and profit are not elements that are contingent on one another. Where form/function follows a diagrammatic of cause and effect, style/profit is a less pretty corollary.
Perhaps this is more easily illustrated in that profit in the abstract sense generally relies on style as a de facto element of its success. Conversely, Style exists independently of the market. You could pick a marketable style and still have something that is unprofitable.
As generally illustrated by the fashion industry, style precedes profit. This also holds up on the bedrock of normalcy in Hollywood in that it’s typically the stylistically unique projects in Hollywood that are the most profitable.
This issue greatly curbs on ideas of the �normal’ and mediocrity that we get to in the next section.
It should also be noted that in regards to the comments about design being a �service industry’ that there is a vast chasm between serving one’s client and servitude.
Part Three: A Life Worth Living
“Believe me, I have the utmost respect for Fella’s work and I don’t question his contributions to the field, but I fail to see how it affects mainstream culture. Mainstream culture is life. That’s all there is to it today, if it’s not showing on DirecTV nobody knows of its existence. How has this �formal’ experimentation affected culture? �My point is, one more time (and all together now,) experimentation is not being rewarded in today’s economy. I don’t see how a designer would choose “experimenting” over doing some nice corporate brochure that is bound to bring in business and pay the rent. I am not saying that the only reward one should expect is financial remuneration or Best of Shows, I just don’t see many reasons — challenging modernism is certainly not one of them — out there to take major risks. Sadly, today, might not be the best time for designers to be thinking about questioning the conventions of Graphic Design.” - Vit
FitzGerald’s point [Rant p.27] re the scrawl is a nod towards �genuine’ displays from designers like Chantry and Fella. It’s interesting that Vit would pick this segue in FitzGerald as it’s a minor point used to discredit the hand in Sagmeister.
The “hand” became an obvious counter-measure to the computer. Childish images cropped up in the mid 90s as the “hand” became a friendly signifier and then a movement: comprising everything from self-conscious drawings to the hobo/calligraphic fetish in typography.
“Mainstream culture is life?” I interpret this as Armin addressing the numbers that drive the decisions which are ready-made for us, and that fighting against that is less profitable. And in this form, again, an argument that style follows profit. Instead we get a sort of ‘blue sky’ confession that media is in control. Mainstream culture isn’t life — it’s an abstraction of life. A mediocre ideal. Life however tenuous, is individuated and assertive.
This particular section is the crux of the argument for Vit. The loggerhead between Vit’s amortization in a commodity driven avant-guard and VanderLans’ liberal Imperialism hangs on this issue of “experimenting”. Ultimately this is the basis for art vs. practice argument in the design community.
Curiously, Vit rounds up these thoughts with a somewhat morbid last question about conviction. In offering that now is not the best time to question the conventions of design I have to wonder then what is it that we do here? And if not now then when?
Part four: the Regulars
Vit goes on to bellwether for the fresh designers that are making a difference �voices of Today: Cahan and Associates, Aesthetic Apparatus, James Victore, Sagmeister. There seems to be a disconnect in the mention of Scher and Chantry as they represent the old guard: less contemporary, more iconic.
Quick on the heels of the Minneapolis send up (mitigated by the recent trip to TypeCon?) is generic support for a number of firms that are predominantly from New York. A heavy criticism of the Rant essay was the lack of specificity in the examples that the authors chose. It would have been nice to see support that included detailed analysis on any of the people or firms, for instance, say� Norman, and how they are approaching the problem of relevance in their new work.
Something that I now credit further in the rereading is the very good explication that FitzGerald performed on Mau in his �Quietude’ essay.
Part five: Stitching it all Together
“What, up and down carved like an apple tart?
Here’s snip and nip and cut and slish and slash,
Like to a censer in a barber’s shop.
Why, what’s a devil’s name, tailor, call’st thou this?”
- William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew
Vit’s closing is elegant and sharp. Unspoken, is a soft lament towards the historical within the profession. And at the same time, making no excuses for not pushing forward.
“We are further from the days of Bass, Tibor and Rand and it’s a shame to see some of their iconic work bastardized with, as was stated in UPS’ rebranding media kit, greater visual impact but I don’t think that wallowing in the past is a smart activity. We need to look forward. Pointing out current flaws and trends in design may very well be part, and just the start, of a bigger process in getting back to stronger discourse. One where the flow of dialogue is two-sided and collaborative, creating paths for new ideas, processes and maybe a stronger understanding of where we stand as a profession and where it is we are headed. The mere act of indicating flaws and blemishes within the boundaries of Graphic Design should not be the only ammunition of choice among design critics — somebody must be willing to actually propose something� anything, at this point. �I guess I need to start with me.”
Once you’ve deforested design of its great practitioners, the fear is that you are left only the chaff of 3-d logos, horizon lines and swooshes. What sort of reminders do you then have of your cultural relevance, and what markers towards excellence? Where are the memorials? Such shallow epitaphs for Bass, Tibor, and Rand — now buried under the roughage of dancing, luminous candy and inexplicable upgrades.
On the other hand, what is sacred? If design is built upon the conceit of temporary shores (the market place) then it is not a testament to anything other than its use value. How can we address permanency as something other than kitsch?
Ironically, the ideas behind �loss’ and �quality’ that we here find ourselves addressing to a greater and greater degree are the essence of Rant to begin with. The apple doesn’t fall that far from the tree and Vit seeks the same words that we all seem to be searching for and not quite finding
“not my words” — Armin Vit
…
Quotes within are courtesy of Armin Vit’s article “Young Pups, Old Pops” published in Emigre 65: ‘If We’re Standing on the Shoulder’s of Giants �’. Some of the comments have been abbreviated.
This issue of Emigre can be purchased here: Emigre 65
Additional quotes are reproduced from Speak-Up’s Book Club critique of Rant.
I can't believe I read the whole thing.
On Oct.07.2003 at 03:03 PM