- A model of deep passionate engagement
- Giants of Dutch graphic design
- Crouwel represents the ideal of the designer as a selfless messenger
- Van Toorn represents graphic designers as interventionists. An enabler of criticism and empowerment
- Crouwel stated "I believe that as a designer I must never stand between the message and it's recipient"
- Van Toorn disagreed with this and responded with "I do not believe that a designer can adopt the position of neutral intermediary. The acts you perform take place through you, you are a subjective link"
- The whole debate covers 3 main points:
> The social and professional roles of the designer
> The value of grids and typographic tradition
> The function of the graphic designer when designing for museums and art galleries
- Van Toorn states "you impose your designs on others and level everything. You were at the forefront and now our country is inundated with waves of trademarks and house styles and everything looks the same"
- Crouwell dismisses this idea of subjectivity in design and calls Van Toorn's spruijt calendar "as pretentious as a piece of so called good design or as a clean piece of design"
- This debate doesn't mean as much today as it did 40 years ago as this isn't an issue as much as it used to be
- Graphic design today is characterised by what stick Paynor calls "pluralism" defined by "a willingness to accept that there are plenty of ways of doing design or anything else and many equally valid outcomes "
In my opinion graphic design can be both objective and subjective, dependant on the brief. Something that is for a factual/ serious purpose would be objective as it would have to follow guidelines and restrictions where as something more playful and free would be subjective.
No comments:
Post a Comment