As expected, I have recieved quite a lot of response to the last article, "Painting a Better Landcape." Among the notes I've received, there are a few that take me to task for failing to appreciate how the Web design community is formed largely out of self-starters rather than formally trained individuals - and how that shapes the approach to the endeavor. One such note, I thought, pretty well encapsulated the concerns of likely many out there in the community, and my response allowed me to clarify and expand on the ideas I put forth in the article. With permission, I've reprinted the email and my response. I hope that it might be instructive and provide a bit more context for the "Landscape" article.
He writes:
I think a lot of your points are valid but, I think you're a bit biased
in your analysis. I say this to say that when you talk about this, you
speak from one side of the equation. Yes, it is true, you need more than
the ability to open up Photoshop and make a quick layout and, yes, you
need more than the ability to open up Dreamweaver and type out some lines
but, you have to think about it from (the viewpoint of) someone who is
doing this for fun, someone who is trying to create something new.
I think that there will always be a need for fundamentals with regard to design, things like composition, coloring, technique, etc but, for now, we are shifting to a new category that is, in and of itself, something unique to establish its presence.
Again, I am not saying this to say you’re off-base in the sense that you’re full out wrong but, I think you’re tackling this issue from the wrong perspective and you should step back and realize that this is going to become something new and the new way can co-exist with the old way and still be its own thing.
Though I have to agree with you on the fact that a lot of the websites are pretty cookie-cutter with their design and some of them are just god awful, we do need more people to cover the basics.
* * *
I respond:
Thanks for your note. I'm glad the article gave you something to chew
on and I appreciate your taking the time to write and share your thoughts.
Yes, I'm biased. I'm biased because I know that human beings habitually respond quite predictably to different lines, forms, colors and textures, and how balance, tension and contrast are used in composition - and under a host of different contexts. This is the whole reason that art and design can be effective or ineffective; communicative or uncommunicative.
These are the things that designers must understand, either through formal training, natural talent or self-imposed, ad hoc education. If one does not understand how to manipulate the human psyche with these mechanisms, one is not prepared to be a designer (or an artist or an actor or a musician, etc...). This is what I am getting at in my article.
I was certainly not implying that someone who plays around with design efforts for fun is doing anything wrong. I'm speaking of the professional environment here, not about hobbyists. However, you twice mentioned the idea of our "shifting to a new category" and "the new way" in this endeavor. I'm curious, what is this "new way/category" and what is its purpose and result?
I ask because I can't see how that's relevant. Design, whether it comes from a formally trained, classical designer or a hot new street talent will be either effective or ineffective. The fundamentals I mentioned above are the tools everyone must use in order to be effective. It doesn't matter what the medium is or who the audience is or what the designer's approach is - the result will either use the fundamentals well or poorly. Some designers intuitively understand how to create effective design and some learned to do it in school, with hard work (or likely by some combination of the two). But there is no getting around the fact that these fundamentals are all anyone has to work with.
There's nothing wrong with "cookie-cutter" designs for information instruments. Many magazines, newspapers, websites and books may use some fundamentally sound layouts and designs that are quite similar to others, but this is because it's often contextually effective. The idea that a design must be new, innovative or avant garde to be good is absurd. I sincerely hope you don't put any stock in that naïve idea.
Anyway, yes, I'm biased. I'm biased toward excellent, effective design and against fundamentally unsound efforts in the professional arena. Tastes, fads, contemporary relevancy… these are all important to design work and help to provide context to design efforts. They'll always change and so we must adapt, but the fundamentals that allow us to create effective work never will change. I hope that this is an idea you can appreciate and I wish you the best of luck with your design efforts. Thanks for writing and take care!
* * *
So I hope that this helps to clarify and shed more light on what I am
getting at in the article in question. Whether it's from a book or from
the gut, the ability to make effective design begins with our ability
to use the tools to which we're relegated: communicative fundamentals.
Individual flair and genious certainly counts, but not if our efforts
are fundamentally unsound.
This is the personal soap box and playground of Andy Rutledge — sometimes mild-mannered creative director at netsuccess in Dallas, sometimes opinionated sumbitch on this site.
There are no comments enabled on this site, but it would be wonderful to hear from you directly. Contact me at .
