I think that the work at Cranbrook and CalArts is often inaccurately described as having its basis in theory. Yes, some students were reading Barthes and Derrida at Cranbrook in the early 80s, but there were a lot of other influences at work. Everything from Punk music to vernacular architecture to the golden section. It was all in the mix. Although I was never involved in the French linguistic theory that some students at Cranbrook read, I also didn’t see any problem with graphic designers taking an interest in these kinds of ideas. All the other arts at the time were taking an interest in these ideas and were influenced by it. It was a very exciting time. People were questioning a lot of perceived ideas about art, literature, architecture and eventually graphic design caught the bug as well. It was made even more exciting when the technologies used to produce design were changing with the introduction of the Macintosh. There existed, at the time, and perhaps still today, a very strong feeling that for texts and information to be easily readable it had to be presented “neutrally.” We argued that there was no such thing as neutrality or transparency in design, that all graphic gestures are loaded with meaning. Also, we weren’t interested in addressing the needs of multi-national corporations and lowest common denominator audiences. We were looking to work for smaller cultural institutions and audiences who would enjoy reading visually sophisticated messages. But these intentions were always overlooked by the critics. The work was always dismissed as inferior design. It was always compared to the objectivity and transparency of Swiss design without regard to the context in which it existed. I continue to be impressed by Rick Poynor’s passion and the deep and sincere interest he has in the subject of graphic design. He cares more for design than many designers do. Similarly, Robin Kinross’s writing, particularly his book Modern Typography, is some of the best in the field. But the writing styles of both these writers remains too “nice.” It’s technically and factually spotless. It’s smart and observant. But it lacks a kind of edge. It’s safe. It’s all very serious. It’s all about the idea. But not enough effort is paid to the presentation. It’s like the Swiss International Style version of writing. Personally, I enjoy writers who use humor, irony, even sarcasm, and who dare to go out on a limb with their ideas, like Kenneth FitzGerald and Jeffery Keedy and David Barringer, to name but a few. Outside of design, the writer/poet I love to read is Charles Bukowski. I wish I could write about design in the same manner that he writes about his life. It’s very straightforward, but it’s full of depth and vividness and passion and honesty and great colorful descriptions of people and places.
THE
END
1