Learn Theory, Practise Aesthetic
The most important thing you can do as a graphic designer is to practise as much as you can.
Practise with intention and thought and careless abandon.
Learn theory but realise that it doesn’t help you become a better designer, merely a more knowledgeable one. All the theory in the world won’t make a page more interesting to look at unless you understand how to marry the theory with aesthetic.
Aesthetic is the craft of our profession. I’ve heard some designers say that aesthetic is like the bastard child of design, it’s there but it shouldn’t matter as long as the functionality is solid or the design serves its purpose as a communicative artifact.
These designers are idiots.
Aesthetic matters more than anything else. Our profession is largely built on craft and gut feeling and knowledge that can be learned but rarely taught. This makes some uncomfortable as it suggests that any ol’ creative hipster could walk into our studios and do what we do. But like I said, designers who think this are idiots. We are not part of an industry done by rote, nor willy-nilly mark-making.
The aesthetic implementation of a blanket of theory which wraps warmly around content should be our chief concern as we move from project to project. It’s the only way we’ll win awards or praise or recognition or, the only one really worth going for, gratification, through our work.
There’s a reason why we look at pretty people and want to be with them. They’re nice to look at. There’s a reason why so much of the creative output we see in design is shallow, pretty shells that hold no quarter against scrutiny – because it works and does so easily. It still gets attention and any functional mistakes made are forgiven because of how it makes us feel.
It’s the reason why the pretty girl can get out of a speeding ticket. Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. Is it the way things are, absolutely. And good on the pretty girl for knowing how to use her aesthetic to her benefit.
Aesthetic matters more than theory
Retrospect will prove a purely aesthetic piece to be worthless, but today it’s all that matters. If we wish for our work to stand strong and tall and for years to come, then we have to understand how to give it immediate appropriateness (modern aesthetic) so it is noticed in the first place and long lasting charm (base aesthetic, which is often instilled through theory) so that it is remembered.
To better understand how aesthetic works we have to understand how it is produced. No amount of reading or listening or studying will help us in this endeavor nearly as much as actually making pretty marks will. The only way for us to learn how to make such marks is to make as many of them as we possibly we can.
Make a million marks and hold them up against the marks of others. Compare and learn and see the difference. Think about the marks you’re making and how the one scratched against the paper now, can be made better than the one made previously. Experiment and make the strangest of marks just to see if something wonderful can be found in them. Deliberately make the wrong marks to see if you can make them right.
While practising we will naturally implement any theory that has been sewed in our minds using our marks as troughs into which the seeds can be planted. The theory will break through the surface all by its self, as long as we give it a little warmth and a little food.
Read a book and theory is learned. Go through process and it’ll be implemented. But aesthetic is only learned through practise. Lots and lots and lots of practise.
Now go create.
Loved this! You are a fabulous designer as well.
Thanks Andrea!
And just to officially come clean:
“Now go create” is a phrase I haven’t been able to get out of my mind for a number of years. The first time I read it was in the second issue of EMPTY magazine from Design Is Kinky.
The first couple of years of EMPTY was like nothing I had ever seen before; each issue a new message would be found in the opening or closing pages, normally bold uppercase type on a solid white background – nothing to distract from the message. A few favorites include: “You are not your client. You are not a brand. / You’re a designer. You’re an artist. / Create” spread over the opening three spreads of the first issue. “Make your mark” on the last page of the third edition. “No more excuses” in the fourth and “Smell steps” in the fifth.
Another brilliant article Alex. Your writing always seems to find me at the exact time I need to read it. Thank-you!
Alex:
This is a great, thought-provoking post. I enjoyed the read. However, I am in a slight disagreement with some of what you are saying.
You stated that aesthetic matters more than theory. I can agree with this statement. However, you also state that aesthetic matters more than anything else. Perhaps there is a better way of seeing this.
I can sympathize with the frustration of hearing someone say that functionality matters, aesthetic does not. This shows a lack of understanding what our profession accomplishes. Functionality is important, but when we compare aesthetic to function, we misinterpret the results of our creations.
I believe that an exceptional designer who is well practiced in his craft (aesthetic) can marry aesthetic with functionality. If something is functional, it should naturally have a beauty. I see the real issue as such: in regards to functionality, aesthetic and functionality are separable only by sloppiness.
Every time someone has told me that aesthetic does not matter and functionality takes all, I see that they are in a hurry to get stuff done/published/printed. While deadlines are crucial, sloppiness should never be a result of pressure.
While my points are only slight deviations from your ideals, I believe this may serve as a starting point for a better understanding of the “idiots” who claim functionality as king. Understanding the whole picture is important for a better way of solving problems.
Perhaps I misinterpreted or missed something. I ask for more opinions and clarification as I know that my thoughts may be enhanced or changed by new ideas/suggestions.
Again, what a great post.
Very well written article. I tend to agree with Christopher Gunn that designers that say they are looking for just functionality are in in a rush and just trying to get something done instead of taking the time to make the project worthwhile.
What I find more intriguing about aesthetic though, is how non-designers or the regular Joe interprets what is pleasing and what is not. I have had quite a few discussions with people on the disturbing look of the Pepsi, Bing, and now the Gap logo and they seem to find nothing aesthetically wrong with them. In fact in a news story the anchor said that designers were upset about the new Gap logo, but he kinda liked it? However it was reported that the main reason there was an upset was because it had changed so suddenly after 20 years and not the fact that it was ugly, uncreative, and inappropriate. I now tend to think that repetition or how many times we come into contact with a design plays a major role in how aesthetically pleasing it is to us.
What may also plays a role is the reputation of the designer or company? Take Microsoft for example. They make a crappy product and logo it is still given the benefit of the doubt because of their history.
Tara
So glad you enjoyed Tara, thanks for stopping past :)
Christopher Gunn
Hi Christopher :)
Actually I think you and I are in complete agreement.
My suggestion was that to the audience, aesthetic, no matter how it is derived, is more important than theory. But as you said, a well functioning piece (so perhaps, one that adheres to some sort of theory) is naturally beautiful.
My point is that it is that kind of aesthetic that must be found as an ideal – one in which the two, aesthetic and theory, are married and complement one another perfectly.
What I was rallying against was the idea of theory or function over riding aesthetic because its ‘just the way things are meant to be’. I’ve recently been reading Masters and PhD theses and I’m constantly amazed how the theory and function is spoken about in such great detail, but then the end product that is designed to show what is spoken about are of poor quality. Technically they may have done exactly what they described when it comes to white space or typography or imagery or whatever, but the results aren’t exactly beautiful.
Which I think in itself is an issue – I think aesthetic is a major part of function, and deciding to focus all attention on making something functional, while thinking the aesthetic either doesn’t matter or will just happen to pop up because of the functionality is a mistake.
In saying that, if you have something that is purely aesthetical and purely functional, the aesthetic piece will win out with the audience (and by win I mean will be noticed and then interacted with). BUT for it to be good design and of a real, soul-deep aesthetic, then yes, absolutely, the function and aesthetic must give way to one another.
What do you think?
Joshua Davis
I’ve been thinking about that a little recently – what aesthetic do we work towards and judge our work by – the one held by the audience or held by the client? or ourselves and our peers?
I think its the creatives role to instil in the community an aesthetic sensibility. I think thats why the Gap logo got designers so angry – it wasn’t just that it’s ugly (as you said, so many logos are ugly but well accepted), it’s because it lowered the expectations of what a designer creates in a wider sense. Of course, this can quickly turn into an elitist attitude that is out of touch – “you’ll like it because i say you will!”.
I absolutely agree with you about the reputation and history of a company playing a role in what is culturally accepted. However, I think that history and reputation is built somehow, and its through, in this context, good design.
What comes first, beautiful, interesting, different work? Or a reputation as a company willing to do that work?
Great, great comments guys, I really appreciate you taking the time out to leave your thoughts!
Alex,
I stand corrected. I suppose we ARE in complete agreement. The last paragraph in your response is really what hit home. Yes, the purely aesthetical piece will entice the viewer and draw him in, however, without the functional facet the viewer quickly becomes disinterested or annoyed. If the message was not delivered, the piece was a failure unless it’s intent was for the sheer sake of beauty.
Thank you for humoring me.
I found this article incredibly interesting as a design student. I feel like I just finished having a discussion in one of my classes about whether something “looking pretty” was a valid design solution. In school we are taught to never EVER do something simply because it is aesthetically pleasing, which really just leads to a lot of us bullshitting our ways through critiques.
Excellent article, exactly what I have searched. Thanks
What a great read! heres my thought. I think that aesthetics and function are not always too distinctive as we try ‘marry’ the two as designers. Sometimes it acts as one as beauty lies within, meaning beauty before the idea. Lets take magazine design. The primary goal is to get people read. Just Read! Now the message being that simple theres is nothing to go diving deep about the message or the idea. Let the design speak itself, let the typography creates emotional response, engage the readers with beauty/aesthetics and therefore get the response desired. Now here i think that aesthetics create the function rather than being a different aspect of the design process. If people respond to the dance between the letters, problem solved.
Hi Kevin,The cards on the cork board are the way I’ve managed my peorjcts since 2002. It’s a bit old and archaic, and I’m working on a way to weed this very analog practice out. Each card represents a project, and each column represents a the stage that each project is at. (Backburner, Upcoming, Current, Pending, Complete, Paid)
Test :)
Test