That's a lot to respond to. In a short answer, go to your library and
look in the design/architecture section. You will find some help there.
>Today's graphics are very much dictated by styles.
So was yesterday's graphics.
>What seems to be the problem in the design world is that
>most design works only reflect popular trends.
Most design yes. Good design dictates or reflects in an interesting way.
>It has obscure the primary purpose of what
>graphic design is really all about.
Which is what? This is where the reading will help.
>There are comments like
>design is subjective, therefore one really can't judge what is
>a good design and what is not. Design is not bound by rules,
>for there is not one absolute formula for good design.
In the early part of this century, the Bauhaus formulated a set of rules
by which they created design/architecture. Their design was based around
the objective. As society became more fractured and frayed during the
post WWII era, the objectivity of the Bauhaus became somewhat
inappropriate. Design today exists in a somewhat subject state, however
still utilizes some ideas created by the Bauhaus. Design is qualitative,
not quantitative.
>The
>judgement of good design, of what I have learned, is
>relying upon the factors of appropriateness and creativeness
>in response to a design problem.
Right. I think appropriateness is what is important. It's something the
Bauhaus didn't really get. What is appropriate for a rock poster, may
not be appropriate for a soap advertisement. How well does the piece
work? How does it function?-in the broadest sense of the word.
>Besides of the iconic, solid and
>metalic looks in the interfaces of multimedia design, there
>has been "publication-design looks" that begin to exist. The
>way of presenting information in printed design has been
>applied to interface design.
Begin to break away form that hard wafer concept. Extract the unique
qualities of multi-media and use them as the center of your concept.
Soften the idea of the icon. Use the third dimension, and the fourth
dimension, time. Reference elements from printed material, but also
develope your own elements. Your not making a book anymaore. Your making
a multi-media program.
>Must the designer
>rationalise for every existence of design elements that is
>created in his or her work for justification?
Rational may be a little strong of a word, but yes, you want a sort of
argument around which you create your design. Don't design something
"because it's cool". There is already enough "design by default" in the
word. Don't make more.
Good questions. Good luck.
-Furman
look in the design/architecture section. You will find some help there.
>Today's graphics are very much dictated by styles.
So was yesterday's graphics.
>What seems to be the problem in the design world is that
>most design works only reflect popular trends.
Most design yes. Good design dictates or reflects in an interesting way.
>It has obscure the primary purpose of what
>graphic design is really all about.
Which is what? This is where the reading will help.
>There are comments like
>design is subjective, therefore one really can't judge what is
>a good design and what is not. Design is not bound by rules,
>for there is not one absolute formula for good design.
In the early part of this century, the Bauhaus formulated a set of rules
by which they created design/architecture. Their design was based around
the objective. As society became more fractured and frayed during the
post WWII era, the objectivity of the Bauhaus became somewhat
inappropriate. Design today exists in a somewhat subject state, however
still utilizes some ideas created by the Bauhaus. Design is qualitative,
not quantitative.
>The
>judgement of good design, of what I have learned, is
>relying upon the factors of appropriateness and creativeness
>in response to a design problem.
Right. I think appropriateness is what is important. It's something the
Bauhaus didn't really get. What is appropriate for a rock poster, may
not be appropriate for a soap advertisement. How well does the piece
work? How does it function?-in the broadest sense of the word.
>Besides of the iconic, solid and
>metalic looks in the interfaces of multimedia design, there
>has been "publication-design looks" that begin to exist. The
>way of presenting information in printed design has been
>applied to interface design.
Begin to break away form that hard wafer concept. Extract the unique
qualities of multi-media and use them as the center of your concept.
Soften the idea of the icon. Use the third dimension, and the fourth
dimension, time. Reference elements from printed material, but also
develope your own elements. Your not making a book anymaore. Your making
a multi-media program.
>Must the designer
>rationalise for every existence of design elements that is
>created in his or her work for justification?
Rational may be a little strong of a word, but yes, you want a sort of
argument around which you create your design. Don't design something
"because it's cool". There is already enough "design by default" in the
word. Don't make more.
Good questions. Good luck.
-Furman