(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:72
056-091_28858.indd 72 8/30/12 4:44 PM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:73
056-091_28858.indd 73 8/30/12 4:44 PM
Writing & research for graphic designers
(Text)
72
5
criticism
A serious design criticism and history discipline was born in
1983 at the first R.I.T. Design History Symposium. Over the
past decades, various symposia, numerous books, and diverse
articles, papers, and courses of study have emerged. The scholarship
has matured far beyond the early slide shows of classic works by
patriarchal pioneers into a broad and rich collection of genres,
forms, and individuals who directly and indirectly contribute to
the popular culture.
Criticism expands knowledge by revealing otherwise hidden
meanings. The so-called “positive” method examines a maker’s
intent and rationale; a work’s structure is scrutinized and the
factors that inform it are contextualized, providing the basis
for balanced analysis and historical categorization. Conversely,
the so-called “negative” method is a kind of fault-finding exposé
of flaws in a process or result. The purpose is ostensibly to
reinforce a set of standards used to judge success or failure. Both
methods are useful in addressing the form and function of design.
Until recently graphic design, whether a total identity
system or an individual poster, has been immune from the
kind of public scrutiny given books, films, plays, painting, and
sculpture, even advertising. Graphic design has been seen but
not heard about. Only those media that are directly marketed
to the public and play a more integral cultural role are given a
spot in the critical limelight. In the past, graphic design was
not criticizable because authorship was comparatively invis-
ible and, moreover, design routinely served a supporting role.
There was also a gentleman’s agreement within the graphic
design community that a demonstrative critical voice was
simply unnecessary.
Distinctions within the field between good and bad design
were pronounced through the results of art directors’ competi-
tions where the reasons for inclusion or exclusion were rarely
articulated. Other than the positive reinforcement of winning
a medal, designers were not held individually accountable.
Seldom, therefore, was an individual graphic designer’s body
of work critical grist. Along the way a critical language has
developed to help put these phenomena in context, suggest
values and standards, and question assumptions. Criticism is
a very positive means of illuminating—the warts and all—a
design work, genre, or phenomenon.
Rick Poynor, founding editor of Eye magazine, and one of
the pioneer graphic design critics, has long written on the
role of the critic and the impact of criticism. Here he delves
into a theme that has underscored his work of more than two
decades. Read it closely to see how he develops his argument
and attempts to convince his readers.
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:72
056-091_C67944.indd 72 9/22/12 11:25 AM
section 2
surveying the diciplines
(Text)
73
CASE STUDY:
the Death of the critic
rICK pOynOr
Rick Poynor is the founding editor of Eye magazine. (Originally published in Icon, March 2006)
Does design criticism matter anymore? It’s certainly not a term you
hear bandied about by designers. Busy professionals have clients
to meet, projects to plan, studios to run. If designers were to think
about design criticism at all, they [would] probably imagine that
it is still going on somewhere—and good luck to it.
But if we aren’t actively looking for design criticism, how
do we know whether it’s flourishing or not? There is plenty of
design journalism, but criticism and journalism are different
activities. While it’s certainly possible for journalism to have a
critical intention, most design journalism simply reports on the
latest news. There is nothing wrong with that, but it isn’t criti-
cism and it tells us nothing about criticism’s state of health.
We will call design criticism in for a fitness check and take
its pulse in due course, but first it might be useful to look at
what criticism is for. These tasks aren’t specific to design criti-
cism. They also apply, in differing degrees, to the criticism of
cultural activities such as art, architecture, literature and film.
Perhaps the most basic service provided by criticism has
been to champion the new. The idea here is that without
the intervention of the critic, the public would fail to under-
stand or appreciate artistic innovations. People might ignore
or even attack them. The critic is presumed to have special
insight into the motivations and meaning of the work that
comes from a deep personal engagement. It may be necessary
to challenge earlier ways of thinking to explain why these
creations are timely and significant. The critic may become
strongly identified with particular individuals, movements or
causes, a fellow traveller with the innovators he champions,
influencing their artistic development and ideas.
If we consider this model in terms of contemporary design,
some problems emerge. Most obviously, there is no public
resistance to design today and there is no provocative design
avant-garde requiring the critic to step in as intermediary and
advocate. Twenty-five years ago, Memphis might have needed
this kind of critical support. The movement was controversial
with modernist designers, and writers trotted out various theo-
ries to explain it. Where are the contemporary equivalents?
Postmodern design caused a ruckus for a while, but this passed
and nothing as turbulent has occurred since then. Meanwhile,
adventurous design has become something that any modern
consumer appreciates. People need updates about the latest
sofas, mobile phones, bars, restaurants and hip hotels, but
they don’t need anyone to argue the case for these things or
to explain their relevance. Journalism handles the publicity—
from the glossy interior mags to reports in the daily press.
The same reservation applies to criticism’s more general
function of promoting a discipline’s cause. Fifty years ago,
design needed all the support it could get. “The role of the
serious critic is that of an educator,” wrote advertising designer
Ashley Havinden in 1952. “By searching out the many ex-
amples of good design and appraising them constructively,
pArT five : CriTiCism
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:73
056-091_C67944.indd 73 9/22/12 11:25 AM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:74
056-091_28858.indd 74 8/30/12 4:44 PM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:75
056-091_28858.indd 75 8/30/12 4:44 PM
Writing & research for graphic designers
(Text)
74
he may convince the manufacturer or the printer of the merits
of good design associated with his product. . . . Such constructive
criticism in the press would teach the public, not only to appreci-
ate, but to demand good design in the products they buy.” Today,
we have plenty of organisations and initiatives to beat the drum
for design: the Design Council, the British Council, D&AD, the
London Design Festival. It’s debatable whether writing produced
for this well-worn purpose can be regarded as criticism.
The third possible function of criticism goes considerably
further than mere promotion. This kind of writing takes
design’s presence for granted as something that no longer
needs to be argued for, and it arises from a commitment to
design’s cultural possibilities. The emphasis here falls on the
depth, subtlety, sophistication and complexity of the critic’s
response. The writing is more discursive and playful; it weaves
around its subject; it offers pleasures of its own. Making assess-
ments of quality might once have been a key task for this type
of criticism, but this has become unfashionable in other art
forms, particularly in visual art, and today it is less likely to be
attempted in design writing, where there is an inherent tension
between subjective aesthetic reactions and more objective as-
sessments of whether or not a design fulfils its functional purpose.
The problem with the more rarefied forms of criticism is that they
can too easily seem to be arcane and elitist and, in the age of pub-
lic access, this is unacceptable to many. Even art people seem to
find much of what is written about art unreadable.
The final category of criticism takes a more questioning and
sometimes even hostile view of the subject. This is the cultural
studies approach. It treats cultural production as a form of
evidence, taking these phenomena apart to discover what they
reveal about society, and viewing the subject matter through
particular lenses: feminism, racism, consumerism, sustain-
ability. Design, as a primarily commercial endeavour, makes a
particularly good subject for this type of analysis and unmask-
ing. The problem, from a designer’s point of view, is that this
form of design commentary can be deeply sceptical about many
things that a working professional takes for granted. Designers
who read it are often confronted with two bald alternatives: feel
bad about what you are doing or change your ways. Combative,
campaigning criticism—Naomi Klein’s No Logo is the best
known recent example—is more likely to come from outside
the design world.
This summary suggests some of the difficulties facing
design criticism today. There are other factors that need to
be taken into account. It has been publishing wisdom for
years that readers’ appetite to plough through long articles
has dwindled. We are busier than ever, the thinking runs,
and other forms of media compete for the browser’s attention.
Magazines respond with an easy to swallow diet of captions,
sidebars and pictures. If criticism needs space to flex its
muscles, then today’s design magazines are not always eager
to supply it. You can see this at work in the industry bible
Design Week, never the most critical of organs. Since the maga-
zine’s redesign, which increased the page size, articles appear
to be shorter, with smaller type that only adds to the feeling
that the words take up space that might be better allotted to
more colour pictures. The “Private View” opinion column was
hardly an unduly taxing read at 800 words; it has been slashed
to just 500.
The notion of criticism has been undermined in other
ways. The critic, as traditionally understood, was a person of
superior knowledge and insight. Critics presumed to know
best about their areas of expertise. They made judgements on
behalf of other people and their authoritative pronouncements
about books, films or art used to count for something. New
York theatre critics could famously close plays with a damning
review. People are much less prepared now to regard critics
as sources of authoritative opinion. A consumer guide with
handy star ratings may be all you need to decide which CD
to buy this week or which movie to see.
It’s often said that everyone is a critic today and the Internet,
with its challenge to all forms of printed authority, has taken
this democracy of opinion to a new level. A growing army of
bloggers offers commentary that editors would never dream
of publishing in print on every aspect of cultural life. When
everyone can broadcast their views so easily, the position of
the critic looks much less distinctive and necessary. Still, the
torrent of words unleashed by blogging and the popularity
of some sites seem to contradict the idea that people are less
prepared to read than they were.
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:74
056-091_C67944.indd 74 9/22/12 11:25 AM
section 2
surveying the diciplines
(Text)
75
When it comes to design, it’s sometimes suggested that
blogs might offer a new forum for design criticism and, as a
design writer, this certainly attracted me. In 2003, I co-found-
ed a site called Design Observer with three American designers
and for a couple of years I wrote short essays for it as often as
I could. What I soon realised was that as a medium for writing
(as opposed to more diary-like uses) blogging software is a
kind of Trojan horse. The open-to-all-comers comment box at
the end of each entry can generate a vast trail of digression that
overpowers the original article, no matter how carefully it is
written. One 1,000-word Design Observer essay by a colleague
produced more than 60,000 words of comment—the size of
a book—much of it utterly pointless. Internet publishing
might, in time, provide a way forward for criticism, but I am
not convinced that blogs will. Attempts to define a distinctive
position disappear beneath the hubbub.
Whether design criticism has a future or not, we should at
least be clear about what it can do. Here, I want to turn to an
example that shows what critical thinking used to mean in the
design field, and that suggests why we still need it today.
In June 1955, the Architectural Review published a special
issue, written by the brilliant architecture critic Ian Nairn,
then just 25, which it titled Outrage. The issue documents the
spread of what the AR calls Subtopia—a compound of suburb
and utopia—across Britain. “Subtopia,” Nairn writes, “is the
annihilation of the difference by attempting to make one type
of scenery standard for town, suburb, countryside and wild.”
The AR documents this with great thoroughness. Everything
about the issue—the use of drawings and different coloured
papers, the typography—glows with visual intelligence. Nairn
shows scores of photographs of street lamps, arterial roads,
overhead wires, street advertising and bungled attempts at
“municipal rustic”. He undertakes a 400-mile car journey from
Southampton to Carlisle, producing a written commentary
supported by pictures of everything he sees, then switches his
attention to the Scottish Highlands, where he looks at housing,
roads, tourism, hydro-electricity. The issue ends with a manifesto
about what needs to be done aimed at the man in the street, which
sets out some precepts (“The site’s the thing, not a set of rules,
and your eye’s the thing, not the textbook”) and offers a com-
prehensive list of malpractices to watch out for (“has the town
lost its centre to the car park? or the open square to a wired-in
public garden?”).
What is remarkable about Outrage is its controlled anger and
passion. The purpose of criticism here is to force open people’s
eyes, to change opinion and make a difference. The writer has
a view of Subtopia grounded in a philosophical awareness of
what it signifies for the person who lives inside it: “Insensible
to the meaning of civilization on the one side and, on the other,
ignorant of the well-spring of his own being, he is removing
the sharp edge from his own life, exchanging individual feel-
ing for mass experience in a voluntary enslavement far more
restrictive and permanent than the feudal system.” The issue
became a book and it’s clear from the many reviews quoted on
the cover that it received a level of attention in the papers that
a design magazine initiative would never be granted today.
“Sameness can become a most virulent form of ugliness,”
writes The Observer. “If we are not shocked into recognising it
in time, we shall ourselves become subtopians, sub-humans,
no longer individuals but forever members of a herd.”
To produce a scorching critique like this you need profound
idealism and a shared sense of what matters and we have lost
this now. Much of what Nairn and the AR feared came to pass
in spite of their protests. In their terms, the visual environment
of Britain was carelessly ruined. Subtopia—sprawl, if you
prefer—continues to throw a dull blanket of sameness
over everything in its path. Design and its offshoot branding
were instrumental in stamping this uniformity on British high
Whether design criticism has a future or not,
we should at least be clear about what it can do.
pArT five: CriTiCism
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:75
056-091_C67944.indd 75 9/22/12 11:25 AM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:74
056-091_28858.indd 74 8/30/12 4:44 PM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:75
056-091_28858.indd 75 8/30/12 4:44 PM
Writing & research for graphic designers
(Text)
74
he may convince the manufacturer or the printer of the merits
of good design associated with his product. . . . Such constructive
criticism in the press would teach the public, not only to appreci-
ate, but to demand good design in the products they buy.” Today,
we have plenty of organisations and initiatives to beat the drum
for design: the Design Council, the British Council, D&AD, the
London Design Festival. It’s debatable whether writing produced
for this well-worn purpose can be regarded as criticism.
The third possible function of criticism goes considerably
further than mere promotion. This kind of writing takes
design’s presence for granted as something that no longer
needs to be argued for, and it arises from a commitment to
design’s cultural possibilities. The emphasis here falls on the
depth, subtlety, sophistication and complexity of the critic’s
response. The writing is more discursive and playful; it weaves
around its subject; it offers pleasures of its own. Making assess-
ments of quality might once have been a key task for this type
of criticism, but this has become unfashionable in other art
forms, particularly in visual art, and today it is less likely to be
attempted in design writing, where there is an inherent tension
between subjective aesthetic reactions and more objective as-
sessments of whether or not a design fulfils its functional purpose.
The problem with the more rarefied forms of criticism is that they
can too easily seem to be arcane and elitist and, in the age of pub-
lic access, this is unacceptable to many. Even art people seem to
find much of what is written about art unreadable.
The final category of criticism takes a more questioning and
sometimes even hostile view of the subject. This is the cultural
studies approach. It treats cultural production as a form of
evidence, taking these phenomena apart to discover what they
reveal about society, and viewing the subject matter through
particular lenses: feminism, racism, consumerism, sustain-
ability. Design, as a primarily commercial endeavour, makes a
particularly good subject for this type of analysis and unmask-
ing. The problem, from a designer’s point of view, is that this
form of design commentary can be deeply sceptical about many
things that a working professional takes for granted. Designers
who read it are often confronted with two bald alternatives: feel
bad about what you are doing or change your ways. Combative,
campaigning criticism—Naomi Klein’s No Logo is the best
known recent example—is more likely to come from outside
the design world.
This summary suggests some of the difficulties facing
design criticism today. There are other factors that need to
be taken into account. It has been publishing wisdom for
years that readers’ appetite to plough through long articles
has dwindled. We are busier than ever, the thinking runs,
and other forms of media compete for the browser’s attention.
Magazines respond with an easy to swallow diet of captions,
sidebars and pictures. If criticism needs space to flex its
muscles, then today’s design magazines are not always eager
to supply it. You can see this at work in the industry bible
Design Week, never the most critical of organs. Since the maga-
zine’s redesign, which increased the page size, articles appear
to be shorter, with smaller type that only adds to the feeling
that the words take up space that might be better allotted to
more colour pictures. The “Private View” opinion column was
hardly an unduly taxing read at 800 words; it has been slashed
to just 500.
The notion of criticism has been undermined in other
ways. The critic, as traditionally understood, was a person of
superior knowledge and insight. Critics presumed to know
best about their areas of expertise. They made judgements on
behalf of other people and their authoritative pronouncements
about books, films or art used to count for something. New
York theatre critics could famously close plays with a damning
review. People are much less prepared now to regard critics
as sources of authoritative opinion. A consumer guide with
handy star ratings may be all you need to decide which CD
to buy this week or which movie to see.
It’s often said that everyone is a critic today and the Internet,
with its challenge to all forms of printed authority, has taken
this democracy of opinion to a new level. A growing army of
bloggers offers commentary that editors would never dream
of publishing in print on every aspect of cultural life. When
everyone can broadcast their views so easily, the position of
the critic looks much less distinctive and necessary. Still, the
torrent of words unleashed by blogging and the popularity
of some sites seem to contradict the idea that people are less
prepared to read than they were.
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:74
056-091_C67944.indd 74 9/22/12 11:25 AM
section 2
surveying the diciplines
(Text)
75
When it comes to design, it’s sometimes suggested that
blogs might offer a new forum for design criticism and, as a
design writer, this certainly attracted me. In 2003, I co-found-
ed a site called Design Observer with three American designers
and for a couple of years I wrote short essays for it as often as
I could. What I soon realised was that as a medium for writing
(as opposed to more diary-like uses) blogging software is a
kind of Trojan horse. The open-to-all-comers comment box at
the end of each entry can generate a vast trail of digression that
overpowers the original article, no matter how carefully it is
written. One 1,000-word Design Observer essay by a colleague
produced more than 60,000 words of comment—the size of
a book—much of it utterly pointless. Internet publishing
might, in time, provide a way forward for criticism, but I am
not convinced that blogs will. Attempts to define a distinctive
position disappear beneath the hubbub.
Whether design criticism has a future or not, we should at
least be clear about what it can do. Here, I want to turn to an
example that shows what critical thinking used to mean in the
design field, and that suggests why we still need it today.
In June 1955, the Architectural Review published a special
issue, written by the brilliant architecture critic Ian Nairn,
then just 25, which it titled Outrage. The issue documents the
spread of what the AR calls Subtopia—a compound of suburb
and utopia—across Britain. “Subtopia,” Nairn writes, “is the
annihilation of the difference by attempting to make one type
of scenery standard for town, suburb, countryside and wild.”
The AR documents this with great thoroughness. Everything
about the issue—the use of drawings and different coloured
papers, the typography—glows with visual intelligence. Nairn
shows scores of photographs of street lamps, arterial roads,
overhead wires, street advertising and bungled attempts at
“municipal rustic”. He undertakes a 400-mile car journey from
Southampton to Carlisle, producing a written commentary
supported by pictures of everything he sees, then switches his
attention to the Scottish Highlands, where he looks at housing,
roads, tourism, hydro-electricity. The issue ends with a manifesto
about what needs to be done aimed at the man in the street, which
sets out some precepts (“The site’s the thing, not a set of rules,
and your eye’s the thing, not the textbook”) and offers a com-
prehensive list of malpractices to watch out for (“has the town
lost its centre to the car park? or the open square to a wired-in
public garden?”).
What is remarkable about Outrage is its controlled anger and
passion. The purpose of criticism here is to force open people’s
eyes, to change opinion and make a difference. The writer has
a view of Subtopia grounded in a philosophical awareness of
what it signifies for the person who lives inside it: “Insensible
to the meaning of civilization on the one side and, on the other,
ignorant of the well-spring of his own being, he is removing
the sharp edge from his own life, exchanging individual feel-
ing for mass experience in a voluntary enslavement far more
restrictive and permanent than the feudal system.” The issue
became a book and it’s clear from the many reviews quoted on
the cover that it received a level of attention in the papers that
a design magazine initiative would never be granted today.
“Sameness can become a most virulent form of ugliness,”
writes The Observer. “If we are not shocked into recognising it
in time, we shall ourselves become subtopians, sub-humans,
no longer individuals but forever members of a herd.”
To produce a scorching critique like this you need profound
idealism and a shared sense of what matters and we have lost
this now. Much of what Nairn and the AR feared came to pass
in spite of their protests. In their terms, the visual environment
of Britain was carelessly ruined. Subtopia—sprawl, if you
prefer—continues to throw a dull blanket of sameness
over everything in its path. Design and its offshoot branding
were instrumental in stamping this uniformity on British high
Whether design criticism has a future or not,
we should at least be clear about what it can do.
pArT five: CriTiCism
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:75
056-091_C67944.indd 75 9/22/12 11:25 AM
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.