Are trends just the lazy way to design? Each new wave of “cool” brings a new wave of cookie-cutter designs. Is the art of design so fickle that originality is shunned for the “do what works” mentality?
It’s understandable that a specific designer has a style or a signature. However, it is bizarre that an entire culture will follow a design trend almost unwittingly. For the case of Web 2.0, we’ve definitely struck a design nerve and a style for this generation of the web. I don’t have to show you the design similarities between websites vastly different in content from each other, as I’m sure you’re inundated with them every minute you spend online.
There have been tons of Web 2.0 design tutorials and style guides written. In fact, there are Web 2.0 design generators. Anything this automated and monotonous cannot possibly the direction for fresh and original design. Yet, there are new sources of design building upon Web 2.0 principles every day. Just look at any of the numerous CSS galleries (or should I say, Web 2.0 galleries).
The copycat design trending doesn’t stop on the web, unfortunately. Let’s take a few more tangible examples.
Movie posters
Notice anything? Each poster houses a very different movie, yet, the composition of each is strikingly similar. I didn’t delve into past movies (as I guarantee these aren’t the first to have this composition) but instead looked at the current movies in the theatres. It’s almost scary how similar they look.
How to design your own:
- Take the main character, or the most significant person in the movie and place their silhouette in the middle of the poster.
- Have the character in an emotional pose with their back towards you. Note: Make sure that the pose shows a visual diagonal through the character from upper-right to bottom-left.
- Surround the character with dramatic imagery vaguely hinting to the movie’s content.
- Add typography and you’re done.
Magazine covers
There’s no secret here that the design of these magazines is meant for attention-grabbing purposes only. The design gets less attention than the stories do, which is saying something.
I’m sure most of the design for these covers is based on sticking the most ridiculous text on the cover to sucker the reader in, and for some reason it must work. The layout has not only been copied by each magazine, but they haven’t changed the layout for a long time. The “stick to what works” mentality can sometimes work, and other times make you a dinosaur.
How to design your own:
- Yellow text. Nothing says “read me” like big yellow text.
- Anything important should be in white text with a color block behind it.
- Anything REALLY important should be in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
- Make sure the pictures of the celebrities are the worst possible photos you can find. Photoshop them to look worse, if necessary.
- The layout should always follow this format: One big block on the left, and a sidebar with smaller blocks on the right.
- The closer your letters are in your logo, the better.
The best magazine cover designs are fairly similar as well, but in a good way. Simplicity, cleanliness, and intelligent design.
Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about good design
We’re talking about what the majority of people consider “good” design. That is, the design that makes money. Whether it’s pretty or not, if it makes people buy into it, it’s designed to do it’s job.
The function of design is to make the product more usable and improve the usability of the product’s function. Yet, as we all know, great design is innovative and different. The simpler and better the design can be, the more enjoyable and easier it makes our lives.
Even though the cookie-cutter designs work for a while, the truly good designs are the original and fresh concepts that change the way we look at things.
Now go own the world.-Ravi Vora
Be the first to know how to own the world: Subscribe via e-mail or RSS feed.
hey great job with this post keep up the good work
You are mentioning work that design minded companies/designers aren’t doing. Movie posters suck because formulaic design you have mentioned. Speaking from experience design is becoming a more and more understandable language. This makes salespeople and business minded people think they understand it.
Good post, but I would showcase some good work to balance the bad. Look and indie music posters from aesthetic apparatus, farm barn and film title from psyop.
Thanks,
6TON
i recently posted something on how blog style design is diluting the principle of good web design which i think compliments your post quite nicely.
So true. And beyond layout/colors, there’s the issue of the replication of certain kinds of images. My passion is in exploring how oceans, escape, and paradise are used to push everything. The images have become as much a part of our language as the words we use, and they have become as remarkable as the word “the” because of it.
I totally agree with ‘6TON’.
You’re not actually highlighting anything regarding good design - or work done by designers, the work you’ve highlighted has been created by sales team and mediocre artworkers - where formula is king.
Your conclusion seems misguided, the majority of people (i should imagine) don’t know the difference between good design or bad design. They essentially care nothing for it - and therefore are attracted to the lowest common denominator. i.e. - the examples you’ve highlighted. These designs don’t sell a lifestyle, don’t sell anything beyond the ether that they are - they actually have to do no work at all - they raise no emotion, they make no statement.
Of course good design should be design that ‘works’ and ’sells’, but we all know you can gild shit and sell it to the masses if you sell it at the lowest form - all you have to do is fool enough of them. Which is essentially what most designers and marketeers are auctioned to do everyday.
There is a wealth of real ‘good design’ out there that is unique, forward looking - and utterly changing what comes before it. Only the very last line of the article makes any reference to what is, overall - a poorly crafted piece of writing and observation. Maybe your headline should have read ‘Everyman Design: Lets face it, it’s just formulaic’
To which the reply should surely read: No shit sherlock.
I think design as a formula is the result of people who aren’t really designers..they just grab some templates, some css, free buttons and put it together. It may look nice but most of the time these types of ‘designers’ can’t think for themselves. They have no range, no creativity. In the end it makes the real designers more profitable because we have the skills to transcend temporary styles.
I completely agree Jon. I also don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘good design’ formula. Sure, you can copy someone else and put your own elements into the formula, but that’s not design. A monkey can do that. A monkey can also add effects in Photoshop to make something plane, simple and boring look more ‘designed’. Way to go!
The point of designing something good needs go beyond simply imitating what you’ve already seen. Good design has substance, and it asks questions not just provide obvious solutions. It’s not just about matching colours, image, and type. It’s about what those elements mean and why they’ve been chosen to work together to communicate a certain message. Sometimes good design isn’t necessarily visually pleasing…
Who determines what’s good or bad design anyway??
Perhaps people use it because it works? We must be predispositioned to find certain designs appealing and in time we would find a good formula and use it again and again.
The 2 seater sports car hasn’t really evolved a great deal apart from advances in chassis design, electronics and aerodynamics.
The same with these designs, advances in graphical/colour production have evolved the movie poster but the basic design hasn’t changed much.
Why try and find something different for the sake of it?
This website could be much more powerful without the rather unexplainable brash vector art in the background. It would look smashing if you used the neutral yellow-green compound colored banner theme.
Good design is a living formula. What I mean is that like you said there are set standards in movies posters and magazine layout.. but thats the standards… the center of conservatism on lets say a dart board and if you can imagine the board is constantly moving. The edges always grow larger… Some people shoot to the moon with their design techniques, and then the next thing you know theirs 5 new clients who want that same treatment and that becomes ” norm ” So the dart board of normality in design is ever growing and ever shrinking, just as we cringe at outdated design techniques. Web 2.0 is a perfect example of such a thing, it’s immeditealy devalued by being available to anyone with photoshop and free css code.
And when you talk about Movie posters and publications, your really talking about is why is there standards that don’t change… like movie poster formulas etc. Well that’s more likely answered by how many agencies actually design movie posters and how many of them actually do all the famous films.. And that their is tried and true methods of movie posters, and everything is about the bottom line. $$$. Did you know most magazine’s are sold on the racks by their covers? So everyone goes for having the hottest model on the cover. Is that good design? Does it even matter? nope.
Keep up the good writing!
Joseph
Interesting article. I think good design is a craft and many trends in design come as a result of solid design craft. Regardless, there are plenty of trends that are not a result of good design craft.
so what is the point here - is good design a formula or no? Or is this college kid just expressing his confusion to the rest of the world / diggers.
I frankly think there is a formula - BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL! If someone has figured out a smart of way displaying content, layout - use that person’s knowledge.
As for execution - its all about the CONTENT anyway - if you have a grunge band - don’t do glossy icons. If you have a web 2.0 start up - don’t use beat up looks.
And no, and no, I don’t think you have to add “Add typography and you’re done” - you have to work with a lot massage it till A LOT in order for it to be good!
PS:: The poster for “no country” is actually very smart. It depicts the narrative of the move (about being on a run and being hunted) - and trust me, the central character is not even in the poster!
I agree that most “web designers” are people who buy cheap software and use cookie-cutter templates and push them on their clients for a minimal fee.
I think that a good designer understands how to tell a story. Most clients want their brand to express a message so that they don’t have to.
A good designer takes the time to ask the questions of the client to develop that message and story and convey it through layout, imagery and color schemes, keeping it consistent throughout various media.
I think that both sides of the argument are true. There are thousands of conventions in use in design, at every level from the general layout and theme down to the particular detail.
The purpose of design is to facilitate communication. You don’t get design for design’s sake. That’s called art.
Using conventions where they work is a good thing. You don’t have to be a brilliant designer to make good use of conventions to make effective design, i.e. effective communication.
Where the designer’s real skill comes in is where conventional approaches don’t fulfil the goals of the project. So you need to know when to use that extra bit of creative energy, and when to play a stock shot.
Not every note a top violinist plays is uniquely brilliant. Roger Federer doesn’t play a brilliant tennis stroke every time. These guys use conventional techniques well most of the time, and know when to pull out the stops.
So top designers don’t stop you in your tracks with breathtaking visual virtuosity on everything they produce. Or, if they do, they probably can’t produce very much!
All these conclusions can quite well be directed to interior design, too. I agree with the 1st part of what Paul Gibbons says:
“the majority of people (i should imagine) don’t know the difference between good design or bad design. They essentially care nothing for it - and therefore are attracted to the lowest common denominator. i.e. - the examples you’ve highlighted. These designs don’t sell a lifestyle, don’t sell anything beyond the ether that they are - they actually have to do no work at all - they raise no emotion, they make no statement.”
But - the second one is mostly a contradiction to it. Because it is this majority that makes such design alive, sadly. And more sadly, it is their lifestyle they sell - so what should be the conclusion? A minority struggles to impose to the majority a better understanding of what good design sould be. I hope that the final result will be success for ‘the original and fresh concepts that change the way we look at things’.
Good post, Ravi Vora!
In the situations you are describing here there are formulas that work. They might not all be pretty but they have had time to refine a design ‘that works’ for the market it is intended.
Where as because of the relative youth of the web, design has yet to reach a true working formula, yet trends are moving towards solutions that work on their intentions.
At the end of the day. Design is about purpose. We should be designing to fill a requirement, whether that be function, communication or usability.
Design without purpose is simply artwork. Nice in and of itself, but it doesn’t fill a need.
Many designers see their design as an attempt to create a piece of work that appeals to their peers. When in actual fact they should be appealing to a specified target audience, that more often than not has very little in common to their design sensibilities.
Thank you! I mentioned this in a post on my blog. Currently, I am trying to not design anything “web 2.0″ again. So far my income has remained the same, most people are willing to go for more creatively designed sites/print designs. If only everyone did that =/
fernando - Thanks!
6TON - “Design-minded” is a very vague word. Really, revenue-minded, functionality-minded, and usability-minded are what drive design-minded companies. I completely agree that there is good work out there, just not in a lot of major circulating media.
Cody - I agree, the themes of imagery or style can be very common in design trends.
Paul Gibbons - When you classify a designer, you are not looking at the whole industry but only a narrow portion that makes ‘good design.’ When in fact, the more commonly found designer is actually paid to produce more than invent. What you so lovingly call “Everyman Design” is actually the majority of design. So, it seems, you missed the point of this post since you’re actually agreeing with everything I’ve said by pretending to fight against it.
Steven - Finding something different is not for the sake of it. It is for the benefit of it. We find design that works BETTER or improves on design that isn’t perfect. If there’s a better way, we as designers should be looking for it.
Joe Maguire - Great points, and well put.
Andrew - True. Many more than there should be, unfortunately.
G - Of course these are all very obvious points you make. What I’m saying is that even if you have a grunge band, instead of using the same grungey look, try something new. The opening scene of Se7en is a perfect example of how a genre can get a new twist.
Ben - Very true, that does define a good designer. A great designer will go above and beyond and will be able to push the envelope of the companies brand and take it to new heights.
Ben Hunt - Good points.
trendoffice - Well put, thanks.
Crimson Fox - Is it not true that artwork can function as design and vice versa? I believe they can and often do perform similar tasks in creating interest and directing usability and visual elements. One may be more abstract than the other, but they are based very much on the same principles.
Greg - That’s great to hear a real life situation where new and fresh design can thrive!
This is such a well written post, filled with interesting facts.I have learnt a lot by reading it.Thanks.
very insightful and inspirational
Hello Ravi,
Since I’m more into web design, this post was quite informative for me. I have done CD cover design, some ticket designing and stuffs like that. But never got an opportunity to do a magazine or a movie poster design.
I certainly do love to work on those areas as well.
And yes, you have a good blog website look.
Cheers.
I agree with you almost 100%. The reason I say almost is only very small, but it does matter, to me at least. One of the reasons this merging of styles is happening is partially due to the lack creativity found in many people who work in graphic design. I’m not saying they aren’t talented, its just that they don’t put in enough work at coming up with new ideas, so they go with what has worked for others. Now, these designs aren’t always bad, and in some cases, are the most appropriate for the content, but a lot of the time, its just laziness taking over. Anyways, great post, keep em coming.
Anyone up for creating some of those style movie posters for films which they just wouldn’t be used for, for parody purposes? =D
Hi everybody,
I’m new! Any news?
In the end, good design is part of the means for achieving a goal.
It has a budget
It has a list of deliverables
The primary deliverable is that it must support sales. The magazine covers shown compete for eye-time with several other magazines, some mints, gift cards and cheap flowers in green cellophane. If yellow text, a 2:1 distribution of columns, cheesy photos and ALL CAPS works, then that is good design.
Something I had to learn when I was a machinist is that ‘when’ is as important as ‘what’ to a customer. The formula designs you are criticizing accomplish both goals. The covers are completed in time for the printing schedule and the customer eye-time is captured, leading to a certain number of sales.
Ta-da. Those covers meet all their goals: the designer can go home for the weekend.
its about composition