CULT of the UGLY Paper

I feel like not taking sides is a cop out. The middle ground is just a safe
zone so one can avoid confrontation, to appease both sides. But when
it comes down to the battle between Modernism and Post Modernism,
ugliness and beauty, I constantly find myself stuck. It’s almost as if each
movement has an arm and they are tugging left and right. Is it form over
function or is it for experimentation and aesthetic value. When it comes
to each movement’s explanation of their philosophy there are a select few
that turn me into a design Benedict Arnold.
Of the people mentioned in the art director, author, editor, curator
and lecturer Steven Heller’s “Cult of the Ugly” article, a few have caused
this conundrum. Something I thought I would not care about initially, this
article has found a way to start shaping my design style. The thing is, is
that it took one Modernist to draw me in, while several Post Modernists
were required to understand their philosophies. Niels Different, Katherine
and Michael McCoy and Lorraine Wild all argue very important points,
that validate Post Modernism as an important successor to Modernism.
One of the things that Vignelli, a preacher for the beautiful side,
talks about that attracted me is that his number one priority is to “make
the world better than it is.” He states that “design is a profession that
takes care of everything around us” and that design is problem solving.
(Millman, 3) “Design must solve a problem” he feels, “then, the design
is exciting.” (Millman, 5) And to me, that is a vital part of design. If the
designer is not out to solve a problem or enhance the world around them,
then what is the point? The designs then become purely aesthetic and
inevitably don’t serve a purpose. According to Heller what is produced
at Cranbrook Academy of Art is ugly design, described as “the layering
of unharmonious graphic forms in a way that results in confusing messages.”
(Heller, 1) If design, according to Vignelli and Modernism is about
problem solving, then indeed, the art produced at these schools known for
experimentation is indeed ugly.
Vignelli also finds a social responsibility to “decrease the amount
of vulgarity by replacing the vulgarity with things that are more refined.”
“My life is a continual struggle, a continuous battle against vulgarity
taking over,” he describes, with vulgarity comparing to Heller’s ugliness.
(Millman, 4-5) When reading Vignelli’s interview with Debbie Millman he
describes the relationship between vulgarity and beauty. To him they’re
“simultaneous. There is no beauty in vulgarity. There can be fascination
in vulgarity, but there is no beauty. A vulgar woman is never beautiful.”
(Millman, 4) It was in that statement that the Modernist perspective made
sense to me. True, both vulgarity and ugliness may get the same attention
as beautiful design, but it’s not in the same way. The attention that it gets
is that of mockery and confusion not of praise and style.
So in that regard I am a modernist right? My style is all about
form over function and the conveying of the message. Well yes that is
but what happens at Cranbrook and CalArts, this supposed ugly design,
have me intrigued as well. Keller addresses the “new generation’s ideal
of good design – and beauty – to be challenged by its forerunners is of
course a familiar pattern.” When W.A. Dwiggins criticized Paul Rand as
“one of those ‘Bauhaus’ boys” in the late 1930’s, Rand responded by telling
an interviewer “that he had always respected Dwiggins’ work,” and
asked why he couldn’t see the value of what they were doing? (Heller,
2) So I ask, with what the likes of Rand and Vanderlans did in response
to greats like Dwiggins and Vignelli, is it possible that the people of Cranbrook
are taking a similar path?
Keller admits that “experimentations is the engine of process,” but
when it’s coupled with a “laboratory setting and freedom from professional
responsibility, the word experiment has to justify a multitude of sins.” I
feel as though it is possible, and pointed out by Keller that “ugly design
can be a conscious attempt to create and define alternative standards”
with it’s by-product being beautiful design. (Heller, 1)
Editors of the Cranbrook New Design Discourse, Katherine and
Michael McCoy, among others, associated with the Academy, preach
the importance of experimentation and incorporation of life into design.
“If design is about life, why shouldn’t it have all the complexity, variety,
contradiction and sublimity of life,” the McCoy’s feel? (Cranbrook, 14)
This idea, similar to Vignelli’s take on vulgarity, puts their philosophies of
design into perspective. Yes, maybe in these experiments, ugly design
may develop, ones with confused messages and awkward aesthetical
compositions, but like the quote said, if design is about life, why is life
omitted from the design? But I then ask myself, what comes of these so
called ugly designs? The McCoys explain that yes, “the design students
are exhorted, above all, to take risks that they might not take in the outside
professional world, to get used to questioning and growing by doing
polemical work that could well fail, but in failing teach everyone something.”
(Cranbrook, 19) Like Keller said, “experimentations is the engine of
process,” so without it, with out these failures, design remains relatively
stagnant.
Finally, Lorraine Wild solidifies Post Modernism and experimentation’s
importance. She expresses that Cranbrook design has been “accused
of being nothing more than formalist polemic, attacking the most
hallowed shibboleths of design practice: that graphic design is problem
solving, that self-expression is irrelevant to graphic design.” (Cranbrook,
30) Well if self-expression is irrelevant in graphic design, then it might
not be something that I want to be apart of. Wild explains, “the pressure
on the young designer today is not to become a star…but to become a
participant in communication process...this is why the development of
the personal voice or agenda has emerged as an important new aspect.”
(Wild, 5) To her “the graphic designer becomes a participant in the delivery
of the message, not just the translator.” (Cranbrook, 35) I want my
personal touch on my work, and I want my voice to show, along with the
solution of the problem at hand to be evident. That to me is the real definition
of beauty in graphic design.
So if this vague middle ground is where I stand, then what makes
ugly design. I feel like at then end of the Cult of the Ugly article, Kellerexplains it best. “Ugliness is valid, even refreshing” he explains, but the
problem comes when it has “so quickly become a style that appeals to
anyone with out intelligence, discipline or good sense to make something
more interesting out of it…Ugliness as a tool, a weapon, even as a code is
not a problem when it is a result of form following function. But ugliness
as it’s own virtue – or as a knee-jerk reaction to the status quo-diminishes
all design.” (Heller, 3) And that is when it all fell into place. Beauty and
ugliness can co exist. The things that take place at the Cranbrook Academy
of Art are legitimate, if not necessary to design and it’s advancement.
A blend of Modernism and Post Modernism can be healthy to the field of
design, and letting the designer’s voice out is important. These principles
will differentiate designers, they will separate designs, and will release
design from its stagnant place in Modernism. But that is if the problem is
solved, and the message is communicated. Ugly design with out purpose,
without a solution, finds no place in graphic design.

WORKS CITED

Carson, David. The End of Print. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1995.
Gottschall, Edward M. Typographic Communications Today. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1989.
Fella, Edward. Letters on America. Princton Architectural Press, New York, 2000.
Heller, Steven. “Cult of the Ugly.” Eye. No. 9, Vol. 3, 1993.
McCoy, Katherine. Cranbrook Design: The New Discourse. Rizzoli International Publications Inc, New York,
1990.
Millman, Debbie. “Interview with Massimo Vignelli.” How To Think Like A Graphic Designer.
March 10, 2008.
Rand, Paul. A Designer’s Art. Yale University Press, New Heaven, 1985.
Wild, Lorraine. “On Overcoming Modernism.” I.D. September-October pg. 74-77, 1992.
Vanderlans, Rudy. Émigré. Vol. 33, Winter 1995, Sacramento, 1995.
Works Cited