Question.

Which BEAR is best?

theGRANDfinale.

GD and TYPE? These two subjects, if that's what you want to call them, these crafts, they are something that I dedicate A LOT of my time to each and everyday. From the late hours of the night to the early hours of the morning, I sit and brainstorm, design, comp, cut and paste, glue, mock up, everything, and I often don't find myself unhappy doing it which is something that I am very excited about, because I now know it is something that I love and enjoy.

RESPONSIBILITIES? To dedicate myself to my craft, schooling and future profession. Because without that, there is no point in continuing if I am only going to be half ass. I'll be honest I half ass a lot of things but never in design.

More VALUABLE? To NOT worry about passing some review and to just create quality communicative design. If that is achieved then the passing will come easy.

CHANGE?

It's hard to say that the answers to the questions have actually changed rather than my knowledge base has grown and so has my answers to these questions. My first answers were very typical, lame and to be honest, they might have been just bullshit. But then I realized that the way I viewed these questions each week was based off of the knowledge I had acquired over that week. To be honest it was a good feeling. To know that I am learning, what to do and what not to do, it's good for me. I don't know how many more things I need to find out what I am doing wrong but I actually look forward to them, cause that can only make me better, and that is definitely something that I am eager to strive for.

BRING THAT REVIEW ON.

LARRYlessig.

Larry Lessig

"How creativity is being strangled by the law"

"For the love, not for the money"

A very minimal part in Mr. Lessig's speech but something that is very important to me. Don't get me wrong, money is important and something that I wouldn't mind having a lot of but honestly, I want my job to be something that I do solely for the love of what I do. Money will come and go, but when you actually love something, when you actually wake up each day and are ready and excited to work, it isn't work anymore. Life will be way more enjoyable if you're doing what you love, and not for the money. I can't imagine what it would be like waking up each day and just hating what you have to do for that day, thinking, I need to make that money. That is definitely not a life I would be thrilled to live, and I know now that I chose the right career path.

"(re)creativity"

I am on the fence with this idea. I can argue for both sides and will. Creativity is something that should never be suppressed. It's all around us and it changes our world for better or for worse, but is vital in the advancement of society. But I can see where the taking of other peoples materials and work and having it edited could not be appreciated. The way I see it is that it's based off of your ego. Yes, the persons EGO. It can and does go one of two ways. Lets take music sampling for example. Lets just say my song was taken and mixed up with someone else's to create a very attractive sound. If I was humble I would be appreciative that someone liked my music enough to re-create it and give it a new sound, that being for the love of music. But now if I am only in it for the money, I could find myself upset because that is profit that I am not seeing, and money that someone else is making off of my music. It comes back to what you're in it for, for the love or for the coin. Are you interested in the advancement of your craft at the risk of something of yours being improved, or is the only think your interested in filling those pockets with hundred dollar bills?

What I am saying and what I see is that examine yourself and decide if you are doing what you're doing for the right reasons. It may take a little searching but it can only benefit you in the long run. And if your only in it for the monetary compensation, the by all means make that dough, but realize that you've spent your entire life doing something that you don't care about.

Oh and if what they did with your work is shitty, then I say it's a whole new ball game...

What is GD? Is what I love, plain and simple.

What is TYPE? Something I am willing to commit the rest of my life to, and that says something cause that doesn't happen very often.

RESPONSIBILITIES? To do things for the RIGHT REASONS. Moneys great, but I don't want to spend the rest of my life doing something I don't love

More VALUABLE? Examine myself now, and decide if this is what I want to do for my life, cause if it's not, I want out right now.

DESIGNmatters.

Design Matters Talk
Stefan Sagmeister - Encore.

"Most difficult thing is just thinking"

This wasn't a big part of this chat with Stefan Sagmeister but it was something that I grabbed onto. So thinking being the most difficult thing in design I can absolutely agree with. And for me, its more of thinking and finding a direction to go in where I find myself in the most trouble. I feel as though I get a lot of good ideas from my brainstorming but I think at times I think WAY too much. So the thing is is that Sagmeister feels like the most difficult thing for him to do is to think, but for me, I feel like the hardest thing for me is that I do indeed think way to much.

I don't know if that is something you turn on and off, or something that you can avoid but I think it's something I need to manage. A lot of my time is spent trying new things and experimenting which I know is important, brainstorming and experimenting are vital to my success as a designer but its very time consuming as a student. So instead of getting all the experimenting out early and then just refining and tightening up the final product, sometimes the pieces are solid in terms of thinking but not solid in terms of technique.

"Design has to work, art does not"

Another good point that separates artists from designers. The only reason you design is basically to solve a problem. To clear something up, to fix something that wasn't working. But with art there is none of that. What problems does an piece of art solve? It's a purely aesthetic and is only meant to be easy on the eyes, and some times not. But with design your only challange is to make it work, make it read, make it communicate. With out that it's no longer design, it then just becomes art, and trust me, I want to be a designer, so my stuff better work.

What is GD? It comes back around, GD is thinking about how to solve a problem, and not letting your work become just ART.

What is TYPE? It is communication and another way to breath life into your work. It's a place to experiment with endless possibilities.

RESPONSIBILITIES: To better the communication through the world. Some how and in some way I am to help clear up communication in the world today.

More VALUABLE? To experiment but in a timely fashion. To stick to my deadlines and not procrastinate.

DESIGN observer.

“Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Typeface”
by Michael Bierut

Before reading this article, I often found myself stuck when deciding to choose a type face. It was ALWAYS Univers 57 Condensed for body text and 67 Condensed for sub heads and call outs. But then once it came time to choose a tittle and subtitle font, my imagination went wild. Combining fonts left and right, cropping them, linking them, I did it all and often with no regard for how well they coincided with the task at hand. The font combination workbook assignment helped to widen my body text choices, adding Helvetica, Trade Gothic and even Futura, but I couldn’t stop coming up with unique title and subtitles. But in reading this article, I found out that there needs to be a lot more thought put into a font choosing process.
For the first project ever, I was stuck a form of number six hell. “Because they made you” is the reason, and for that I have fallen in love with Univers, and have despised ITC New Baskerville ever since. Univers provided so many opportunities for me, thick thin, condensed to wide, it worked for just about everything. But with ITC New Baskerville, I just couldn’t enjoy it, for what reason I don’t know but to this day ITC New Baskerville and I are not on good terms.
Some of the things I am now going to try and practice are “because it reminds you of something” and “because it’s boring.” In practicing these in the construction of my titles and subtitles, I feel like I can still express my imagination, but link the choice of font to the subject at hand. For instance in my Chicago Blues book covers, the fonts Rockwell and Memphis for some reason really remind me of the city, there is just something about them that screams “I represent Chicago.” So in my final design I choice Memphis, and in the end I felt that it was the most successful cover. I have never really considered the principle of using a typeface because it is boring and Bierut describes Tibor Kalman’s fascination with boring typefaces. “Anything but a boring typeface, he felt, got in the way of the ideas.” It seems goofy at first but in some ways it makes sense. Soethimes when the material is fascinating or interesting, you don’t need fancy typography taking away from what the actual text is trying to say.

“Type Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry”
by Jessica Helfand

I don’t know what to say each time I read an article and realize that I do what they often preach as wrong. Should it be a learning experience and from that I can increase my knowledge of the career I have chosen and better myself as a designer, or should I take it as a sign. It has happened all too often in this past year that I am assigned an article to read, or read on voluntarily and find that the topic of the article is about something that I do when I design. This article, with the principle of choosing a type face “because I like it” is something that yes, I am guilty of.
It’s not that I solely chose it because I like it, but I make an attempt to chose typefaces based on how they work with a certain layout or concept, but I do choose them because I am familiar with them, and when it all boils down, it’s “because I like it.” Helfand preaches the importance of Design and Typographic History, something that I am not yet familiar with but will be taking next year. And it being a design student at the University of Kansas, I am glad that it is something that they find necessary and stress in the major. Between the requirements of Art and Design History along with term papers covering everything from specific typographers to typographic and graphic design movements, the core of my design history knowledge grows with each and every class period.
So in reading this article I am not going to look at it as a chance to better my skills and craft. The only thing it’s a sign for is that I have a lot left to learn if I want to succeed in this field, but it is something that I am eager to do. It makes sense, of course I make mistakes like this in college, that’s why I am here, for trial and error, and to learn from my mistakes to overall increase my knowledge of design.

GD is? DEFINITELY NOT "because I like it." It is based off of choices and considerations with the product at hand and what helps to make it more successful.

TYPE is? Staying tight while being yourself. There are reasons for type choices, and one of them is definitely about following he rules. But without being yourself in your work, everything will be the same.

RESPONSIBILITIES? To address the situation or project with its best interests in mind, not my own. What I like and find successful may not be the best option for the success of a project.

VALUABLES? To make mistakes NOW. Reading these articles and seeing what I do wrong is important to find out now rather it be when a client is unhappy with a finished product.

TYPE: the walk.

HELVETICA: the search

I think I have this on lock, but don't hate me if I'm wrong.

But it really is just about everywhere.

HELVETICA: the movie.

Helvetica: The Movie

NOTES: "A beautiful timeless thing, and something that just shouldn't be messed with."

"Typography is white, It's the space between the notes that makes the music"
More attention paid to the background, the surrounding space is more important

Helvetica is a desire for a better legibility, used to spell out MODERN.

Helvetica was used to re build and reconstruct.

Neutral typeface, more machined, doing away with manual details. Shouldn't and doesn't have a meaning in itself.

Not entirely clear on how Helvetica came into being. Born in Haas Type Foundry, Switzerland. Medinger didn't produce the typeface along, had lots of help from Hoffman.

Hoffman and Medinger sat together and they started drawing.

Latin name for Switzerland was initially the name for Helvetica.

IRS TAX Forms are in Helvetica, CVS, Panasonic, Urban Outfitters, American Airlines, American Apparel, it's everywhere.

Helvetica can and does have the ability to say everything.

"Helvetica is like air. You have to breath, so you have to use Helvetica"

"The way something is presented is the way you will react to it"

Helvetica is a badge, a mark of modernist society, perfect balance of push and pull in it's letters, telling you that an understanding problem you have will be contained.

"Do not read me, cause I will bore the shit out of you." To six lines of helvetica on a white sheet.

Designing in two or three fonts is like writing in two or three words, you can do it but does it really keep you interested.

Don't confuse legibility and communication.

"You're always a child of your time, and you cannot step out of that."

All I can say is that using HELVETICA comes with a lot of baggage. There is a lot riding on using such a famous typeface and not making it look ugly. I have used helvetica sparingly and I now know why, because I just really don't like it. It is everywhere and for me that makes is not original. I understand how people see it as a "beautiful timeless thing" BUT I want to be part of a group or movement that does it's own thing. As I always say it needs to work in design and I feel that I can achieve that, but I want to do it my own way, not the way that a large majority of designers do. I want to be and do me, Jarred Kolar. If I start to fail I will start over, not quit, but I want to be original. I know that it offers ways to be original with in using Helvetica, but I like to be a bad ass and talk shit on the greatest type face ever. It is beautiful and timeless no doubt, but it's not for me. PLUS, I like Univers way better, in your face Helvetica.

And Stefan Sagmeister never ceases to amaze me. He is hilarious and I love his explanation of Helvetica. "Do not read me, cause I will bore the shit out of you" to six lines of Helvetica on a white shit. He's funny, real, and really good, and now I think I found my "mentor to look up to"

What is GD? Not boring the shit out of your audience while still trying to clearly communicate a subject matter.

What is TYPE? To me, it is NOT six lies of Helvetica on a white sheet.

RESPONSIBILITIES? To be more like Stefan Sagmeister cause he is the shit.

More VALUABLE? Learn the rules now, break them later, and then find a happy middle ground to create a platform in which I can just create super awesome design, NOT ART. Count it.

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

Meaning: Rheinfrank/Welker/McCoy

Meaning by John Rheinfrank and Katherine Welker

Initial thoughts:

Wow. The meaning of meaning is.....?

"Consider the laboratory, which has played an essential role in the formation of scientific practice. As designers we might sit at a drawing board and design a laboratory using the latest in architectural style and fashionable office furniture, yet neutralize, or (worse yet) even destroy the basis for advancing scientific practice. However, when our starting point is the (situated) acceleration of scientific practice and its social construction, and entirely new rang of objects reveal themselves most of which cannon (and should not) be constructed at our drawing boards, but as part and parcel of the ongoing work of the laboratory and the organizational culture within which it is embedded."

To start, this may or may not have been the most confusing article I have ever read. I am not sure it is because it's Spring Break and I am doing home work, or if the phrase "crafting situations through the design of and object" is the part that confuses me but I found myself lost most of the way.

But there was some hope, above I have selected a quote that I found myself slightly understanding, and I am going to try and explain why.

Quote One: What I took from this quote is that it is not our responsibility to use the latest techniques and the latest trends to create an object or place. This in essence follows form over function. And in the example designing a laboratory in this manor, doesn't do it any justice. But if you take what the item's primary function, for example "the formation of scientific practice" as your starting point, then you have a greater chance for success. So in taking what a laboratory is, and designing your building around it's primary needs and it's meaning instead of using the latest architectural style and modern furniture, the success will be greater in applying it's construction based off it's meaning.

One thing that I am still trying to comprehend is the idea of "meaning-in-situ." What I am understanding from this is, is that an object designed on a drawing board, or in a studio, can take on an entirely different meaning outside of the place that it was initially designed. And that may have positive or negative effects, shedding light upon things that were not taken into consideration in the designing phase. When an object is designed it's meaning in it's intended situation needs to be considered, and then fused into it's design to make it function better when it is in it's environment.
Rethinking Modernism, Revising Functionalism by Katherine McCoy

Amidst the confusion of the "Meaning" article, I found plenty of clarity in Katherine McCoy's article concerning her switch from Swiss Modernism to Post-Modernism. Something that was so similarly related to our "Cult of the Ugly" paper, McCoy's article brought something upon me that I initially didn't know, she was once a Modernist. She had her work critiqued by the King of Modernism, Massimo Vignelli, and she followed the Helvetica on a grid type structure. But from then on she did something different. She quote found "this desire for "cleanliness" as not much more than housekeeping." So she began to search for a more expressive design one in which text can be animated, and images and messages can be left up to audience interpretation and participation, letting them construct the message. What I initially didn't know was that Katherine McCoy, once followed the rules of her movements predecessor, and then decided to break it. I initially thought of her and the Cranbrook Academy as ruthless in it's experimentation and it's byproduct, but to know that one of those who lead the charge, in fact knows and studied what she is rebelling against, is a lot more respectable.

Questions:

What is GD? It is the display of a message in its situation. The message can be the same but based on where it is placed or how it is positioned, the means for it to be displayed can differ.

What is Typography? Typography is NOT always Helvetica on a grid, it can animate, act, and allow for viewer interpretation.

Responsibilities: Experiment and try new things, but to do it with caution. Experimentation is the engine of process, but it can also produce garbage. So find my voice and share it with the world, but make sure that it is done with precision and a thought process.

VISCOM Valuables: Learn to fail, but learn from it at the same time. With out failure we can't find a different type of success, so fail now, and learn to apply it to a better end production.