Both American Apparel and American Airlines have very similar branding, but their separation is made through kerning, color, weight, and space variables

As Graphic Artists, our daily job and requirement is to clearly communicate (through imagery) the emotion, representation, and goals of the businesses that we create for. If Graphic Artistry is your job, you may know through experience that successful work is not just creating original artwork, but capturing and excelling the clients accumulative brand. Early stage Graphic Artists seek to create original artwork first, and find a way to make it work for the client second. The unfortunate nature of the beast is that even Graphic Artists who have years of experience still want to make original artwork. It’s not unfortunate because of this drive to create original artwork (or else we wouldn’t have a job), but the idea that a strive for original artwork in itself creates competition.

Museum of Arts and Design material created by Pentagram

In more recent news, the publication of “rips” or “copy-cat” content and work has become more frequent. My goal is to demolish this sense of competition through basic logic. While the depth of these two ideologies (original artwork and brand communication, yes, two different ideas) proceeds much more than I could write in short terms. I still want to give it a try. If you really think about it, life only has so many choices, and on a daily basis we make only a select few amount of choices (or decisions). “Should I go to the grocery store or stay home?” We turn these choices into variables, and with Print and Web, these variables are even more limited. How? The decision to match one idea to another is a choice and over time ultimately becomes a limitation. But limitations to design are not bad. Our limitations to design keep our idea’s plausible. If we didn’t have these limitations, designers would no longer need theory, and our work would no longer be valuable. If you believe that another person hasn’t matched the same two variables you did when you had that next “big idea” then your mistaken. We take one idea, match it to another execution, and try to make it equal innovation (this is the light version of this equation).

India cellular provider Tata advertisement created by
Wolff Olins

But before I go too in-depth about the idea of limited variables, I mentioned that this article isn’t about that. It’s about disproving the idea that original artwork is “good design.” Some of the biggest brands in the world use the same styling. We could look at American Apparel, and American Airlines. Both use Helvetica, roughly the same weight, and even have close to the same amount of lettering to make up their name. But the public doesn’t see it as a “copy-cat.” Why? If you have watched Helvetica the film, you would know that Helvetica was the correct type face to capture the right brand emotion, bridging the consumer gap to the corporate mentality. The goal was to make the customer feel as though the corporate identity wasn’t “above you” or “not welcoming.” One of the main reasons Helvetica became so over-used is because of this transparent and modular nature. But using the most recent public logic of “copy-cat” material, one firm would be the business who used it first. Then the designer or firm who used it next would be bombarded with brief, one or two sentence cave-man-like negative comments about their recent work.

One sentence comments feel good, like this hot tub I am in

The extremely funny thing about this type of logic, is that the more a specific style or “trend” is used in design, it becomes less innovative. Causing these “trends” to be used more frequently, and the more frequent it is used, the more chance it has of becoming a design style (it is no longer a trend — i.e: grids in design was used as a trend first, but then became a rule). This is the natural evolution of the industry. But how can we simplify this? Instead of changing the evolution, how can we change our thinking? Easy, designers need to take less focus into what is original material, and more focus into how well that material or collateral accomplished the communication the brand was seeking. From a designer to designer basis, we still judge each others talent based on how radical their material is from the rest. When in reality, that’s not successful design nor do I feel it is the best way to judge design in general.

There is no direct answer to this riddle, because if designers stated more clearly what the client or brands communication goals where, we would no longer need the visuals to express them. It’s quite the oxymoron in a way. But we can challenge these facts by thinking about another idea, that maybe it was not two designers or two firms that copied each others material. Instead, maybe it was two brands looking to emotionally and visually communicate the same message.

I picked up this book fairly recently, realizing that I was extremely late to do so. I remember all the of initial public shock of the books first days on shelf, but I just couldn’t find the time to pick it up. At a point when I was desperately looking for inspiration, and not finding it online, I decided to take a step away and go hunt down this amazing book.

The fairly large front cover and large type on the sides made it quite easy for me to find it on a shelf of hundreds. Once I found it, a rushed smile appeared to my face as I instantly knew this would entrap my inner design humor. There is a funny sense of humor designers and artists sometimes have, mostly just being so blatantly childish that it just makes anyone smile. But our “designer smile” also pops out because of the second thought we have, which most times shows through as an inner monologue saying something like, “Man, why didn’t I think of that.”

The book contains hours of effort and planning, which isn’t seen often

The depth of this book proceeds further than it’s very visual cover, very modular and transforming nature, and the very bright content. The book contains hours of effort and planning, which isn’t seen often. The content is simply useful, not in the fact that it’s just useful, but what I mean is that if you don’t find the content to be insightful, you’re probably not looking hard enough. It’s quick, to the point, and instantly inspiring. A journal, bible, and trophy for all Graphic Artists and collectors.

Purchase this book from Amazon. Watch a video demonstration of this books beauty:

First there was CTRL+ALT+DEL, then there was Throwboy. One thing was missing for the designers, though. We couldn’t possibly cuddle without our trusty tools of choice, the Adobe Creative Suite!

The happily creative couple, John Schlemmer and Amanda Uchida, finally solve that problem to bring to us all the cushy, cuddly MySuiteStuff collection. Hand-made with love, these stuffed Adobe icons fill our proverbial room’s dock with designer joy. They’re new, so follow them on Twitter and order yours… now.

Have you ever gotten caught up in using the same words to describe a design? Well don’t, there are plenty of other really great words in the dictionary that can describe a design, style, mood, or feeling much better than your classic “minimal, simple, or great”

In an effort to help young designers, old designers, and people of all ages, I give you The Lingual Proposition. Twenty seven choices of words to describe a design better than the ones you use now. Print available soon.

1. Proportionate
Definition —Proportioned; being in due proportion; proportional.
2. Elegant
Definition —Gracefully refined and dignified, as in tastes, habits, or literary style: an elegant young gentleman; an elegant prosodist.
3. Organic
Definition —Characterized by the systematic arrangement of parts; organized; systematic: elements fitting together into a unified, organic whole.
4. Post-Modern
Definition —1949, from post- + modern. Originally in architecture writing; specific sense in the arts emerged 1960s. Postmodernism defined by Terry Eagleton as “the contemporary movement of thought which rejects … the possibility of objective knowledge” and is therefore “skeptical of truth, unity, and progress.”
5. Fantastic
Definition —Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
6. Soothing
Definition —To tranquilize or calm, as a person or the feelings; relieve, comfort, or refresh: soothing someone’s anger; to soothe someone with a hot drink.
7. Gorgeous
Definition —Splendid or sumptuous in appearance, coloring, etc.; magnificent: a gorgeous gown; a gorgeous sunset.
8. Beautiful
Definition —Having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: a beautiful dress; a beautiful speech.
9. Functional
Definition —Having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed: functional architecture; a chair that is functional as well as decorative.
10. Gregarious
Definition —Gre⋅gar⋅i⋅ous⋅ly; social, genial, outgoing, convivial, companionable, friendly, extroverted.
11. Dramatic
Definition —Characteristic of or appropriate to the drama, esp. in involving conflict or contrast; vivid; moving: dramatic colors; a dramatic speech.
12. Candid
Definition —Free from reservation, disguise, or subterfuge; straightforward: a candid opinion.
13. Unique
Definition —Existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
14. Stylistic
Definition —Of or pertaining to style.
15. Shaped
Definition —Designed to fit a particular form, body, or contour: a shaped garment.
16. Eccentric
Definition —Deviating from the recognized or customary character, practice, etc.; irregular; erratic; peculiar; odd: eccentric conduct; an eccentric person.
17. Tasteful
Definition —Taste⋅ful⋅ly; elegant, chic, refined, suitable, becoming.
18. Brief
Definition —Using few words; concise; succinct: a brief report on weather conditions.
19. Fashionable
Definition —Current; popular: a fashionable topic of conversation.
20. Theatrical
Definition —Of or pertaining to the theater or dramatic presentations: theatrical performances.
21. Elevated
Definition —Raised up, esp. above the ground or above the normal level: an elevated platform; an elevated pulse.
22. Delicate
Definition —So fine as to be scarcely perceptible; subtle: a delicate flavor. See also detailed.
23. Graceful
Definition —Characterized by elegance or beauty of form, manner, movement, or speech; elegant: a graceful dancer; a graceful reply.
24. Fluent
Definition —Easily changed or adapted; pliant.
25. Polished
Definition —Refined, cultured, or elegant: a polished manner.
26. Effortless
Definition —Requiring or involving no effort; displaying no signs of effort; easy: an effortless writing style.
27. Enjoyable
Definition —Giving or capable of giving joy or pleasure: a very enjoyable film.
29. Thank You
Definition —Patrick thanks all who reads, and appreciates those who comment.

Just one of the concepts from Happy Cog on redesignmozilla.org

Just recently, Happy Cog created a Web site called Redesign Mozilla. It gives the public a chance to view the design process for one of the most reputable companies on the internet, Mozilla. I find the experiment completely awesome, because people get to see inside of the designers mind, and get to interact with the designs Happy Cog is attempting to pitch (acting as sort of a public focus group).

But, it does raise a couple of questions in my head. In our past thread, George Thompson made a really great point in the Tropicana discussion, basically saying that sometimes things don’t need a redesign. A good friend sent me the book Designing Design by Kenya Hara and in the book it sort of dabbles into the same points, I will do my best to review the book later. But if we cannot understand why things need a redesign, then the object or brand probably didn’t need to have one in the first place.

Elegant, unique, and easy to navigate.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Happy Cog, just like the other 50,000 fan boys out there who whimper at the knee’s to the sight of Mr. Zeldman. But does Mozilla.org really need a redesign? Couldn’t they just use the very good looking Mozilla.com design and make a variation of it? I’m afraid that this might take the toll of Tropicana from the mock-ups I have seen so far.