[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1505551729425m.jpg (177 KB, 1024x703)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
Computers have ruined graphic design and made the world an uglier place.
>>
Here's a poster from the 50s. No computer.

You're just thinking graphic design was better before computers simply because all the terrible posters created before that time have been forgotten.

People only saved what they thought to be the best posters from those times and trashed the ugly ones.
>>
Another poster from the 70s this time (still no computers) that probably missed the trash.
>>
And a magazine cover from the 60s. It looks like what you posted no?

My point is: Terrible designs existed back then. the collective memorie just forgot about them.
>>
>>319530
looks pretty dope, ffam
>>
>>319530
looks like brutalism, cool shit.
>>
>>319534
Looks better.
>>
>>319533
This is funky.
>>
>>319530
This ones tremendous and literally all 3 are fucking galaxies ahead of that Cosmo shit - and that is (probably still) a 'top' /gd/ job and its utterly irredeemable average af shit.
>lets put, y'kno, FLAMES in the 'O' of hot! Ha!
fucking kys, srsly. Please post what you think is an example of good, modern PC-based /gd/ - I'm interested now. Mass market or advertising only, be comparable to previous.
>>
>>319618
Not that anon but there are tons. What >>319530 said is correct, it's the same reason you get those 12 year-olds saying "I was born in the wrong generation, music was better in the past" despite this being literally the greatest and most accessible period for music (and general creative endeavor) in human history.
>>
The modern cosmopolitan cover might be devoid of character, but it communicates well, there are like 7 articles listed, without being a drag to read, and placed around the model so that the eye always has her in relation to the context of the writing. The older cosmo cover with the model on the right and text on the left looks nice at first glance, but it quickly becomes boring to read, and has little connection with the model. The really old cosmo looks like theres nothing interesting inside other than a story, so they just filled it up with frilly shit and a dog
>>
The designers will know things like the flames in the O Are trash, but its fast, it works, and it sells. They are just dotting i's and crossing t's.
>>
File: 10284642.jpg (53 KB, 640x485)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>319621
no offense but "wired" is just empty letters with jews trying to do journalism, which make the wired into shit with empty letters. everything else is just about fucking freelancers being paid under social care contracts.

i gave this paper many times to convince myself it was worth to read and was always refused the joy to find something new or interesting in it.
>>
>>319522
Magazines are competing with the internet now, most of the information in magazines is already online most of the time.
I think they're trying to say that they have good content by listing some topics on the cover to convince people to buy it, they probably didn't need to do this before because there was no competition.
>>
Same anon.
>>319618
>Please post what you think is an example of good, modern PC-based /gd/
The french magazine M generally has very minimalist and design covers, yet it's sold en masses
>>
>>319635
Other examples.
>>
>>319636
>>
>>319522
Back then you needed to work for hours to create something. Days maybe.

thing is, people don't have time to work that hard on something thats gonna be thrown away the next day.
We need to make things fast and make sure we get the point across at first glance.

Maybe it's not computers that made the world an uglier place...
>>
>>319622
How can you actually defend that shit?
>>
>>319652
People would work that hard if people were willing to pay then to.
>>
>>319790
he's right. the left one is kind spiritually elevating to look at, while ones like that modern example feel like vapid loud repulsive in-your-face shit for dumdum women, yet works way better as a visual language with a flow to quickly capture attention of the potential reader for each major article. commercial graphic design is largely utilitarian minded, sorry.
>>
File: frankie issue 53.jpg (148 KB, 975x1293)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
The magazine with the best covers that i still see circulating around where i live is frankie.
They have a diffrent target audience and it doesn't have a huge circulation.
>>
>>319522
Btw, you are wrong about computers ruining graphic design. They don't design like that nowadays because of computers, it is because of marketing. What is of importance is what sells to normies and Stacy, they don't care how it looks, they care about getting money. It's not just design either, marketing + capitalism has ruined everything, but it is what we have.
>>
File: economist cover.jpg (68 KB, 1242x1617)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
The economist has some awesome covers
>>
>>319606
if by brutalism you mean the opposite of brutalism, sure?
>>
>>319522
Nah, that's marketing and statistic based design aimed at the masses.
>>
>>319628
I like Ars Technica
>>
>>319979
shit that is a fucking awesome cover
>>
I'm glad some magazines this decade have been getting less text heavy and having the graphics/photography pop out more, like:

National Geographic made their logo and cover text much tinier than before

WIRED has gotten much less text heavy over the past year or so

Bloomberg Businessweek is probably the best example of this, actually. when it got redesigned in 2010 it had this huge bar at the top showing a rundown of articles, then they removed it and the covers really started to pop out

cosmo will always look shit though.
>>
>>319610
Yes. It's stinks of jizz, sweat and cunt juice.
>>
>>319635
Great
>>319636
Great
>>319637
Shit art direction. Why put the type over his helmet like that? Surely they took a shot where they could place it better.
>>
>>319814
Looks like something lesbians read.
>>
>>321622
oh yeah and New York Times Magazine has had some great covers recently. they probably make the best covers of any major weekly now, especially since Businessweek has been pushing photography over graphics recently
>>
File: 06cover-type-superJumbo.jpg (348 KB, 1683x2048)
348 KB
348 KB JPG
>>321779
example
>>
>>319979
Fucking saved
>>
>>319621
>>319635
>>319636
>>319637
>>319814
>>319979
I appreciate this style but it always looks overdesigned as fuck to me. This religious worship of Raygun and bold illustration looks incredibly tryhard and overdone all of the time
>>
>>319522
Then make a the world beautiful again you fuck
>>
>>321830
>if you provide criticism on anything then it's your responsibility to fix it, or else you're a whiny hypocrite
>>
where can I find graphic and advertisement style guides from or covering the 1950's?
>>
File: GRAPHICS-COMBINED.jpg (178 KB, 1600x449)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>321850
basically steal from magazine and book covers and logos of the era (IBM, Ice cream parlors, etc) whilst liberally applying any elements from pic related.
An important note, a lot of stuff looks like generic clip art stuff, so keep that in mind.
>>
>>321779
>>321780

Yes, most of them are by Javier Jaen, a really fucking good Art Director, and luckily personal friend of mine. Check his IG, he's got a shitton of interesting conceptual images that more often than not come from his covers.
>>
>>319979
>>320746
>>321782
????????????????!?!?!?w1dehjskckhyiwdiyey IT LITERALLY DOES NOT LOOK GOOD OR ICONIC IN ANY WAY FUCKIGNRJEBW NIGGERS! I HATE ALL OF YOU
>>
>>321903
cool. I'd say he's the best art director I've seen in a (major) magazine since Richard Turley and Businessweek.
>>
>>319534
>3 distinct elements: woman, title, copy
>Ordered composition, copy arranged in a single column
>Consistent use of typeface
>No 'badges' or similar adornments
How is that at all similar to the abomination OP posted?
>>
>>
>>319618
>>
Dumb argument. Computers and the programs are just tools for graphic design. It’s like blaming carpentry for Ikea furniture. The industry is full of amazing talent. If you want to blame anything then blame marketing, and stupid people.
>>
>>321780
>>319979
So tired of this garish symbolism
It's not the '60s anymore
>>
>>319637
wow this one is so rapey
>>
File: 1500871663170.jpg (1.89 MB, 2895x3861)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
>>319979
>>
>>322919
Oh boy have you seen Bloomberg's covers lately?
>>
>>323093
some of my favorite covers came from businessweek, especially in the richard turley era
stuff like that is great
>>
>>321783
None of these look like Raygun at all dude. And Raygun's style is definitely not popular any more

I'll agree they are overdesigned. Illustrations are far too often cluttered and not really looked at. People generally are put off by tons of shit going on in one page, it's why smartphones are so popular - the design is extremely simplistic and straight forward

This isn't to say people do not stop to read, but you can't just blow your load with a huge wall of text any more or a massive infographic with too much data like they have a duty to explain the entire story in one go to someone who is unfamiliar
>>
File: 1476152110578.jpg (26 KB, 349x341)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>321780
>Writes article bitching about the basic effort needed to not be an obese shit
>Name is "Taffy"
>>
>>319522
you re mistaking computers for communications and also you re only thinking about good old design because the survival bias
>>
>>321622

>caring about magazines after 2005
>>
>>324030
i still like print
>>
>>321917
that sounds like something i would've said 2 years ago
>>
File: noma1.jpg (42 KB, 481x650)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>319979
well thats because noma bar is a negative space genius
>>
File: soojinXvictongai.jpg (1.24 MB, 1280x1688)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
>>323097
thats because business & financial subjects are some of the most ripe for interesting conceptual illustration & design.
the subjects themselves are inherently kinda dry so engaging and eye catching imagery is super important.
take this one for example - Art direction by the LEGEND Soojin Buzelli
>>
File: crumbs2.jpg (75 KB, 500x650)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>319522
dunno mate - heres some covers for a little food magazine I see around bristol all the time
>>
File: crumbs3.jpg (76 KB, 502x650)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>325369
>>
>>319522
>Feminists prefer the right over the left
How "empowered"
>>
>>319814
Eyy Frankie is great, and the paper is awesome
>>
Computers didn't kill graphic design. Cosmo just use to be good, and now it sucks.
>>
File: camels.jpg (40 KB, 400x512)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>325368
oo thats really nice

and yeah, I can see why these magazines need eye-popping design (or just really unique photography), without stuff like that every business magazine would probably look like Forbes

i like how a few (Economist and Businessweek come to mind) also seem to have a really odd sense of humor on their covers, like this classic
>>
>>325428
*on a few of their covers

another example
>>
>>319522
I think your premise is faulty from the start. Design is, first and foremost, commercial work. Computers simply made this work much easier to produce. In turn, this made design as a job much more accessible, and saturated the field with cheap labor force. If companies don't care much about good design and just pick a cheaper option, then this is how it is.
Also, you picked an awful example. Believe it or not, Cosmopolitan is marketed to tweens with shit for brains. So their cover works for what it is. Moreover, print is slowly fading away, it's far from its golden era.
>>
i just learned graphics design got nothing to do with computer graphics i was so close from starting a fight
>>
>>325367
this one is pretty shit. not a good example at all.
>>
File: CxdqrL4XEAAI4Gg.jpg (577 KB, 1536x2048)
577 KB
577 KB JPG
>>323093
>lately
it's all been somber, boring, safe shit since their redesign
in bid for "clarity" they removed their personality component entirely
and also brains
and balls
I am frustrated that what once has been sparking is now dead, and I wonder if other people like me who don't care for "business" are too. Did they burn out? People moved on or went away? Actual businessmen grew tired of nonsense graphics and wanted no more?
Is their current design just as faceless as it looks, or does it hold up among others?
>>
File: 2Kw2CoxBVzY.jpg (47 KB, 450x600)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>326351
I'd say there's a bit of creativity and uniqueness still in Bloomberg. Some of the website's features still have really weird GIFs (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/why-apple-s-homepod-is-three-years-behind-amazon-s-echo) and some have weirder design (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-sports-drinks-wars/, click the thirst war text)

The actual magazine itself, yeah, it lost some personality in its redesign. But I think they kept some of its charm while losing the absurdity. If they don't have images ready their articles still have those neat vector drawings. Some of the stuff they do with the Druk and Neue Haas Grotesk fonts they love are nice. Or, at least, their covers are still much more unique looking than its text-heavy competitors like Forbes. Some of its covers are pretty striking.

Just look inside some of the magazines since the redesign (http://magazinelib.com/?s=bloomberg) and judge yourself.

I think pic-related is one of my favorite covers since the redesign.

But yeah, I still heavily miss the old Businessweek. Been hoarding some of the old 2016/17 issues from the local library's book sales.
>>
File: -1x-1.jpg (978 KB, 658x877)
978 KB
978 KB JPG
>>326351
Also, I remember Creative Review was talking about some of the reasons they left the old look
1. The man who created the redesign back in 2010, Richard Turley, left the company in 2014 for MTV and his successor, Robert Vargas, has ran it ever since. It was talking about how it got "too goofy" under Vargas' helm (not like Turley didnt have any goofiness) and especially after the editor changed in 2015, didnt have a clear focus anymore. So they changed the look.

Also just found this new cover. Pretty funny headline, at least to me
>>
File: 0530250.jpg (321 KB, 2363x3150)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
>>326353
I liked this one out of the afters. It's "well done".
But the way it's worded doesn't feel like them before.
About the others, well
It's all so 'meh' I'm getting really confused if it's them or me.
I suspect their downfall began right somewhere around the time when they made yet-another-it's-boring-company-lmao joke ahaha

Concerning their web efforts, compare these:
https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/year-ahead-2014/
https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/year-ahead-2015/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/year-ahead-2016/
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/year-ahead-2017/ - my favorite!
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/companies-to-watch-2018/

"we grid now" is overrated
but underrated also
>>
>>326359
was it him who did that web punk lmao redesign at mtv?
i don't hate it
>>
File: planesex_.jpg (326 KB, 768x1024)
326 KB
326 KB JPG
>>326363
I think he did some video design for MTV News and that MTV No Chill block that lasted for a very short time. Wouldn't be surprised if MTV2 was using the Druk font because of him.

He didn't last long there, he now works at some advertising agency.

>>326362
Not gonna lie, this year's "The Year Ahead" issue had some boring-ass design. I don't think anything can come close to the 2015 (b&w dystopian future) and 2016 (parodies of other magazines) issues in terms of design, especially with the rebranding.
>>
File: monsantocover.jpg (272 KB, 733x979)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
>>326365
i think this might be my favorite cover
>>
>>326380
how have i never seen that one before that's beautiful
>>
File: basket-ballmer.jpg (106 KB, 800x811)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>326385




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.