[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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




I saw a lot of this style of pics on trendlist.org. it has been prominent everywhere since around 2010, and recently it got more mainstream exposure with Life of Pablo.
who exactly started it? any theory to it, what is it inspired by? I am late to the party and I've seen no discussion of it.
I see it's kinda lo-fi/ironic, very minimalistic, and makes '90s references like web 1.0 and rave flyers; the cropping and counter-intuitive placement of elements evokes David Carson vibes. But, I'm reading a lot of early 20th century influence in it too, like Piet Zwart/Theo Van Doesburg/Jan Tsichold/early Bauhaus, with all the use of overprint, ladder type, generous white space, vertical type, and so on. Sometimes there's also a Memphis-style wiggly line there, or Art Deco geometric typefaces. I guess that's a retro part of it.
>>
some more examples just in case
>>
so what this style does is put a focus on typography, specifically unconventional, distorted, or type on a path. usually two or more different typefaces and font sizes, others use 3d text as well or faux 3d effects on the text. the images are usually not altered too much. as i was toying around with this stuff i found that playing with the background or images too much makes it lose its quirky but clean appeal, which is this style's greatest strength.
i dont know who started it but i have seen this around like you and have toyed around with it. i know of a few designers that inspired me and do this stuff very well but in a more interesting way but i wont give them away because i dont want you all to make this style more played out than it already is. good luck.
>>
>>345111
well do you know the early constructivism and dadaism-era GD, around 1920s? I think they deliberately emulate design of that era. bent lines, hyphens, line breaking, repetition, lots and lots of white space, randomly placed images, overlapping—all this stuff seems to be taken straight out of 1920s, and geometric fonts further hint at it. picrelated is Theo Van Doesburg's work from around that era.
>>
>>345111
the second influence I see is 1990s—web 1.0/Word Art/rave flyers and other unprofessional stuff, maybe with some David Carson vibe. the latter I guess is responsible for bright, often clashing colors, wingdings and clipart, ugly gradients, stretched Arial, cheap black printing, scanned image, and stuff like that. it seems like it emulates the simple tools of early digital editors, and even makes the "badness" of it apparent—elements deliberately obstructing each other, for example. the photographs seem to look deliberately unprofessional, often weirdly cropped and without lighting/editing.
>>
File: pietzwart.007.gif (188 KB, 550x814)
188 KB
188 KB GIF
>>345111
however, I'd say despite its "experimental" appearance, this style is narrowed to the range of its influences and doesn't really go outside of them. it's obviously not dada or postmodern of the '90s—it's very "clean", simple and minimalist. the lines of text can get crazy, but the fonts are pretty "boring" and the letters are only changed in very few simple ways—I guess to echo early digital tools and 1920's experimental typography. the whole package appears deliberately abstract, and focused on tools of typography and collage, deliberately treating type and photos as just graphic elements on a (usually) solid background.
you can also see they omit elements which had been run into the ground in the '90s—crazy fonts, lines of text with letters in various fonts and sizes, "controlled chaos", complexity, hybridity and so on. so if you look at picrelated, they don't reflect Dada chaos of Zwart for instance. also, when they do reference the '80s abstract shapes and wiggly lines, they make them minimalist and geometric. so nothing too "crazy" in there.
>>
File: Greiman.png (493 KB, 899x295)
493 KB
493 KB PNG
Diggin the april Greiman aesthetic aswell.
>>
>>345195
Well perhaps to an extent, but Greiman's work is far more chaotic, 3-dimensional, symbolic and playful. Of course she had elements overlapping and layering, and she embraced early computer design too; but that was but one small side of her work, and it wasn't what she was all about. and rarely if ever she had elements plain obstructing each other and sacrificing legibility/image.
>>
>>345195
I get more of a Carson vibe from this obstructing/croping/falling apart aesthetic; especially when you consider most of it was just typography. however, it's all without grunge and nearly no editing of letter shapes.
but really it's hard to say, since most '90s postmodern experiments echoed that same 1920s Dada/constructivism in many ways.
>>
Just because it's intentionally shit doesn't make it not-shit.

I will never get the appeal of these "ironic" designs.
>>
>>345211
I think it's not "bad" or "ironic"; I see it as an attempt to capture a certain design aesthetic.
it doesn't look like it, but there is a system to this style; it seems piss easy to make these things but you won't _quite_ capture the vibe of it. what goes on, mostly does below the "surface"; it's all in the layout and typography. and I kind of like how its radical approach differs from most design of today.
compare this to vaporwave which usually gets reduced to tokens such as statues, palm trees, and other superficial symbols.
>>
>>345156
this is true. it looks sort of haphazardly pt together and "chill" but in reality its fairly constrained. the layouts are usually heavily constrained in a simple grid. the real interest seems to come in the interplay between unconventional (by mid 2010s standard) typography and the images used. often the images are simple photograhs which dont really have anything to do with anything, and othertimes the images are clean but simple cartoon things that were done in maybe 4-5 clicks using the pen tool in illustrator
>>
>>345211
the word "ironic" gets thrown around alot. theres nothing "ironic" about this. it might be trendy but it isnt ironic.
>>
>>345227
>unconventional typography
well this is the thing I wanted to stress though—although it is indeed unconventional, in the postmodern era type "experiments" went far further (see picrelated for example, or any Carson/Brody/Greiman/Fella whatever work).
not sure if it's deliberate or not, but in this new style, the font choices seem really constrained and "tame" by comparison—almost as "boring" as websafe. the font within one line is usually kept unchanged, and when there are any effects used, they are noticeably basic—strike-through, stretching, faux italics, rotation, type along path… looks almost like the basics of graphics editing. maybe aside for photocopied letters. also as I mentioned, everything is noticeably flat.
so by some standards, it looks tame by comparison
>often the images are simple photograhs which dont really have anything to do with anything, and othertimes the images are clean but simple cartoon things that were done in maybe 4-5 clicks using the pen tool in illustrator
I suspect it's a deliberate attempt to show the tools and process of design. and the breaking and obstructing of elements works to create abstraction, to treat the message just as "text", and photos just as "images". I quite like this aesthetic and the reduction of elements to their "honest" nature. Perhaps it's a break from decades of glossy, "over-produced" design, and a sort of a middle finger from designers to the world.
>>
>>345230
That's lettering. Not typography. The typography in your example is totally conventional. More than other stuff posted ITT
>>
File: bangkok1C03.jpg (107 KB, 811x1171)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>345426
ok yeah I missed that. I meant type in general, both lettering and typography.
but even the pure typography of this style is not nearly as "crazy" as Carson or Marinetti.
>>
>>345428
i dont really get what your point is. so its not as crazy as the postmodern experiments of the 80s and 90s. So? Most of that stuff is ugly as shit.

the pendulum swing in the 00s. it was all modernist swiss shit up until relatively recently.
>>
>>345439
yes, I just meant that this typography is not as "experimental" as it might seem at first, that's it. it seems to emulate 1920s and 1990s rather than try to break rules and go beyond boundaries
>>
Its interesting seeing you guys try to break down and digest this style into its basic building blocks. I have to say however, this may be a style not worth trying to master. I can't see a demographic who would be drawn into spending money on something with this form of advertisement. Thoughts?
>>
I have to say I love that this thread didn’t degrade into calling other anons fags.
>>
>>346144
Well if you look on http://trendlist.org , you will see that there's demand for it. and after all Kanye and Drake used it.
I think it's just a style for a different, more artsy and less casual niche for design. Today we have flat design, which is of course in demand, and it's widely used for general auditory—public service ads, apps, web and whatever. But a museum or some indie artist might not want to use this style, perhaps exactly because it's so accessible, safe and “mainstream”. They usually want something more cutting edge. So you can see a lot this style used for exhibitions, gigs and so on.
In any case, I was looking at this style trying to understand it, not really to sell it. To me it looked quite mysterious and radical which is quite inspiring. It's not very obvious why it does what it does, and I don't know anywhere where you can read on it—despite it's been going for the last 7 years or so. Too bad.
>>
>>345441
i mean, desu you're comparing these designs, which are totally unknown and by unkown designers, probably just college kids doing an assignment, to people like marinetti and carson and some of the most influential works of design history. of course its not going to stack up.
>>
>>346176
I didn’t mean the quality of execution, but rather what they attempt to do. I am just trying to pinpoint the essence of this style, not much else.
>>
File: frr.jpg (433 KB, 1000x1000)
433 KB
433 KB JPG
I can't see the irony, there is a lot of work on these designs
>>
File: fdvf.jpg (74 KB, 640x640)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
there is a strong 90's rave influence
>>
http://brutalistwebsites.com/

(ironically, even made purposely barely usable/comprehensible, some of them due to aping on web 1.0 lack of anything feel more adequately responsive to user interaction than JS framework and tracking script hell of modern 'sleek' corporate websights. the web has become that bad.)
>>
>>348226
thx
>>
>>345222
>I think it's not "bad"
Yes it is. Objectively. If you can't use the design in the outer world, it's bad design. #1 rule of design is to be utilitarian and to not create friction between the user and the message or object being used. This style serves no purpose and the only people creating and sharing it are edgy late-teenagers/early-twenties. It's made strictly by bad and/or lazy 'designers'. It's the perfect fit for a millennial culture. It's got the cheap and fast manufacturing strategy. It's the fast food of design. Let it die.
>>
>>348243
You're conservative and have no idea what you're talking about. Your "definition" of design only dates to the 60s. Graphic design changes with society and we are not where we were in the 60s.
>>
>>348243
could you be any more opinionated?
>If you can't use the design in the outer world, it's bad design
except you can
>#1 rule of design is to be utilitarian and to not create friction between the user and the message or object being used.
this is #1 rule of Swiss modernists, not of all design. when you put it in context of music or artsy stuff, you simply get dry, boring and lifeless design. this is the territory where modernism has always been looked down upon, this is where you got experimentation of Brody and Carson, and this is exactly where this new brutalism aesthetic gets applied the most.
>It's got the cheap and fast manufacturing strategy. It's the fast food of design.
I think you're delusional. Fast food of design is material design and web templates. if anything, brutalism is anti-fast food.
>>
bamp for cool thread
>>
>>348243
wow, what sad opinions you have.
>>
It's fucking disgusting.
This isn't 'art' this is timmy figuring out photoshop.





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.