Brynjulf,

Some answers

>Is it possible to make a posting with (seemingly) only questions and no
>answers?

Apparently, yes.

>Is a desire for simplicity an ethical issue?

It can be

>  If yes, is it universal?

No.

>Real
>or theoretical? Any references on research on the subject? Seen any
>religious or moral explicit preferences or argumentations for simplicity?

Pretty much anything about the Shakers. Even Roman Catholic nuns I
know sing the old song "It's a gift to be simple/It's a gift to be
free/It's a gift to come down where we ought to be."

>Is a simple good better than a complex one? If simplicity is desired, is
>the desire estethical rather than ethical? Both ethical and estetical?

Sometimes each. As with much religious dogma, sometimes they are
indistinguishable. One could make an argument that in rhetoric in
general and visual communication design in particular, stronger work
is indicated by the integration of aesthetic and message (and that
message and ethic are almost inevitably bound.)

Love of simplicity or complexity can cause communication and ethical
problems. I dug out a letter I wrote to Emigre magazine about eight
years ago and pasted it below. I think it addresses the point of
aesthetic triumphing over message.

In case reading about ancient arguments over graphic design
aesthetics is more than you want to face, my key statement was "
Visually complex design usually seems to make a claim to complexity
of content." (The letter didn't consider the delusionary belief that
everything in life is painfully simple [or unbelievably complex] and
that we will all be better off if we treat it as such.)


>Anyway, does it matter whether it is one or the other or both?

If we don't at least try to parse things we can easily make
assumptions that are incorrect. For instance, an earlier post seemed
to connect the golden ratio with minimalism. It is true that the
people who have suggested classical proportions as inherently perfect
often also have believed in classical simplicity as an ideal. I offer
as a small piece of evidence of other possibilities a poster I
designed some years back. It's at
http://www.gunnarswanson.com/posterPages/AIGAstudent94A.html and the
subsequent page. It is two posters for related events printed on
opposite sides of a translucent sheet. While it beats the golden
ratio thing to death, it probably wouldn't evoke the category of
minimalism.

Another similar association is grid-based graphic design and
minimalism. To swallow dogma, ethic, and aesthetic in one lump would
create a false impression about tools and possibilities.

Gunnar
---------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to Émigré magazine, 1994

The interviews in Émigré #30 ("fallout") caused me to reread Steve
Heller's "Cult of the Ugly." I found it as frustrating as I did
during my first reading. Steve raised many interesting subjects then
dropped them before I knew the point. I was greeted with a toad's
sense of beauty-green and bumpy-but we hopped on to other subjects
before I understood. Is beauty truly completely subjective? Or is
Steve calling Cranbrook grads toads? I was told that much current
design work is "aesthetically questionable," but not what is
aesthetically unquestionable . . .

Then on to the subject of ugliness, but our friend the toad and the
questions he raises were unheard. Is ugly in the eye of the beholder?
Is ugly purely cultural, an arbitrary category that changes from
viewer to viewer? Or is there something universally true or important
about "the golden mean . . . balance and harmony"? The only
definition Steve gives for "ugly design" is "the layering of
unharmonious graphic forms in a way that results in confusing
messages." I doubt that a incoherence is really Steve's definition of
ugly, although I suspect it may contribute to the visceral (and maybe
indefinable) sense of repulsion that does identify ugliness.

I share what I presume is Steve's visceral reaction to some of the
work he mentions. "Confusing messages," in some sense of the phrase,
may be at the heart of my revulsion. Certainly much "ugly" student
work is part of normal youthful disrespect for the "adult" world.
Saying "fuck you" to one's elders is a fine tradition and perhaps an
integral part of finding one's own identity. There are many other
good reasons to make a message offensive (visually or otherwise). But
a considerable amount of graphic design seems to say "fuck you"
without really meaning it. Is this merely faddishness, a desperate
desire to stay "on the edge," or some sort of visual Tourette's
Syndrome?

Although I don't think it defines "ugly," it is this confusion of
messages that I find revolting in some of the
Cranbrook/CalArts/Studio Dunbar mafia (and derivative) work I see. I
don't believe that it is always desirable to be clear and certainly
it's not always possible. It is, however, generally desirable to be
honest. Form makes a claim, and designers are responsible for the
claims their work makes.

I can often applaud the layering of disharmonious graphic forms in a
way that results in confusing messages. It is the layering of graphic
forms with no message beyond "it's hip to layer graphic forms" that I
object to. Visually complex design usually seems to make a claim to
complexity of content. When I wade through densely layered design
only to discover that there is less there than meets the eye, I have
been defrauded. (Time and attention are the most valuable currencies
of our information age. It will become more apparent over the next
few years that taking someone's attention under false pretenses is no
less a crime than taking someone's money under false pretenses.)
Dismissing the implicit claims of the form of design reduces graphic
design to mere page decoration. If a generation of decorators is the
best replacement we have for a generation of "visual janitors," we
haven't come very far.

Dishonesty is, of course, not a post modern invention. Most of Modern
graphic design strikes me as a specious argument at best. Instead of
claiming nonexistent complexity, it makes unwarranted claims of
clarity and/or functionality-the typographic equivalent of
"functionalist" buildings with roofs that leak.

I guess this might argue against Rudy VanderLans' criticism of the
blandness of the design of the popular graphic design press-bland
design honestly reflects the generally bland content. On second
thought, something more disjointed might be in order, since the
tradition of graphic design journalism leans strongly toward a series
of unchallenged declarations. "Dialog," when it exists, usually takes
the form of silly pseudo debates on the level of 1970s TV 's "Point
Counterpoint."

The interviews in Émigré #30 took a more serious approach to design
issues than we have grown to expect. Michael Dooley's interviews were
intelligent and thoughtful, as befitting the people he interviewed.
He had the respect for Steve Heller to challenge him rather than
dismiss him. I didn't buy everything Steve said (nor do I accept
everything Ed or Jeff said), but his views were better represented by
being challenged specifically than they are when left on their own.

While Michael Rock worries [in ID Magazine] that the desire for
newness might carry the demise of Émigré, the magazine seems to be
reinventing itself in its desire for thoughtfulness. Keep up the good
work. One possible roadblock to Émigré's raising the intellect of the
design press is its Q&A + letters format. While it has worked well to
personalize new design, there is a limit to the kind of thought that
can be conveyed in that manner. It may be time for essays, articles,
poems or whathaveyou to join the interviews and letters. I urge
Émigré to continue to expand its horizons and prove Michael Rock
wrong-I'm looking forward to Mr. Keedy's essay "And they won't read
this, either" in the Émigré Turns 20 book.

Gunnar Swanson

this letter appeared in Emigre 31, Summer 1994

--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA

+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]

http://www.gunnarswanson.com