Reading III
Introduction
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Anna
Oct 10 2021
Vossoughian, Nader (2017). Workers of the World, Conform!
I never thought how something so small as an a4 could affect everything, even the physical space around it.. Or the process of standardization, how it came to be. Standardization does make life and design work a lot easier, and at the same time I wonder what has been lost? As with many structural inequalities, it feels impossible to see all the standardization going on in design and in other areas of life.
And still in design its easy to spot standardization everywhere. We are free but almost forced to use tools like Adobe that come with expensive subscription plans. We use fonts that are their own unified, non-random systems and have licences. Adobes tools and layout encourage a certain kind of design, and color spaces organize color in digital or analog environments.
Standardization also affects the surfaces and spaces the design will be reproduced on. The a4, a Facebook banner.. Especially in commercial digital environments like instagram going outside the frame is not possible, the user cannot decide. And then another thing would be aesthetic ”standards” which we have talked about in previous meetings. I think of the example of the moving image, where with our decreased attention spans we are now more used and maybe require faster cutting than before.
I come to think about color system standards like cmyk, rgb, and how despite these unified systems the color can be vastly different on different screens if the screen is not calibrated, using the wrong profile, or then test printing on different papers. There is a lot of standardization but still color is something that seems to be difficult to get correct. Another unrelated example could be sound, how difficult it is to reproduce it exactly, because the speakers, room and the person listening affect what is heard so much.
Then of course there is Pantone to provide color management. Reading about Pantone’s intellectual property on wikipedia it states:
Pantone asserts that their lists of color numbers and pigment values are the intellectual property of Pantone and free use of the list is not allowed. This is frequently held as a reason Pantone colors cannot be supported in open-source software and are not often found in low-cost proprietary software. (wikipedia)
It is no wonder leaving something like adobe for some open / low-cost software would be difficult for a designer. Clients might expect them to use certain programs or there is no good alternative. It would be possible to make any dimensions you like on adobe, but on what screen or printer would those dimensions work? Would we be forced to work analogically or by coding (not bad options though!). Could we mix our own colors, make our own fonts or use asemic writing?
Raff, Jan Henning (2019). Theories to understand graphic design in use: the example of posters. In Triggs, Teal & Atzmon, Leslie (eds.). Graphic Design Reader.
In our past discussions we have referred to the receiver of the message as a ”consumer/user”, a choice of words which is revealing. The consumer/user in our discussions has at times been someone abstract to please or to challenge, someone who doesn’t always ”get” what we are trying to communicate, as if they were only passively reading the messages we are trying to send as designers (sorry!). Raff’s text this week was then very refreshing since it was interested in the beholder (user/consumer?) of the message. In Raff’s words, the beholder interprets the message, filling in missing information, drawing conclusions… It is active cognition. I also really enjoyed this text in the sense that it explains very clearly why we are using this theoretical framework, and how it links to design.
I found the distributed cognition example very interesting, the use of location and space to think.
Seeing a poster in a certain location might aid in remembering it. Taking a photo of it adds it to a personal archive among other more personal or funny pictures. When thinking about design I rarely think about that it might end up in someones phone archive to act as a memo amongst other random images. Personally I use my camera in this way, and looking at some images also brings to mind where I was going, how was the weather, how I felt.
I do agree with Raff that posters prescribe behaviour, and their placing is revealing. In the places where its most natural to stop and look around, such as bus stops and metro stations, they mostly just have the jcdecaux screens filled with ads (here another standard hehe). Usually you see no other posters, it might be banned. Being forced to see ads when using public transport feels just wrong, especially if they market products harmful to the planet such as meat and dairy or travel.
One wall where it feels less awkward to stop by is the iconic ”Kaiku-wall” in Hämeentie, next to club Kaiku. I also really liked the notion in Raff’s text of how at some places people expect the posters to change, to get information about occurring events. The Kaiku wall is a mix of upcoming and past events. I don’t really use it to that purpose, but it is beautiful to look at. The other day I walked pass it with a friend, wondering about the washed away colors and ripped corners. Of course this was because of covid, so it’s been a long time since this ”calendar” could be updated. It was fun to see how the posters brought back memories, my friend started reminiscing when seeing posters about events she had attended, the people she was with, what happened that night, and the music that was played.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Introduction
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Anjori
Oct 2021
A single ‘world brain’. Ostwald’s unilateral approach to homogenise systems of knowledge makes me realise how creativity, experimentation and abstract/emotional forms of expression has always made some people really uncomfortable because it’s not concrete. Linking moral judgements to efficiency feels like a very modern problem as well, almost impossible to shake off at times. However, I do still agree that certain forms of organisation (for example, the standardisation of paper sizes) not only make work easier and efficient but also any technical standardisation can function as a form of liberation. In the design process we’ve often witnessed how we first start by creating constraints for ourselves because this in turn opens up infinite possibilities for inventiveness.
It’s interesting that when I started reading Ostwald’s views in the first two paragraphs of the reading my mind directly went to Hitler’s regime and the Nazi ideals and further down in the text the author actually outlined many similarities between the two, it’s unmissable.
I think the first part of the text makes me consider the difference between homogenising and democratising systems of knowledge. The latter gives us a choice and does not force upon us the absolute ‘truth’. There is room for the new and fresh.
I’d also like to mark how standard systems once adopted widely tend to become indispensable and we even lose the choice of not adopting them because it could be detrimental to our growth and proficiency. Much like the established systems in graphic design sometimes weigh heavy on me in my process as I wonder if I should always play safe and within the bounds of what was told to me or can I find the courage to provoke, break-away and make a new system itself?
It also takes me back to our last discussion in Reading Group II about how social media and capitalism cannot sometimes be done away with because it is not without consequence.
I quite liked reading Raff’s research paper. I think on some level, as visual artists/designers we do know how powerful graphic design can be in a socio-cultural context, that it’s much more than a decorative accessory. The research paper materializes and legitimizes this notion in a rather scientific way.
Personally, this is the approach I would always like to take in my practice or any project that I may be a part of. Any design that is created independent of these considerations-i.e., keeping the user and socio-cultural context as central to our work, especially in today’s era, is bound to be incomplete or surface-level.
This idea also makes me feel a little powerful as I realise the responsibility and potential our work has to make a very deep, long lasting impact in the world as we know it.
Introduction
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Sofia
Oct 2021
Both of these texts relate greatly with two of our main topics in our past discussion: why is there a need for organization, a “mathematical structure” in a medium so abstract as graphic design?, and what is our responsibility as graphic designers and the influence we have on the “consumers”?. I’ll start with the first. (Also, I must add that these texts were so much easier to read :D)
“Workers of the World, Conform” was very interesting and strange. The text starts out a bit with the history with how A4 papers and the measurements we use for printing nowadays came to be. I felt the tone of the essay at this point was positive, and that the standardization of paper formats (among other things) was seen as something beneficial for society. Nonetheless, it ends up being very critical of this imposition of unification and how all it achieved was a way to control us (something that we could already sense from the title of the essay). Sometimes it was hard to decipher whether he was criticizing or supporting the subject that was being discussed. I agree on certain aspects but I also believe he states a much more dire situation and ends up disregarding the advantages and progress such standardization brought. It’s true that during World War II and subsequently in the Soviet Union, such rigid imposition of unification took a grim turn. Especially in graphic design, with the censorship of the media and the use of propaganda to “control and manipulate” society. Nonetheless, the initial ideals (obliviating the whole “World Brain” thing which was really creepy and weird) that gave form to the implementation of DIN 476, the circulation of knowledge and efficiency in doing so, were achieved and greatly beneficial for the communication and connection of the world. I had never even considered the hassle it must have been before the standardization of paper size and the miscommunication or issues such a variety of sizes must have produced. Standardization (on certain aspects and up to some point) has been beneficial for societies since centuries ago. When Napoleon Bonaparte came into power (yes, we know he ended up becoming a dictator but let’s focus on his first years) he implemented a series of reforms that helped the development of the French economy and achieved greater equality for its people. A couple of these reforms were precisely the unification of measurements and the use of the French language in all the country.
Now let’s come back to the present day and the softwares we use everyday. Even though Nader Vossoughian is pretty critical of these softwares and the internet and how we may think we’re operating under the illusion of autonomy but we’ re actually being controlled, I believe that just like the implementation of DIN 476 there are several benefits from the standardization of the softwares we use nowadays. Applying it just to design and the Adobe programs, the fact that we all use the same softwares with the same instruments, allows us to collaborate between designers, communicate easily with the different agents that make part of the medium (e.g printers), have access to a great deal of tools, among other benefits. Now, connecting with our last discussion, we wondered what was the necessity for structure in design? What was the need for establishing the grid system and other “rules” that surged during modernism? At the moment I didn’t have an answer, but under this new panorama and thinking about the rules and structures we have in our softwares nowadays, I believe we need it so that we are able to communicate and collaborate, so that we designers speak the same language. It goes without saying that this also imposes some limits, but therefore it’s part of being creative in finding a way to bend these structures and find new alternatives or propositions. I’m not advocating for standardization, like everything in life there must be a balance, and I believe that in some measure the unification of structures can be very beneficial.
Now, moving on to the second text “Theories to Understand Graphic Design in Use: the Example of Posters”, what I found most interesting is the importance of taking into consideration the context of where our design is going to “live”. We generally just design in our computers without really thinking of the place where it’s going to be located. The thing that all three theories mentioned had in common was that the location of the design was crucial for how the “consumer” related with the information given. It can aid in the memorization of the information, it can determine whether the design becomes a tool for the user, and it can influence the tone of the design. Although each theory had a different approach of the relationship between the subject and the artifact, I found these texts gave useful insight on how we may look differently at our designs and the variables we may want to consider when designing.
There are many variables that influence how a design is “read” and the information the user takes home. Also, according to Actor-Network Theory, a design can even have a “morality” and “strengthen certain socially accepted behaviors”. Connecting this with our last discussion on the role of the designer and his responsibility, this reinforces our conclusion of the need for the designer to make conscious and sensible decisions that take into consideration the influence his work has.
Introduction
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Pinja
Oct 2021
There were some very concrete examples and explanations about how our design work has formed and why. The texts were also a bit lighter, which was a good change of pace, but they were not easier for sure. Personally, I have always been fascinated about the human mind and how people sense their surroundings and objects in it. I think this kind of research can be very useful for us designers. Not only to make better designs for different groups of people but also to understand how our design work is used or seen.
​
I was a little anxious when reading Nader Vossoughians text “Workers of the world, conform!”. The standardization of paper formats has deeply affected many fields of practice. The biggest question that I had was, how does the form of paper affect our graphic design work? Should we try to break those rules and be more creative with different forms? Would the form rules be more helpful than restrictive? I feel like we use the A4 form so often that we rarely question it or try new shapes instead. Could it work if one does something completely new with the paper formats?
​
Like Vossoughian writes: “Today, architectural drawing is effected through a series of algorithmic protocols, the drafting table having been supplanted by a computer interface that plugs into a programmable black box.” It is apparent that the same type of phenomenon happens in graphic design practice as well. There are quite a few programmes that designers use which strongly affect the design process. At the same time, it can be easy to standardize practice and tools so that almost everyone knows how to use the same programmes, but it also narrows down the amount of ways to create designs. I feel like it can be difficult to do something new with the tools that are in everyone’s use, because it might be easier to follow the same style with the same steps that have been done already.
​
The Jan Henning Raff’s text “Theories to understand graphic design in use: the example of posters” was very fascinating to me. The way he describes a poster’s function is eye opening. There is so many ways it can be seen or used and it means so different things to different people. The style and elements that a graphic designer choose to use depends quite a lot on the purpose of the design. Still, one really cannot decide how the audience will read or use the final design. We have a lot of tools to influence this process, but still the meaning will change. Graphic designers decide on their visual projects by thinking how it might influence their audience. Many of the choices that graphic designers make are dependent on the human senses and behaviour. Designers after all make objects often to be useful in some ways.
​
It’s important to realise how many of our every day objects are really some kinds of tools for expanding our thinking or cognition. Almost everything that we see, we can use to memorize things. Posters are made to be seen and they are, like many other designs, made to me memorable. What is designed will at the end appear differently to everyone. Not everyone gets their information from the poster the same way, but for someone the same poster can be a very important social tool in terms of learning information.
Summary
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Anna
Oct 2021
In this weeks meeting we discussed the positives and negatives of standardization. I remember focusing in my intro somehow in the bads of standardization, even when it has brought many positives. We used Adobe as an example, the monthly subscription is indeed expensive and not available to everybody, but then we discussed if a designer had to buy each and every program separately, and if those programs didn’t work together. In a way it is so much easier to pay for a bunch of programs and use it as you please. Another positive is that Adobe has a lot of users, so they get a lot of feedback to make the programs better, and they have huge teams to make it happen. And when the programs are widely used, it is easy to find tutorials answering questions. But choosing not to use Adobe programs can still be very hard, and not without consequence.
We also thought about the differences between homogenizing and democratizing the tools. Graphic design tools are available to more people than before, and that is in part because the tools are standardized (Adobe again). We wondered if democratizing is sometimes achieved by homogenizing, as in the case of the a4 or graphic design tools.
Trends were also discussed, they are not standards, but we could relate that they have a lot of influence in our work. They can be hard to resist, and we discussed feelings of insecurity: how much to follow trends to appear contemporary but still unique? Also the more traditional design rules caused in worst cases fear during the creative process: what if this font / design is just bad? We talked the importance of not giving into the fear as it can be paralyzing. Instead, it is important to leave room for accidents. Reframing the design rules/standards helped ease the fear they can sometimes cause: rules can bring comfort, and create a safe environment to learn and then try new things.
Besides of trends it was cool discussing how our own cultures could also be a source of inspiration for design. Anjori told how in design school bauhaus has been regarded highly, but that recently there has been a discussion how to implement more indian elements and aesthetics to the design. Colombia has its own rich visual history, and what is ”finnish design” can be thought from many different angles.
We talked a bit about posters, how in Helsinki every bar and restaurant have some corner filled with beautiful posters that function in this social calendar way. Design was not only to decorate, but had deeper and varied meanings to different people. In smaller towns in Finland this is maybe not so present, we thought of for example gas stations as meeting places, and the posters and social calendars that might be present there.
As designers we recognized that when designing, we rarely thought about the importance of the location of the poster. It wasn’t so common to interview people about what kind of design is interesting / useful / reachable to them, except for example in accessible design courses. Having test groups sounded really interesting and important in having the correct information about the actual needs for the design.
Summary
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Anjori
Oct 2021
We started by talking about the concept of ‘world brain’ which felt like a dystopian idea. The ways to control people was the similar to the Nazis- with propaganda (creepy indeed).
It reminded us of soviet architecture which is highly structured, homogenous and unwelcoming of imagination.
We questioned the author’s tone in the texts. Was the idea of structure something he supported or totally rejected? Maybe it’s good there was ambiguity, it outlined the pros and cons of the idea of organising too much but didn’t get too specific on his own opinion hence leaving the reader to make of it as they will.
All of us did agree on how much easier life is with the standardised systems. Like Adobe programs for designers are comprehensive and great, and since most of us in the community use these standardised systems to design - technicalities like collaboration with others, sharing/editing files or exporting certain formats becomes much more easy. Also, having a larger organisation controlling it gives us an opportunity to hold them accountable in cases when it’s required, provide feedback and make it better. Of course, their large subscription fee is a concern.
Maybe it’s limited but still opens up many possibilities. There’s also been a surge in designers who disregard adobe programs entirely as a sort of modern design discourse from established and widely accepted systems. Which brings us to the point that when the norms become too unquestionable or obvious, there’s usually a form of protest against it just about to occur. The questioning starts and people may start breaking away from it.
But it’s important to acknowledge how hard it is to change from the adobe programs. How standardisations become hard to shake off because one can’t simply just do away with it without consequences that may be uncomfortable or undesirable. But again, discourses aren’t meant to be easy of comfortable, in fact they’re quite the opposite. We as a group do like the programs by adobe. Standardisations can also create a community to make it better.
It’s interesting how none of us can even imagine a world before standardised paper or weights. Standardisations sink in so deep in the functioning of the society that to challenge them may not even be an idea that occurs in our mind at all. It also reflects on how easily we accept things around us as they are and how we are required to learn and unlearn multiple times before we can even think about discourse.
Homogeneity Vs. democratising. It’s a cycle dependent on the each other. By homogenising we are also democratising. These may not function independent of each other (contrary to what I remarked in my introduction) I realised this after our discussion.
Some other random thoughts we had were:-
-Is design looking more and more same around the world? Because internet!
-Trends are so tricky and dangerous.
-In India, there’s a surge of appreciation for our own culture and it reflects on our graphic design.
-Minimalism in Finland is very dominant.
-Being ‘safe’, not making waves. How disruptive can we be?
Rules are comforting, you don’t have to re-invent the wheel.
(The fear of failure and how it grips us)
Accidents and creativity.
-Experiences around graphic posters. Especially in Finland, they’re reminiscent of many memories.
-City Vs. Countryside. (We elaborately discussed the Importance of Location in how we perceived posters in Finland)
We all liked reading the last text the most because it is concrete & relatable.We connected with the designer’s responsibility towards socio-cultural context (Actor-network theory). It comforted us knowing that design has a deeper meaning and impact. It carries so much information and creates experience. It can mean so many different things to different people. The purpose changes or evolves.
User-centric approach. Thinking backwards. Starting by how design maybe perceived and then coming to the design part is something we all agreed with and looked forward to be ‘able’ to really implement these meaningful ideas in practical ways.
Summary
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Sofia
Oct 2021
Well we started our discussion by talking about how freaked out we all were with the whole “World Brain” thing. It sounded very mind control, 5G and all that stuff. Once we got that off our system we began discussing the advantages and disadvantages of standardization. We applied the unification Nader Vossoughian mentions to graphic design, so basically the Adobe programs. When talking with a printer they’ll often ask us for the ai file in “curves”, when discussing with fellow designers a visual we may wonder whether the texture was done using the “gradient” or the “mesh” tool. The fact that we all use the same programs and language enables us to cooperate, and build a community of support and constant learning. For example, when you don’t know how to do something in let’s say After Effects, all you have to do is search in YouTube and you will surely find a tutorial explaining step by step the way to animate a bouncing ball. This Adobe standardization also allows for feedback and gives us the power to influence modifications on the softwares so they adapt to the designers needs. On the other hand, since Adobe is basically a monopoly of graphic design softwares, they charge a pretty expensive subscription. Nonetheless, we imagined the scenario where there would be different options, we would have to pay several subscriptions like it happens nowadays with the streaming services where you have to pay for Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, Disney +, etc. in order to have access to all the movies and series. By having everything in the same place, we also have access to a great variety of tools.
​
Interestingly enough, we talked about a fellow classmate who decided not to use the Adobe programs. He believes they are too structured, which is true, and have too much power, also true. It’s nice to know people who are willing and capable of defying the established norms. Also, although Adobe is the main software for us designers, there are several new programs, like CANVA, which allow mere mortals to have their go at designing. Because that’s the thing, although Adobe may be inclusive with designers, it definitely excludes the rest of the world. If a non-designer has an ai file and they want to change a small thing, like the date, they must ask a designer to do it for them because they are not going to pay an expensive subscription for a program they rarely use. So is this unification democratizing or containing knowledge?
​
Talking about democratization, a very interesting topic we discussed was the difference between democratizing and homogenizing systems of knowledge. In the first, you have the power to decide and an absolute truth isn’t forced upon you. Nonetheless, in some cases, the way to democratize is to homogenize so that everyone is on the “same page” and knowledge can be spread, like with the implementation of the A4 paper size and once again, the Adobe programs. But at the same time we wonder if such homogenization is trespassing the sphere of the tools into the actual designs. With the openness of the Internet, the global access to references and the development of trends, we feel design is starting to look somewhat the same. One of our group members even mentioned a page where you can see designs from all parts of the world and they look pretty similar. Trends are a tricky thing, it’s hard to break away from them and sometimes you don’t even know how. They can also make you feel left out, like your designs are “out of fashion”. The eternal dilemma of being different and fitting in.
​
We then talked about rules. One of our group members mentioned how in India they greatly admire the Bauhaus and the standards they set a decade ago. Nonetheless, there is a new movement urging people to look at their own country for inspiration. India has so much aesthetic richness in their architecture, traditions, script, etc. We realized that in Colombia and Finland there’s also a great deal of graphic inspiration like the chivas or the Art Nouveau buildings. Maybe designers should start looking for references in their own homes rather than following some German’s rules. But at the same time rules give comfort. They create a safe environment to learn and try new things. Insecurity is something most designers feel and with something so subjective it’s sometimes hard to determine if we are doing something gorgeous or absolutely horrible, so we opt for keeping it safe and within the rules. But it’s okay to make mistakes and disgusting pieces of design. One of our group members mentioned an article which states that accidents are more important for the creative process than the final output.
​
Regarding the “Theories to understand graphic design in use: the example of posters” text, we enjoyed that we were able to connect with the theories the author outlined and thought of situations in our lives where we encountered what he was explaining. It was very relatable. For me personally, in Colombia poster design is not such a big deal and here they are beautiful and very nicely designed. I enjoy going to cafes and scanning the posters on the doors to look for interesting events and design inspiration.
​
A very interesting comment one of our group members made was that she was glad there was a “scientifical” backup to show that design is not just to decorate or make something pretty as so many people think. Design can make a difference. It can prescribe behavior. It can create meaning. And there are so many aspects that influence that meaning making that we as designers need to start observing and being conscious of which are those aspects and how we can use them to communicate the desired message.
Summary
Reading III, The (New) Materiality of Design
by Pinja
Oct 22 2021
This time we were at Annas home in Koskela. It was our last time meeting and discussing ther texts we read, so we prepared some coffee and fudges, of course due to our group name. Right in the beginning of the meeting we all agreed that the term “world brain” that was used in the text “Workers of the world confirm!” was quite creepy. The idea of it sounded repulsive to us.
​
We quickly moved to discuss about standards and what benefits would they have for designers. We agreed that standardization can be good in terms of learning new tools and expanding our own knowledge. In the field of design, standardizing could appear in form of programs. For example, Adobe has a lot of users that only use the same programs. It can be difficult to work without Adobe. It is easy to create tutorials for programs with a large pool of customers and it is more convenient to upgrade the quality of certain programs that have a lot of users. In this case standardization can be good, but it can also leave some people outside. Some might be left out because of their financial status. Not all the people have the same opportunity to get the Adobe license and therefore do not have the same kind of starting point for their graphic design work. Designers using the same standardized programs can also help with communicating and creating communities. Communicating between designers is easier with the same “language” and tools. A community can be formed around the same programs, which can also help with improving the features of the programs when people work around the same programs together.
​
We briefly discussed about the graphic design trends around the world. We wondered if the trending styles are more connected due to the internet. Knowledge and information can be easily shared with people across the world and of course, all that we see has an influence on us. That brought us to discuss about differences in each of our home countries and more specifically between our cities. We all loved the buildings, colours and designs coming from each of our different cultures. The interesting part was that we almost did not notice the details that others noticed in our own home cities. For example, the beautiful letter designs above many high-rise doors in Helsinki. We can become quite blind to what’s happening in our own surroundings.
​
When we were talking about the worldwide trends, we also went through how it feels having to follow certain trends. One thing we talked about is that sometimes it might feel like you are not a good enough designer if you do not follow the trends that are currently in fashion. At the same time, it can be very difficult not to be affected by the trends and stand out by being different from others in your field. The fear of failing also came up. With all the common knowledge and tools, it can feel like it is better to play safe and follow what others are doing. It can also be comforting sometimes when you do not have to reinvent everything. On the other hand, it is important to fail sometimes and not to fear failing too much. Then you have a chance to learn from your mistakes and get to explore new ways to express your design work.
​
Lastly, we had a really uplifting discussion about posters and their functions. It is fascinating how different types of meaning they can have for different people. This conversation led to a comparison between posters of the capitals and posters in countryside and how different these styles can be. We noticed that in the countryside at least in Finland, the poster designs can be very different compared to Helsinki. Most of the posters are in gas stations or local grocery stores. Different posters for different people in different situations.