No, this post isn't about cheese, sausages or Rivella. The last part of the semester has started this week. It´s the last 4 weeks of my time at the Zurich University of the Arts and of my genuine Swiss design education. I still remain true to my resolution to attend as many design related conferences and events as I possible can and make the most of my time here. Today I went to a panel discussion about Swiss Style. Richard Hollis (design writer, London), Manuel Krebs (NORM, Zurich) and Lars Müller (Publisher, Baden) discussed the history and future of Swiss graphic design and what became known as International Typographic Style. A Style that for some reason is particularly popular in Britain today, where some graphic designers seem to be more Swiss than the Swiss themselves.
It was an interesting though somewhat chaotic debate. Richard Hollis as author of various books, in particular "Swiss Graphic Design" obviously had a lot to say about the history of this subject matter. So much that it was difficult to stop him when he reminisced about the golden age of geometric shapes and sans-serif type. Interesting for me was that he suggested it was the left-wing element in British designers that made them feel attracted to Swiss design. Also that Gill Sans had associations with religion and was therefor not the typeface of choice for British designers despite being the only British sans-serif around at that time was a new and interesting notion for me.
Lars Müller attempted to explain the development of Swiss design in post-1968 times, after the revolution which brought the younger generation to dismiss the Swiss style because of its associations with corporate power for example. He also had a theory about why Swiss design became successful despite similar developments at the same time in different parts of the world: the Swiss are disciplined and cautious, this helped them during the war and it made the whole world admire them. Well, I'm not too sure about this theory, not least since he had to explain it three times to the rest of the panel. A valid opinion though, just like his opinion that Brody and Carson were "nothing", "only a moment in history" and "not worth talking about". As clumsy as his debating style may seem, but there was something likeable about this man.
Manuel Krebs from the renowned design studio NORM shared his view of contemporary Swiss graphic design. He also explained how he and his partner Dimitri Bruni have always been trying to find something that´s different rather than just following a style. They were influenced by postmodern British and American design eg. Neville Brody and David Carson. In a way they then tried to break out of the 'chaotic' new design trends and felt drawn towards clarity and structure. That´s how they became admirers of grid systems, though attaching less importance to the structure and more to the content. In other words: not the grid is important, it´s what you do with it.
And grids were pretty much the focal point of the rest of the debate. Hollins explained that grids have their roots in technical constraints, for example in letterpress printing where it was necessary and made sense to work in a geometric grid system. He found it astonishing that these days designers are still keen on rigid grids and rules even though technology has liberated them. He is suspicious about the grid hype but even Müller-Brockmann used grids in situations where there was absolutely no need for it. Krebs noted that design has always been about technology. Letterpress influenced design as much as digital media does but one has always informed the other.
Lars Müller is clearly opposed to the grid debate. He said "the grid is a metaphor for lack of self-confidence". Today designers spend too much time talking about grids and typefaces and don't even know what they're talking about. They need to go back and learn the basics and then focus on the important things. Grids are there mostly for economic reasons. Designers don't need to reinvent it over and over again, this defeats the point of a grid system. Krebs partly agreed with him and suggested that certain things are tried and tested eg. Swiss style for information systems. This is why NORM is heavily making use of grids in their designs.
Müller suggested that design needs experiments but some things like signage or information design shouldn't be messed with. For this we have grids. I'm not sure if he actually knows of the more experimental, totally unconventional yet very successful examples of information design particularly from the fields of digital data visualisation. I don't think he knew what he was saying either when he said "Swiss style is the manual for driving spaceship earth". He might have been inspired by Buckminster Fuller—but honestly, this statement doesn't make any sense, does it?
Needless to say, the panelists didn't find an answer to the question ´swiss style forever?'. Perhaps there´s no need for an answer to this question. It´s not the style that makes good design. The style or form just serves the purpose of communicating a certain information to a certain audience. If the audience expects Swiss style, then grunge is not appropriate. If they expect grunge, then Swiss style will be considered too rigid and corporate. It completely depends on the context. For me, one of my highest ethics in design is usability and clarity. Therefor I'm probably going to stick with a Swiss style informed approach, not as a slave to grids and rules but as a creative individual empowered to use the style as a tool for information architecture.
There was only one thing that they all agreed on: good designers don't go into advertising.
No comments:
Post a Comment