Comments on: In defense of the ADC http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/ Eric Karjaluoto discusses design, brands and experience Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:12:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Respiro, the logo design guy http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8067 Respiro, the logo design guy Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:48:26 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8067 On a long run, we need a solid moral foundation. Morality doesn't limit the creativity, in fact, it offers a healthy environment for it. Let's keep it clean! On a long run, we need a solid moral foundation. Morality doesn't limit the creativity, in fact, it offers a healthy environment for it.

Let's keep it clean!


]]> By: Greg Scraper http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8066 Greg Scraper Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:23 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8066 Peter- I think that in this instance there isn't enough copy to justify what's being said stylistically. If what you're looking for is to destroy legibility for the sake of style, you really have to "Carson it up." I'm not necessarily looking for a tuxedo, to continue your analogy, but maybe a white t-shirt wouldn't be wholly inappropriate. There are plenty of ways to keep the postmodern style without beating it into submission. As far as "faux naive" as a concept, there are two reasons that I think that it's out of place on this poster (and in general use): 1) Design as a profession still isn't fully embraced by the general populace, which is in evidence on all those really crappy billboards and signs you see on your drive to work (and, if you're like me, frequently redesign in your mind) every morning. Therefore, to represent design by its lowest common denominator is to denegrate it, and honestly it hasn't been elevated yet. You have to create the rules and follow them a while before you can break them, and even then you have to break them in a way that raises them up conceptually or you've failed. I realize the audience is designers, but as designers we're the most susceptible to the nuances of design, which leads me to number two. 2) This poster is for a contest that is supposed to represent the best in design, and a style that denegrates it (even in jest) just doesn't represent the best in design. Even conceptually it falls short. Are they the first to think of "bad design" as a concept? Obviously not, as Mr. Forward's students prove. With a contest that isn't necessarily the top tier, you need to represent it as best you can. I'm not saying that you can't make a splash, but you have to make the right splash. And I'm still not saying that the problem is with the illustration. It's with the design. To mix in another metaphor, this poster is like an archer shooting from a long distance. A millimeter off to begin with can mean being two meters off from the target. If you're going to take on that kind of challenge, you have to be sure you can do it right. Peter-

I think that in this instance there isn't enough copy to justify what's being said stylistically. If what you're looking for is to destroy legibility for the sake of style, you really have to "Carson it up." I'm not necessarily looking for a tuxedo, to continue your analogy, but maybe a white t-shirt wouldn't be wholly inappropriate. There are plenty of ways to keep the postmodern style without beating it into submission.

As far as "faux naive" as a concept, there are two reasons that I think that it's out of place on this poster (and in general use):

1) Design as a profession still isn't fully embraced by the general populace, which is in evidence on all those really crappy billboards and signs you see on your drive to work (and, if you're like me, frequently redesign in your mind) every morning. Therefore, to represent design by its lowest common denominator is to denegrate it, and honestly it hasn't been elevated yet. You have to create the rules and follow them a while before you can break them, and even then you have to break them in a way that raises them up conceptually or you've failed. I realize the audience is designers, but as designers we're the most susceptible to the nuances of design, which leads me to number two.

2) This poster is for a contest that is supposed to represent the best in design, and a style that denegrates it (even in jest) just doesn't represent the best in design. Even conceptually it falls short. Are they the first to think of "bad design" as a concept? Obviously not, as Mr. Forward's students prove. With a contest that isn't necessarily the top tier, you need to represent it as best you can. I'm not saying that you can't make a splash, but you have to make the right splash.

And I'm still not saying that the problem is with the illustration. It's with the design. To mix in another metaphor, this poster is like an archer shooting from a long distance. A millimeter off to begin with can mean being two meters off from the target. If you're going to take on that kind of challenge, you have to be sure you can do it right.


]]> By: Shane http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8065 Shane Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:14:02 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8065 Well maybe not clever, or a good concept, maybe just a decent concept... How bout we will jsut leave my opinion on the subject as,"It didn't offend me." I would tend to agree taht it isn't the greatest poster in the world. I can't give to indepth of a critique because I've only seen what you've shown on this blog. Well maybe not clever, or a good concept, maybe just a decent concept...

How bout we will jsut leave my opinion on the subject as,"It didn't offend me."

I would tend to agree taht it isn't the greatest poster in the world. I can't give to indepth of a critique because I've only seen what you've shown on this blog.


]]> By: Shane http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8064 Shane Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:02:12 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8064 I'm a very religous person and I think the poster is funny, clever, and a good concept. The illustration, well not my style, and I'm not sure that I would want to hang it up, but it definetly doesn't offend me. I'm a very religous person and I think the poster is funny, clever, and a good concept. The illustration, well not my style, and I'm not sure that I would want to hang it up, but it definetly doesn't offend me.


]]> By: Peter Pimentel http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8063 Peter Pimentel Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:21:26 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8063 Greg: I think that the type is suitably garish. Employing a sophisticated type treatment would be like wearing a tuxedo to a Superbowl party. Regarding "faux naive" design: It communicates a quality of crudeness and ignorance, traits which are certainly not out of place considering the subject matter. The style serves the concept, therefore it "works". "Good", "bad" and "ugly" are subjective arguments and should be removed from the equation. Greg: I think that the type is suitably garish. Employing a sophisticated type treatment would be like wearing a tuxedo to a Superbowl party.

Regarding "faux naive" design: It communicates a quality of crudeness and ignorance, traits which are certainly not out of place considering the subject matter. The style serves the concept, therefore it "works". "Good", "bad" and "ugly" are subjective arguments and should be removed from the equation.


]]> By: Greg Scraper http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8062 Greg Scraper Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:28:54 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8062 I kinda like the illustration. It reminds me of the "Where's Waldo?" books I used to read (ok, not so much "read" as "stare at") as a kid. You get engrossed in the minutiae. The subject matter is fine, and either represents the majority viewpoint of its target audience, or lampoons it, depending on who you are and how you look at it (though I fully admit hardcore conservatives aren't notoriously known for their parodic abilities). The illustration, for all the talk about it, isn't why this poster is bad. Why this poster is bad can be summed up in a few words: Bad Type Choices. Seriously? Red and yellow gradient blackletter on a brown background? I agree with Mr. Forward above that trying to make something look bad on purpose is a faulty design premise, and I'd expound on his argument to say that when you only have a few words to work with, there's not really enough there to even make it look like that's what you're trying to do. The type looks like it was chosen by a middle schooler who idolizes an older brother who details hot rods for a living. What you need there is a simple, clean sans-serif (possibly even rounded) in white to balance out the chaos of the illustration and call attention to the type. I think the whole piece would have benefitted from a typographer's steadying hand. I kinda like the illustration. It reminds me of the "Where's Waldo?" books I used to read (ok, not so much "read" as "stare at") as a kid. You get engrossed in the minutiae. The subject matter is fine, and either represents the majority viewpoint of its target audience, or lampoons it, depending on who you are and how you look at it (though I fully admit hardcore conservatives aren't notoriously known for their parodic abilities). The illustration, for all the talk about it, isn't why this poster is bad.

Why this poster is bad can be summed up in a few words: Bad Type Choices. Seriously? Red and yellow gradient blackletter on a brown background? I agree with Mr. Forward above that trying to make something look bad on purpose is a faulty design premise, and I'd expound on his argument to say that when you only have a few words to work with, there's not really enough there to even make it look like that's what you're trying to do. The type looks like it was chosen by a middle schooler who idolizes an older brother who details hot rods for a living.

What you need there is a simple, clean sans-serif (possibly even rounded) in white to balance out the chaos of the illustration and call attention to the type. I think the whole piece would have benefitted from a typographer's steadying hand.


]]> By: makethelogobigger http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8061 makethelogobigger Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:33:25 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8061 (I need to clarify that my comment here was in response to the BADG post over there.) (I need to clarify that my comment here was in response to the BADG post over there.)


]]> By: John Forward http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8060 John Forward Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:27:04 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8060 Interesting post, Eric. I remember receiving the ADC poster in the mail and was so very disappointed. To paraphrase the young John Kerry "How do you ask a tree to be the last tree to die for a mistake?" This poster... what a terrible waste of natural resources. First off, I'll say that the style of the illustration isn't for me. On purely formal terms, the quality of the drawing seems lacking. It doesn't please me aesthetically. But that's alright. You can't please everybody and I know from experience that I'm hard to please. But there are some things fundamentally wrong with the thing that make me think that the thread on Beadesigngroup has it right in declaring "This ADC poster = crap!" First and foremost, the joke is lame and ineffective. "Final Call for Entries"? If I am to believe the conceit that it's the end of the world, I'd be more worried about packing my flame-retardant undies than about entering a design competition. Which sounds pedantic, I know, but if you're going to make a joke, make it a joke that works. The thing that REALLY annoyed me about this poster is the unbelievably poor quality of the typography on the back of the poster, where all the real communication is supposed to go down. As somebody who loves organizing great big gobs of information, I find the front of the poster annoyingly boring, but the back just pisses me off. This is the Art Directors Club. They hand out awards for excellence in design. And yet they approved for print this glorified Word document? What the hell? Considering the aesthetic tightrope walk of the illustration, a beautifully structured back would've put the whole piece into a different category. Now it's middle school all the way. You mention South Park, the Daily Show, Mad Magazine, R. Crumb, Tibor and Warhol. All these people had and have something to say and show incredible dedication to their craft. This does not. I recognize half an ass from a whole mile away and this is very definitely half ass! I become aware of the various competitions by e-mail and I enter online. If somebody's going to chop down a half acre of beautiful trees to double up with a big old poster, they had damn well better make sure it's worth the sacrifice. This poster is badly executed on every level, and when students tell me of their own work "I KNOW it looks crappy. It's SUPPOSED to look crappy! That's the joke!" I roll up a newspaper and smack them upside the head until they apologize for cluttering up the planet with yet another single, shivering butt cheek of "meta humor." Ironic mimicry is one of the most difficult things to pull off, and these guys failed all around. I still entered the competition, because the ADC's online presence is beautifully thought out and very nicely put together and I'm a whore for awards show metal. Hope springs eternal. Interesting post, Eric. I remember receiving the ADC poster in the mail and was so very disappointed. To paraphrase the young John Kerry "How do you ask a tree to be the last tree to die for a mistake?" This poster... what a terrible waste of natural resources.

First off, I'll say that the style of the illustration isn't for me. On purely formal terms, the quality of the drawing seems lacking. It doesn't please me aesthetically. But that's alright. You can't please everybody and I know from experience that I'm hard to please.

But there are some things fundamentally wrong with the thing that make me think that the thread on Beadesigngroup has it right in declaring "This ADC poster = crap!"

First and foremost, the joke is lame and ineffective. "Final Call for Entries"? If I am to believe the conceit that it's the end of the world, I'd be more worried about packing my flame-retardant undies than about entering a design competition. Which sounds pedantic, I know, but if you're going to make a joke, make it a joke that works.

The thing that REALLY annoyed me about this poster is the unbelievably poor quality of the typography on the back of the poster, where all the real communication is supposed to go down. As somebody who loves organizing great big gobs of information, I find the front of the poster annoyingly boring, but the back just pisses me off.

This is the Art Directors Club. They hand out awards for excellence in design. And yet they approved for print this glorified Word document? What the hell? Considering the aesthetic tightrope walk of the illustration, a beautifully structured back would've put the whole piece into a different category. Now it's middle school all the way.

You mention South Park, the Daily Show, Mad Magazine, R. Crumb, Tibor and Warhol. All these people had and have something to say and show incredible dedication to their craft. This does not. I recognize half an ass from a whole mile away and this is very definitely half ass!

I become aware of the various competitions by e-mail and I enter online. If somebody's going to chop down a half acre of beautiful trees to double up with a big old poster, they had damn well better make sure it's worth the sacrifice. This poster is badly executed on every level, and when students tell me of their own work "I KNOW it looks crappy. It's SUPPOSED to look crappy! That's the joke!" I roll up a newspaper and smack them upside the head until they apologize for cluttering up the planet with yet another single, shivering butt cheek of "meta humor." Ironic mimicry is one of the most difficult things to pull off, and these guys failed all around.

I still entered the competition, because the ADC's online presence is beautifully thought out and very nicely put together and I'm a whore for awards show metal. Hope springs eternal.


]]> By: Eric Karjaluoto http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8059 Eric Karjaluoto Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:55:26 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8059 <p>Hi Adrian,</p> <p>I wanted to respond personally to your comment, and must note that I did hesitate somewhat before posting. I visit your site regularly and like what you folks are doing. As such, I didn't want you to feel as though it was an attack on your site.</p> <p>I acknowledge your opinion of the poster and I appreciate your argument. At the same time, I was a little perplexed by the responses to your post, which felt more like a group indictment than a balanced discussion.</p> <p>As such, I decided to respond on your blog, but somehow it turned in to a whole post. In fact, it resulted in some discussion between my wife and I, as we wrestled with our own thoughts around the notion of "good." Which I feel can be quite effectively argued either way.</p> <p>Thanks for posting and for visiting our blog as well. And one other thing: you're right, "Flaming horses and swords are funny" isn't a better justification. It was intended to be tongue in cheek. ;-) </p>

Hi Adrian,

I wanted to respond personally to your comment, and must note that I did hesitate somewhat before posting. I visit your site regularly and like what you folks are doing. As such, I didn't want you to feel as though it was an attack on your site.

I acknowledge your opinion of the poster and I appreciate your argument. At the same time, I was a little perplexed by the responses to your post, which felt more like a group indictment than a balanced discussion.

As such, I decided to respond on your blog, but somehow it turned in to a whole post. In fact, it resulted in some discussion between my wife and I, as we wrestled with our own thoughts around the notion of "good." Which I feel can be quite effectively argued either way.

Thanks for posting and for visiting our blog as well. And one other thing: you're right, "Flaming horses and swords are funny" isn't a better justification. It was intended to be tongue in cheek. ;-)


]]> By: Adrian http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8058 Adrian Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:38:59 +0000 http://www.ideasonideas.com/2007/02/defense_adc/#comment-8058 "I have to wonder if these same critics ever watch South Park or the Daily Show." Actually, I think both those shows are hilarious and think this poster is an embarassment to our profession (as I said already in the critique at Be A Design Group." I am still waiting for somebody to tell me why this is funny? It is just trying too hard to be controversial, and that's not funny. It is just bad. Where is the wit? I am still waiting for what makes this clever, or funny, or any other redeeming quality. "Besides, flaming horses and swords are funny" isn't a mech better justification than "this just sucks." Also, I think you are misrepresenting the discussion on our site by summing it up as "weaken(ing) the level of discourse amongst designers." There was plenty of intelligent debate - you just happen to disagree with the consensus. "I have to wonder if these same critics ever watch South Park or the Daily Show."

Actually, I think both those shows are hilarious and think this poster is an embarassment to our profession (as I said already in the critique at Be A Design Group." I am still waiting for somebody to tell me why this is funny? It is just trying too hard to be controversial, and that's not funny. It is just bad. Where is the wit? I am still waiting for what makes this clever, or funny, or any other redeeming quality. "Besides, flaming horses and swords are funny" isn't a mech better justification than "this just sucks." Also, I think you are misrepresenting the discussion on our site by summing it up as "weaken(ing) the level of discourse amongst designers." There was plenty of intelligent debate - you just happen to disagree with the consensus.


]]>