I’ve been working on some glassware design concepts. This one is for cordial glasses that fit on to a tray. Kinda cool.
A configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts.
A great word that has particular significance when you are talking about brand design. A well conceived and executed brand vision is truly a gestalt. When it works together it is stronger than adding together the sum of the parts. The term is appropriate for any successful design from visual to industrial or interior, in art and photography.
Definition courtesy of: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Art direction is about vision. You have to have a vision to art direct anything. I don’t know if they teach this in school or not but coming from a design background I never came across a Basics of Art Direction 101 class. Most of what I have learned beyond the core design curriculum I learned on the job, in the field, and under the gun.
This is the way I learned ot directing television commercials, design sets and art direct. Art directing — photography — is a completely different thing altogether than video. The product is a still image (a still) and you can inspect the living heck out of it, blow it up, scrutinize it, immerse yourself in it. Video is a series of images. They flow together to create a collective understanding. With a still, it’s what you see is what you get.
Thankfully, I got to work alongside the late Lyle Cavanagh at Philips who showed me the ropes. Lyle had vision. At Philips we shot black boxes: TVs, stereos, blue LEDs, black plastic. So it became a real challenge to find new ways to create black-box-sexy. So here’s what I know: There are four things that make photo art direction work or not work.
I already mentioned this. Vision is what you see in your mind’s eye then, perhaps you sketch it on paper, or render it up or composite it. Whatever method you use, you have to know what you want if you expect to get what you want. That might seem obvious but I’ve seen a lot of “art directors” return from a photo shoot wondering how things could have gone so wrong. The tighter your vision the closer you are to getting an end product that is free of surprises.
2. A collaborative photographer.
If you know exactly what you want you don’t want a photographer that has his or her own vision. Two visions are not better than one. “Famous” photographers probably got to be famous because of their vision, and if their vision is what you want, hire one. But if your vision is what you want, then hire a photographer that wants to use his expertise to bring your vision to reality. (This pretty much goes for directors — the video kind— as well.) A collaborator’s know-how, together with your vision is always a good match.
This is the magic element that Lyle brought to bear. He was trained in visual display. In his day, they were called window dressers. He was an artist of composition. Composition is, for lack of a better definition: where everything goes, what gets cropped, what’s in focus and out of focus, how everything relates to everything else and the essence of detail. There is probably a book on composition but you are better off experimenting with it. If you don’t think you have a good sense of composition, then you probably don’t, but you can get better at it. Before I met Lyle, I didn’t have a clue. He let me practice a lot and my photographer shot a lot of film until we got it right.
4. Story detail.
If you can get both story and detail, great. If you are shooting catalog shots on white backgrounds then detail is everything; crisp, perfect detail. People want to inspect that stuff so the sharper it is the better. For about 20 years the ubiquitous drop-shadow became the obligatory addition to stuff on white backgrounds. It helped. And while a drop-shadow is better than floating, it got really old. Leave it to Apple to break the rules. Look back at their product photography in the 90s: keyboards leaning up against towers and dramatic angles became elegant details to what would otherwise be tired silver boxes. Now they’ve popularized the “reflection” on white. Great “detailing”. If you are shooting Tommy Lee Jones you have a treasure trove of detail to work with. And sometimes that becomes part of the story. Story comes in when you surround your subject with meaning. Sometimes, as with Jones, the detail is the meaning. Sometimes the meaning is something you have to add.
Which brings us back to vision.
That’s what I know about it.
Design is a process, a process whereby a thinking person (or team of persons) uses a process of investigation, analysis, ideation, refinement, more analysis, more refinement and finally deployment toward the goal of solving a problem. It’s a methodology. It’s nothing terribly new. Engineers, scientists, physicians, and lots of other professionals use variations on this process to arrive at solutions to problems.
What I’m focusing on today is the idea of multi-disciplinary designers. Just as I suspect that an engineer with mechanical and electrical experience makes a better engineer, I think design becomes stronger as it spreads out to embrace a broader spectrum of design. Frank Gehry designs jewelry. Michael Graves, Alberto Alessi, and Philippe Starck have created small empires on diversified design applications. I posit that this increased breadth actually fortifies a designer’s weltanschauung. (Assuming they are actually doing it and not just signing their name to it — another blog.) I know many “specialized” designers who often make the finishing touch to a project through a detail that would normally be considered outside their realm. I have created many spaces that needed a particular object to add balance or composition or color, and I just could not locate it — so I designed it. It was not uncommon for Frank Lloyd Wright to design the windows, the furnishings, the stone work or any number of other details to complement a space simply because nothing else — already designed— would sympathize with the project in quite the same way. It’s not surprising then, that I believe a designer with this breadth is inherently more valuable to retain.
Take a look at the world of logo design, (a recent favorite topic of mine see: Is design becoming a commodity?) Some logos, perhaps for a blog, or limited scope web site, have a limited range; they will never be used for other applications. But, “never” is a big word. For a designer to stop at a solitary application, assuming it will never go beyond the online realm, I venture, is shortsighted. True logo design is a subset of corporate identity design, and corporate ID is really a subset of the larger idea of brand design. In this realm the logo had better work in the street as well as online, as well as in spaces and every other conceivable application. Because, you never know.
The same logic applies to an interior designer who is comfortable designing the lighting, the exhibit designer who is comfortable with interiors, with graphics with UI, etc., etc. It yields a more integrated solution.
For that you need a designer with broader vision and a better weltanschauung.
I’m thinking that the years between 1960 and 1990 were probably the golden years for advertising. It wasn’t just a wildly successful industry, it was elevated to art form and entertainment event. But those years are over, and advertising as we knew it during this period is pretty much dead, or close to it. This is probably not an epic revelation since ad spending has been declining for decades now. We all know that print and television spending is way down, that people are watching less TV and when they do many are filtering out the commercials. Today, consumers get their information online. They get just as much as they want and only when they want it. In the face of this trend, “pushing” advertising seems to be a short sighted way to go to market. No matter what media you are using to push advertising, when you “tag” an ad (unsolicited) onto something that is solicited (something that people want to do or watch) you are risking deletion, through TiVo, or spam, or simply switching to another site, or channel. If brands want to register with customers they are going to have to have to make it a destination — an inherent part of the solicited experience.
Illustration of the week. I stumbled on this somehow from digital artist Steve Goodin. The guy loves Avant Garde, and while this example doesn’t show it the link has some great examples — About as well as I have ever seen it used. The mixture of 2 and 3D is most impressive. Very nice. Seamless. I’d love to see the wireframes on this. Not to mention this is not his day job. Lush.
Is it just about performance or is there something else that keeps us coming back? How important is the label on your beer, the emblem on your car, the tag inside your jacket? I think performance is a huge factor. Let’s face it, we prefer one taste to another, the way a certain vehicle performs, and a jacket with an impeccable fit. Is that it? In other words do we only have to make a better mousetrap in order to be the next uber-brand?
It’s complicated. Yes, your product has to perform and meet the expectations of your customer – and the customer you want. People expect that. (Do you really buy something and expect it NOT to work?) Different products or services succeed because they meet people on their expectations. The brands that do it best, find ways to both meet the expectations and exceed them. They make an emotional connection.
The emotional connection to owning something comes when it goes beyond mere functional reliability — when it over-performs. How does a beer, a car or a jacket over perform? That’s where the brand-sphere comes into play. At a certain level the successful product will attain it’s maximum, peak performance: the beer, the car the jacket are just the way you like them. What’s next? Everything else, now there is the label, and the emblem and the tag. Now there is the packaging, the dealership, the celebrity who wears the same jacket.
Conclusion: The product HAS to perform, consistently. The experience has to delight, consistently.