Sh!t design

(republished from 2005)

Audience interpretation of the meaning of design (visual communication) has only recently begun to be researched. Most of the theory has therefore been based on literature and communication research, as these theories can be applied to visual communication as well as written communication.

As designers, is what we consider ‘good’ design really that good, and is what we consider ‘bad’ design really that bad? As an exploration of this idea I recently examined magazine design, looking at examples from the down-market that break the traditional rules of design aesthetics, and from the up-market that usually reflect a traditional educated designed approach.

I wrote a 5500 word research essay on the topic but here is the general conclusion I’ve drawn from it: In recent times the mass consumption of products has stretched to include the consumption of information. With the rise of digital technology, this abundance of information has even more ways to reach consumers, with magazines being only one of these mediums. All of this information competes for consumer attention, and because there is so much available, the information needs to communicate with consumers quickly in order to be successful.

The fastest way to attract consumer attention is through the use of aesthetic codes. Design needs to make use of codes in order to communicate; whether it follows traditional codes or breaks them, it is still making an association with certain values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and practices held by the reader. A lot of these values are not controlled by the reader, but rather by social and cultural beliefs. Because there is so much information competing for consumer attention, these codes need to be tailored to the demographic, and this is why there is such a variety in the style of magazine design: because they appeal to completely different audiences.

This is the new trend in design in the post-modern era. Design has to identify with its demographic through the use of these codes that are common among certain sectors of society. Magazines seem to have a specific aesthetic defined for a specific demographic, be that a class or sub-culture. Due to the amount of magazines produced now, one magazine cannot reach a wide demographic because too many specialised magazines already exist targeting a specific market and successfully reaching them. It’s interesting to consider how true this is in other design mediums, where once a certain saturation point is reached, they need to zone in on one particular type of reader and therefore lose the ability to appeal to a mass market.

Each magazine analysed, whether from the down or up-market, reflects modern theory on post-modern design and has proven its design works through figures reflected in sales. So while many designers would consider magazines such as That’s Life! poorly designed according to traditional theories, current post-modern theory suggests otherwise. In fact, all of the magazines analysed are successfully designed in order to meet financial targets. However, if design is responsible for helping to shape and change society then perhaps magazines such as That’s Life! are not so well designed?