so designy

there are people who tend to refer to certain furniture or buildings or household objects as "so designy" as if to emphasize that these furniture, buildings or household objects have aesthetic characteristics that make them "modern". modernity and design are not synonymous.

everything around us has usually needed to be drawn, i.e. designed, prior to its production. from a pencil to a space rocket, it is necessary to design it beforehand.

design should not be understood as a purely aesthetic exercise. this would lead us to evaluate the results only from a subjective point of view. objects are designed to fulfill a purpose. if we add to this that they are at least aesthetically acceptable, we will be adding value to the piece. what makes a design achieve excellence is not only that it fulfills its purpose correctly, nor that it is "beautiful" or attractive to the majority, but a combination of both variables, plus other factors related to economic issues.

the reason for identifying the term "design" with "modern" could lie in the fact that excessive importance has been given to this phase of the process, when, although it is indeed relevant, it is not predominant over functionality or production cost.

Historically, the pieces whose design has proved to be the most enduring and have been designated as truly excellent, have often resulted in works that appear to have no design at all.

So, we can safely say that nothing is "very designy" because everything is designy.

design waste

someone once said that designing packaging is designing junk. this statement is absolutely true and not only that, but the more junk that design is, the more it means that it has succeeded.

designing packaging is largely about turning the designer's work into everyday objects that silently accompany us on a daily basis. the design of a cereal box or a tetra brik of milk that by their very ordinariness become invisible on the kitchen table. and from the table, inevitably, to the trash can and from there to the landfill. and all that journey as a symbol of the contribution of packaging to the commercial success of a brand.

the purchase decision usually lasts only a few seconds from the moment of purchase in front of the supermarket shelf. of course, the influence of packaging on the purchase decision is not the main factor. price, communication, location on the shelf, etc. are other factors that also help the consumer to make a decisive purchase decision. however, packaging can lead to a definitive rejection on the part of the consumer.

all the effort dedicated to design by marketing departments and design agencies is focused on contributing to the seduction of the consumer so that the consumer ends up designing that packaging and throwing it away when it has fulfilled its function. that is the beauty of designing packaging, the beauty of designing garbage.

of fashions, manners and manners

The end of the year is a time for recapitulation of the past and for the oracles to tell us what will happen in the next twelve months. graphic design is not exempt from this annual liturgy.

it is said that 2015 has been the year of "flat design", of websites with full-screen background videos or photos or bright pastel colors. for 2016 we are already being told that everything will be extreme attention to typography (this should always be the case), custom illustrations and infographics (weren't they already?) and bright and powerful colors.

when designers bend to fashions, either for mere convenience or to match the taste of audiences, they are doing a disservice to the client, to their work and to themselves. if the logos of all brands were designed according to the criteria of fashion, something as key for them as differentiation would not be achieved. the mere definition of the word fashion speaks of its expiration date and for that reason it would be putting an expiration date on design when brands should have a vocation of maximum permanence.

by no means are following fashion the proper manners of a good designer.