Likely because people need boundaries in order to be creative. If you have no limits, you will very likely go beyond what is valuable or useful. But if you are giving parterres within which you must operate, then you are able to fully utilise your talents to come up with the most creative solutions.
One good example are hollywood movies with budgets now in hundreds of millions of dollars and little limitations, ending up being total crap.
If you'd be an author and you would have no limits, you would never finish that manuscript.
And so on. Humans simply require boundaries, otherwise we go crazy. It's like with food, too much of a good thing turn into a bad thing.
And so to bring it back, if you are a graphic designer making your own portfolio, there is no client to put you in a box within which you have to operate. And so despite how much talent and skill you might have, the outcome will likely be quite bad.
> You've just arrived in a new town, seeking your fortune, and you need a haircut. In this town, there are two barbers. The first barber has a neat, dapper haircut. The second barber's haircut is grotesque Which barber do you want to cut your hair?
> Answer: You cleverly deduce that the first, well-groomed barber couldn't possibly cut his own hair; therefore, he must get his hair cut by the second barber. Thus, you correctly decide to patronize the second barbershop.
The sloppy designer is too busy making money from paying clients.
Disclaimer: over 90% of the websites I visit cram text into a narrow column, with too small to read fonts, often with gray text on a slightly darker gray or a white background, truly inane graphics at the top, and idiot nags. I use readability, or a print style sheet with almost all web pages.
To frame it in design terms, when experienced designers provide work samples, it’s client work.
And they acquire client work through repeat clients and word of mouth mostly. Generally, people who find you “in the phone book” are less likely to have good projects and are more likely to be shopping on price.
Good question. Have you ever noticed how many fashion designers have terrible clothes, or how many hairstylists look they've never had a professional haircut?
You're looking at the wrong designers. Tufte and Vignelli had great collateral and were appropriately restrained in design elements they used. I don't know if I saw Rams or Esslinger's web sites, but I saw printed material they produced. Definitely on the "restrained" side.
As to why younger designers insert their busy selves in designs? I have a history of making tools. I learned early that good tools allow the user to think of the tool as an extension of the self. When you hammer a nail, you don't think about the hammer, you think about where the nail is (or maybe where your thumb is.) When you twist a wrench, you (hopefully) think about how much torque you're delivering, not about how finely crafted the wrench is.
But there is a school of thought that everything must be a delighter. You must make your tools so finely crafted your users can't ignore them. I blame Steve Jobs (or maybe people mis-interpreting Jobs exhortation to make insanely awesome products.). I think Jobs and Lowey and Issingler were talking about the experience of the artifact being awesome, not every visual aspect of the tool. If making something flashy detracts from the use of the tool... That's not insanely awesome, imho. But I think this is something you learn over time and you're rewarded at d-school for ostentatious demonstrations of design concepts.
In short ... There's a lot of bad design out there because there are a lot of insecure inexperienced designers out there who work cheap and customers who wouldn't know good design if it bit them on the ass. (Not that design frequently takes an ass biting form.)
And remember... If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like your thumb
Likely because people need boundaries in order to be creative. If you have no limits, you will very likely go beyond what is valuable or useful. But if you are giving parterres within which you must operate, then you are able to fully utilise your talents to come up with the most creative solutions.
One good example are hollywood movies with budgets now in hundreds of millions of dollars and little limitations, ending up being total crap.
If you'd be an author and you would have no limits, you would never finish that manuscript.
And so on. Humans simply require boundaries, otherwise we go crazy. It's like with food, too much of a good thing turn into a bad thing.
And so to bring it back, if you are a graphic designer making your own portfolio, there is no client to put you in a box within which you have to operate. And so despite how much talent and skill you might have, the outcome will likely be quite bad.
Old barber joke, shortened.
> You've just arrived in a new town, seeking your fortune, and you need a haircut. In this town, there are two barbers. The first barber has a neat, dapper haircut. The second barber's haircut is grotesque Which barber do you want to cut your hair?
> Answer: You cleverly deduce that the first, well-groomed barber couldn't possibly cut his own hair; therefore, he must get his hair cut by the second barber. Thus, you correctly decide to patronize the second barbershop.
The sloppy designer is too busy making money from paying clients.
Disclaimer: over 90% of the websites I visit cram text into a narrow column, with too small to read fonts, often with gray text on a slightly darker gray or a white background, truly inane graphics at the top, and idiot nags. I use readability, or a print style sheet with almost all web pages.
To frame it in design terms, when experienced designers provide work samples, it’s client work.
And they acquire client work through repeat clients and word of mouth mostly. Generally, people who find you “in the phone book” are less likely to have good projects and are more likely to be shopping on price.
Good question. Have you ever noticed how many fashion designers have terrible clothes, or how many hairstylists look they've never had a professional haircut?
Maybe it's Shoemaker's Children Syndrome.
I just learnt a term. Thank you.
You're looking at the wrong designers. Tufte and Vignelli had great collateral and were appropriately restrained in design elements they used. I don't know if I saw Rams or Esslinger's web sites, but I saw printed material they produced. Definitely on the "restrained" side.
As to why younger designers insert their busy selves in designs? I have a history of making tools. I learned early that good tools allow the user to think of the tool as an extension of the self. When you hammer a nail, you don't think about the hammer, you think about where the nail is (or maybe where your thumb is.) When you twist a wrench, you (hopefully) think about how much torque you're delivering, not about how finely crafted the wrench is.
But there is a school of thought that everything must be a delighter. You must make your tools so finely crafted your users can't ignore them. I blame Steve Jobs (or maybe people mis-interpreting Jobs exhortation to make insanely awesome products.). I think Jobs and Lowey and Issingler were talking about the experience of the artifact being awesome, not every visual aspect of the tool. If making something flashy detracts from the use of the tool... That's not insanely awesome, imho. But I think this is something you learn over time and you're rewarded at d-school for ostentatious demonstrations of design concepts.
In short ... There's a lot of bad design out there because there are a lot of insecure inexperienced designers out there who work cheap and customers who wouldn't know good design if it bit them on the ass. (Not that design frequently takes an ass biting form.)
And remember... If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like your thumb
"we're all trying to find the guy who did this" hotdog suit sketch intensifies