Fun and Abram Games

I was talking to my mate Wozza earlier this week and amongst all the chat was the suggestion, nay, allegation that I'm a designer that only likes old stuff.

Well, how very dare he!

So I've been thinking about that and this is what I've come up with:

To start with, of course, there's some truth in it; I love old stuff, but not because it's old. I like new stuff too, it's just that new stuff is of less use to me. From old stuff I get inspiration; I can take a little bit of this and that and use it here and there. From old stuff I learn techniques that aren't reliant on prevailing technologies. Old stuff is detached from current styles and trends, and that's good because I'm an "ideas" designer, I'm not style-lead.

Take that little BR booklet for example: I might look at the symmetry in that photo of the men working on the track and see how a client's product could be seen in a similarly dynamic way. Or look at that image of the tankers and note how dramatic the angle is and use a similar technique elsewhere. Or think how the way the designer has overprinted some images on that colour looks really great. Or how he/she's used the space to dramatic effect. They're all things I can use. Yes, I could get all that from new stuff but my point is that age creates distance, so you detach from style and concentrate on effect, if that makes sense.

Then there's the dead designers: as graphic designers we operate in an industry with a rich history and like all creative endeavors, what has gone before informs what happens now, even if we aren't conscious of it. Personally, I think it's better to know where you're coming from, so you're in control, you know why you're doing something. And this kind of leads into something I was going to post anyway...

Every now and then I bang on about my love of the dead designer monograph (like this one). Well I've been thinking about a job I did a few years ago, so I thought I'd break my cardinal rule, not to post any of my work, to illustrate the point yet again.

In my last job we used to do a lot of work for Saab, for the aftermarket (you know, all the stuff that comes after you've actually decided to buy a car: accessories, services etc). We were asked to introduce their new in-car phone system. Cynical at first (at the time such things were less than reliable) we tried it out and it worked beautifully. If I remember correctly, you'd get a small box fitted into the boot of your car, into which you'd insert a duplicate SIM card from your mobile. The system, probably common place now, would use the existing sound system and dash mounted eye-level digital display to deliver calls and voice messages along with text and email notifications to you, with the help of an additional steering column mounted control stalk. There was a bit of that Blue-tooth nonsense thrown in there somewhere as well.

What impressed us most was how integrated it all was and I remember remarking in the briefing that it basically turned your car into a phone. And that was the idea.

I was pretty familiar with the various models and thought immediately that an aerial view of a 9-3 would look quite like the popular Nokia phones of the time. It all worked out very well.

But the missing bit, and my point, is that at the time I was reading Abram Games, Graphic Designer: Maximum Meaning, Minimum Means and I had become fascinated by Games' ability to make these amazing double images. So I think, thanks to Abram, I was in a double image frame of mind.

Comments

So what you are saying is it's easier to steal from old stuff, coz people are less likely to notice? ;)

Only joking.

See, I just try to get you worked up, so you write better blog posts...

[Richard]

Exactly!

Remember: it's about combinations and stuff that can neither be created or detroyed. One man's rip-off is another man's influence: Brody and Saville (not Jimmy) made their names re-interpreting things from the past. Games used conventional elements (paint, image, type) to express ideas in original ways.

[Bureau L'Imprimante]

Wow, great post, so true.