|
Introduction |
History | Technology |
Theory |
Legibility |
Graphic Design |
Conclusion |
 |
Some Modernist designers such as Paul Rand and Milton Glaser refuse to see the formal changes that are unavoidable with the shift in technology and culture. Rand refers to the work coming from some of the more prominent design schools in this coun- try as “chaos”. Yet, if placed in the context of its time Rand's work might have been considered “chaos” as well. His visual referencing of the avant-garde in his advertising was in total contrast to much of what was considered “good” advertising at that time. Glaser, when asked about RayGun magazine, which is designed by David Carson, states, “It is provocative and breaks new ground, but at the same time, the magazine does not seem to understand fundamental laws of communication”. What “laws” are Mr. Glaser referring to? Are there specific laws on the way a magazine has to look regardless of its intended audience? It seems that what Rand, Glaser and others are overlooking is that these “New” New Typographers are designing to communicate in a much more pluralistic society where the design solutions of the past are not always appropriate. It is this inability to see beyond the present forms of graphic design that devalues the Modernist's argument. | Back | Next | |
 David Carson, RayGun Magazine, 1992. |
|||