Full transcript from e-mail interviews carried out with Experimental Jetset regarding their comtemporary design practice. They're a great opinion to attain as they're commonly regarded as a progressive incarnation of the highly communicative and objective design style of the Swiss in the 50s - which is a direction I'm heading towards.
Basically hypothesising the opportunity/need for an international design style, and actually doing it in a global, collaborative manner. So through process, the international design style emerges.
Incredibly helpful and friendly to talk to.
///////////
An Interview With :
///////////
An Interview With :
Experimental Jetset.
25/11/13
/
One often come across the opinion (and it's often set in a critical tone) that the international nature of today's 'Tumblr-culture' has caused a certain homogeneity in graphic design – the idea that there is no such thing as 'locality' anymore. We partly disagree with this view.
One has to keep in mind that it is often the 'online precense' itself that makes things appear similar, when they in fact aren't. Websites like Tumblr (as much as we love sites such as Tumblr, FFFFound, etc.) do work as 'equalizers' – they 'flatten' all objects into digital, pixelated jpegs that often have the same size and resolution, and then show these pictures outside of their original, local context, as completely isolated images. It's no wonder that in this context, all objects look alike, even when they are rooted in completely different contexts.
To give a very blunt example – a poster carrying an image of a swastika will have a totally different meaning hanging in a German city than it will have hanging in an Indian city. And yet, when they are placed next to each other (or better said, under each other, in a continuous scroll), the unknowing viewer will have the feeling that both posters are alike – and that there is no essential difference anymore between German and Indian graphic design. While the opposite might very well be true. These two posters might look the same, but they are totally different – not only in meaning, but possibly also in size, in the way they were printed, distributed, originally perceived, etc.
/
But even if there would be such a thing as an 'universal' design language – would this be necessarily such a bad thing? It doesn't automatically mean that local differences are 'overruled'. In fact, where there are dominant languages, there are also accents, dialects, 'pidgin' subversions, etc.
In that sense, one can regard a dominant ('universal') language as a stage, or a platform, for different accents, for cultural differences, to perform on.
As often is the case, it is exactly the 'common factor' (such as a shared language) that emphasizes, offsets and enables the differences (such as specific accents). So in that sense, even if there were such a thing as a 'universal' graphic design language, it wouldn't mean the end of local differentation, of cultural variety.
Think of the so-called 'Swiss/International Style'. Somebody like Crouwel took this language, and turned it into something typical Dutch. While somebody like Vignelli took the same langauge, first added a typical Italian accent, and then set it in a New York tone of voice. Comparing Crouwel and Vignelli, one can easily distinguish their cultural backgrounds (for example, calvinist versus catholic), while both men are, in a way, speaking the same language. The same language, but different accents.
/
So even though we are not necessarily against the idea of a 'universal' design language, we do feel that our understanding of graphic design has a lot to do with the idea of 'site-specificness' (or site-specificity). We still believe very much in the idea that the 'ideal' piece of graphic design is something that is somehow rooted in a specific place – and for us, that place is often a city.
In other words, we're not so much interested in the idea of 'national identity' (in fact, the very notion creeps us out) – but we do admit that we have a certain affinity with the idea of specific places (such as cities) having specific histories, and therefore having specific cultures. And whenever we are invited or commissioned to work on a project abroad, a lot of our excitement has to do with the fact that this project will enable us to experience (and hopefully participate in) the culture of that particular city.
For example, in 1999/2000, when we were fresh out of art school, we were invited to participate in Elysian Fields, a group exhibition that was curated by the Purple Institute, and that took place at the Centre Pompidou. Although we produced the catalogue for this show in our studio in Amsterdam, all the other items (invitations, brochures, signage, title wall, etc) had to be designed on the spot – in other words, in Paris.
Now, Paris, around that time, was a very exciting place. A lot of interesting things were emerging: Palais de Tokyo, Colette, M/M, etc. Purple Magazine was at its peak. Air's 'Moon Safari' (with its brilliant sleeve
and video designed by Mike Mills) was just released, and could be heard everywhere in Paris, in every bar and shop. It was also the time that Nicolas Bourriad developed this whole concept of 'Relational Aesthetics'.
And we were right in the middle of this, experiencing this whole culture from nearby (or better said, from the inside). And although we only spent a couple of weeks in this whole 'milieu', we feel forever connected to that particular scene, to that particular time – and in that sense, we see the catalogue we designed for Elysian Fields as something that is firmly grounded in Paris, circa 1999/2000.
6/12/13
/
Hey Abbas, here we are again!
In short, we completely share your mix of positive and negative feelings when it comes to this whole notion of an 'universal (design) language'.
But still, a few last (and short) remarks:
Well, keeping within the analogy of language (which is always quite a good analogy for graphic design, we think)... It actually wouldn't surprise us if Chinese will turn out a much more dominant language than you think. (And when we say Chinese, we obviously mean Mandarin).
In fact, in some Amsterdam luxury department stores (such as De Bijenkorf), announcements are currently being broadcasted in Russian and Chinese – and not in English.
On a similar note, more and more Dutch high-schools are offering Chinese language courses.
Also, you shouldn't forget that there are still three times as many Chinese (Mandarin) speakers as English ones, worldwide.
But even if English will turn out the most 'universal' language – then it's still a very interesting thought that 'non-native' English speakers will largely outnumber native English speakers in the future. (In fact, already now, 'non-native' English speakers outnumber native English speakers – but we can't find the precise numbers so quickly).
We think that this is quite a mind-boggling concept. It means that the 'English' don't really own the English language anymore – it really is for everyone, and is open for all kinds of interpretation and subversion – accents, dialects, pidgin, jargons, variations, versions, etc. In that sense, the idea of an 'universal' language doesn't automatically have to be linked to a 'ruling country', or a 'dominant culture' anymore – in fact, it can be the start (or birth) of a whole new family of separate (but related) languages: Euro-English, Indo-English, Sino-English, etc. Out of this 'globality', new 'localities' will emerge. The pendulum will always swing to the other side (for better or worse).
A third remark, loosely related to the above – English is, in itself, a sort of result of this whole 'Proto-Indo-European' language family. In that sense, English started out as an accent, a dialect, a sub-language (and, above all, a mixture of languages) – and, over the centuries, it became a dominant language. And now we see this dominant language splintering again, and falling apart in all these sub-languages. So, maybe in a couple of hundred years, English will have become a sort of hidden 'proto-language', underlying most other languages (just as 'Indo-European' does now) – not an 'universal language', but more a 'root', a common source...
Does that make sense?
25/11/13
/
One often come across the opinion (and it's often set in a critical tone) that the international nature of today's 'Tumblr-culture' has caused a certain homogeneity in graphic design – the idea that there is no such thing as 'locality' anymore. We partly disagree with this view.
One has to keep in mind that it is often the 'online precense' itself that makes things appear similar, when they in fact aren't. Websites like Tumblr (as much as we love sites such as Tumblr, FFFFound, etc.) do work as 'equalizers' – they 'flatten' all objects into digital, pixelated jpegs that often have the same size and resolution, and then show these pictures outside of their original, local context, as completely isolated images. It's no wonder that in this context, all objects look alike, even when they are rooted in completely different contexts.
To give a very blunt example – a poster carrying an image of a swastika will have a totally different meaning hanging in a German city than it will have hanging in an Indian city. And yet, when they are placed next to each other (or better said, under each other, in a continuous scroll), the unknowing viewer will have the feeling that both posters are alike – and that there is no essential difference anymore between German and Indian graphic design. While the opposite might very well be true. These two posters might look the same, but they are totally different – not only in meaning, but possibly also in size, in the way they were printed, distributed, originally perceived, etc.
/
But even if there would be such a thing as an 'universal' design language – would this be necessarily such a bad thing? It doesn't automatically mean that local differences are 'overruled'. In fact, where there are dominant languages, there are also accents, dialects, 'pidgin' subversions, etc.
In that sense, one can regard a dominant ('universal') language as a stage, or a platform, for different accents, for cultural differences, to perform on.
As often is the case, it is exactly the 'common factor' (such as a shared language) that emphasizes, offsets and enables the differences (such as specific accents). So in that sense, even if there were such a thing as a 'universal' graphic design language, it wouldn't mean the end of local differentation, of cultural variety.
Think of the so-called 'Swiss/International Style'. Somebody like Crouwel took this language, and turned it into something typical Dutch. While somebody like Vignelli took the same langauge, first added a typical Italian accent, and then set it in a New York tone of voice. Comparing Crouwel and Vignelli, one can easily distinguish their cultural backgrounds (for example, calvinist versus catholic), while both men are, in a way, speaking the same language. The same language, but different accents.
/
So even though we are not necessarily against the idea of a 'universal' design language, we do feel that our understanding of graphic design has a lot to do with the idea of 'site-specificness' (or site-specificity). We still believe very much in the idea that the 'ideal' piece of graphic design is something that is somehow rooted in a specific place – and for us, that place is often a city.
In other words, we're not so much interested in the idea of 'national identity' (in fact, the very notion creeps us out) – but we do admit that we have a certain affinity with the idea of specific places (such as cities) having specific histories, and therefore having specific cultures. And whenever we are invited or commissioned to work on a project abroad, a lot of our excitement has to do with the fact that this project will enable us to experience (and hopefully participate in) the culture of that particular city.
For example, in 1999/2000, when we were fresh out of art school, we were invited to participate in Elysian Fields, a group exhibition that was curated by the Purple Institute, and that took place at the Centre Pompidou. Although we produced the catalogue for this show in our studio in Amsterdam, all the other items (invitations, brochures, signage, title wall, etc) had to be designed on the spot – in other words, in Paris.
Now, Paris, around that time, was a very exciting place. A lot of interesting things were emerging: Palais de Tokyo, Colette, M/M, etc. Purple Magazine was at its peak. Air's 'Moon Safari' (with its brilliant sleeve
and video designed by Mike Mills) was just released, and could be heard everywhere in Paris, in every bar and shop. It was also the time that Nicolas Bourriad developed this whole concept of 'Relational Aesthetics'.
And we were right in the middle of this, experiencing this whole culture from nearby (or better said, from the inside). And although we only spent a couple of weeks in this whole 'milieu', we feel forever connected to that particular scene, to that particular time – and in that sense, we see the catalogue we designed for Elysian Fields as something that is firmly grounded in Paris, circa 1999/2000.
6/12/13
/
Hey Abbas, here we are again!
In short, we completely share your mix of positive and negative feelings when it comes to this whole notion of an 'universal (design) language'.
But still, a few last (and short) remarks:
Well, keeping within the analogy of language (which is always quite a good analogy for graphic design, we think)... It actually wouldn't surprise us if Chinese will turn out a much more dominant language than you think. (And when we say Chinese, we obviously mean Mandarin).
In fact, in some Amsterdam luxury department stores (such as De Bijenkorf), announcements are currently being broadcasted in Russian and Chinese – and not in English.
On a similar note, more and more Dutch high-schools are offering Chinese language courses.
Also, you shouldn't forget that there are still three times as many Chinese (Mandarin) speakers as English ones, worldwide.
But even if English will turn out the most 'universal' language – then it's still a very interesting thought that 'non-native' English speakers will largely outnumber native English speakers in the future. (In fact, already now, 'non-native' English speakers outnumber native English speakers – but we can't find the precise numbers so quickly).
We think that this is quite a mind-boggling concept. It means that the 'English' don't really own the English language anymore – it really is for everyone, and is open for all kinds of interpretation and subversion – accents, dialects, pidgin, jargons, variations, versions, etc. In that sense, the idea of an 'universal' language doesn't automatically have to be linked to a 'ruling country', or a 'dominant culture' anymore – in fact, it can be the start (or birth) of a whole new family of separate (but related) languages: Euro-English, Indo-English, Sino-English, etc. Out of this 'globality', new 'localities' will emerge. The pendulum will always swing to the other side (for better or worse).
A third remark, loosely related to the above – English is, in itself, a sort of result of this whole 'Proto-Indo-European' language family. In that sense, English started out as an accent, a dialect, a sub-language (and, above all, a mixture of languages) – and, over the centuries, it became a dominant language. And now we see this dominant language splintering again, and falling apart in all these sub-languages. So, maybe in a couple of hundred years, English will have become a sort of hidden 'proto-language', underlying most other languages (just as 'Indo-European' does now) – not an 'universal language', but more a 'root', a common source...
Does that make sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment