Admittedly, I am not a graphic designer, but I do have an eye for what is aesthetically pleasing, and I find a lot of Paul Rand's work to be really intriguing. How would I go about designing a logo in his style, though? There's something very meticulous and perfect in these designs that I don't think can be replicated by any lay graphic designer. Maybe I am overthinking, but does anyone have any tips?
>>461847 (OP)
definitely follows the trajectory of modernism, famously inspired by swiss design as well as (intellectually) by John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead, Roger Fry.
>The problem of the artist is to defamiliarize the ordinary.
I think he probably truly loved design and indulging in it. no doomscrolling, no pinterest inspiration that everybody else shares, no photoshop.
instead a smart guy that enjoyed spending his life on thinking about art and aesthetics and design and the human nature on a *deep level*. he probably read a lot of philosophy as well as literature. there are traces of a human with relatively wide spanning wisdom in his body of work, which lends them different qualities in comparison to today, where we have super clean cloudcapitalism-giga-marketing-machine designs all around us as well as "I am a graphic designer because I watched 5 tutorials on youtube that everybody else watched as well". (I am not criticizing. has other qualities to it. is just a different landscape...)
proficiency with (and reliance on) traditional tools instead of the computer obviously influences the designs an incredible whole lot as well.
I kinda think the somewhat ephemeral aura to be well described as honesty of a real human being, I think. comparably sincere and optimistic to postmodern design and less cleanly algorithmatized than many convetional designs today?
he wrote a few books. could be interesting if you *really* want to learn more about his approach?
definitely follows the trajectory of modernism, famously inspired by swiss design as well as (intellectually) by John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead, Roger Fry.
>The problem of the artist is to defamiliarize the ordinary.
I think he probably truly loved design and indulging in it. no doomscrolling, no pinterest inspiration that everybody else shares, no photoshop.
instead a smart guy that enjoyed spending his life on thinking about art and aesthetics and design and the human nature on a *deep level*. he probably read a lot of philosophy as well as literature. there are traces of a human with relatively wide spanning wisdom in his body of work, which lends them different qualities in comparison to today, where we have super clean cloudcapitalism-giga-marketing-machine designs all around us as well as "I am a graphic designer because I watched 5 tutorials on youtube that everybody else watched as well". (I am not criticizing. has other qualities to it. is just a different landscape...)
proficiency with (and reliance on) traditional tools instead of the computer obviously influences the designs an incredible whole lot as well.
I kinda think the somewhat ephemeral aura to be well described as honesty of a real human being, I think. comparably sincere and optimistic to postmodern design and less cleanly algorithmatized than many convetional designs today?
he wrote a few books. could be interesting if you *really* want to learn more about his approach?