Style versus design
My father was a Sunday painter. Books with his illustrations had a formative effect on me in my childhood. Much like many other children, I was mesmerized by the effect. I would forget everything around me as I watched my father painstakingly paint the sparring gladiators, picturesque hamlets, ancient Roman ruins set off by the rising sun. I read that art is the “ability to pain well”. The more effort is put into the details with scrupulously drawn the leaves on the trees, the better the artist – this is how I rated a good artist using my own childish inexperienced scale. Later I discovered commixes. Later still – museums. Maxfield Parrish gave me a headache by causing me to believe I would never make an artist. Paul Klee was a “bad painter” by my standards as he “could not paint”. Andy Warhol was a crook altogether, as he used assistants for his works.
Today I do not claim to have an understanding of art, but I know for sure that my earlier ideas had little in common with the nature of art, but only rested on purely visual sensations. To me art was a show, much like Disneyland or circus. But it wasn’t until the rides made my head spin and cotton candy made me sick that I began to understand the real essence of things. I moved from senses to style. Steve Ditko’s Spiderman. Album covers of rock, then soul, then punk bands. I became possessed by Style. I could not tell good from bad, but I know for sure what was cool and what wasn’t.
Many young web designers, and most web designers are younger than 30, view their talents the same way I viewed pop culture. Either cool or trash. They mistake Style for Design, while these are two absolutely different things. Design ensures communication at all levels. It tells you where you are, hints at what you can do, and helps you do it. Style is tautological by its nature; it signals the absence of style. In the visual sense, style is one aspect of design; in commercial sense, style can serve as a means for conveying corporate differences.