This feels like melancholy drudge from a type of person that would blindly argue that mid-century modern is the greatest design movement ever while turning red in the face, while the world quitely...
This feels like melancholy drudge from a type of person that would blindly argue that mid-century modern is the greatest design movement ever while turning red in the face, while the world quitely changes around them. Someone so hellbent on destroying the very meaning and feeling of the color pink.
So what?
I personally like the so-called "millennial aesthetic"—it begets bright, open, plant-filled areas that I'm happy to exist in. That being said, I might not the like pastel pinks as much as I do the oranges, minty greens, and vibrant blues and purples. I also feel like this piece isn't being kind to the aesthetic: railing so hard on one's issues with the color pink and ignoring the positives it could bring.
I also reject author's idea that design is the product. They go on for so long about this. I think to "design-aware" individuals who are paid to comment on design, it's easy to fall in this trap. But, I think these people have lost perspective of the real consumers being marketed to. (Think: it's a similar perspective as a command-line apologist programmer voicing a strong opinion that they know the best way to implement a user interface—you can't square that circle.) I think the goal of well-considered marketing design as a critical element of communicating your product is to get your customers to unconsciously understand that every element matters to you. That no detail is too small. Some customers will align with the feeling and buy in; the others were likely to buy lower end goods from some other store anyway. Following "trendy" design moments doesn't mean that design is the product, but rather that you are selling things that understand and are made for a "modern" consumer.
As the millennial aesthetic grows omnipresent, as its consumers grow more design-fluent, our response grows more complex. We resent its absence (Why is this restaurant website so crappy?)
I don't want to be reductive, but I think this is just an expectation of knowing how to talk to your audience. It doesn't have anything to do with design, except for the fact that it has everything to do with design. Having a bad website in 2020 is just as bad as rude staff answering the phone in 1995.
Last year, the interior-design start-up Homepolish collapsed; last month, Casper made its disappointing IPO; last week, Outdoor Voices CEO Tyler Haney stepped down amid reports that her company, based on tastefully colored leggings, was losing cash.
Do these fantastic failures have more to do with design, or with VC's massively over funding companies with no solid potential for profitability, customer acquisitions, and cost reduction?
Yes, gosh, I do have two succulents and a live-edge computer stand on my desk—don't make fun of me for it.
I’m with the professor. I wish fewer designers would contribute to validating “big and dumb”. The world has enough of that without it being intentionally commoditized by those who are capable of...
Jenkins’s professor — steeped in the elaborately designed postmodernism of the ’80s and ’90s — hated it. But for Jenkins, pop simplicity was the point. “I think big and dumb is valid,” she says now.
I’m with the professor. I wish fewer designers would contribute to validating “big and dumb”. The world has enough of that without it being intentionally commoditized by those who are capable of more.
Edit:
I think there’s a bigger point here about a design bubble that is touched on at the end. It turns out that substance is still important, and since technology has facilitated digital design to the point of triviality, actually doing something authentic, and analog may be one possible reaction. I think we’ve seen some hints of that in things like the Stranger Things title sequence.
This feels like melancholy drudge from a type of person that would blindly argue that mid-century modern is the greatest design movement ever while turning red in the face, while the world quitely changes around them. Someone so hellbent on destroying the very meaning and feeling of the color pink.
So what?
I personally like the so-called "millennial aesthetic"—it begets bright, open, plant-filled areas that I'm happy to exist in. That being said, I might not the like pastel pinks as much as I do the oranges, minty greens, and vibrant blues and purples. I also feel like this piece isn't being kind to the aesthetic: railing so hard on one's issues with the color pink and ignoring the positives it could bring.
I also reject author's idea that design is the product. They go on for so long about this. I think to "design-aware" individuals who are paid to comment on design, it's easy to fall in this trap. But, I think these people have lost perspective of the real consumers being marketed to. (Think: it's a similar perspective as a command-line apologist programmer voicing a strong opinion that they know the best way to implement a user interface—you can't square that circle.) I think the goal of well-considered marketing design as a critical element of communicating your product is to get your customers to unconsciously understand that every element matters to you. That no detail is too small. Some customers will align with the feeling and buy in; the others were likely to buy lower end goods from some other store anyway. Following "trendy" design moments doesn't mean that design is the product, but rather that you are selling things that understand and are made for a "modern" consumer.
I don't want to be reductive, but I think this is just an expectation of knowing how to talk to your audience. It doesn't have anything to do with design, except for the fact that it has everything to do with design. Having a bad website in 2020 is just as bad as rude staff answering the phone in 1995.
Do these fantastic failures have more to do with design, or with VC's massively over funding companies with no solid potential for profitability, customer acquisitions, and cost reduction?
Yes, gosh, I do have two succulents and a live-edge computer stand on my desk—don't make fun of me for it.
I’m with the professor. I wish fewer designers would contribute to validating “big and dumb”. The world has enough of that without it being intentionally commoditized by those who are capable of more.
Edit:
I think there’s a bigger point here about a design bubble that is touched on at the end. It turns out that substance is still important, and since technology has facilitated digital design to the point of triviality, actually doing something authentic, and analog may be one possible reaction. I think we’ve seen some hints of that in things like the Stranger Things title sequence.