We’ve spoken in the past about the importance of the message. The purpose of graphic design, in our minds, should be to communicate a distinct message to the right audience in the most appropriate way possible. We recently came across the following quote by Adrian Shaughnessy who, in his usual succinct and intelligent way, uses a simple and easy to understand analogy to completely hit the nail on the head. The substance taking precedent over the style is something we feel is hugely important and easily forgotten in today’s fast moving and trend-driven design world.
“Graphic design has been likened to a wine glass. When we drink wine we barely notice the glass it’s served in. It wouldn’t be true to say that we don’t care what glass we drink out of – we wouldn’t choose to drink a rare vintage out of a Tupperware mug, for example – but it’s the wine that matters, not the vessel it comes in.”
Since co-founding design studio Intro in 1989, Adrian Shaughnessy has gone on to turn his hand to a number of different roles with then design world. Writing articles for magazines such as Grafik, Design Week, Eye, Design Observer and Creative Review, founding the publishing venture Unit Editions, consulting for design/branding/advertising agency This Is Real Art, editing illustration journal Varoom, lecturing extensively around the world, writing the essential industry guide ‘How To Be A Graphic Designer Without Losing Your Soul‘ (if you don’t own it already – BUY IT NOW!) and even presenting a graphic design radio show on Resonance FM. He’s a busy man and talks a great deal of sense.
Thanks for reading,
Phil and Tom
Incoming two-penneth…
Graphic designers are always looking for a tidy little soundbite to summarise their craft. I imagine this is in-keeping with the nature of that craft (summarising a complex brand offer in a logo or tagline, for example, requires a similar exercise in reduction) and helps to maintain a philosophy on which that craft can be developed. ‘The medium is the message’, for example, is one to live by. ‘It’s the wine that matters, not the vessel it comes in’ is a contradictory, slightly less catchy (sorry Adrian), but no less reductive philosophy.
Here’s the problem though — in reality, I find that neither of them, nor any other reductive ‘jus de desin’ philosophy are true. In fact, I find them to be a quite lazy way to ignore the parts of the job that don’t appeal.
I find (and this is just me, of course) that the day-to-day practice of designing for money (yours and the clients) is a constant and usually very messy four-way tussle between medium (the glass), message (the wine), context (where are we drinking) and audience (with whom are we drinking).
Medium. Message. Context. Audience. Not always in that order, and not always just those four, but those are the four omnipresent factors.
For example (and using Adrian’s analogy) — good wine in a tupperware container relaxing around a campfire with old friends is about as close to perfection as you could get. Good wine in a decent glass around a campfire with folks who don’t appreciate any of it, not so much. The wine, the glass and the campfire suddenly aren’t enough, and the whole thing becomes just a little bit hollow. And you can repeat this exercise over and over removing one ingredient at a time, it’ll hold true. It’s only when the medium, message, context and audience are in tune that the equation works.
The oddest thing is, the closer you get to balancing the equation, the easier it becomes. The right wine, the right setting, the right people, and the choice of glass becomes self-evident. And again, you can approach it from any angle. Posh setting, posh people, posh glasses, best get some decent wine in. Easy.
Well, no, not easy. I’ve gone and made a reductionist statement, haven’t I.
Shit.
Hi Dan
Firstly, thanks for getting involved and commenting.
We understand your point and agree that the process of designing for a client is a messy and complex process that can’t be encapsulated accurately into a neat soundbite.
However, you may have perhaps missed the point of the quote and taken the wine analogy a bit too literally. We may be wrong, but think the point Adrian is trying to make is that the vessel (or medium) shouldn’t be the focus, and should simply be appropriate or inconspicuous enough to be virtually invisible and allow the wine / message to take centre stage.
If you’re at a fancy dinner party wondering why you’re drinking Châteauneuf du Pape from a chipped mug, something’s wrong. If you’re relaxing round a campfire with your mates but worried about getting mud on the Waterford Crystal, something’s wrong. The part of the quote about ‘barely noticing’ the glass is key to the overall meaning.
I understand the statement, I’m just not sure I agree with it. If it read that the appropriateness of the wine glass makes it invisible, then fine. But it doesn’t.
Beside which, dismissing the glass (medium) as unimportant or irrelevant is perhaps not the most convincing position to be taken by a partner at Unit Editions, purveyor of variously and meticulously constructed publications