I think form follows function is really powerful, and it’s interesting to me that Tschichold rejected anything outside of form follows function as ineffective.  A part of me loves that, but a bigger part of me loves highly decorative, less functional typography and design in general.  Tschichold seems to champion sober, highly functional, rather plain typography, but I must admit I love the other side of the coin.  Why can’t typography and other types of design be decorative and frivolous, with pleasure being the sort of ‘function’ of the design?

I find Gerstner’s programme for designing to be mathematical, clinical, and devoid of emotion.  I suppose it is one way of designing, and most definitely a unique one and probably a powerful and effective one I will admit.  However, for me, it defeats the purpose of design.  I try to design with emotion, and I express my personal point of view in my designs.  For me it is so much more enjoyable that way.

Muller-Brockmann’s design ethos is again, for me, far too mathematical, objective, and cold.  There is one element of his design ethos that I agree with, that is the technique of systemizing processes.  Systemizing is something I do in my design work and life in general, because I find it makes every process easier, since once I design the system, all I have to do is execute that system over and over again to get to my desired outcome.