Paul Rand “Good Design Is Good Will” 1987 from  Graphic Design Theory: Readings From the Field page 64-69 and Steven Heller “Underground Mainstream” in Design Observer 2008.

What is your opinion of Paul Rand’s view of the designer/client relationship?

In my opinion, I strongly agree with Paul Rand’s view between the designer and the client relationship. In Paul Rand’s view, the relationship between the designer and the client should be a mutually beneficial relationship. The client should not interfere too much with the designer’s ideas, for example, the client instructs the designer how to design or strictly requires the designer to follow his ideas completely to design something. This will limit designers’ inspiration and creativity, The “product” designed in this way It will lose its aura(soul) and spirit and become rigid. Doing so will not only bury the designer’s design ability and creativity, but also loss of mutual trust. This is not conducive to subsequent development. Good design will help clients or brands shape a good brand identity, which represents people’s trust in the brand and their impressions of all aspects of the brand. Therefore, in Paul Rand’s view, the designer and the client should be trusted and respect each other.  Only in this way can both sides obtain the desired benefits.

Is there a difference between “underground” and “mainstream” today?

According to the article, the answer is NO. There almost has no difference between “underground” and “mainstream” today. Because more “underground” artworks or things people are more acceptable than before. And the most important reason is that most advertising like to use “underground” or avant-garde as a library to inspire the design and make advertising. This often attracts more people’s attention and interest. Today, advertising and social media want and need to get more clout, and “underground” is a very good option to use as a reference. When the “underground” be popular, it would become mainstream.

This is a visual example of early avant-garde culture jamming. The advertising call “Can’t Afford to Gamble With”, from Crest Toothpaste in 1987. The main object is the two teeth with dice number composition. That is a very smart visual aid. Actually, if people don’t take care of their teeth and brush their teeth twice a day, it is easier to get the decayed tooth, which is a risk of teeth. The consequences of tooth decay are very unpleasant and harmful to health. Not only does it cause toothache, but also it costs money to go to the dentist for treatment. Gambling is also a high-risk thing. If you fail, you will face losses. The combination of the two implies that tooth decay is a high-risk loss of “gambling” failure.

This is a visual example of culture jamming for today. It is an advertisement from McDonald’s. They put the hamburger, Big Mac, into the globe, and the position of the hamburger is the position of the earth in the original globe. That means McDonald’s would set up stores anywhere, in any country on the earth, which is globalization.