Karl Gerstner, Designing Programmes pg55-61, Joseph Muller-Brockman, “Grid and Design Philosophy” pg62-63 Graphic Design Theory: Readings From the Field by Helen Armstrong; and Margaret Rhodes, The Swiss Designers Breaking Tradition. 

Prompts:

  • How does each of these designers/authors think you should approach design?
  • Include an example of contemporary typography/layout that embodies the two design systems or philosophies described by Karl Gerstner and Joseph Muller-Brockman. And explain why!
  • How do the contemporary Swiss designers describe in Margaret Rhodes’ essay “flirt with breaking the rules of the International Typographic Style”?

Response

After having read the philosophy of these three artists, I think it would be fair to say that each one was pointing in an almost opposite direction to the other in terms of how to organize their layout. Therefore, Karl Gerstner was the creator of what I would say is the most complex grid in the world. His artistic perspective and inclination to science made the creation of grid-based design programs very mathematical, with established rules that had to be followed to obtain the desired result. Something interesting about this man is his way of looking for an organization for each element of his design. He distanced himself from chaos and artistic irrationality and always looked for a logical way to design.

On the other hand, we have Alexander Tochilovsky and his team. They believed art should be liberating and accommodated depending on the artist, an idea opposed to Gerstner’s. Alexander believed in the Swiss Style, but he also understood that some rules had to be broken to make way for more original works and designers. According to him, everything depended on the perspective and meaning that each artist puts into every detail. In my opinion, the fact of being able to be free and open with your art is good, because it allows you to exploit all your creativity. However, it could lead to the point where the art or designs would no longer send a clear message as seen a couple of times in history. I’m personally not a fan of art that doesn’t have a clear meaning. Of course, in typography, the perception changes because the message is there, literally written, but the question is. How easy is it to read, and what would be its uses besides an exhibition?

And finally, we have Josef Muller-Brockmann. I think his way of seeing art was close to mine, which is why I feel identified in a certain way with him than with the rest. He believed that with the use of a grid, not as complex as others, he still had freedom when designing but with mathematical thinking. This means that each element and decision taken had a reason for being there based on the laws of universal validity, that is, the designs were readable, understandable, and functional with a unique but meaningful aesthetic.

Annotations:

Karl’s grid

Swiss Style example (the use of a grid that creates order with a logical thinking)

Alexander Tochilovsky (An example of a typography poster without a grid or mathematical sense)