i wish this was our first assignment that we had to do because it does a pretty job job of explaining exactly what it is that we are doing in our class. i agree with the fact that rules are important and learning the basics of anything really can bring you a long way. its not always about how creative someone can be, especially when that person cannot do simple things with the computer. The part about how its important to have a balance between theoretical and practical problems i think is a good thing to have, without it we would either never learn the basic of our craft and never get anywhere after four years, or stick to strict projects all the time and never learn exactly when to apply your own creativity. I think the whole part about how everything should be in a grid system is an interesting thought because when you think about it, it is absolutely true, books are mapped out the same way, flyers and ads have a central layout as well. I think after reading this i have a better understanding of simple assignments and understand why its a good thing to go over little things and learn how to pay such great attention to detail.

The concept of “freedom,” is not necessarily a characteristic of good graphic design. Creating a visually appealing design is only half the battle, the other half is meaning. Even a design with only information can show meaning with the typography, layout, placement, etc. Good designs can be found and kept current through years. Paul Rand’s article, The Design and Play, show examples of puzzles, games, books, symbols, grids, etc., to show the impact of abstract art. For example, the black and white crossword puzzle found in the back of an everyday newspaper, is the form of geometric abstract design. It is a layout that is strategic and portrays strong form. The geometric shapes, balance, symmetry, and flow make abstract useful. My favorite design was the Chinese character because of the white background playing a dominant shape as well. The shape and overall form it took was well balanced which allowed my eye to flow through effortlessly. To me, it looks like it could be a symbol or logo. The cubist artwork caught my attention as well. A simple layout with all of its’ harsh lines of type, mixed with the center shape of what looks like an outlined face with flower shapes. I am mostly drawn to it because of the high contrast. The text being rigid, the face human-like with natural round shapes, followed with flowers that are basic black which create the flowers to appear more sketched and harsh. Not only does it appeal visually, it also has meaning. This article enforces the importance of simpleness, and recognizing the rules and disciplines involved with good design. When the article stated that, “Disciplines De Stijl encouraged- functional use of material and meaningful form” really portray what this article is about, discipline.

At first reading the title “Design and the Play Instinct” I was confused as to what this had to do with designing but after reading I found there to be a lot of good information, this paper talks about the different elements of design and of the very nature of the designers. It is always helpful to read and learn about the different basics of design like, contrast, composition and placement, color, etc. the paper went over mainly the need for layout and how geometry plays into that. I knew before hand that placement was very important and this paper has helped me to understand just how some artists determine their placement choices. The other thing I found interesting was the talk about games and how that helps one to learn, this concept was another I was familiar with, humans do best on something when they are having fun and enjoy what they are doing and playing games gives the student a new and fun way to learn.

Paul Rands article The Design And The Play discusses how a student with potential cannot just rely on their natural talents, but need guidelines or rules in order to have success as a designer. Paul believes the method known as “The Design And The Play” helps the designer begin to grow and understand concepts greater than just a good looking piece of design, but to develop something that has purpose and more meaning. To achieve this Rand believes a designer must be taught to be able to do both theoretical and practical problems. Rand then compares these two types of problems to games and explains how by working with one discipline it sharpens your skills for the other. So by following rules in terms doesn’t constrict your creativity in a design, it tightens it and gives the creativity purpose and your job as a designer is to put the creativeness to the purpose. I agree very much with Rands article and I feel like the exercise/problems we have been doing in class have been very similar to his concept.

Paul Rand described the problem with art as how best to arouse curiosity, hold attention, and engage creative faculties. Rand has found two factors that impact this problem. These factors are the kind of problem chosen for study and the why in which it is posed. He describes how basic rules and disciplines must be followed. He compares design to a game and how the rules must be followed to be successful. He states, “The rules are the means to the end, the conditions the player must understand thoroughly, and work with, in order to participate.” Unfortunately, some schools give little guidance to students. He later describes how arrangements may be pleasing and pretty but have no meaning. He explains how there are relationships in art including harmony, order, proportion, and many others. Throughout the article he talks of several teaching styles. One of these teaching styles is that teaching should alternate between theoretical and practical problems. I agree with Rand in the aspect that there are certain rules in art and design that should always be followed. I agree that there should be meaning rather than just visual appeal. However, I think sometimes the rules must be broken for art to expand and grow over time.

In the beginning of this essay by Paul Rand, he talks about the difficulties in teaching and how a students success is going to rely on their natural talent. In schools there is barely any attempt of progression from basic design to applied design. One of the biggest design problems is teaching the possibility of relationships. Teaching should have a split of learning theoretical problems and practical problems. As Rand goes on he gives different problem possibilities by showing and explaining a few games like crossword puzzles and Tangrams. I really enjoyed when he talked about creating work with simple means but being very satisfied with it. For example when he was describing the Cubist collage he says ” The playfulness and humor in the production of some of these compositions in no way detracts from the end result- a serious work of art” (Rand 169). That statement struck out at me the most while reading this and it connects back to the title of the entire essay.

I have mixed feelings about Rand’s beliefs.

I do believe that there has to be rules in order to learn how to design. It forces the future designer to work with what he has, and learning how to be as effective as possible without having too many options to flood the creative process. It definitely is a “test of skill”, the “ultimate reward”, and motivating for there to be rules. By making the design work with little resources is the test of skill, and it is rewarding when you’ve made something beautiful even though you didn’t have a lot to use, and it is motivating to do the best possible job. If there aren’t any rules when learning how to design, the designer will get lost in fancy fonts and drop shadows without learning how to be an effective designer. Also, it makes the designer learn how to verbally communicate better because it will take more effort o make an good argument for the elements you chose. 

Rand states that when it comes to developing a grid and filling the grid, the “creative ability for the former is no less than that for the latter”. I do believe that creating a grid that will make the most of its contents does take creativity, but I also think that creating such a grid doesn’t require more creative ability than making the designs that will fill the grid. Although a designer must consider all elements that are going to be put into the grid to figure out how it’s going to work best, few creative and artistic choices must be made. When making the grid, size, positioning, layout are all things that must be creatively decided. When it comes to filling the sections with designs, content, typography, color, images, pattern, and so much more have to be decided. Without a completely effective grid, the design still has potential to work rather than if the grid system chosen is excellent but the design is lacking.

 

The “Design and The Play Instinct” article by Paul Rand compares two types of instincts that the human designer fights with. Playing is compared to limitations of designing while discussing the art of design. The brawl between creativity and limits is a very tight match. On one hand a designer wants to create a piece that is smart and appealing. but also must concentrate on certain rules and regulations on the design and for what purpose it is being created for. Rand explains that in order for good design there should be a ‘happy medium” when teaching students the art of design. He states: “If possible, teaching should alternate between theoretical and practical problems…But this can happen only after the student has been taught basic disciplines and their application. He then is able to invent his own system for ‘playing the game'”. I agree with him. The only way to have that happy medium between rules and creativity is to teach the student the rules of the design one aspect at a time. Then once he or she is aware of those rules they can now create their ingenious works of design with the background of fundamentals in mind. There is always going to be that need or want to explore outside of the given assignment, but there are certain aspects to focus on and understand before expanding on those wild ideas.

The article The Design and the Play focuses on how to engage design students and encourage their creativity. Rand says in the article that most of a students success will depend mainly on their natural talent. He later goes on to talk about two different types of design assignments, one of which is seen in a more professional setting which has lots of limitations and rules and one that has more opportunity for abstract art and no creative limitations. After reading this I think it is important to emphasize that designs have to be more than just aesthetically pleasing, they must have meaning behind them. Although you may be able to get away with making good looking pieces for clients with no meaning behind them, you would be a much more accomplished designer if your work has true meaning behind it. Out of all of the examples Rand chose to display in the article I liked Mattise’s composition the best because of its simplicity.

The article ‘The Design and The Play’ makes you think a lot about how a Graphic Designer should come up with their designs instead of how students in an early classroom setting create them now. Especially when coming from a high school setting where you start to learn about Graphic Design and you are pretty much left to your own devices to figure it out yourself. I can agree with the writer of the article on when leaving students (and kids) up to their own ways of making patterns and designs that it’s not really teaching them to create something that truly has meaning by  just letting them play around and not teaching anything. As a designer, the work that is created not only has to be visually appealing but needs to have some meaning as well, according to ‘The Design and The Play’. Something that is not being developed in schools since not all teachers are directing students to practice applied design instead of just the basics, something that I can see both sides too. Sometimes, you are going to have a job to do for a client where the meaning of what you are doing is not going to be as important as the look and design of it. And there are other times when doing a job that the meaning is going to be just as important, if not more important than the appearance of the work done.