Introduction

Failure is a natural and necessary by-product of creativity. Classical design principals (adherence to the golden mean and the desire for balance and harmony) dictate that we are conditioned to reject failure, strive to eradicate it from all creative output. The accuracy and clarity of the imparted information is often the sole criteria under which the success or failure of any graphic design solution is judged. However, failures are often the stepping-stones towards enlightenment.

Philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend states: “The only principal that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes, Deviations and errors are essential preconditions of progress; from sloppiness and chaos arise the theories on which the growth of knowledge and scientific advancement depend”. [1]

Design that embraces failure by seeking to include faults and anomalies is the subject of this investigation. Such ‘faults’ include; corruption, fragmentation, distortion and assorted graphic minutiae, purposefully inserted in order to challenge prevailing aesthetic protocols. What are the motivations, both aesthetic and psychological that inform an imperfect design rationale? Modern design tools provide the designer with a sterile environment, accurate to 0.000mm. The desire to undermine this state-of-the-art conformity by deliberately including elements that hint at hand-made assembly is a fascinating dichotomy.

Desktop publishing technologies have revolutionised the working practices of graphic designers. The digital age has freed designers from many of the drudgeries of production. Modern rendering techniques such as multi-layering, blurring and distortion have been assimilated into the visual language of popular culture. Aesthetics however, have tended to lag behind these advancements in technological sophistication. Established tastes in design tend to adhere to Modernist sensibilities. This clinical, hyper-reality is referred to as ‘slick graphics’.

John Maeda, designer, authour and computer scientist states: “Macintosh-fuelled design tools are explicitly programmed to express a finite set of visual expressive styles, hence implicitly guiding design work performed with these tools along precisely defined stylistic axes” in other words, everything looks the same in digital design [2]

Design that deviates form pre described conventionally tends to be marginalised, existing at the periphery of popular culture. Creative work that features these so called ‘imperfections’ exists chiefly when designer becomes author, beyond the critical glare of mass-market consumerism.
Edward Fella uses imperfect typography, exploring the beauty of irregular spacing, referring to it as ‘anti-mastery’ that challenges the criteria used to judge ‘slick’ design. “ Especially in graphic design, we’re surrounded by really slick design. In order to break out of that, you either have to become the most facile professional of them all or chip away at it somehow” [3]

The commercial graphic design landscape is dominated by the power of ‘the brand’.
Brand image, is a symbolic construct consisting of such abstract notions as thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes and any other qualities or characteristics that make the product or service special or unique. The designer is expected to articulate these brand values coherently. The resultant proposals are often subject to extensive market research, this inevitably results in conservative outcomes.

This paradox between creative expression and commercial responsibility forms the premise of this question:
Is this ‘deliberately damaged’ design aesthetic, an interesting and relevant response to ‘slick graphics’ & the slow strangulation of design by ‘branding’?
Or is it simply the graphic design equivalent of manufacturing distressed jeans?

The analogy of the distressed jeans is appropriate for the following reason:
The manufacturer of the jeans has used technologies that apply the distressed effect to the otherwise standard article, in effect damaging the clothing. The jeans are then marketed and sold at the premium price point regardless of these self-inflicted imperfections. The manufacturer and customer are both compliant in this mutually acceptable fraud.

In the Post-modern climate, existing systems are subject to rigorous re-evaluation. The concept of ‘Deconstructionism’ (or Post-structurism), has emerged as an alternative thread running parallel to the central theme of error. This oblique linguistic philosophy appears to give credence to many of the suggestions this investigation has proposed.

“Deconstruction involves the breaking down of an idea, percept, word or value in order to decode its parts in such a way that these act as informers on the thing or on any assumptions or convictions we have regarding it. “ – Chuck Byrne and Matha Witte [4]

When applied to graphic design, Deconstructionism ignores accepted tenets of communication. By accentuating the reorganization of the usual mechanics of representation, a seemingly illogical or disordered process allows new patterns to emerge.

Deconstructionist attitudes lift the veil on digital functionality. The bitmapped landscape is exposed, the internal coding revealed – the function inhabits the form. In the same way it can be argued that the wear patterns prevalent in a pair of distressed jeans betray the garments internal structure.

When researching designers or design movements that employ a subverted or imperfect aesthetic, it has been possible to devise three distinct divisions. These categories serve as fluid signifiers rather than definitive genres:

GRUNGE
This loose grouping of styles have become commonplace in popular culture. The intention is often to approximate a vintage or urban aesthetic. ‘Grunge’ typically uses a blend of vernacular hybrids, low-resolution reproductions and under-inked letterpress fonts.
This ‘grunge’ aesthetic has become highly prescriptive. The inclusion of imperfections is largely derivative. Modern interpretations are a pastiche of concepts devised in the 1980’s. Devoid of aesthetic or conceptual forethought this plagiarised vernacular has become a stylish conceit warranting limited critical analysis.

DECONSTRUCTION
In the mid 1980’s design journalists started referencing ‘Deconstructionism’ as way of categorising graphic design practices that used chopped-up, layered and fragmented forms. By the 1990’s ‘Desconstructionism’ had become a way of describing work that favours complexity over simplicity, often celebrating the excesses of digital production. [5]

The visual language of Deconstructionism typically includes these visual metaphors:
Decomposition: Automated, repetitive transformations resulting in a decayed aesthetic
De-centering: Inclined planes and angles disrupt the concept of vertical and horizontal.
Discontinuity: Destruction of continuity by accident, distortion or multi-layering.
Disjunction: A state of separation and fission caused by limitation or interruption. [6]

Deconstructivism was never a full-blown movement or a coherent, clearly defined ‘ism’, having none of the adherents who described themselves as Deconstructionists. Few of the designers who worked in a ‘deconstructionist’ way made any direct reference to its theoretical sense [7]

This brand of graphic discordance exists at the extremities of design practice. Much of this ground breaking work is at odds with accepted principals that govern the science of communication. These works deconstruct, separate or reveal multi-layered meanings incorporated into their designs. The reconfigured graphic language often prescribes new notions of legibility. As with most experimental art forms the downside of this process can produce results that are merely self-indulgent examples of graphic debauchery.

GLITCH ART
Glitch Art uses accidental digital outcomes to formulate chaotic but beautiful images. ‘Databending’ involves the engineering of scenarios under which these digital ‘errors’ can be generated. There are no accepted criteria upon which to gauge the success or failure of resultant corruption beyond the aesthetic sensibilities of the corruptor. There is no perfection. This ‘imperfect’ reinterpretation of accepted digital protocols bears many of the hallmarks of Deconstructionism. [8]

In digital culture, nothing is ever perfect or finished. Glitch art and design celebrates the imperfections that are an inevitable by-product of our reliance upon computers – the work speaks to an audience that is intimately familiar with malfunctioning Apples and Microsoft error messages. But the glitches of computer error (or misuse) have acquired an aesthetic all their own [9]

This research model has identified 3 significant examples of work produced by practitioners that have been identified as influences in the field of ‘flawed’ design. By critically analysing this work it is possible to examine techniques, reasoning and context. The objective is to make informed judgements on the methodology of deliberate ‘flaws’ in design.

The creative aspect of this journal will be spent experimenting with methods of data corruption using a range of manual intervention or databending techniques. The resulting creative work will hopefully justify this investigation and promote
future exploration.

References:
[1] [4] [7] Poynor, R (2003) No More Rules: Graphic Design & Postmodernism. London. Laurence King Publishing
[2] Shaughnessy, A (Autumn 2003) ‘Laptop Aesthetics’. Eye 49. Vol 13. pp18
[3] [8] Gerber A. (2004) All Messed Up, London, Laurence King Publishing
[5] Lupton , E (1999) ‘Deconstruction and Graphic Design’ in Lupton, E and Miller, A Writing on Graphic Design. New York. Phaidon Press
[6] Dong-Sik Hong (2003) A Study on the Deconstructionist Representation in Graphic Design. Tongmyong University of Information Technology[online]Available at: www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/CD_doNotOpen/ADC/final_paper/551.pdf (accessed 12th February 2011)
[9] Robertson, A (Spring 2010) ‘Famous for Fifteen Megabytes’. Eye 75. VOL 19. pp90