How else do you think designers can justify their inflated rates? Wrap it in in a fancy word salad to elevate it and sell it to wealthy urbanites.

Reminds me of that scene[1] from the Silicon Valley TV show where that designer was tasked to design a server box and he started the meeting showing random pictures to the CEO with some bongo drum soundtrack in order to "establish a common vocabulary" lol, or the brand manual of the infamous Pepsi logo redesign fail[2] full of made up geometrical nature BS stories that the agency pulled out of their ass to milk Pepsi, which I'm sure is what the satire form Silicon Valley was based on.

At this point, I think designers just operate on the basis of "a fool an his money are easily parted".

[1] https://youtu.be/qyLv1dQasaY?si=yUwQU-9EQL3QMxbi&t=6

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/hspqgd/pepsi_logo_r...

▲

loa_in_ 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not foolish. Design is subjective and it's most often a question with no objectively good answer, so it's between the designer and whoever appraises his output. There's no secret design paradigm that makes everyone happy.

▲

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

>It's not foolish.

It is all about fooling the viewer. Like for example seeing some run down old buildings in US or Eastern Europe will make people scoff, but if you show them similar looking run down buildings in South Mediterranean Europe or Japan they will be in awe. It's about perception.

>Design is subjective

No it isn't. Just like art and people's appearances, there's unanimously objective on what's beautiful and what's ugly.

The redesigned Pepsi logo is objectively worse, which is why it was so short lived and reverted back to the original design.

People who say there's no such thing as ugly design because it's al subjective are coping hard or trying to sell their design agency.

▲

monooso 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Just like art and people's appearances, there's unanimously objective on what's beautiful and what's ugly.

Neither of those things is true. Plenty of artistic movements have been both praised and derided, and many people have a "type" which influences who they do (or don't) find attractive.

As to idea that there's a universally agreed-upon definition of objectively pleasing design, I suggest you take a look at the work of the Memphis Group.

▲

rideontime 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which redesigned Pepsi logo are you referring to here? The one with the legendary design document[0] lasted from 2008 to 2023.

[0] https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...

▲

FirmwareBurner 3 days ago | parent [-]

You posted the same link I did. Did you read my comment before commenting?

	▲	rideontime 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, I posted a direct link to the design document. Did you check to see how long that logo was in use before claiming that it was "short lived"?

▲

abeppu 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

... can you share with us a design for a beauty meter which objectively measures beauty? Since it's not a subjective characteristic, it should be possible to establish whether something is beautiful without a subject to perceive and experience it.

▲

aosaigh 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is such a childish and cynical take. Just because you fail to see something, doesn't mean it's not there.