Typology as a design tool 25.10.02009

I have been thinking a long time about design styles, but only recently I figured out the usable typology. It consists of four main approaches, so it’s quite simple.

Why design typology? Just because sometimes it’s much easier to start a new work with a definite approach in mind — of course, if it will answer the client’s needs. With a typology all you have to do is to select the most appropriate style. It’s a much more effective way than trying alternative versions until it’s okay.

My main point is that the four most important style-defining aspects of graphic design are space, structure, form, and meaning.

1. Space

Design which starts with space is the one where objects don’t matter and everything is freely flying in what Malevich called «the white abyss». Despites Malevich’s pioneering role, I would prefer to illustrate this approach with Kandindsky’s work which is more expressive, complex, and fluid.

2. Structure

Structure-based design features a very ordered world. It’s what they call grid design, though technically grid is rather a particular case. At the extreme of such an approach, structure IS the only space, form and meaning. Mondrian’s work is the best illustration of it.

3. Form

Form is what dominated graphic design before the 1910s art revolution came, with secession as the extreme case. It doesn’t mean that this approach is now outdated, though you mostly won’t get there the feeling of «design per se» as with the first two approaches. Instead, you’ll get a piece of art, if you will be lucky enough — probably together with a lot of invisible work. For example, if you measure the rectangles in Cassandre’s «L’atlantique», you’ll find a lot of golden ratio there.

4. Meaning

Finally, there is the approach which don’t depend much on the first three factors. Instead, such a design just make sense. A play of images or words, a simple and clear thought appears there right from the first glance. This approach is often used in advertising:

By the way, we can tell that the latter two approaches are objectless and two former ones are related with objects — either physical or mental. A useful observation we’ll return to later.

So how do I use it?

To choose the approach that fits best, I have to answer to a few questions:

1. What’s the content? If it’s an auto parts catalog, the structure-based approach is more likely than anything else. If it’s an expensive wine, I better choose the form-based one. If there is a special point in being memorable, I’d start with the meaning (while we are speaking about wine, Gapingvoid shows us a good example of such an approach).
2. Who’s the audience? Again, select one of the four approaches that fits best.
3. What are the client’s requirements? Your choice can be obviously limited by a brand book or the client’s tastes.

Add a few more questions that are important in your case (you can use creative brief to find them). Then decide which style answers best to all of them.

But what if your case is complicated and the four styles are intersecting or just are not enough? In fact, we can take our typology to the next level of detail. After choosing the dominant approach, we can also choose a subdominant — a flavour from an opposite group (remember our remark about object-based ws objectless styles?). For example, if structure-based approach is the main one, we’ll flavour it with the form-based approach.

In such a way, I get not only a mean to classify graphic design samples, which also can be useful in some occasions, but also a working tool to deliberately direct my design approach. Hope it can be helpful to you, too. If you’ll use this tool or already have a similar one, I would be glad to hear about the results.