OUGD405 - Thoughts on Objectivity and Subjectivity in Graphic Design

Thoughts on objectivity and subjectivity in graphic design

A brief analysis of The Debate: Wim Crouwel and Jan van Toorn

Objectivity is a judgment based in observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Subjectivity is a judgement based on individual personal impressions and feelings rather than external facts.

Crouwel represents the ideal of the designer as the selfless messenger; Van Toorn espouses the notion of the graphic designer as an interventionist – an enabler of criticism and empowerment.

Crouwel has the viewpoint of: ‘I believe that as a designer I must never stand between the message and its recipient.’; thereby taking the objective stance. Van Toorn rebuts this idea with a subjective viewpoint: ‘I do not believe that a designer can adopt the position of neutral intermediary. The acts you perform take place through you, and you are a subjective link. But you deny this subjectivity, meaning you view your occupation as a purely neutral one.’ It is possible to argue that Crouwel believes Van Toorn would be more ‘cautious’ in accepting a job if it did not conform with his personal views and beliefs.

As the discussion continues Van Toorn vehemently states: ‘You impose your design on others and level everything. You were at the forefront, and now our country is inundated by waves of trademarks and house styles and everything looks the same.’ He continues: ‘To me, your approach is not relevant, and in my view you should not propagate it as the only possible solution for a number of communication problems, because it’s not true. What your approach does is basically confirm existing patterns. This is not serving communication – it is conditioning human behavior.’

Van Troon argues that there can be no such thing as an objective message and that the designer can take no neutral stance, because any act of design, in which the designer takes the role of intermediary, will introduce an element of subjectivity. Since this is the case the designer should explicitly acknowledge and make use of the opportunity to construct and critique designs social meaning whilst making sure to not be offensive or disrespect others views. For the designer to take this course, rather than hiding behind a mask of neutrality, both engages and liberates the viewer.

In conclusion, objective work conveys only the essential information needed in design, But the danger of only creating objective work is that it can lead to the same design response in all situations, producing work of great uniformity, in which any sense of identity is lost. This raises the question ‘Does objectivity within graphic design lack human contact?’. On the other hand, does subjectivity within graphic design mean designers should only do work that they can fully agree with? For example, within political branding, must the designer promote their own political convictions? This would narrow the designers work prospects as well as raising them to something more than merely the designer but someone who must be fully invested and part of whatever they have created content for. This confliction suggests to me that graphic design must be both objective and subjective to be functional and successful. A designer’s work must convey information well but it also must also have some subjective qualities to demand attention from its desired audience.