---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The printing works is not a place that hires out fancy dress. It is not our task to fit out any literary content with a fashionable costume.” – Paul Renner
Aprominent obstacle for the contemporary designer is the idea of inspiration. Why is this a problem? Surely design is a child born of inspiration? This, of course, is true. However, I believe that inspiration becomes a problem within the field of art and design respectively because of a popular, and almost universally accepted, and prolifically misused concept of inspiration. It is one that has become distorted and detached from its original meaning when uttered in relation to Artistic endeavour. Within the design community it has become increasingly common to find websites and blogs featuring “50 Inspirational Designs” or “60 Inspirational Typefaces” among other similar titles. These so called “inspiration galleries” feature a myriad of “inspirational designs” to “get your creative juices flowing”. The works curated in these forums are nearly always used completely out of context, totally separate and alienated from the originally intended, underlying concept or setting (if there were one to begin with). This stripping of concept or ideology from the work strengthens and contributes to post-ideological phenomena (most prominently plagiarism). Viewed in this way (in a/the conceptual void) the work can only possibly act as a paradigm or aesthetic model, upon which the “inspired” designer bases their work. The viewer is stimulated only by the way a piece appears on a superficial, aesthetic level (as it is de-contextualized) and not by its ideological substance or conceptual make up.
Conversely, if the inspiration and foundation for a piece of design work is, instead, an ideological, metaphysical architecture used as a frame on which a design (artistic analogy/portrayal) can be constructed then it is valuable, not only, as design but also as something more discerning and deep rooted. What we see materializing with this methodology is also expression. The expression, in this case, is not necessarily self-expression, but rather the expression of an ideology. The true interpretation, and consequential expression, of a concept, notion, feeling or abstract will always differ between individuals. The psychological workings of the creator when expressed aesthetically (or through ones Art or design) will, perforce, result in a diverse heterogeneity of form (if indeed the work is truly, and sincerely, expressing ones own impressions or metaphorical interpretations of the supposed abstraction). When inspiration is drawn from another’s interpretation without context, the work can only ever differ very slightly from the copied original, as the aforementioned architecture, that the work is being built around, is the original’s aesthetic appearance (plagiarism). The work can then only ever aspire to mimic the original superficially with very slight, negligible deviations in style or method. Here we see inspiration used in a manner that is synonymous with “example” and this is how the word is generally perceived and used. However I conjecture that it would be more helpful for the designer to use or conceive of the word in a differing tone, where it is synonymous with words such as innovation, vision or originality. If the term were expounded with this connotation and proliferated with more value amongst the design community, it would greatly enhance the scene, and therefore all visual culture, with an enrichment of high-concept and innovative work which, I surmise, would consequentially lead to snowballing and exponential growth of progressive conceptual neo-ideological design. The pondered change would be a valuable advancement, a perceptive transformation, and it is this kind of metamorphosis that Neo-ideologism seeks to accomplish.
Others had recognised or predicted the aforementioned situation before. The occurrence of the problem I label post-ideologism was noted and neo-ideologic solutions proposed by, among others, Emil Ruder in his Manual of Typographical Design in 1967:
There are two essential aspects to the work of the typographer: he must take into account knowledge already acquired and keep his mind receptive to novelty. It is notoriously easy for satisfaction with what has been already achieved to degenerate into complacency. For this reason training in experimental typography, which involves the workshop becoming a laboratory and testing station, is more necessary than ever before if typography is not to congeal round principles that have long been recognized. There must be no letting up in the determination to produce vital work reflecting the spirit of the times; doubt and perturbation are good antidotes against the tendency to follow the line of least resistance. 1
In essence Ruder is saying: We need to value the old but strive for, and push forward towards the new. In valuing and studying what has come before, we will indeed find a strong foundation on which to build a new/future legacy in typographic/graphic design. In looking at past great work we can see that notably successful designers have all strived to push the boundaries in search of something better, more original, innovative and avant garde. Striving for avant-gardism is not, as some may feel, rebellion against, dissent from or a rejection of tradition. On the contrary, it is homage to the past that is built with the solid infrastructure of established typographic principles and practices. One can, and should, learn from the forefathers of design as well as ones contemporaries. Actions of plagiarism and general lack of “determination to produce vital work reflecting the spirit of our times” is not a tribute to the typographic design tradition but rather a defamation and an insult to it.
“The printing works is not a place that hires out fancy dress. It is not our task to fit out any literary content with a fashionable costume; we have done our job if we see that it gets a dress in the style of our day. For what we want is typographical life and not a typographical theatre or masked ball.” - Paul Renner 1931