John Maeda's "The Laws of Simplicity" has been popping up on a lot of the best-of-design-books lists I've seen lately (see Speak Up, for example). I received a copy for Christmas, and recently buzzed through it during a couple of commutes (Maeda tells us the book was purposefully limited to 100 pages to allow just such quick reading -- a prime example of form following function, I suppose).
The book is intended as a primer in the merits of simplicity for not only designers but also technophiles of various stripes and business leaders as well. The wide range of intended audiences also results in a style that is rather jarring for those used to a different style of writing about design -- the book often feels like a mix of design criticism, personal anecdotes, and the often-mushy self-help language of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"-type bromides intended for wealthy executives.
Another consequence of the wide range of audience is that many of the laws are fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grounding in the theory of design -- groupings help communicate (Law 2, "Organize"), whitespace is good (Law 6, "Context") -- and they can all be effectively summed up (the ultimate in simplicity) in the final law: "Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful."
The one idea that did resonate with me in a way that had never struck me before was the idea that simplicity requires complexity (Law 5, "Simplicity and complexity need each other). He uses musical rhythm as an example: the simplest rhythms have their place, but are rendered far more effective in contrast with more complex ones. This is, of course, the very essence of something I am very passionate about: the writing and arranging of pop music. What makes a great pop song is often, the establishment of a pattern which is then suddenly changed (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, BRIDGE), or stood on its ear (building up to a chorus only to go back to the verse).
All told, "The Laws of Simplicity" is an interesting book if for no other reason than that it may give designers something to recommend that their clients read as a justification for why they really don't need to make the logo bigger; most designers, though, will already have internalized most of these "laws" already.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
topic tags
Blog Archive
- January 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (2)
- October 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (2)
- July 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (2)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (2)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (2)
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (4)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (1)
- May 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (3)
- February 2008 (5)
- January 2008 (6)
Powered by Blogger.
0 comments:
Post a Comment