“Brand DNA” is a large part of the fashion industry, where followers of the brand care a lot about the creative directors and their interests, what they wear, and what they believe in. Why is it that other aspects of design such as furniture, graphic, web, etc. don’t have that same interest in the“Brand DNA” and its creative directors? Aside from fashion, it feels as though people are interested strictly with their designs and not the person themselves.
Relating to Tuesday’s reading, and the idea of brands creating a design experience first. Brands are prioritizing what the experience or feeling their brand evokes is. Especially in fashion it is about creating a sense of community. Fashion brands are selling friendship, or the idea of a“tribe” or a group that people can feel like they belong to. I think of brands like Supreme and Glossier that can almost be used as a way to describe a person rather than just the fashion or beauty brand it is.
“The answer is multivalent. Abloh seems to do a little, or a lot, of everything. Creative directors are expected to weave and broadcast very visible and coherent public narratives for both themselves and the brands they represent”. Capitalism/brand and personal identity become inextricably linked for a public creative director and that is the image that is projected to their millions of followers. This image of a successful multi-million dollar person becomes the standard of success to their followers, resulting in unrealistic achievements and absurd standards at young ages. It is incredibly inspiring to relate and idolize someone in your field of interest, but also sets an unbalanced attainment for young followers.
The article discussed the idea of having a personal brand in order to“leverage a public identity in a bid for fame and fortune”. I wonder, are people now branding themselves because they feel that it would help them become famous instead of discovering their own personalities? Is it all a big show for validation? Or is it actually a useful method for achieving goals?
The reading said“Creative directors not only guide the work that happens under their command, they also stand as an embodiment of the brand itself. In the most advanced cases, the brand is inseparable from the identity of the creative director: think Martha Stewart, Karl Lagerfeld, Steve Jobs” Can a brand relying so heavily on one persons image be bad thing? Should the products speak for themselves outside of the connection to the creative director?
In a world where design is constantly changing and branching out, it makes sense that many majors at Parsons are widespread. Covering a multitude of topics is the only way to keep up. Abloh is a great example of this, being a creative director and active designer in many different fields. However does trying to participate in all of these different kinds of design mean that there fewer specialists? Are we sacrificing quality for quantity, or is a more varied design education important for creative thinking?
The author states,“Creating and maintaining what has come to be called brand equity—the value accrued from history, reputation, and regard—requires vision management.” It has become a trend to simplify logos into a simple sans serif in the past couple of years. One can argue that logos are becoming similar and lack characteristics that make them unique. Do you think creative directors take this into consideration before simplifying a logo or how the company brands themselves? How can they create“brand equity” that illustrates their company's unique history and reputation if they do follow the trend of simplifying?
The article says,“The creative director, then, is expected not only to imag- ine products, but also to represent them, create media around them, tweet about them, theorize them, and ultimately sell them to the public.” Do you think products should have“lives of their own”? Are they separate from the company and designer that made it, or a company entity?
How do you think a balance between the identity of the creative director and the identity of the brand can be achieved, if it is possible at all?
The article states,“If you ask Abloh to reveal a methodology for how he copes with this bifurcated role and the complexity and diversity of the issues in which he engages, he often resorts to the dialectic:‘Do opposites, it just feels better.’” What are some other dialectics you can think of when coping with this role?
the article states that creative directors“draws on this very contemporary, very personal idea of brand” as it represent a fundamental shift in the position the designer holds in the public imagination. But this is one reason to ask if there is indeed an opposition between the branding team and the creative directors?
What is the(future?) counter-aesthetic to the Millennial aesthetic, and what do you think the driving ideas and values are behind this counter-aesthetic?
The Cut article stated,“It is hard to imagine ourselves growing old — to imagine the time, nearly upon us already, when“millennial” no longer means“young.” Likewise, it is hard to imagine how the millennial aesthetic will age.” This was a comment on millennial pink as a color representing a generation. Since this shade of pink has taken over many current designs, will there be another color in the future that will hold the same representation? Or, will people want to remember this time forever and stay true to present day aesthetic?
The article states that,“Instagrammable is a term that does not mean‘beautiful’ or even quite‘photogenic’; it means something more like‘readable.’” In my opinion, many cafes, pop ups, and even prints specifically create interiors and designs that would capture the interests of individuals and lure them into taking pictures. Do you agree with the article’s definition of the term Instagrammable? Why or why not?
I find it interesting how one's socioeconomic position has such a large space in this article. Molly Fischer defines the millennial as being generational and that the"millennial aesthetic...could take something disgusting and attempt — through sheer force of branding — to make it cute and fun." Not only do we still see commercial advertisements but also branding on social media platforms. Do you agree with this power of branding in 2020? What are some brands or examples if so?
The article states that “ If you simultaneously can’t afford any frills and can’t afford any failure, you end up with millennial design: crowd-pleasing, risk-averse, calling just enough attention to itself to make it clear that you tried.” I feel like this is a statement that makes itself apparent in certain class situations going to a school like Parsons. Do you see people revert to this“millenial design” frequently? Do you think it is a problem?
Brands that use the“Millenial” aesthetic seem to have extremely similar strategies of being accessible, visually easy to look at, and affordable to the average consumer. Because it is so broad, are consumers starting to realize how this type of design is not meant to help them, but rather to exploit them? A quote I found interesting from Jessica Helfand was“to what degree does design confer false authority on anything it touches?”
Molly Fischer speaks on how“Millenial” Design is a new way for designers to have a project be clean and inviting. Although, she says it has become overused and boring. But does this actually speak to a certain audience? Also if that audience is present, why not give them what they want and the kind of design that will make the client successful?
I thought the article made some interesting points regarding brand identity in the“millenial” age. It makes me think if an eye catching,“millenial friendly” brand can make or break a business? A quote that stood out to me was,“The millennial aesthetic can be enlisted to try to sell anything, as has quickly become apparent.” Does this mean that this is a good thing? Will it get old or over used? Even today on the subway I can clock a bunch of different brands that are clearly taking the“splashy millenial” route, vs others that look like they appeal to everyone.
In what ways do you think the‘millennial aesthetic’ reflects the values of our generation, if it does at all?
I agree with Molly Fischer when it comes to the idea that“millennial” aesthetics in design have become repetitive and boring, but should we let it define the millennial generation? I believe that the aesthetic was once meant to create a friendly, welcoming, and trustworthy atmosphere but now it has become so over done when is it still genuine?
The article states that“If the millennial aesthetic crystallizes most clearly in realms associated with femininity(style, beauty, wellness, domesticity), it has diffused outward to goods and businesses of all sorts.” What are some examples of the millennial aesthetic being clearly used when it’s not associated with femininity?
The Edge of the Center – Michael Rock
The Tyranny of Terrazzo Will the millennial aesthetic ever end? — Molly Fischer