and to further acfa's food analogy, never ever serve the beans before the frank. i don't care if you are doing graphics or architecture. just don't do it.
well for one, graphics are for looking at... architecture is also for looking at, as well as living in, standing on, working in, playing in, smelling in, breathing in, sleeping on, taking a shit in...
graphics can do that too, but it doesnt usually...
but i think architecture can be fashion too... but maybe its closer to clothing than to graphics, it has utility value... isn't graphics useless in a real sense? or is architecture both the graphics and the realized object? is there architecture without first representation? is architecture architecture if you don't graphically represent it in some way? or is architecture architecture if its only a represented idea, never actually built?
graphic design-in many ways, you study how people relate to web interface and how information is displayed and communicated to the viewer visually. It is a far more 2D interface and the function of most website is to inform viewers of a firm's profile, work, etc.
architecture-using design to influence our way of life, culture, site. this requires knowledge in fabrication, the way things our built, the way humans move around, the site. i believe the scope is far broader than graphic design, so there are more components required in factoring into the design. the design product is constructed as space, where people inhabit it 24/7 whereas a website is only visited periodically or rarely and the only interaction between viewer and site (for now at least) is primarily mouse and the visual interfaces on the screen.
oh i think the mediums used to express information in web design is more limited because you're always using the same method to carry out your idea. although architecture is similar in a way, that you always use CD's and similar materials to build spaces, the opportunity for creative ways of fabrication and implementation of new ideas is far broader. so although a lot more restrictions are placed in architecture, the opportunities i believe for architecture are far greater. in 2d interface, you're limited to a screen and mouse, and whatever is shown visually whereas in architecture, your creative process factors into the way people live, the senses, functions, culture, etc.
i don't know what 'tough' means....but i think architecture is a more broad design field than graphic design.
Just to add a little to the thread by way of a question.....
Soulikeit - do you live under a tree in the middle of nowhere? or do you live in a building perhaps in a town or city.
do you see all the magazines and posters and cd covers etc or are you in some paradise without such things.
Ok - so go and look at both things and answer your own question. And if you cannot understand what you would have to do to make the two different things then I suggest you should do neither.
maybe you can go onto an accountants thread and ask what is the difference between accountancy and changing the time on a digital clock.....lol
personally, I think sashimi's answer (and many other's in this thread) are rather short sighted in the influence and complexity of graphic design. Graphic design includes more than web design. It includes things like typography, page layout, illustration, information design, etc. etc.
Like architecture, there can be a lot of thought and research put into the design or very little. I'm sure we've all seen buildings that look as if they were done by someone going through the motions. No consideration of context, materials, form, etc.
The prevalence of images in the world is rather overwhelming currently and could be argued to dilute some of their power. Think of how many people can easily recognize the gap's logo, or mcdonalds or whatever. Now consider how many people have ever even heard of rem koolhaas. Graphic design can inform/educate/enlighten/surprise people in ways architecture can't. Architecture can do some of those things in other ways. One is not more difficult or better, they are different fields with different end goals and objectives.
I think many of the posts are responding to the lifespan of an image vs. the lifespan of a building. Generally a building far outlives that of an image. Some images do last though. Think about the I <3 NY design, or the Coca-Cola logo. These are rather modern images but have maintained their form and high level of recognition for an extended period of time. For a longer time frame you could consider something like the image of the Cross in Christianity or the Star of David in Judaism or any number of other religious symbols.
graphic images can have alot of power, but i think the acceleration of the production of these images, the rate at which they can be generated, reproduced, moved, change, and are digested i think has led to an inflation of the graphical image... producing an enduring graphic design now is as hard as ever...
i think graphic design can have alot of impact, but i think the potential of any field increases when you cross disciplines. coca cola's brand identity is very much tied to the coca cola bottle. i <3 new york is sold as t-shirts and bumper stickers. the cross and i think the star of david are worn as jewelry, integral parts of religious objects, buildings, spaces. maybe integration of graphics with other things is kindof interesting... with so many images overloading our senses these days, maybe changing the medium, how graphics are used and engaged is one way to stand out in our low attention span world? on the other hand, a book cover can artfully be combined with a story, feed off it, generate an image of it, a movie poster, a logo, etc... All of these things last in our minds because of their relation to something we use...
Maybe graphic design is interesting when it understands that it is a study of things and culture... when a project is understood as a study of relations and performance of people on a mass scale? Graphics, like buildings exist in a context, are not really the ink and paper of brick and mortar as much as energy and flows in time, always only have significance in relation to other things?
but i think alot of the comments are really about how graphic design is generally understood as a practice, how you can live off it now. like architecture, people design graphics, but how many people design the star of david?
logo design works very much along the lines of creating through archetype. The cross, star of david, etc. are archetypes that no longer even have to be seen to be visualized...that is the same thing that logo and branding design is trying to achieve...creating archetypal identification. That is why most very successful logos are fairly simplistic, as it is the geometry and clarity of it that is important in communicating quickly and clearly at any scale.
Great's like Saul Bass and Paul Rand were masters of this...I still miss the old UPS logo...the shield topped with a box with ribbons.
i think architecture is more challenging in its generation and realization than graphic design. in terms of working with the client, the challenges are the same.
don't get me wrong and group me into some of the posts. both are difficult. but i see it as within the field of architecture and design there are a lot more roadblocks along the way - contractor, codes, fabrication & installation limitations, costs, subtrades, limitations on materials and resources, weather & climate, variable quality & skill in manfacturing/creation. there are a lot more hands in the pot, in a bigger pot that make it difficult. in addition, i've found that all these factors tend to be constricting elements that you have to either work around, with or overcome. never have i worked on a project where the contractor, fabricator, and code official have all said (happily and without extras), "tell me what you want and we'll do it".
whereas graphic design and the creation of strong product IS a very challenging endeavor - but the execution is not as dependent on such varied factors. i've seen brilliant concepts developed and formalized by a single person. it seems very easy if everything fell into the hands of one skilled person. goals/aim are the same, quality is assured, compared to a building, the architect needs to streamline his goals to be that of the clients, the building official has his own standards and aims, the contractor has his own concerns and restrictions, etc.
i think an aspect left out of the arguments above is Marketing. Some logos are made strong because they're backed up by massive marketing campaigns to make it work. there are some nice graphic design works out there that no one would ever know about, they - like buildings - are only lauded within the practicing community and therefore aren't ever recognized by the public. generally commerical graphic design is almost always coupled with marketing campaigns - a component which drives its success and crafts a need very carefully. buildings/architecture rarely do this aside from some instances (rem & bruce mau). also the marketing aspect in creating need is very thorough & ingenious at times... did you know that a fashion designer would intentionally leave boxes of his clothing within certain urban neighbourhods as a marketing ploy? people would steal the clothes & wear them, thereby creating for him an urban "look"... baby formula brands also target new parents/new borns with freebies because once a baby takes to a certain brand of forumla they're fussy with any other... for years McDonalds would give away/sell toys to encourage children to eat McDonalds which would start them on a trend towards McDonalds food when they were teenagers & adults.
isn't architecture also a marketing campaign? architecture is a design field, it's not the buildings that are marketed in the comparison (although buildings definitely are marketed), it's firms that market their design services and firm image to clients... Theres the architecture publications which are the in the know media, but theres also marketing to the public... more widely consumed publications and newspapers, popular home and interior magazines. I think architecture in practice is only a large half about building, alot of it is marketing and public relations, sales campaigns to get stuff built.
Graphic design and architecture cannot be compared, in my opinion. I am an architect, so of course, based on experience - - I would say architecture is a tougher because you have to go beyond aesthetics. This sounds like a cliche, but architecture should always be functional and aesthetically pleasing at the same time. As for graphic design - -I cannot say much. Of course, having limited exposure to it, I would say, it's fairly simple compared to architecture.
I've always said that architecture is one profession where in you HAVE to use BOTH sides of your brain -- the logical and artistic sides. Architecture is not complete with just aesthetics or just functionality. It always has to be both. You have to sell, BUT to maintain your dignity as an architect - - it should look good too.
which has more impact on culture? the graphic image or architecture?
thinking about baudrillard's simulacra and simulation... the repeated image that becomes a simulacra, hyper real, no longer tied to any thing which is represents but having its own iconic significance... do graphic images have this potential in a way that architecture never does?
which leaves more of an impression / affects your world? the repeated image? or your experience of a space? architecture would seem to have more physical material value, but is that just because the graphical image is not playing in the physical realm?
graphics can leave a much longer visual impression than architecture. Everyon recognizes the Shell logo, for example, but not everyone recognizes the Notre Dame de Paris.
But, and it's a big but, I think you can remove several of the most recognizable logos, such as FedEx, Shell, etc., from society without much consequence. The great buildings of our world have a much more profound effect on society, especially those that visit or see them on a daily basis.
I think graphics can move society and help to shape it, but it is architecture that truly defines our world and cannot be replaced or removed.
but graphic design isn't just restricted to something like a logo... take for example, cartoon characters, betty boop or mickey mouse, or say the contemporary image of a red plump bearded santa clause (an invention of coca cola)...
or... any number of popular media images that incfluence how we see our worlds... images from film, book covers, tv commercials, signs...
"The great buildings of our world have a much more profound effect on society, especially those that visit or see them on a daily basis.
I think graphics can move society and help to shape it, but it is architecture that truly defines our world and cannot be replaced or removed."
I agree, there is something tangible and real in architecture, that is intimate to the way we live and operate in our everyday life, something that the graphic image can never have or provide a substitute for... But on the other hand, how much is what we think of in terms of architecture this real? How many of the great buildings affect us directly in this way / do we actually engage directly? So much of architecture is experienced through the filters of a camera or in graphic representations and images, and cannot be separated from real experience... A pair of Nikes has a real functional value, comfort and usefulness, but so much of what it is exists purely in the hyperreal... Many people have never worn a pari fo nikes, but they have an image of what nike is in their minds, it is a part of the world they live in and shapes the filter of their mind as they move through spaces in everyday life. Can architecture really be separated from graphic design? We graphically represent ideas that get built, that get graphically represented, copied and reused, put in glossy magazines and books, on forums, and on websites... I wonder: maybe graphic design and architecture are a yin and yang of one another in this type of practice...
is architecture a tougher field than graphic design when it comes to design
and to further acfa's food analogy, never ever serve the beans before the frank. i don't care if you are doing graphics or architecture. just don't do it.
it continues....
soulikeit, it seems you haven't learned the first rule of design school:
Everything is Design.
well for one, graphics are for looking at... architecture is also for looking at, as well as living in, standing on, working in, playing in, smelling in, breathing in, sleeping on, taking a shit in...
graphics can do that too, but it doesnt usually...
but i think architecture can be fashion too... but maybe its closer to clothing than to graphics, it has utility value... isn't graphics useless in a real sense? or is architecture both the graphics and the realized object? is there architecture without first representation? is architecture architecture if you don't graphically represent it in some way? or is architecture architecture if its only a represented idea, never actually built?
is architecture a tougher field than cinema when it comes to design?
moving graphics... giddy-up
is cinema possible without architecture?
good question...
i've always thought out of all those different art forms architecture and cinema were the most similar than any other two
how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood ?
myriam- you're wrong
the first rule of design school is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT DESIGN SCHOOL.
this thread reminds me why I don't come around here very much anymore. :/
a woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
obviously.
open university graphic artists are not mere magaziners. check em out.
kinda agre with pencrush lately.
graphic design-in many ways, you study how people relate to web interface and how information is displayed and communicated to the viewer visually. It is a far more 2D interface and the function of most website is to inform viewers of a firm's profile, work, etc.
architecture-using design to influence our way of life, culture, site. this requires knowledge in fabrication, the way things our built, the way humans move around, the site. i believe the scope is far broader than graphic design, so there are more components required in factoring into the design. the design product is constructed as space, where people inhabit it 24/7 whereas a website is only visited periodically or rarely and the only interaction between viewer and site (for now at least) is primarily mouse and the visual interfaces on the screen.
finally, an answer that i'm looking for. THANK YOU SAHIMI46
oh i think the mediums used to express information in web design is more limited because you're always using the same method to carry out your idea. although architecture is similar in a way, that you always use CD's and similar materials to build spaces, the opportunity for creative ways of fabrication and implementation of new ideas is far broader. so although a lot more restrictions are placed in architecture, the opportunities i believe for architecture are far greater. in 2d interface, you're limited to a screen and mouse, and whatever is shown visually whereas in architecture, your creative process factors into the way people live, the senses, functions, culture, etc.
i don't know what 'tough' means....but i think architecture is a more broad design field than graphic design.
could we chat somewhere else sashmi46
um sure... i think people would prefer that. do you use aim? my aim sn is my archinect sn
do u have google mail?
i use hotmail. i'm so old skool
check ur hotmail account........ i will email u a gmail account invitation
that's weird, i haven't recieved it yet. what's your address? if you don't mind
dude, u just gotta email me by clicking on "soulikeit" and i know wats your email account when u sent me an email.
I will then send you an invitation because i will know your email address from that procedure.
dude check ur account now for my invitation
and sign up for a gmail account
dude the chat thingy is on the left side of your webpage
lol .. thanks jump .. thats been baffling me for ages !!
good Idea soulikeit ... ( about the chat thing )
Just to add a little to the thread by way of a question.....
Soulikeit - do you live under a tree in the middle of nowhere? or do you live in a building perhaps in a town or city.
do you see all the magazines and posters and cd covers etc or are you in some paradise without such things.
Ok - so go and look at both things and answer your own question. And if you cannot understand what you would have to do to make the two different things then I suggest you should do neither.
maybe you can go onto an accountants thread and ask what is the difference between accountancy and changing the time on a digital clock.....lol
are digital babies allowed to design or will their childen be invisible?
personally, I think sashimi's answer (and many other's in this thread) are rather short sighted in the influence and complexity of graphic design. Graphic design includes more than web design. It includes things like typography, page layout, illustration, information design, etc. etc.
Like architecture, there can be a lot of thought and research put into the design or very little. I'm sure we've all seen buildings that look as if they were done by someone going through the motions. No consideration of context, materials, form, etc.
The prevalence of images in the world is rather overwhelming currently and could be argued to dilute some of their power. Think of how many people can easily recognize the gap's logo, or mcdonalds or whatever. Now consider how many people have ever even heard of rem koolhaas. Graphic design can inform/educate/enlighten/surprise people in ways architecture can't. Architecture can do some of those things in other ways. One is not more difficult or better, they are different fields with different end goals and objectives.
I think many of the posts are responding to the lifespan of an image vs. the lifespan of a building. Generally a building far outlives that of an image. Some images do last though. Think about the I <3 NY design, or the Coca-Cola logo. These are rather modern images but have maintained their form and high level of recognition for an extended period of time. For a longer time frame you could consider something like the image of the Cross in Christianity or the Star of David in Judaism or any number of other religious symbols.
ok, I think I'm done with this now.
graphic images can have alot of power, but i think the acceleration of the production of these images, the rate at which they can be generated, reproduced, moved, change, and are digested i think has led to an inflation of the graphical image... producing an enduring graphic design now is as hard as ever...
i think graphic design can have alot of impact, but i think the potential of any field increases when you cross disciplines. coca cola's brand identity is very much tied to the coca cola bottle. i <3 new york is sold as t-shirts and bumper stickers. the cross and i think the star of david are worn as jewelry, integral parts of religious objects, buildings, spaces. maybe integration of graphics with other things is kindof interesting... with so many images overloading our senses these days, maybe changing the medium, how graphics are used and engaged is one way to stand out in our low attention span world? on the other hand, a book cover can artfully be combined with a story, feed off it, generate an image of it, a movie poster, a logo, etc... All of these things last in our minds because of their relation to something we use...
Maybe graphic design is interesting when it understands that it is a study of things and culture... when a project is understood as a study of relations and performance of people on a mass scale? Graphics, like buildings exist in a context, are not really the ink and paper of brick and mortar as much as energy and flows in time, always only have significance in relation to other things?
but i think alot of the comments are really about how graphic design is generally understood as a practice, how you can live off it now. like architecture, people design graphics, but how many people design the star of david?
logo design works very much along the lines of creating through archetype. The cross, star of david, etc. are archetypes that no longer even have to be seen to be visualized...that is the same thing that logo and branding design is trying to achieve...creating archetypal identification. That is why most very successful logos are fairly simplistic, as it is the geometry and clarity of it that is important in communicating quickly and clearly at any scale.
Great's like Saul Bass and Paul Rand were masters of this...I still miss the old UPS logo...the shield topped with a box with ribbons.
i think architecture is more challenging in its generation and realization than graphic design. in terms of working with the client, the challenges are the same.
don't get me wrong and group me into some of the posts. both are difficult. but i see it as within the field of architecture and design there are a lot more roadblocks along the way - contractor, codes, fabrication & installation limitations, costs, subtrades, limitations on materials and resources, weather & climate, variable quality & skill in manfacturing/creation. there are a lot more hands in the pot, in a bigger pot that make it difficult. in addition, i've found that all these factors tend to be constricting elements that you have to either work around, with or overcome. never have i worked on a project where the contractor, fabricator, and code official have all said (happily and without extras), "tell me what you want and we'll do it".
whereas graphic design and the creation of strong product IS a very challenging endeavor - but the execution is not as dependent on such varied factors. i've seen brilliant concepts developed and formalized by a single person. it seems very easy if everything fell into the hands of one skilled person. goals/aim are the same, quality is assured, compared to a building, the architect needs to streamline his goals to be that of the clients, the building official has his own standards and aims, the contractor has his own concerns and restrictions, etc.
i think an aspect left out of the arguments above is Marketing. Some logos are made strong because they're backed up by massive marketing campaigns to make it work. there are some nice graphic design works out there that no one would ever know about, they - like buildings - are only lauded within the practicing community and therefore aren't ever recognized by the public. generally commerical graphic design is almost always coupled with marketing campaigns - a component which drives its success and crafts a need very carefully. buildings/architecture rarely do this aside from some instances (rem & bruce mau). also the marketing aspect in creating need is very thorough & ingenious at times... did you know that a fashion designer would intentionally leave boxes of his clothing within certain urban neighbourhods as a marketing ploy? people would steal the clothes & wear them, thereby creating for him an urban "look"... baby formula brands also target new parents/new borns with freebies because once a baby takes to a certain brand of forumla they're fussy with any other... for years McDonalds would give away/sell toys to encourage children to eat McDonalds which would start them on a trend towards McDonalds food when they were teenagers & adults.
i feel much dumber having briefly perused this.......
velo:
isn't architecture also a marketing campaign? architecture is a design field, it's not the buildings that are marketed in the comparison (although buildings definitely are marketed), it's firms that market their design services and firm image to clients... Theres the architecture publications which are the in the know media, but theres also marketing to the public... more widely consumed publications and newspapers, popular home and interior magazines. I think architecture in practice is only a large half about building, alot of it is marketing and public relations, sales campaigns to get stuff built.
Graphic design and architecture cannot be compared, in my opinion. I am an architect, so of course, based on experience - - I would say architecture is a tougher because you have to go beyond aesthetics. This sounds like a cliche, but architecture should always be functional and aesthetically pleasing at the same time. As for graphic design - -I cannot say much. Of course, having limited exposure to it, I would say, it's fairly simple compared to architecture.
I've always said that architecture is one profession where in you HAVE to use BOTH sides of your brain -- the logical and artistic sides. Architecture is not complete with just aesthetics or just functionality. It always has to be both. You have to sell, BUT to maintain your dignity as an architect - - it should look good too.
thinking about baudrillard's simulacra and simulation... the repeated image that becomes a simulacra, hyper real, no longer tied to any thing which is represents but having its own iconic significance... do graphic images have this potential in a way that architecture never does?
which leaves more of an impression / affects your world? the repeated image? or your experience of a space? architecture would seem to have more physical material value, but is that just because the graphical image is not playing in the physical realm?
graphics can leave a much longer visual impression than architecture. Everyon recognizes the Shell logo, for example, but not everyone recognizes the Notre Dame de Paris.
But, and it's a big but, I think you can remove several of the most recognizable logos, such as FedEx, Shell, etc., from society without much consequence. The great buildings of our world have a much more profound effect on society, especially those that visit or see them on a daily basis.
I think graphics can move society and help to shape it, but it is architecture that truly defines our world and cannot be replaced or removed.
but graphic design isn't just restricted to something like a logo... take for example, cartoon characters, betty boop or mickey mouse, or say the contemporary image of a red plump bearded santa clause (an invention of coca cola)...
or... any number of popular media images that incfluence how we see our worlds... images from film, book covers, tv commercials, signs...
is the eiffel tower architecture? or graphic image?
it is an iconic image in our minds, and yet how many of us have been there, attribute our idea of the tower to an experience of its built material?
architecture ---> photo of architecture ---> abstraction of photo of architecture ---> souvenir / logo / architecture in an painting ---> simulacrum
Trace:
"The great buildings of our world have a much more profound effect on society, especially those that visit or see them on a daily basis.I think graphics can move society and help to shape it, but it is architecture that truly defines our world and cannot be replaced or removed."
I agree, there is something tangible and real in architecture, that is intimate to the way we live and operate in our everyday life, something that the graphic image can never have or provide a substitute for... But on the other hand, how much is what we think of in terms of architecture this real? How many of the great buildings affect us directly in this way / do we actually engage directly? So much of architecture is experienced through the filters of a camera or in graphic representations and images, and cannot be separated from real experience... A pair of Nikes has a real functional value, comfort and usefulness, but so much of what it is exists purely in the hyperreal... Many people have never worn a pari fo nikes, but they have an image of what nike is in their minds, it is a part of the world they live in and shapes the filter of their mind as they move through spaces in everyday life. Can architecture really be separated from graphic design? We graphically represent ideas that get built, that get graphically represented, copied and reused, put in glossy magazines and books, on forums, and on websites... I wonder: maybe graphic design and architecture are a yin and yang of one another in this type of practice...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.