Here’s what I first wrote to explain what I meant about ‘simplicity’ (by the way, next time I feel compelled to write something so long, I’ll get a blog):

In order to really understand something I think you have to understand its constituent parts. For example if you ever see someone do something “amazing” and their answer to “How did you do that?” is “It just came to me” then they probably don’t know what they’re doing.

Most people only comprehend a few parts of design. They perhaps have an idea of shape, or color or symmetry etc. But the untrained rarely comprehend design holistically. They therefore create unbalanced design. Like children who first learn how to color, they apply crayon broadly, and as you say, with passion or excitement. I think if you examine their design closely you will see that it lacks depth. Which is to say that they have applied what they know to one scale of the design. They thought carefully about the graphic they chose, or how to make the primary element stand out.

But all that was a lot of work, and when it came down to it, for the rest of the design they just picked a font that they liked, or colors that matched. They lack the discipline, or the energy (because it just doesn’t matter to them) to complete the entire work. My argument is that the cost of completing the design “correctly” is too high for most people. I agree that the result may not be clean or minimalist, but it is “simple” in the sense that it is like an unfinished thought.

I think that learned designers have a tendency to complete that thought with their own thoughts. They make something more complex than what was originally intended, and give more credit than is due. I have seen some brilliant ideas from so-called non-designers, but as they lacked follow-through. I’ll finish with a quote (sorry for the lameness : )

“The smaller the focus of attention, the harder the task.”– Sydney J. Harris.

To say something is complicated is to say that there is a interconnection among the many parts. I rarely see non-designers give careful thought to the ‘many’ parts of their design. Nor do I see an attempt to interconnect those parts into a larger design.

Passion attracts us because it is raw. And things excite because they are new. Perhaps it’s the feeling of sharing in the ‘first time’ creative process that makes vernacular design so appealing. As to why some people hate it . . . I guess they’ve got to defend their existence somehow.

Thanks for reading, Kyle.

It’s true that most individuals seek to communicate effectively, but that doesn’t always translate into an economy of style. Lots of people go for more over less, excess over austerity, grandiosity over simplicity. Sometimes excitement and passion translate into really complicated visual ideas- that still project excitement and passion (just not stunning design).

Possibly I am misunderstanding the use of ‘simplicity’ in your example. I’m ready to be convinced.

Katie (sometimes, though not always, ‘admin’)

Because design is, as you say, a form of communication, individuals operate under the rule of “linguistic economy”, which is to say that individuals seek to communicate as economically as possible. An economical design is a simple design. To an individual, simplicity is more valuable than correctness. The cost of “correctness” is too high for most non-designers, and the 80-20 rule assures that this will continue to be the case. For 80% of the cases where graphic design is employed by a non-designer, a simple design suffices. It is only when the “simple” design collapses under it’s own weight that users run for a graphic designer.

All professions (graphic designers included) are the servants, not the masters, of the masses. They exist to facilitate the goals of the masses, and cannot exist in isolation (economically).

(I have borrowed heavily from http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html )