Learning From Las Vegas, is a controversial Architecture book by Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. To simplify this book and present it from a Graphic Design perspective, it analyzes the increasing use of two-dimensional signage and symbol in the stead of three-dimensional space, as a result of more rapid and individual transportation means (the car). Venturi et. al. acknowledge Architect's distaste for such urban sprawl, but endeavoring to learn from the existing environment rather than change it, they "look downward to go up." They argue the virtues of the "decorated shed," building a plain structure and expressing its function, or even monumentality, through signage. They present their ideas with tongue-in-cheek wit: one illustration, captioned "suggestion for a monument" depicts a plain, shed-like structure, with a light-up sign protruding from the façade proclaiming, "I'm a Monument."

It's hard to find a parallel in Graphic Design to this call to appreciate the vernacular, because Graphic Design is so inextricably woven with the vernacular. You are more likely to meet a Graphic Designer who appreciates billboards and spinning neon signs than you are to find an Architect who appreciates cookie-cutter homes and communities. The former means work for us, the latter means the commodification of Architecture. Some of us even pull ideas from the vernacular in producing our work.

Perhaps the parallel is the advent of desktop publishing, and the resulting availability of publishing power in the hands of those who don't understand or pay mind to the subtleties of working with type and image. Much like the automobile has changed the way we use buildings, desktop publishing and the Internet have changed the way we use Graphic Design. Maybe Graphic Designers could benefit from appreciating the ability for the "common" people to publish information.

Many Graphic Designers struggle with the concept of only having a few font choices available on the web. Some have tried to fight this by designing as if they were designing for print, and locking their information away in graphics, rather than surrendering to the limitations (and thus unlocking the power) of the medium. The limited font choice is probably a blessing: if publishing power is more available, it’s better that there only be a few (and quite good for the medium) font choices. If one were to take the stance that Graphic Design's purpose is to economically increase the accessibility of information (and this is undoubtedly an important function of Graphic Design), then they should appreciate these innovations.

Maybe it's time for Graphic Designers to learn from the things they don't like. The equivalent to a cookie-cutter home, for a Graphic Designer, would be templates that come with desktop publishing programs. Perhaps we should learn to appreciate those, especially since the limited font choice I spoke of in the previous paragraph is inverted in desktop publishing. The publishing power is already in the hands of the "common" people, and given the economic resources and priorities of these people, it's pretty much established that they aren't going to be hiring a Graphic Designer for their project, so why not let them make a template and have their two-fold brochure look decent? Most two-fold brochures look the same, so why waste manpower to reinvent the wheel? Some may argue that therein lies the problem, that clients too often have a preconceived notion of what they want (e.g. a two-fold brochure). But you must admit that sometimes that is all it needs to be.

Even without the Architectural foundation to understand it fully, Learning From Las Vegas was a worthwhile read for me in that it helped me understand how designers have responded to change. There have certainly been some changes in Graphic Design, that perhaps we criticize without enough consideration for what may be good about them.

What are some things you dislike as a Graphic Designer, and how might we learn from them?