Dickson Fong

Some people have described my design aesthetic as minimalist. Although I understand how my designs can come off this way, I suggest that minimalism should be an ethos rather than an aesthetic.

A primer

For the sake of this paragraph, let’s accept minimalism as an aesthetic. As an aesthetic, it is a visual style, and we have a responsibility to make sure that the style fits the project. This is part of the responsibility of direction. Therefore, we must carefully consider that the minimalist theme is appropriate to the purpose of the website, the audience, and the client. This attitude applies not only to minimalist styles, but to any other genre, including—but not limited to—grunge, dark, Web-2.0, illustration, etc. From this, it follows that the grunge look probably isn’t appropriate for a leading software company, and cartoons probably aren’t appropriate for a big law firm.

Similarly, the minimalist aesthetic must be carefully considered and applied such that the outcome fits the cause. Can you imagine Swiss layout and typography applied to a 70s-vintage Van Halen album cover? 

Yeah, it doesn’t work.

And that’s the problem

I’m not going to contradict myself and suggest that the above isn’t true. We need to pay attention to the visual direction of our work and ensure that it not only delivers the proper message, but one that is cohesive with the rest of the brand. But here’s the catch: the minimalist aesthetic is improper for certain projects. 

This is the problem with approaching minimalism as an aesthetic. No doubt fueled by the numerous web trend galleries (I refuse to call them ‘inspirational galleries’), we tend to associate minimalism with well-organized layouts, abundant whitespace, and perhaps even the abundance of white itself. This in itself isn’t incorrect, as many of these visual properties are the byproduct of the minimalist approach to design. 

However, it’s dangerous to lock ourselves into the mindset that minimalism is an end, rather than the means to an end.

Minimalism ≠ stereotypical minimalist aesthetic

For better or for worse, not all our designs will look über-clean with the requisite amounts of whitespace to make Brockmann shed a tear. 

Let’s take CNN or The New York Times. Minimalist aesthetic? Hardly. But, considering they’re news sites, I don’t expect them to successfully pull it off. To reduce these designs to the stereotypical minimalist style would sacrifice content and usability. That would be an improper application of style—inefficient, ill-advised, ill-fated, and just plain wrong.

However, although they don’t adhere to the stereotypical aesthetic, they do adhere to the minimalist ethos. 

The real minimalism

Don’t need this element? Get rid of it. Calculate exactly what is necessary, and apply each element in a manner that does not dilute the purpose and ideas they represent. It’s a deliberate approach that requires a reductionist mindset.

Every visual element must have a calculated purpose. Whether an element exists for ‘rational’ purposes of highlighting a feature or for ‘less rational’ purposes of adding ambiance or whimsy to the overall aesthetic, it cannot exist simply because you want it to. Its purpose must be weighed against other elements that contribute or cancel. For example, if all that’s necessary to indicate a hyperlink is different text color and an underline, it would be superfluous to add bold italics, background color, and a different font. As designers, we should use elements that add value to our designs and omit those that don’t.

The important thing is to accept that we shouldn’t make something minimalist for the sake of style, but for the sake of improving the user experience. Every bit of extra information you include detracts from the most important information. In a time-crunched world where people have learned to decipher the goods from the junk, we need to make sure that every idea we communicate is pure gold.

End

RSS comments for this post Previous post Next post Permalink