Compare and contrast the processes and practices of your two chosen practitioners. Upon this analysis what lessons could be applied to your own practice?
For this essay I have decided to compare and contrast the processes and practices of Glorious and FakeID. I have decided to compare these two practitioners because of their obvious differences in style and approach towards Graphic design.
Glorious have created their reputation by consistently producing work of an exceptional standard, with particular emphasis on detail. To outline perhaps one of my favourite pieces of work by Glorious, the calendar produced for ‘Karl’s Barbershop’, is a perfect example of Glorious’ creative brilliance and flawless execution, and won several well-deserved awards. Glorious tend to produce the majority of their work in a similar fashion to this, working within the boundaries of what makes up a relatively ‘standard’ graphic design agency, in an outstanding and beautifully detailed way. In terms of the pursuit of an occupation in the graphic design industry, this way of working is seen as paramount to the building of a reputation. In comparison, FakeID take a much more experimental approach to their work and constantly question and study the theories behind communication. Perhaps their most well known work in this field can be seen through their on-line archive ‘LSTN’, which follows a series of workshops carried out about language, sound, text and noise. Unlike Glorious, FakeID’s mode of study is less likely to assure a place within the design field, as it is more fine art based, yet the aspect of research in this matter would be an interesting and unique influence in my own practice.
Another aspect, which sets FakeID apart from Glorious, is the teaching and experimental workshops they involve themselves in with students. When FakeID came to our college they not only gave a lecture, but they also went out of their way to collaborate with us in the form of a one-day brief. This brief was helpful to us because it gave an insight to the thought processes of Yvan and Joshua, and helped us to understand where the work they produce comes from. At a more significant level it showed that they not only enjoy the work they involve themselves in, but they also care about the next generation of designers. This involvement and concern is another key factor (in terms of the improvement of my own practice) of which all clients would respond positively to. In comparison, Glorious were good enough to give a lecture, yet were not willing to collaborate further with students (whether it be through lack of time, etc). This was also reflected in the portfolio visit aspect of the blog, where Glorious requested students not to message them, as they were too busy. In terms of application to my own best practice, it would be a good to always try to make time for the little people.
Apart from their obvious differences, FakeID and Glorious are both fundamentally graphic design agencies, and so have certain similarities of which must be considered for potential influence in my own practice. For example, both agencies produce their own fonts, such as the ‘Viper’ and ‘Office stationary’ fonts by Glorious and the ‘Placas’ and ‘Ghetto’ fonts produced by FakeID. Although the reasons that both agencies produced these fonts differ, (in Glorious’ case for live briefs, and more experimental reasons for FakeID) the fact that both of these agencies, (and all other successful agencies) have produced their own fonts, sets them apart from other, less creative graphic design companies. In terms of my own practice, I have not yet had chance, or more precisely, not taken the chance to design my own font, although it is something of which I have wanted to do for some time. I believe that if I set aside some time to find an existing brief, or set myself one in the purpose of designing a font, it would be useful for not only my portfolio and the aspect of finding work or placements, but it would also be a positive and interesting project.
Another comparison between Glorious and FakeID is the difference in their professional image appertaining to how they both come across to clients. Both Glorious and FakeID represent themselves perfectly in their work and on their websites. Their work (although different) always contains a continuity, which runs through and links back to each of their unique styles. They do this partially because the work created by the designer always reflects their own style, yet also on a more professional level, so that the client has a greater understanding of what to expect if they hire the agency to do a specific job. This can be seen in the comparison between work done by both agencies. For example, when comparing the calendar for ‘Karls Barbershop’ (mentioned above) with the invitation design for ‘Shot Up North’, we can see a distinctive trend in the experimental packaging design and overall graphic style. When comparing work by FakeID, we can see that their designs are much more organic. For example the commissioned work produced for ‘NIKE’ and for ‘Urban Outfitters’. Working with a certain style is not always necessary, as different briefs require different approaches, yet taking influence from a surgical style (such in Glorious) and organic style (as in FakeID) would be beneficial to the of development my own practice.
Ultimately I believe that if I worked towards most, if not all of the aspects mentioned above, it would be highly beneficial in the progression of my own practice.
