John Maeda: Fireball

Here is an interesting John Maeda quote found over on Brian Steen's blog:

«My early computer art experiments led to the dynamic graphics common on websites today. You know what I’m talking about — all that stuff flying around on the computer screen while you’re trying to concentrate — that’s me. I am partially to blame for the unrelenting stream of “eye candy” littering the information landscape. I am sorry, and for a long while I have wished to do something about it.»

Now, the quote is from his book "The Laws of Simplicity", which gives some much-needed context. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting statement. Were it not for his status as a pioneer and his instrumental role in establishing the field of computational design, it would simply seem like hubris. In one simple statement, he not only takes credit for a field of work, but he also not-so-subtly implies that it has no value. That’s a tall order.

Even if one agrees with Maeda that the current interest in visual complexity is a bad thing, the whole debate around simplicity sounds strangely like the legibility wars of the 1990’s. Faced with digital typography that broke every rule and layered graphics that refused to obey any grid, the ruling masters of Modernism (including Maeda’s hero Paul Rand) denounced the new movement as style over substance – eye candy. However, the subsequent resurgence of Helvetica and diagonal grids showed that ultimately minimalism and maximalism are just styles, there for the choosing.

Maeda’s thoughts on simplicity are of course laudable, presenting a strategy for dealing with the difficulties of a technological society. But when applied to visual styles, it should be remembered that simplicity, like minimalism, can also be, well, boring. Not everyone likes their reality the same way.

Interestingly, the early work that Maeda seems to be disowning with the above statement is also the work his fame is built on. Compared to his more recent output such as the Nature series, the early pieces are visually much bolder and more vibrant. The sheer joy of form documented in his seminal Maeda @ Media book from 2001 seems strangely lacking in his newer works.

The derogatory term “eye candy” has plagued digital art since its inception, and has often been used to deride generative visuals in particular. It’s strange then to hear it used by an artist whose work is so firmly concerned with optical formalism. It seems much like throwing rocks while inside a glass house.

Still, a man should always be respected for trying to kill his darlings. We wish you luck, Mr. Maeda.

(Related reading: Mitchell Whitelaw: More is more: Multiplicity and Generative Art, Douglas Cedric Stanley: Complexity and Gestalt, The Cult of the Ugly)