Design superstar Paul Rand said in an interview, "You don't say I'm going to do art, you just say I'm going to do whatever you're gonna do, but you never call it art. Art is just if you're lucky."

Art happens if you're lucky.

This is especially true within graphic design. Content is king. The goal must dictate form. All too often, graphic designers, myself included, become lost in the artistic approach and our own visions so much that we lose sight of the point altogether. A graphic designer's goal should not be to make something beautiful, not to make something that gains recognition or praise; but rather to accomplish the goal at hand. Rarely is the goal to make something stunning, but even when it is; there's always a deeper purpose behind making something beautiful.

But one shouldn't attempt to solve a problem with simplicity; simplicity should naturally evolve from a good solution. As Rand said, "Simplicity is not the goal. It is the by-product of a good idea and modest expectations."

My gripe with current design trends lies within a designer's attempt to make something great and to become known. Forget beauty, it's become trendy to make something so awkward and so ugly that it gains attention. Being fashionable is outweighing being good.

Volkswagen's 1959 'Lemon' ad was so revolutionary because it eliminated the clutter and got straight to the point. There isn't anything particularly great about the ad, but there didn't need to be.The goal was to introduce the car to America. What better way to do that than to simply show people the car? The solution was so simple that it blew everyone away. Other ads at the time focused on packing in information and relied on fantasy to sell whereas this ad relied on the product and an interesting headline.

Take Pepsi's logo evolution for example, I would argue that the most effective version is the icon of the '70s. It gets rid of the clutter and gets straight to the point: this is Pepsi. The type centered among the brand's colors in a simple, bold font. What else is needed? Previous versions were plagued with fancy, difficult-to-read lettering and later renditions destroyed with unattractive italic, gradient-ridden marks that become lost in a saturated market. The most current logo attempts to revitalize the brand and get back to simplicity, but falls short by trying a little too hard with a font that's already yesterday's news and a mark that no one quite understands without explanation.

Apple is more popular than ever right now. Is it any surprise that the current version of their logo and brand is the most simple, raw version to date? There's no doubt that the quality of their product is the biggest contributor to the company's success, but it's the modern simplicity of the brand that makes them so unique and thus so popular.

Go back to what works. Design for purpose first and foremost. Be a problem solver, not an artist. If art happens, great, you had a happy little accident as Bob Ross would say.

back