another competition to end another week

Well, it's a little while since we had one of those, so let's end March in a quizzical mood.

As you'll see, in the last couple of posts I've been pondering the attractive-but-meaningless 'big picture' home page thing that's currently to be seen on a lot of design studio sites. Here's another one:-

Now Richard and Andrew like some of those that I've shown - although this wasn't really the point. I like them, I just don't understand them. But Marcus thinks that they maybe do have a deeper significance, for instance that Brown’s concrete wall picture could potentially mean:
authenticity (raw, natural wear and tear)
anarchy, rebellion, urban, risk-taking (bullet hole)
complexity, creativity, attention to fine details (irregular cracks, marks, scratches, holes etc.)
solid, reliable (concrete)

Well, I'm not so sure - I think it's just another designer fashion. Because to me, these attractive-but-meaningless big picture home pages immediately say (to me at least) say "this is the site of a design studio". The exception, I suppose, might be the site for a photographer, but then you'd expect the picture to be far more considered and less Flikr-like. And I can't imagine that any of those design studios would recommend this solution to a client, let alone a client accepting it.

So here's the competition: send me a link (and it has to be a live link) to the most unlikely match between the attractive-but-meaningless big picture home page and the business represented. I'm thinking maybe a picture of a discarded can of beans for an accountancy firm (bean counters, get it?), or piles of dirty washing for a laundry site.

The most obscure and unlikely matching wins the competition. And I'll even throw in a prize: this 96-page, full-colour monograph of the designer/maker John Hinchcliffe:-

Competition ends midnight GMT on Friday 6th April. So, plenty of time to scout around the www.

Comments

[Marcus]

Nice idea David.

One thing that I'd just like to just clarify though, is that I don't disagree with your view that they're a designer-fashion - I see my view as being compatible.

The potential meanings that you've referenced above are from a quick micro visual reading. But whilst any image is always dependent on its component parts, it also signifies something greater on a figurative or metaphorical level.

Typically speaking, people tend to interpret visuals on a more micro level when they're new and unfamiliar - to aid understanding. But as they become more familiar with the style (i.e. understand the conventions of the 'design code'), the style takes on a life of its own and becomes more of a visual shorthand in itself.

Then, quite often, the more the style is used and appropriated the more its potent meanings become diluted. And eventually the design code itself takes on the metaphorical meaning of being ‘dated’, 'unfashionable' etc.

That's why you're able to look beyond their deeper meanings. You've instantly recognised these sorts of images as belonging to a particular unconventional design-style (which is why you've been able to 'theme' them together). And based on your experience and preferences as a designer, this design-style has become an instant metaphor for a 'designer-fashion'.

So, whilst the subtle details might be less directly relevant to your particular interpretation, they’re still not 'meaningless' since the design-style is dependent on them. If they were ‘meaningless’ you wouldn't be able to recognise the design-style in the first place!

Well, that’s my take anyway - hope it helps. I’ll leave and shut up now… ;)

[Alex]

Not sure if this counts, but anyway: http://www.uk.abercrombie.com/anf/index.html

Attractive, I suppose, although not meaningless.

[Claire]

These boys are good, but revamping:

http://www.hikedesign.co.uk/