It’s out in a couple of weeks, and according to D&Ad’s magazine Ampersand – Neville doesn’t think much of advertising and as a consequence he’s separated the design and advertising disciplines.
On the cover, he’s put the ‘design’,(D), on the cover, and the ‘advertising’ (AD), on the back.
He then ran off sniggering, pushing copywriters into bushes, and later left all the taps running in the mens loos at Fallon.
What a rascal!
The thing I don’t get is why such a talented designer has a bee in his bonnet about advertising, and it’s been there for over twenty years?
It surely can’t be that most advertising is crass, patronising and derivative.
Because so is most design.
Maybe his view of Advertising is solely based on Shake‘n’Vac jingles and small space ads for Leatherland and the like?
But that would be like me judging the world of design based on the latest pack design for Aunt Bessie’s Yorkshire Puddings.
The lines between communication disciplines are now so blurred that the idea of separating them seems almost quaint.
In searching for the picture above, I discovered the separation is now due to ‘Digital Vs Non Digital’.
Oops, my mistake, it’s ‘Digital Vs Anti Digital’.
Get it? D – Digital, AD – Anti Digital.
But what does ‘Anti-Digital’ mean?
D&AD President and Digital bod Simon Waterfall said, “The theme of ‘Digital vs Anti Digital’ represents the evolution of the digital industry. Clients and creatives are moving away from ‘Can we do this technically?’ to ‘Should we do this for the brand?’. Digital design today is more joined up, more integrated and more about brand behavior than bits and bytes – what a great time to be a part of this industry.”
Are there people in the communications business who are ‘Anti Digital’? Who don’t think Digital is a lot of fuss over nothing?
No.
It’s like trumpeting about the benefits of oxygen – ‘breathe it in! isn’t it great?’
Anyway, if this pixelated screen grab is anything to go by the book looks cool, as you’d expect.
