ISO50

I was going to say the same thing as Michael. It’s clear that the 70’s never die at ISO50.

One comment I would make regarding the packaging design of the 60s and 70s is that it is not very friendly-looking. It’s loaded with geometry, in contrast to today’s, and I think that might be a detriment to its function (that is, to sell the product).

90% of consumers do not care about the packaging design of the product they buy, especially since it’s almost always disposable. Subconsciously, though, they might not buy a product that looks like it’s been on the shelf since 1974.

I think design has become more personalized today. Although the older Graphis package designs are awesome to look at, there’s really no diversity there.

I’ll agree, it is refreshing to see older pieces of design where color and grid structure are more predominate, but at the same time I enjoy seeing new ideas explored with varying type treatments and textures showcased.

Looking at the first two examples of the more recent Graphis 9, I can understand your point of view very well. Yet, our opinions are biased by our proclivity for outstandingly minimalist designs – be it packaging or web design. Most products we find in a supermarket unfortunately don’t tend towards this style; to address the average customer packaging needs to be eye-catching in the way of blurting out an excessive amount of colours (and in some cases even typographical diversity).

Yet, I agree with Troy who posted a comment above: The packaging featured in this post might be attractive to people like me and you but objectively seen, the geometrical style featured above is not very appealing. This doesn’t apply to the Macintosh packaging in Graphis 9, though.

I agree with what others have said, it’s mostly just a reflection of your personal preference.

However, Graphis 9 has some particularly uninspiring packaging examples which is probably a result of designers trying to do to take advantage of new technology just because it’s there. For example: The Apple G5 computer packaging seems like the designer was more interested in creating lettering that looked metallic than they were about the overall form of the type and how it interacted with the side of the box.

I think there is definitely room for todays packaging to learn from the awesome examples in Graphis 3. I found a copy of it in my local op shop (thrift store) for $3. So good.
This packaging http://www.stockholmdesignlab.se/#/1112/projects/clients/askul/askul/ is a great example of a current packaging system thats similar to the minimal 70’s design but works really well today.

i would say it has to do peoples bad taste and the evolution of ungraceful change.

Even though i find this “Giegy” aesthetic personally pleasing, one thing that has developed significantly since that era is marketing and branding. The need to chisel a unique identity has garnered more importance since then.

Technological advances have also allowed us to make our work more complex.

Everything wanes and waxes, these minimalist principles will become more prevalent again as a backlash against the maximalist consequences of our advanced tools.

I think the idea of design as something timeless clearly plays into the difference between Graphics 3 and 9. Many of the ideas in 3, specifically the ideas of grids and geometry, don’t date the objects they sell (Up&Up, anyone)?

9, however, clearly looks “in the moment”. I can clearly tell that the Tazo packaging is influenced by trends in modern consumerism, as does the “brushed G5” look in the apple products.

It has nothing to do with personal preference, in my opinion. Good design is timeless.

Once I heard somebody say (it may have even been on this blog I think), these days design is “have photoshop, will travel”. I think that phrase really reveals something about why good design is on the decline, in yesteryear everybody who was a graphic designer needed the skill, patience and dedication to create something by hand. I think the hand created process brings a different final result both conceptually and aesthetically. Partially because of this design is going through a “maximalism” stage where more is more rather than less is more, and some of the fine detail and craft found in the simplicity of older designs has become a lot more rare. I’m not saying thats the only reason, you can see that by looking at some of the other points people have brought up, I just think it contributes.

It all costs money. Hiring a designer. Buying the equipment to mass produce such designs. Buying the ink. Buying the paper. Etc. It’s too much money for something that may not work, especially with the consumption of goods over the internet. Many things you don’t need packaging anymore. Look at CD’s, or even more recently books and the introduction of the eReader (Kindle, NOOK). More and more we want instant gratification. All people want is what is in the box. I don’t think packaging is worth the cost to most companies in this day and age. Just my thoughts.

Essentially I think people have fallen out of touch with that kind of geometric look. Say you put some of Graphis 3 packaging next to 9, people might look at 3 just because its “different”, but I guess you could say its brand recognition is almost nil. Brand recognition creates revenue, and that’s what every company wants today. Analysts are devoted to squeezing every strategy they can into a business plan, streamlining every department just to sell more to the consumer.

Whether or not business has become more “greedy”, I don’t know, but its definitely feels like the death of good design sometimes.