Would pic related be a 10/10? if not, why not? if not, what

Source: Ben Biondo.

>>291861
The font is difficult to read, not enough contrast. There are weird marks on it that have no information or anything to do with it.

In terms of what you faggot? It looks like a typical Behance overdesigned poster half-way between art and graphic design. That botanical illustration / white geometric text is done to death too.

Aesthetics: 8/10
Originality: 1/10
Visual communication: 1/10

>>291861
>sqamosa

>>291880
this

>>291861
the graphic is stolen from an old book on flowers that i've seen


0/10

>>291880
>>293119
>>291979
Then post examples of 10/10 in aesthetics, originality AND communication.

What font is it? Circular?

File: Rate.png (969KB, 1660x1007px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1660x1007px

>>293120

>>293128
It might also be subjective. I wouldn't dismiss it so brutally. The style is fresh and engaging, even though the contrast is low, I think that it's intended to be so. Like you would see in high-fashion catalogs, the text is barely visible, leaving the image in the foreground to be admired, not the text to be read.

>>293129
You don't understand. There is rules in design. You cannot break the rules, or your design will be retarded.

>>293130
To be fair, you're comparing a magazine to a poster.

>>291861

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLeSPCTA9Wg

>>293129
Yes, it's subjective. But empirical studies have shown that for readability's sake we all react the same (or more like the same). However your point on other things are also valid and should also be taken into account for the poster if it's required.

Like, if you can't attract the person to your message then you've failed. But if it's hard to read and understand overall then you failed even harder.

The poster in the OP is not meant to be very readable, that much is clear. It's a pleasant, good looking poster where readability isn't prioritised.

I would even dare to say that studies in typography and readability is less subjective than color psychology.

>>293125
If y'all could stop fighting and tell me what font is it? Apparently, it's not Circular, Futura, Avenir, or Europa.

>>293132
You're making it worse. If that's your argument, it's wrong. A poster should be able to be read from a far distance, a magazine from close.

So the poster should have even more readability to be able to read it from far.

2/10 made me reply

>>293340
You're so close-minded for a designer...

How are people still discussing this?

If it's Art, it's great
If it's Graphic Design, it's fucking shit.

>>293393
>muh art and desing not the same thing

how's community college pal

>>293392
Why? Cuz I like good and functional design? fucking hate new trends, they don't work at all. Fuck your new art and vaporwave and shit like that.

>>293421
You're unironically not gonna make it

File: 1455394876706.png (64KB, 240x255px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 240x255px

>>293429
I shiver already

>>293129
I just checked behance, literally 10 designs like this on the first page.

>>293457
Kek, so true. But it does look nice, IMO.

>>291861
there's too much negative space, crop it out smaller.
>Name sugar apple
wut

It puts a smile on my face. Idiots are wasting personal potential and energy to create faddish rip offs of this garbage.

Pro-tip as much as designers might circle jerk about horseshit - if it isn't practically applicable it will not endure, and often doesn't even leave the run way.

>>293128
I'm applauding thank you

>>293426
Oi you cheeki kant u leave Vapor wave outta this.

>>293340
rekt

File: Capture.png (2MB, 1332x661px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1332x661px

>>294025
It's like you people have never seen what a poster looks like or how it behaves in the real world. It's not an eye exam, you know that? What's next? Comparing a poster to a billboard?

>>294048
Let them be. This is the most autistic board I have come across and I seriously hate people here. I mean, I guess it's not that surprising considering it's about graphic design.

This 'poster' is exactly the problem with Graphic Designers today. Pretentious pricks that don't want to learn from what's actually successful in real world applications. They only want the compliments of other shitty graphic designers.

You show this 'poster' to anybody who isn't a 'graphic designer' and they'll either be confused or call you a fucking retard. What's it's purpose? What's that random squiggle for? Are you trying to inform me? Why does the text cover the flower? Why is some of the text painfully small? What am I supposed to do with this? No 6 in a series of what? Why is there so much empty space?

This sort of information could have been delivered so much better, even as a poster.

>>293393
If it's shit art, it's shit design, and vice-versa. It's not hard to wrap your mind around this simple fact. Doesn't matter how you define the differences between the two.

>>294082
Then it's a good design I guess...

>>294082
What the fuck are you talking about? Art is not design at all

>>293340
>>293128
>>294079
>>293485


Glad I'm not alone in my wisdom (this is earned wisdom faggots, not arrogance). Form follows function - anything else is a circle jerk of the whimsical.

>>291861

0/10

>>294085

you're terminally retarded.

Alright, we should get this discussion to a professional level. Who should we contact for half an hour of consultation about this? We could crowd sponsor it.

>>291861
it depends on its purpose fucking idiot
add contest and i can answer your question

>>294103
confirmed for not knowing shit about design

>>294085
is right

art and design can be together, but theyre far from the same

>people saying design is same as art to make them feel better about themselves

>>291861
looks pointless.. i think pointless design is the worst

>>294849
It's art and it looks bootiful. You just don't understand.

>>293128
Comparing apples to poster design. Your red marker looks so profesh though.