← Back to context

Comment by dreambuffer

1 day ago

There are styles which are timelessly bad and then there are styles which are only "bad" because they are overused. That's not the fault of the style, it was good style, that's why it became overused. The problem is us. We have a natural aversion to repetitive things, and I wouldn't call that contrarianism.

I don't know, I recall in music repetition actually being enjoyed by the listeners (although not always so much the craftsmen and critics). Same seems to go for verbal communication, while some claim that great authors wouldn't repeat themselves, poetry is also generally rated prettier/better/more enjoyable wording despite often incorporating repetition. Why would visual design/style be any different in regards to human preference for symmetry and repetition/recognizability (even though the ones who create it tire of doing samey stuff all day, every day)?

  • 1. We're not talking about the same kinds of repetition. Repetition as a tool within a single artwork is not the same thing as widespread imitation across artworks.

    2. Audial preferences are not the same thing as visual preferences, they're different parts of the brain.