Relativity and the death of 'Cool'

[JabezStone]

According to the theory of relativity, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This theory applied, we can also see how other things become "relative". For example, the fact that I belong to a design community inherently means that my view of what is "cool" is relative to my vocation and its inner influences.
Someone who is not in the design community, however, has a different view of what "cool" is.
Each of these groups is effected by its own "relativity" based on its influences.
Where this scenario becomes complex is when we relate the two groups together, because group A can become influenced by group B and vice-versa.
For example, Group B can think one design element is "cool" and it will take a while to catch on in group B. Group B has to become influenced by it first (relativity), then they adopt it. We see this in design elements like the "3D photoshop background trend" that was quite hot for some time in the design community. At first, it caught group B off guard and took a short time to become acclamated. Then, group B took it is as "cool" and wanted to see more of it. Not too long after this, Group A began to abandon this "trend" and explore other designs. In the meantime, however, group B is still clinging to this thing they see as "cool". This is how group A affects group B.

Then, as cultural and societal trends in group B change, whether in clothing styles or sports/leisure/social activities, group A adopts the changing trends into its virtual and print designs, navigation etc. Thus, group A has been affected by group B.

With this understanding, we see two important things to note for developers/designers. 1)We must always be observing what is "cool" in society, as it will and should affect our product. We should know what will trigger either the nostalgic sense or the sense of relation to our group. And 2)we should remember that what is cool among 'designers' today will be cool among the viewers for a short time even after the 'design trend' has passed. This is because the designs we create have an equal and opposite reaction to our user group. Soon, though, the trend will pass, and is no longer 'cool'.

At times , a designer/developer uses elements in their designs that other designer may see as cliche and label them as 'trend-whores', while the user at-large still sees these elements as cool, and is willing to pay for it. What does this mean? It means that 'cool' has a life-cycle. Just as it takes time for a trend to be birthed, then buried, in the design group, there is an equal cradle-to-grave cycle that must be run in the user group. Therefore, when 'cool' dies amongst designers, it still has a life amongst users.

Users are fickle, though. When users feel that 'cool' has died, they will abandon it immediately. For this reason, it is important for designers/developers to be able to perform the "current cool" while studying the "future cool". This is a difficult feat for designers, as it means that they must perform on two parralel planes, while users have only to consume on these two planes.

I just had to get these philosophical thoughts out of my head before they exploded.

Any thoughts?
Jay

[hurricaneone]

In a nutshell, could you say then that the most valuable opinion regarding your work is not your peer group (even though they disseminate most of the original ideas and being in contact within the same community puts you first in line for the 'new cool'), but your customer, because as long as they're happy, everything's cool?

Is that overly simplistic?

[teow]

Actually I read a book dealing with that similar issue in regards to designing an identity, specifically corporate logos.

A perfect example is Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Pepsi has change their logo almost every few years in attempt to create the notion towards the masses that they are indeed keeping up with the times. This is also illustrated by their use of 'current' stars in their commercials.

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has kept the same logotype for almost a century now. But the thing is, they are so established, that looking cool would damage such an established graphic. Their reputation is based largely on this age-old signature, that any brash change could result in creating the opposite effect of 'coolness,' in that it would look like they are trying too hard to keep up.

Cool is a trend, here today, gone tomorrow. In general, I think designers should not necessarily make something that is cool, but rather something that is both effective in communication, aesthetically sexy first and foremost, because it's disgusting to see firms try and make their client look trendy, but horrendously fail.

[mj97]

1:

According to the theory of relativity, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This is Newton's Third Law, not relativity.

2: You made some goods points. 'Cool' definatley has a shelf life when it comes to design. Trends come and go which is good...life would be boring otherwise. I don't think 'Cool' has the same shelf life impact to a developer though. As a developer I'm more interested in functionality. Development trends will be influenced by a desire for certain functionality and finding the most efficient way of accomplishing that goal. I don't think development trends are subject to the same artistic and emotional influences that design is.

[hurricaneone]

But isn't what Jabez is talking about the 'trickle down' effect of cool from the design community through to the general viewing population?

I don't see how the direct comaprison of logos applies. Instead, I would say that (hypothetically) today, Pepsi has chosen to update - again - the round logo, which up until now, for the past 18 months, had been slightly altered with the addition of the popular 'line overlay' element we see a lot of. Now this 'line overlay' change, still hypothetically, had been designed by the inhouse Pepsi art team, who to a person are up their collective necks in the design community, but now, they're the ones who are thinking that the design needs a fresh look, but probably due only to their over-exposure concerning the 'line' element look.

Whether the general public things that 'line' look has come and gone now remains immaterial, the Pepsi people are moving ahead. Perhaps faster than the populous can keep up.

[JabezStone]

Originally posted by mj97
1:

This is Newton's Third Law, not relativity.

2: You made some goods points. 'Cool' definatley has a shelf life when it comes to design. Trends come and go which is good...life would be boring otherwise. I don't think 'Cool' has the same shelf life impact to a developer though. As a developer I'm more interested in functionality. Development trends will be influenced by a desire for certain functionality and finding the most efficient way of accomplishing that goal. I don't think development trends are subject to the same artistic and emotional influences that design is.

I guess you're right, sort of. Newton introduced this, then Einstein perfected it with his geometrical explaination of it. It is relativity. In theory, though, I think it applies nicely to this subject. I do stand corrected, though, that it was originally Newton's brainchild. I think it gets attributed to Einstein so often because of the exposure he brought it by changing it from a hypothesis to a proven theory.

I agree with you about the differences between design/development, and actually I was hesitant about grouping the two, but I still felt that this theory applies to both.

Hurricane: You hit the nail right on the head with the Pepsi trend. 'Cool' has shifted in the design realm in regards to the line overlay, but not yet in the user realm.

I think as designers, we need to bridge the gap between these two planes by keeping one foot in the future and one in the present. If we transcend our user group, we haven't accomplished the main goal... marketing.

[chrisd9]

it is newton's third law, it's just that all of newton's laws only apply to every day situations, ie. a apple falling from a tree.

however if the apple is moving closer to the speed of light = ), then you need to take into account relativity... Einstein's explanation is more broad, just unnecesary for simple applications.