Is this ugly? Of course, it is a self-aware commentary on the well known graphic design faux-pas we all know and love. But, do these arbitrary and generally kept opinions truly make this ugly? There are certainly rules of design that exist for a reason. The rainbow gradient on the PRETTY UGLY text shouldn’t even be allowed as a preset. But while the composition includes an area that says “OMG where’s the grid?”, there is, in fact, a grid here. It is clear on the second page, at least to any graphic designer. So, it stands to reason that even a composition as “ugly” or “bad” as this one still follows a few key principles of design. I admittedly chose this picture to stand as a direct contrast to the Carson work I started with; you could never think Carson created ugly design when someone somewhere created this (even if it was knowingly). In the art world, we are always taught to follow the basic rules, but what we are taught after that is to break them. Deconstruction was the epitome of taking well intentioned design and flipping it upside-down. So why, if breaking the rules is so often valued, was the chaos of 90’s deconstruction met with so much pushback? Perhaps it went too far the other way. But who is to decide when it’s gone too far? My belief is that all of this is entirely subjective. My other belief is that the design world takes itself too seriously. The only cardinal rule that I believe transcends all else is this: design with purpose. The decisions you make in a composition cannot be all instinct and no intent, and many who railed against deconstruction used the same language to describe their dislike of it. But I’d argue that Carson had plenty of intent. I’d argue many designers of the time did as well. Even the designer of this image had intent. So, is this ugly?