First of all, do you consider that this artwork:
… is superior to this?
Because if not, then this post has no valid argument. Please don’t count retro recreations of vintage labels, I mean the generic labels now, often attached to the individual items of fruit themselves.
Is the modern artist less capable or is it that companies no longer care about making something attractive? Or is it that they care in America but not here?
Also, look at the sort of artwork whenever the government launches a new programme to waste taxpayer money:
First move is always to the infantilized, the childish, on the grounds that this means friendly and vibrant. Contrast that with the first thought in the vintage labels – to have the most enticng, quality artwork possible.
And it’s not the cost of the artwork – we know how much all the competitions and eventual selections cost – they could have engaged an artist with a remit to emulate vintage artwork and there it would be. In fact it is done today – in google images, there were many doing retro vintage.
So it actually comes down to the same minds who run posters about Refugees Welcome. Even good organizations such as Manif go for these bold stroke, no finesse posters:
I’m not knocking the sentiment but surely the French can do better than that – remember, they are urging a return to traditional values – but it seems, not traditional art.
Personally, I find all that depressing, dismaying, bland, colourless, without soul, all those things. Why? Common Purpose is blamed for many things, Them are, but this is not just them directing this mediocrity – it’s people embracing it and thinking this is the modern way to represent things in graphics. Who is teaching these graphic designers?