YOUR STYLE SUCKS

Today someone mentioned my 'clean' style. Icky word. My style sucks and is relative to the objectives. If not, then perhaps I should cash in on a specific 'look and feel,'–never!
Style is a theory.
Technique is a perfect mistake.

What this means is; favorable atheistic looks are not a 'style.' Clean is not a style you can borrow from existing styles. "Style = Fart," as Siegmeister put it. Perhaps he meant style stinks, style is hot-air, style is transparent, style means nothing–style is relative. It is a short-lived set of subsystems based on a consistent use of visual experiences. People use it in the same context as, bright, vibrant and bold. Style is more a personal emotion then it is a visual system.
This does not mean the communication cannot be vibrant, exciting or contrastingly, elegant or subtle. These descriptors are closer to emotions then they are expressions and description of visuals. These are all perceptual end-results. A prospect does not instantly perceive; bold, exciting, bright, uplifting, benefit. Not in a context of something 'placed'. And not without an existing contrast ( a prior set of experiences ) to gauge the communication against.

Once the prospect has made a choice to look a little closer, they've established the relevancy of the message.
And consequently an emotional connection.
Keep the visual language simple.
Not simple-minded, but simple in comprehension.
A relative context that is easily understood by each prospect.

Effective is not a style nor is creative. I truly believe an agency ( given the chance ) would agree. Style, or in our case, a broader visual language established as a recognizable visual system, must be unique in order to survive. Truly 'ugly' work can survive as long as it remains consistent and true to it's initial-respective form. The more a campaign injects existing styles the more likely the end result equates to a drawing from a 5 year-old who has copied their favorite artist in tribute. ( Not that 5 year-olds aren't talented ;) As a result, it's going to be lost in the mix. Because there was nothing truly unique about the work. It was more disorienting then engaging.