Objectivity vs Subjectivity - Wim Crouwel and Jan van Toorn

Crouwel and Toorn's debate can be described as a debate on objectivity versus subjectivity, where Crouwel describes designers as 'selfless messenger(s)' whilst Toorn implied designers as 'interventionist - an enabler of criticism and empowerment.'

In the debate Toorn criticises objective design and Crouwel's use of grids and say "You impose your design on others and level everything...out country is inundated by waves of trademarks and house styles and everything looks the same. [What your approach does is basically confirm existing patterns]. I think Toorn is implying here how being objective takes away the individual creativity of the designer and restricts them to certain 'rules' which they need to follow thus creating a stream of designs which all look similar and does not have the uniqueness and individuality of the designer. Though, Crouwel replied by saying how Toorn's design is 'pretentious' and a 'so-called good design'. Crouwel clearly thinks that subjectivity in design does not mean good design and he may think that rules need to be implied in order to create a more traditional good graphic design. 

For me, I think that both arguments have their merits and just like in the article, it doesn't really have much of an impact now as today both arguments are redundant due to the fact that their are now a array of way designs. And, this was characterised by Rick Poynor as 'pluralism'. Though objective design and using grids and traditional typographic rules are essential to creating a graphic design and being able to create clean design, having subjectivity into play can give the design, the designers individual unique colour which makes the design more innovative and different from the rest. It can also show the designers own use of play and different techniques in order to make designs which can push design principles.