Very interesting review, Armin. Thanks!

-jdf

ps. gotta go back to shape the world now, but I'll come back to comment later...

Nice writeup, Armin. I definitely wish I had gone, especially for the chance to meet more Speak-Uppers and party like it was 1988. Ok, not that last part. I've never been to an AIGA conf. and will make it a point to go the next time around.

I agree with you completely on the lack of acknowledgement of "graphic design." I felt that way when I read through the recent Newsweek issue on design. I'm quite surprised that even AIGA neglects it. Is it all graphic designers' dream to move beyond that realm? Is that the only way to be respected?

This discussion could dovetail nicely with a website I saw recently called beyondgraphic.org. I'm not quite willing to believe that a mere change in terminology is the path to respect and success, but there is some logic in the argument that we have not been successful in communicating our value as, well, communicators.

Although I was unable to attend, I can say that this is not the first time that graphic design(ers) have been overlooked in the design world, nor the last. It is important to first understand the world and the profession of graphic design, and once this is achieved, to find new ways and roads in which to expand and bridge with physicists, chemists, futurists, etc. Working across platforms/domains is a wonderful way in which to integrate many aspects of the world and our societies and come up with better solutions and broader understanding of current and future issues, and what the graphic designer can and should do for a better tomorrow. My concern with this interaction begins when I realize that we (graphic designers) should understand every aspect of graphic design, every rule, every detail in history, to know what has worked and what has not in order to learn from that, and take it from there. When your far away uncle or your little nephew comes up to you and asks what it is that you do for a living, what do you respond? How? Think about the different answers you have heard and given to this question while trying to either explain of justify what you do every day. Do you find yourself trying to explain graphic design, or do you just reply: oh, logos, brochures, that kind of stuff. What is it that you really do for the graphic design world, how do you make it a better place to be in, and a better solution for many? If each one of us, as individuals find it hard to define graphic design and it’s power and influence in the world, how can we expect to obtain the respect we crave from the rest of the world?

It was great to meet you Armin!

Personally, I enjoyed the conference, but I listen to CBC and watch PBS/Knowledge Network all the time (okay, I admit and Speedvision and Teletoon...).

Admittedly, some of the presentations were a bit obscure (the treehouse folks were beyond me!!), and it was obvious that some presenters had never presented before, but the relevance of what David Orr, Fritjof Capra and Jessica Helfand/William Drenttel had to say really hit home for me.

You had to choose carefully what you went to see in the focussed sessions. The one on Design for Democracy was a real eye opener and showed how AIGA members are working with state election officers to ensure that the Florida debacle doesn't happen again.

There were "eye candy" talks as well, plus a few technology and education sessions, but you had to do your homework.

For me, the conference underlined similar discussions we've had on the GDC listerve in the past. Where does "design" end, and the rest of the world start? The point of this conference, and the two GDC/BC Environs conferences I was involved with is that there is no distinction between them, that they are inextricably linked, and to try and separate them or compartmentalize them, is to avoid reality (and responsibility).

The fact that AIGA calls itself the American Institute of Graphic Artists is a misnomer. We aren't graphic artists anymore, we're designers and/or information architects. We have a role to play, however small it may be, and this event helped to raise awareness of this fact.

I have two complaints, and one suggestion.

My first complaint is that it was too big. 2200 people is too much for me. I spent much of the time looking for people I knew were there, but never did see them which was very disappointing.

My second is that very few of the speakers acknowledged or took advantage of the fact that they were in a foreign country! Many were constantly apologizing or feeling nervous about saying anything political or critical of their own government. I was amazed to find out that very few Americans had ever seen the photo of George Bush looking through the binoculars with the lens caps on! I seem to recall seeing it on the cover of the Vancouver Sun. A few presenters got their anti-Bush jabs in, but based on discussions I had with American delegates, I was surprised that the speakers didn't voice their discontent louder because every American designer I spoke to is not pleased or proud of their leader(s). It would seem that freedom of speech has been squelched in the good 'ole US of A.

My suggestion (which is impossible given my first complaint!) is that the next one shouldn't be just graphic designers. It should be multi-disciplinary and include designers, communications directors, marketing people, architects, industrial designers, politicians, teachers, manufacturers, etc., etc. We're all in this together, and preaching to one crowd won't affect change. It will just make us feel guilty and powerless.

Cheers, Matt

My second [complaint] is that very few of the speakers acknowledged or took advantage of the fact that they were in a foreign country!

... it would seem freedom of speech has been squelched in the good 'ole US of A

Matt -

How could the speakers have taken better advantage of being in another country and how does holding back personal political views on the American president (at a graphic desing conference) mean freedom of speech in the US is being squelched? Please explain.

Y'know Matt, I don't agree that the next conference should be more multi-disciplinary. I was talking to someone about the difference between the AIGA and the UK Design Council, which represents the broader spectrum of design, and he felt that it was important to have a body that represents just Graphic Design.

Yeah yeah, we're more than graphic artists, but I think the majority of us who call ourselves "graphic designers" feel under-represented at the best of times, and in a conference setting we really need to hear from those who work in our media to be able to relate in a real, our-world way to the world at large. This whole "design is everything" just doesn't cut it for me. I want to know what people who do what I do are doing to fit into the larger whole. Personally, I love industrial design and architecture and I even have some trees I could build some twig treehouses in, but hearing about these things doesn't help me much with the decisions I need to make with my business.

OK, I'm pretending I'm still in the business of graphic design, but ...

Armin wrote:

My first question forty-eight hours after the conference was over, after absorbing all the information and after thoroughly trying to digest and understand all of it is “Why them?”

and:

...Graphic Design was never mentioned. Last time I checked, the GA next to the AI stood for Graphic Arts. Where was it? Why was graphic design so absent in all these conversations? Why, when talking about the power and relevance of design, we can only muster product designers, architects, environmentalists and never graphic designers? The conference did not address that, maybe I missed it, yet I can gauge that I am not alone in my sentiments.

then:

I have always believed that we need to collaborate with — as well as understand — other disciplines, because our combined knowledge can indeed create grander results. Yet I find it disheartening that we still can’t state what the power of graphic design is. Yes, part of it is the ability we have to manipulate images and words to communicate, however we somehow don’t feel confident enough in that... ...How can we convince ourselves that there is power in what we do? Sadly, I don’t know. And I was hoping I could hear about it at this conference.

Consider this: we can't state the "power" of graphic design because we operate in a linguistic (sometimes metalinguistic) realm. We translate into... we "speak" a visual language. To describe the power of graphic design is as slippery a proposition as describing the power of words. How does one capture the effect of cropping an image, the effect of type superimposed on a picture, the effect of full-bleed color?

The language of signs and symbols, and the criticism of this language, has been the battlefield of literary and cultural theory for decades. Both the history of graphic design and poststructural theory are rather arcane areas of expertise -- and there are very few practitioners capable of applying a rigorous (or interesting) analysis.

Even the grand duchy of Architectural Theory couldn't get it right. There was a point when I was going to scream if I heard one more misappropriation of "deconstruction" when describing a building.

Oh, how I yearn for the day when I can pick up The Phenomenology of Uncoated Paper; but that isn't going to happen in the near future. So, I make do with the criticism and analysis of other disciplines. And if you read that stuff for a while, you begin to see that they all take from each other -- the biggest borrower being Film Theory.

Such a multi-disciplinary approach is perfectly appropriate for Graphic Design since our skills as practitioners are multi-disciplinary. The question is not "Why aren't there adequate resources or focus on Graphic Design's role in culture" but "Why are so few designers willing to go through the effort to create material specific to the discipline?" It's easier to find a filmmaker or architect with both a viable practice AND a sense of the theoretical aspects of their profession. We seem to be continually stuck on definitions: what is Branding, what is the best way to train a designer, what is a good logo, etc.

A trip through the on-line resources of the AIGA and even Speak Up presents much on the Business of Design. It's easier to evaluate -- you just count up the money. Examining the Ethos of Graphic Design is harder. One has to be willing to examine design as a part of culture -- which means putting our clients, ourselves and the audience under scrutiny. All this discussion about "wanting to be agents of change" misses the point entirely. We are Change. We make Culture. Money is a motivation, not the result.

As the collective voice of thousands of designers, I would never expect the AIGA Conference to guide the criticism of Graphic Design. Awareness of social and environmental responsibility is a noble effort -- and one easily assimilated by the masses. Anything further is probably better found in grad school or special conferences like Steve Heller's Modernism and Eclecticism (RIP).

I've always looked to the AIGA as a business reference and for social therapy. Sometimes it's enough to know that you're not alone.

Armin then finished with:

One thought that I would like to close with is by John Hockenberry. It might be very basic, but this is something that I will keep with me forever and is quite possibly the best explanation of what a graphic designer truly does:

“Graphic designers make the hidden obvious and the obvious relevant.”

OK, then I'll close with this quote from Terry Eagleton:

"All propaganda or popularization involves a putting of the complex into the simple, but such a move is instantly deconstructive. For if the complex can be put into the simple, then it cannot be as complex as it seemed in the first place; and if the simple can be an adequate medium of such complexity, then it cannot after all be as simple as all that. "

Let the games begin...

Not even six months out of college, I'm already questioning everything I've been taught/thinking for the past five years. I sometimes think graphic design/communication is an amazing element of our culture, and granted, it is a force to be reckoned with at times. Then sometimes I wonder if it is in fact true that the majority of what graphic designers create is disposable as a straw wrapper, both mentally and physically.

When was the last time you met someone, that isn't a designer or a freak collector, that held on to a brochure, an annual report, a package of gum, a bottle of shampoo...simply because it has intrinsic cultural value? So much of what graphic designers do is disposable and holds little significance in our cultural history.

I think we're to a point where most Americans relate paper with disposability (word?). McDonald's burger wrappers, magazines, newspapers, junk mail, and millions of other things that are "designed" by graphic designers. Even websites get redesigned over and over again. Unless its a significant artifact, forget about it ever having a real place in our culture.

Its no wonder we feel this way.

MKingsley --

That's perhaps the most insightful posting I've read recently. I don't agree 100% with all of your points, but very well stated.

You've somehow captured the intent of a conference you didn't attend.

Awareness is an issue is indeed a noble and adequate pursuit of any professional conference. Now agreement, on the other hand...

I guess I felt that out of 30+ speakers, only 1 made any specific reference to the cultural differences between Canada and the US, let alone the rest of the world. It just felt like an opportunity was missed to open up the lines of communication.

If I've paid Cdn$800+ to hear someone speak, I don't want to hear them apologizing or holding back on their opinion: that's what I paid for so don't shortchange me! Maybe I'm just overly opinionated, and I expected the speakers to be the same. Certainly the designers I spoke to outside the theatres and in the pubs were very opinionated and outspoken, which was very refreshing and educational.

As to the multi-disciplinary aspect, we have so many "designers-only" forums, like this one for instance, or our design magazines, that personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to "meet" other folks, rather than have a love-in with more designers. This could be my "Canadianess" coming through, we hate making heroes out of people, probably because our pedestals are covered with ice and very slippery and dangerous!

Tan wrote:

I don't agree 100% with all of your points...

Impossible! My dialectic is infinitely supple!

;)

You've somehow captured the intent of a conference you didn't attend

I've been to a couple. The promotional rhetoric is always the same: the second coming of Christ is predicted, but never occurs. It reminds me of the joke about Werner VonBraun's epitath: "Aimed for the stars; hit London"

I'd rather have the opportunity to "meet" other folks, rather than have a love-in with more designers. This could be my "Canadianess" coming through,

Sorry Matt, but i think it's your President-ness that's coming through (Matt is the National President of the GDC). In that position you are surrounded by designers and design issues every day. But it was not so long ago that I was an isolated designer cut off from my peers: before I joined the board of the GDC, before I discovered Speak Up. I really believe that most graphic designers are starved for interaction with their peers and still seeking recognition for our work in the general community.

Deep breath. Here goes my first *real* post. :)

Folks have complained that graphic design was neglected (and I agree) during the course of the conference and particular disdain has been expressed for the Helfland/Drentell talk.

However, of the all the main session speakers, I found their material to be the most closely related to the topic "The Power of Design" and most specifically related to graphic design. Yeah, there was branding bashing, but I was incredibly grateful—as someone who is trying to figure out where I fit in the graphic design world—to be reminded that graphic design has a role to play in disseminating information to the general public that is neither selling pepsi (call it branding, if you will), nor spoofing/critiquing the selling of pepsi (a la Adbusters), but promoting knowledge and understanding of topics that affect the lives of everyday people in fundamental ways.

I thought their design of the National Security document was genius. Put this (imho, frightening) content into a form that people will actually *read* so we, as citizens, know what we're dealing with. I don't think that was a case of "putting of the complex into the simple" - it's the same content, just presented in a form that is more approachable and more likely to be read.

Of course, if someone was to take up the task of presenting the human genome to the layperson (as was their suggestion) some simplification probably would be necessary, but are the finest of details really a requirement for a general understanding of the topic?

I had a great time at the conference and can't wait for the next one! I admit to being a little starry-eyed—it goes with being a student, I guess—but I'm not a complete babe in the woods. Before being a design student, I earned a BA and worked at a "Branding and Strategy" firm for 4 years. So, I have a little life experience behind me. :)

> I thought their design of the National Security document was genius. Put this (imho, frightening) content into a form that people will actually *read* so we, as citizens, know what we're dealing with.

I hate to steal Tan's words, as this is something we discussed later and I agreed with this point of view strongly, but why not give those 2,200 copies they gave at AIGA to mayors and governors? Why give it to designers? So that we marvel in the grandeur of self-publishing? And if you ask my subjective personal opinion about the booklet itself, it was very poorly designed typographically inside, the hierarchy (if any) was nowhere to be found, making an undigestible document even harder to absorbe. I'm not proud of myself for all this Drentell/Helfand bashing but the fact that a lot of people are so deeply praising their lecture and their publication of that booklet is quite baffling to me. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion and I can respect that, but just look at the bigger implications that were made.

>How does one capture the effect of cropping an image, the effect of type superimposed on a picture, the effect of full-bleed color?

Kinglsey, you are absolutely right, I think this is the one question that has gone unanswered for many years... I'll take it as a personal challenge to come up with an answer (or at least try) to this question, not right now mind you, sometime in the future. Because therein lies the absolute power of graphic designers as crafters of messages.

> I hate to steal Tan's words, as this is something we discussed later and I agreed with this point of view strongly, but why not give those 2,200 copies they gave at AIGA to mayors and governors? Why give it to designers?

It's fine by me Armin. Couldn't have said it better.

Publishing for advocacy and public welfare is a noble endeavor if it's genuine. Ballot and census design, public health and welfare information, and a host of other government information can use the noble intents of designers. And it does happen -- more than most of us are aware of. It's just that those documents are quietly created and distributed to the people who need them, use them, and distribute them. Hundreds of firms across the country donate millions of dollars of service on behalf of countless public sector non-profits. Those noble efforts for public welfare are not created to be given to designers at conferences for self-recognition.

And welcome to the group Abby. Thanks for your thoughful post :-)

Publishing for advocacy and public welfare is a noble endeavor if it's genuine...Hundreds of firms across the country donate millions of dollars of service on behalf of countless public sector non-profits. Those noble efforts for public welfare are not created to be given to designers at conferences for self-recognition.

So true.

As the subject of some of these comments, I thought Jessica and I should join this conversation.

Armin's question is a smart one: why are we not distributing the National Security Strategy book more broadly? We did not give it to governors and mayors, frankly, because they have little to do with foreign policy, or with communications of public policy. We did, however, donate 1000 copies to AIGA for mailings to Congress, the White House, journalists and policy think tanks. We continue to believe this document is more thoughtfully encountered in book form (even if the typography is not pleasing to Armin's eyes).

So the question, still, is why give 2200 copies to a bunch of designers? To promote the "grandeur of self-publishing?" "Just look at the bigger implications that were made." Yes, we'd like to do this.

The implication in this question is that designers do not matter, and that they are a waste of paper. We would like to believe otherwise. Against this cynicism, I'm happy to be thought of as an idealist: I would like to believe designers could contribute more if they participated more in issues that affect our lives. Not to sound all teary-eyed, but I hope our distributing this booklet at this conference inspires one student to publish something else of importance...to be a citizen and to use the skills of graphic design to contribute something of value.

Plus, for all of you Speak Up readers who were not in Vancouver, we have posted our presentation at Design Observer under recent writings by contributors. Comments are welcome. You will also find blog commentary by Michael Bierut, Rick Poynor and Jessica Helfand.

We're pleased to join this discussion.

Well, Speak Up had been advertising-free for more than a year� it was good while it lasted.

Aw, and not even a credit on Design Observer to Movable Type or the Trendy style sheet.

In the future, all will be blogs.

Design Observer

damn, more design stuff to contemplate...

I thought the "Power of Design" had not only little to do with design and our lofty profession. But it was just a platform for Anti-American, political views. I am not a conservative by any means, I happen to agree with most of the opinions served to us there, but I thought that was neither the time nor the place. It was a waste of money for me other than breathing some Sagmeister and Carson DNA...that was my only brush with inspiration. AIGA can kiss my @$$. I will say that my membership will NOT be renewed, and I will not attend another Conference associated with it. Just a bunch of COMMUNIST Fuggers!

A.I.G.A. = Anti-American, Intolerant, Gathering of Arseholes.

Alison--are you being serious? Cuz if so...chill. I hear where you're coming from, but anger can be such a waste of energy.

Anyway.

The conference sounded like a lot of fun, its always good to be closely involved with an environment like that, just because its bound to produce some sort of reaction and that's what makes things worthwhile.

I still, for whatever willynilly reasons, believe that all the talk in the world, no matter how dynamic and intelligent, amounts to nothing but hot air unless actions follow it--be they successful or not, far better is it to attempt something rather than consider it. Sure, to an extent, speech is action...but its still just speech.

And I'm still perplexed by the title of the conference--"The Power of Design"? C'mon. I can't think of a single profession that would dedicate three days and who knows how much money to wondering about what their purpose is. I mean...most of the people on Speak Up seem to have a pretty good idea of what they're doing and why.

Well, either way...I don't want to poo-poo what was likely a good time.

Well, In contrast to the many of you whom had a bad experience. My first design conference experience was a great one. I think everything has sunk in now and I’m able to look back and think about all that was learned. For me it was like taking a step back from the world we live in to evaluate where we are now and where we are headed. I attended a couple very eye-opening presentations that left me feeling numb at how terrible and how wonderful things really are in our world. The focus session, “Thinking Sideways” by Robert Peters was especially amazing.

For my first AIGA conference it was not what I had expected. I was planning on three days of dog and pony shows like our local monthly meetings. But I was pleasantly surprised at the content I have been left with. I feel I will forever have these feelings and thoughts in the back of my mind that I gained at this conference as I approach any design problem.

All the people I was able to meet in person was especially wonderful. I had a roundtable lunch with Michael Vanderbyle (I swear every answer he gave began with “this is off the record”), Sagmeister, Carson, Marty Petersen, Paula Scher. It was so ironic and strange to hang out with people that were on my History of Graphic design exam last semester (I’m currently a student). The Speak Up party was especially a good time. Armin, Debbie, Tan, Marian, you are all really fantastic and it was a pleasure to meet you. Oh, and I got nothing but complements on the t-shirt.

Yikes!?!?!, Alison, how can what we heard and saw at the AIGA Conference be construed as "anti-American". Is the phrase now: "Land Of The Free Just As Long As You Think Like Me"?

Sad, very sad....

Check out the Drudge Report website for more "communist" propoganda...

And welcome to the group Abby. Thanks for your thoughful post :-)

Thanks, Tan. :) As an aside, after all my talk about the NS document, I've actually been trying to read it these past couple of days and the text itself is defeating me. All the (arguably) good design in the world can't make reading poor content any easier. :P

I've now had the chance to read the infamous Culture Is Not Always Popular presentation. First off, I didn't see the D.O. link mentioned above as a advertisement—perhaps more of a public service announcement. After reading the presentation a couple times, I still have no idea why so many people are up in arms. After reading it I'm sad that I couldn't get past my own arrogance to attend the conference. After reading it I changed my opinion of what was written in rant and perhaps some of the harsh thoughts I've had towards the authors of Faux Science. After reading it I'm glad to hear that it effected Matt in Canada, that can only bode well for the GDC. After reading it I'm happier to be a designer.

armin.

good write up. i didn't realize the lack of the use of the words graphic design... interesting observation.

while my feelings about the conference as a whole are mixed (my first aiga conference), i will say that it would have been nice to have a graphic designer from a graphic design firm speaking to graphic designers on some of that holistic crap.

on one hand it's good to come back from an experience like the conference with unanswered questions (kind of makes you think) but at the same time my freekin conference bill including hotel, air fare, passport and food tipped the scales at over $2,000... again, would have been nice to hear some good ol' fashioned "here's how i o the holistic, sustainable thing at my graphic design firm". if there was a break out session that covered some of that crap, the titles were so ambiguous i must have missed them.

i did however come away with some ideas how i may be able to help our struggling ecology and for that it was worth the two grand.

lastly i am sorry i missed the speak up party. from what i hear, it was a gas.

Just in case our reviews of the conference weren't enough for you, here is another one on the HOW web site by David Stairs of Designers Without Borders... somebody who's actually doing stuff.

Great review. I thought he covered the didactic nature of the conference quite thoroughly, don't you? Thanks for the link Armin.

I'm sorry to hear that so many attendees felt the conference was heavy on aspirational message about design with a capital "D", and way light on practical take-aways for graphic designers. I only wish the session that I moderated on the Practical Applications of Sustainability in Print had been on the main stage. Designer, Steve Turner of Turner & Associates, Bob Lewis from Anderson Litho and Jeff Mendelsohn from New Leaf Paper had a very practical story to tell about how a client selling a petroleum product in an aerosol can (WD40) saw the value of sustainable design & print production in the execution of their 2003 annual report.

I would be interested in feedback from Power of Design conference attendees that read the AIGA Guidebook #7 in the Design Business & Ethics Series (It was the 26 page loop-stitched tan and brown booklet titled: "Print Design and Environmental Responsibility" that was in blue and white event tote bags provided to all registrants.) I hope that it was seen as a practical take away.

> Did you find the information in it useful and practical?

> What other kinds of information do you want or need that it did not include?

A growing number of major corporation are implementing Corporate Social Responsibility and supply chain environmental management initiatives. Organizations seeking opportunities to put CSR and sustainability concepts into practice need look no further than the paper, printing, packaging and print media used to support and promote their product and service offerings. In order to tap this opportunity graphic designers and printers must be informed and capable of making responsible design and production choices available to their clients.

> Do vendors of paper, ink, toner and printing solutions provide you with enough information and training for you to make responsible design, purchasing or production decisions?

If these issues are of concern to you I would like to encourage your participation in an important survey of graphic designers, publishers marketing professionals, print buyers, printers, and other graphic communications professionals that is being conducted by Nima Hunter Inc. in conjunction with non-profit Institute for Sustainable Communication.

In return for competing of this survey participants will receive a fact-filled Executive Summary of the study report upon its publication, and will be eligible to receive research reports worth more than $100.00 for free!

To take the survey go to:

http://www.nimahunter.com/survey/rp/

THIS SURVEY IS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY, AND WILL NOT RESULT IN A SALES CALL.

The results of this survey will be used to improve the business practices of vendors and suppliers of products and services for publishing, printing and packaging to better serve your needs. They will also be used to provide professional associations, colleges and high schools with guidance in the development of educational and training curricula for economically, environmentally and socially sustainable publishing, printing and packaging.

It’s Easy to participate: The web-based survey consists of 5 sets of multiple choice questions that can be completed in 15-20 minutes from any PC with a web browser and an Internet connection. Cookies are not required.

Anonymity Assured: All survey responses will remain anonymous. We respect your desire to protect your personal privacy and confidential company information. Neither personal information nor individual company information provided will be shared with any third party without your consent.

Broad Support: The Greening Print Study is being conducted by Nima Hunter Inc. with support from the Institute for Sustainable Communication (ISC), the Environmental Careers Organization (ECO), The Hilson Family Foundation, The New York City College of Technology Department of Advertising Design and Graphic Arts, North American Publishing Company (NAPCO) The Graphic Communications Department of California Polytechnic University, Quoin Publications/Graphic Communications World, the American Institute of the Graphic Arts (AIGA), Anderson Lithograph, Hewlett Packard and other leading organizations.