Well said, I could not agree more. This is something I attempt to instal in the inturns under me on a daily basis.

Hildebrant.

Where do you draw the line between commercial viability and creative exploration?

i wish i wouldn't have to draw a line. push the limits as much as you can, but don't take it personally when it gets pulled back. i used to get pretty upset when i couldn't convince someone, but now i'm able to just say, "ah shit, oh well." and move on.

keep your personal creative outlets...they keep you sane.

i like to think of my projects on a more “personal design” level (even though it is still commercial design). i consider the title “commercial design” reserved only for the big time corporate level... a level i am torn to be a part of. wouldn't it be great to do something for a really large corporation... but wouldn't that process be so political it would be utter hell? anyway, its easier for me to wrap my mind around the problem if i consider what i do on a personal/relationship level.

for me, i try my best to educate my client or superior on the how and why of my design decisions. but ultimately, as you stated, it all comes down to bottom line for a business or executive. a line that is extremely difficult to measure with design.

my goal is to NOT compromise my design integrity while including as much client input as possible. above all, i am honest and confident... and when i feel confident about a solution it permeates to the client. the client then feels great about the service purchased. it seems to all boil down to the relationship and confidence... being a really good salesman i guess.

-j

good point about the personal outlet brook!

> keep your personal creative outlets...they keep you sane.

... too true.

>for me, i try my best to educate my client on the how and why of my design decisions.

Justin I concur. In additionI also look at it like this. If you have an entertainment, a shoe client, a client that just rocks... or your intended target is of a younger demographic, the boundaries can be pushed... the client will let you take more chances. But those client verticals only equate for probably 5% - 10% of the design that is out there to do. Most clients are every other vertical (ex, banks, corporate, commodity products, etc. - typically clients/ products/ services that are what we would consider to be stodgy or safe.

There is a certain amount of relationship building with the client, and salesmanship of an idea, that can buy us leeway to do what we want... but I can't negate the responsibility to uphold an existing brand promise that a client may already have. Could David Carson or Art Chantry design for Citibank and have people believe it is Citibank (not Carson/Chantry) speaking through the design?

or your intended target is of a younger demographic, the boundaries can be pushed

absolutely...and i'm trying to get a job at a place that specifically targets that demographic for that exact reason. there's a pretty wide target range where I work now, so i get a little of it all

Design is problem solving.

The problem a designer is usually hired to solve is a problem of commerce.

I see absolutely no line between commercial viability and creative exploration in this case.

I just try not to forget the goal of my creative exploration: solve a commercial problem.

I try to use all my creativity to solve every kind of problem. I use all my tools and experience, and learn some more in the way. In this way i do not compromise my integrity as a designer (designer = decision maker, problem solver)

In my very humble opinion and limited experience, most designers who dont want to 'sell out' to 'the man', are designers that would no be able to do so if they wanted. Designers whose ability is limited to problems of aesthetics and culture, and dont have what it takes to solve a problem of commerce.

And solutions to commercial problems have an advantage over solutions to aesthethic or moral problems: results can be objectivly measured.

If you stretch the boundaries of what has been acceptable in the past, or not, and your solutions work, you will have educated your client and the public, maybe even influenced culture, and, I beleive, demonstrated a lot more creativity than those who could not solve a commercial problem.

I think that what most of us would like is to be hired to solve problems of pure creative exploration. That would be heaven.

And of course I do agree that most clients need to be educated. I would love to see the day a company director questions my decisions as he questions the decisions of engineers or IT people.

Commerical design is what drew me to this occupation in the first place. I started out wanting to make cool things that helped to sell things. I wanted to be that corp. exec. on a committee coming up with ideas and plugs. So my opinion on commercial is a postive one.

Personally, I have never been in a situation where the client did not at least give me the chance to explain or try an idea. And if they have, it is because they have set up "standards" and a design language that they are comfortable with. I think clients have been more flexible and open-minded for me, note, I am very new at this.

The client IS the way we get paid, and if you are good at being creative, you better be good at selling yourself and your ideas, that is what makes a good designer (in my eyes) - if you can effectively communicate your thoughts and goals, as well as satisfy their needs, your golden.

I can't say where I'd draw the line - that depends on the client, the job, and if I have a "super-vision" for the project.

> I would love to see the day a company director questions my decisions as he/she questions the decisions of engineers or IT people.

... I would love to see that day to!

If you consider design to be a process then you should never feel that you're selling out.

If you successfully position yourself with the client, with this process then you should always expect to be as involved as the people building, developing or prototyping the end product.

My clients pay me as a design consultant to build better products and often spend up to 100k just to explore and determine which direction to begin design in, for whom and with what expected results.

The actual design part of the process is at the end - one which no one should be left out until that end. However too often designer don't position themselves knowing enough about business or brand factors to help the process any, and thus get left out until the end.

I personally won't take a large-scale project that doesn't allow me to be involved in the research to prove the concept will work.

That doesn't necessarily include print graphic design - 'cause I have yet to find a model that proves one concept works over the other.

most designers who dont want to 'sell out' to 'the man', are designers that would no be able to do so if they wanted. Designers whose ability is limited to problems of aesthetics and culture, and dont have what it takes to solve a problem of commerce.

you can't just say that and not explain it. by your logic, a good designer is one who can only solve one type of problem - a commercial one. and everyone should want to sell out? everyone has limits to what they will do, who they will work for, and what they care about...except, apparently, you. I have no problem with my commercial work. I spend about 80% of my working time on client work. I enjoy most of it. But who wouldn't want to create their own projects? do a project for something you care about? make a poster with crayons and razorwire that says, "Disney Sucks!" i'm not sure where that last one came from :)

obviously no one cares what makes other people happy (except religious fanatics)...so to each their own. all problem solving is good fun to me...and i think i'm pretty good at it.

The actual design part of the process is at the end...

huh?

Jose, why would you think that a designer who doesn't want to sell out wouldn't be able to sell out anyway? To me, it seems that a designer who understands his/her enormous potential is the kind of designer who is most likely to question where that potential is going to be released.

mdn, I honestly can't follow a single line of your thought (at least in this post), and I'm surprised (unless you're off your game today) that someone would pay you $100K to think for them.

If I am hired as a professional services provider to create something for a client, my loyalties belong to the client, in as much as I feel I must do everything I can to make sure that the final design solution meets and hopefully exceeds a client's expectations. I judge the success of project on how well it "works" for the client, on how much of a positive "return" the client gets from my creative efforts. That is the fundamental and intrinsic value of providing a service.

Now having said this, I do feel that it is my absolute responsibility to try and push my clients forward, to have them take evolutionary steps. This means that, during the development process, I do present solutions that test the boundaries of their sensibilities and resolve. It usually comes in the form of presenting conservative to radical interpretations of the design brief, and then allowing the client to drive the direction. I do this because it challenges their assumptions about what is possible, and therefore either opens up new opportunities or it reafirms their original convictions. I tell clients that pushing boundaries is the best way to make sure that opportunities are not missed. Sure, a client can be resistant, but then I've established some boundaries and move forward to complete the job in a timely manner. However, clients can be very receptive to new ideas when they aren't feeling forced into them. In this way, I am engaging in my creative exploration within the context of a client's commercial needs.

And as Brook mentions, I save my need for unfettered personal expression for independent projects. Then I'm given true freedom to explore, experiment, and evolve. And then I can take this work and see how it reintegrates into my professional practice.

To paraphrase that Tool song "Hooker with a Penis" (Aenema): Anybody who's practicing "commercial design" has "sold out" long ago (in the self-righteous, purest sense). So get over it.

"I'm the man, and your the man, and he's the man too, so you can point that f*cking finger up your a**!"

mdn made perfect sense to me - I can't say that I'm at that table everytime yet, but it's something to shoot for.

Correction: The album name is Aenima.

Link" target="_blank">Link to lyrics

(Pop-up ad banners! Sorry.)

(And yes, I am rockin' today.)

Steven... thanks for reminding me of how many times I blasted that Tool song driving down the road my 92 Cutlass Supreme. You rock.

"I'm a Cutlass Supreme, in the wrong lane, trying to turn against the flow, I'm the ocean, I'm a giant undertow." - Neil Young

I'm surprised (unless you're off your game today) that someone would pay you $100K to think for them.

Thanks Tom. Yes, I am very busy. I didn't clearly think through my thoughts before I tried to write them.

mdn, I guess I get the gist of what you're saying, and I imagine that you have a lot more to say, if you had time.

That doesn't necessarily include print graphic design - 'cause I have yet to find a model that proves one concept works over the other.

Ouch...somebody might have taken offense to that, and started a good discussion, if the argument was clearer. Consultants don't seem to have a similar role in graphic design, strange. More proof that we're pretty arbitrary, or that we refuse to be determined by effectiveness....

Tom -

Yes, unfortunately I both have an incredible amount to say about the topic (not sure how much of it is worth hearing) and no time to unleash it.

I'm not trying to offend anyone by saying that quote - I was trying to say, while you can set up parameters to test or measure the performance of say, interactive design, it is difficult to test the effectiveness of one style of (for expample) logo mark over another. Like when the MoMA logo was redesigned - was that an effective redesign?

So in other types of design I can spend months observing customers/users and draw up plans, strategies, models and prototypes to ensure the effectiveness of the end solution - before I design it. And then I can find that the graphic design process is somewhat stunted in it's process, and in the end often best left to the instinctive hand of the experienced craftsperson.

I'm not sure if this is best placed here, but this is a quote from Paul Rudolph, a past head of the Yale school of architecture:

"He must understand that after all the building committees, the conflicting interests, the budget considerations and the limitations of his fellow man have been taken into consideration, that his responsibility has just begun. He must understand that in the exhilarating awesome moment when he takes pencil in hand, and holds it poised above a white sheet of paper, that he has suspended there all that will ever be. The creative act is all that matters."

I judge the success of project on how well it "works" for the client, on how much of a positive "return" the client gets from my creative efforts. That is the fundamental and intrinsic value of providing a service.

Steven, I couldn't agree with you more.

I think sometimes designers undervalue the intrinsic understanding a client has for there business, although I acknowledge this is not always the case with every client. However sometime a client will request something that I may not necessarily think of doing or want to do, but I still try to give it a fair assessment , - unless it's very 'whacked' - before I discredit the idea.

I was once given advice about the IDEA TREE. Let your clients feel like they are part of the process, let them cut a couple leaves and trim a couple branched. But never let them touch trunk of the idea tree.

What does this mean? There are some requests a client will make that wont affect the end result of your concept. Let them feel creative by including their lower level input. But if they make a request that sends your flight into a nose dive, that's where you pull out your negotiation skills and non-confrontationally state your point. I have found when I objectively state how the creative decision are made in the best interest of the client and justify their business objectives, most times they retract their request.

Christopher-

I like your analogy of the idea tree. Although, I am not afraid of having a client take larger whacks at my ideas. If the "idea tree" is growing in the wrong direction, or is not the right plant for that "conceptual ecosystem" (to use one of my Organic Multiplicity theory terms), then drastic measures may be necessary. Really, it's whatever it takes to reach a reasonably happy solution. Now having said this, it's important to have a "author's correction" fee policy stated in the contract, so you can dissuade abuses from the client.

Another analogy I often use is one in which I describe a particular design as sort of food recipe: certain main elements are combined with other flavor and texture enhancers. And just like food, when you change the "spices" or major ingredients of a design "dish," other aspects will need to be adjusted in order to retain the integrity of the dish. And at some point, if the design recipe changes dramatically, then you need to make a different kind of "dish." This food analogy really helps clients understand the interdependencies and intricacies involved in creating a design solution. So, they're more likely to work with a designer to craft the perfect recipe.

And, I have to say, there's something really disfunctional in thinking about clients in a confrontational, us and them, kind of way. For me, that is THE tell-tale sign that a designer has a prima dona (or victimization fixtated) attitude. Clients aren't art patrons, by-and-large. They're people wanting communication, marketing, and branding services. Some designers can sometimes be a little too self-involved with their creative pursuits. Hey, I even admit to some of this when I was just out of school. But, as I've grown to have more confidence in my abilities over the years, I know that I will always be able to create beautiful work. So now, my challenge is in finding the balance between my professional and creative interests and the interests and desires of my client. And sometimes that balance has a lot of "me" in it; other times, it may more reflect the clients specific tastes. But in all situations, I want to have successful solutions and happy clients.

Tom, I meant the complete opposite. I beleive the best designer is the one that can find the best solution for the problem she is hired to solve. The broader the spectrum of problems one can solve, the more situations in which one can be a good designer.

And in my own experience many designers who are very good at solving aesthetic problems, who are great experimenters, do not understand, do not even want to aknowledge, the forces operating in the market, and thus are not able to solve commercial problems. They tend to rationalize this as not wanting to sell out. Does refusing to understand and intervene in one of the most important aspects of our society make one a better designer?

I beleive that self delusion and rationalization does not make one a better designer (or even a better person). My previous message was a form of provocation, I wanted to generate some strong reactions, and identify the self deluders :). Sorry for that. I will try to be a civilized person from now on.

And Steven, thanks a lot for the advise. I had been trying differente ways of conveying to a client what the design process is and means, and the recipe model worked.

Jose,

Tom, I meant the complete opposite. I beleive the best designer is the one that can find the best solution for the problem she is hired to solve.

What if the best designer is the one who can find the best solution for problems nobody has any interest in hiring her/him to solve?

My previous message was a form of provocation, I wanted to generate some strong reactions, and identify the self deluders :). Sorry for that. I will try to be a civilized person from now on.

I'm not sure I understand the psychology behind your little experiment here. How do you pinpoint the self-deluders based on this? What do you mean by self-delusion, exactly? I'm just not sure I see where you're coming from...

Where do you draw the line between commercial viability and creative exploration?

As I am only in my thirteenth month as a professional designer, it may be ambitious for me to say that there is no line. There has, in my mind, been a line drawn between someone who truly hires a designer as a "creative" and someone who hires a "producer of graphic design." The former understands the collaboration and excitement of trusting a designer to speak with them, the latter takes control of all aspects leaving the designer to simply typeset the commercial message.

p. august.

peteraugustheffner.com

Jose-

I'm glad the food recipe metaphor worked out for you. It's a very good way of describing the delicate balance that exists within a proper design solution, in a way that most people can understand.