Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Life is Choices
By Julie Jawor

I am a design student. I am learning about concepts, ideas, and problem
solving. I am also learning about who I am and what I stand for. Hank Richardson, my instructor and President of Portfolio Center, is always quoting Alexander Hamilton saying, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.” Something my father has taught me, too.

While home for a school break I was shocked to see a report on CNN that certain Anti-Christian groups actually suggested the word Christ be taken out of Christmas. As a Catholic woman, I was horrified that anyone would suggest that, but then I started thinking about why wouldn’t they? My faith is a part of my value system, but I am just one person. I know what I believe as my truth, but what about the truths of others? As I started thinking about values I found myself with more questions than answers, so I turned to fellow students and professionals working in the design community.

The questions that have me most confused are those about balancing my values, work, and one day future clients. In school we are given creative freedom to express what we think our �hypothetical client’ needs to solve their problem. In an article called Values Determine Credibility and Ethics, Bette Price wrote, ”Ethics is learning right from wrong, and then doing the right thing. But is it that simple? Often, doing the right thing is not simple and straight forward. Right and wrong defined by different people may manifest diverse thinking, motivated by each individual’s personal values.”

I asked some classmates in Design History and Criticism, their opinions on balancing their values and assignments we get as students. Robin Fuller, a 4th quarter design student told me, “Usually we have a good bit of freedom with the work, but occasionally I’m asked to do a project about something that may not speak directly to my value set, like the tsunami poster we are doing in this class. It’s not that I don’t care, but altruism is not one of my core values, and I would not have chosen the topic for myself. But a project like this gives me a chance to learn something new, and hopefully to better define my values in that area.”

But what about the real world, the real client; how do you balance your own personal values and the outside world? I posed several questions to practicing designers for their opinions and some guidance. Don Hollis of Hollis Design said, “You can not compromise your values. Pursue ongoing relationships with clients who respect your opinion and appreciate your insight. End relationships with the ones that do not. Focus on producing good work and you will grow clients that want the same thing.”

That advice sounds completely rational, but now I have another question, how do I find out who is going to respect me? And what if the firm I one day work has clients who may compromise my values? The first answer would be don’t work there. As a student we are told to research firms where we would like to work. I go to websites, read about their clients, and view their online portfolios. Majority of the sites say something in regards to “big ideas,” problem solving, and teamwork. I really want to know how they decide whom to work with and their core values. Some sites say these things, others don’t. But lets say the number one firm I want to work for has a cigarette company as a client? For me, I would not want to design or work for that client, is it okay to tell the Creative Director that? Or do I check that employer off my list?

James Victore passed on some advice to me as well, he says, “When you choose vanilla bean, you exclude all the 51 other flavors. You CAN NOT have it all. But, nobody really wants it all. If we are really honest with ourselves (this is sometimes a difficult task) we can find what we can live with. If you want huge “success” with this business (whatever that is) you will have to accept sacrifice. Relationships, maybe. Kids possibly. Or any of the other trappings that that brings. BUT, you can figure out how to have what you need (does this sound like a Rolling Stones song?) and then the trick is how to be happy. THAT is the key.”

Pamela Trow-Johnson told me one of her core values is having integrity. When asked about balancing her values and with client demands she said, “I’d like to think I know how far to go. It’s the old winning the battle or the war adage.” She went on to tell me about a time she was asked to do a job that went against her value system, “Back during the Reagan administration I was hired by the Republican Party in DC to work with one of three divisions of the party called Working Partners (they were responsible for developing volunteerism in communities around the country) to develop workbooks on volunteerism. Even though I had never been politically active, I didn’t agree with the Reagan administration. I did the work, made a lot of money and managed to justify it by saying I didn’t care about politics. I can see why integrity is so important to me now. I could never have done this for the Bush administration, not even for a million dollars.”

Asking questions is part of being a responsible designer, and by doing so we demonstrate our commitment to our own core values. I am learning that I should question myself and my work at all times. As designers we should always ask ourselves, how am I incorporating my values into this work? And how can I balance my values with client demands? It will promote being a conscientious designer. Like Hank and my dad say, You must stand for something or you will fall for anything. I stand for honesty, integrity, creativity, and respect.

Julie Jawor is a student at Portfolio Center. This essay is the sixth in a series by PC students who took part in Bryony’s long-distance Design Thinking class during the quarter of winter 2005.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2291 FILED UNDER Essays
PUBLISHED ON Apr.26.2005 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Armin’s comment is:

> And what if the firm I one day work has clients who may compromise my values? The first answer would be don’t work there.

Julie, the first answer is pretty much correct. If you are going to have a problem with an employer's clients, don't get into a situation you are uncomfortable with. And as a junior designer the chances of your opinion changing an employer's decisions to work with a questionable client will likely not resonate enough. And at the end of the day, it's their business. They are the ones deciding where, how and from whom money comes in the door.

The bigger question, how to reconcile your values with the demands of clients… You'll know. It's clear as pie when a client is asking you to do something you are not comfortable doing, it all depends what you want to do about it. And how do you know what to do about it? You'll know.

How many comments before Milton's 12 steps to hell comes up?

On Apr.26.2005 at 09:23 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Graphic Design is a service industry. Yes, you shouldn't do work you don't feel right about doing, but realize that you are there to serve the customer. The world of commercial graphic design and marketing doesn't necessarily jive with altruism. That becomes much clearer after leaving art school ;o)

(That's not that you still can't be very picky about who/what you do work for...)

On Apr.26.2005 at 09:45 AM
graham’s comment is:

'How many comments before Milton's 12 steps to hell comes up?'

Or Milton's 'Paradise Lost'?

I'd recommend William Vollman's 'Rising Up and Rising Down' for a lengthy (!) discourse on some of the things raised in the essay.

Probably one starting point is to forget balance as a starting point and to perhaps consider responsibilty (i.e. the degree to which one is willing to accept consequences no matter what an act or decision leads to) as a state of mind.

On Apr.26.2005 at 09:48 AM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Julie, thanks for the essay.

I'm curious about your stance for "honesty, integrity, creativity, and respect." Those seem like pretty generic values. I can easily imagine a designer doing work for almost any type of industry, business or cause claiming to stand without compromise for those four values.

They are relative terms that can take on different meanings depending on what they are attached to.

Honesty - to what extent?

Integrity - being true to what? yourself, your family, your community, humanity, God?

Creativity - possibly the least relative, but what limitations to creativity will you accept

Respect - for people, animals, the environment, God, natural laws, principles that you hold dear?

I imagine that these four things that you stand for are rooted in something that, to you, is absolute or at least less relative (even if you haven't thought through exactly what it is).

I would be interested to know what defines your stance. What do you really stand for? (And if you feel that is too personal for a public forum like this, fair enough.)

On Apr.26.2005 at 03:40 PM
Julie Jawor’s comment is:

"Honesty - to what extent?

Integrity - being true to what? yourself, your family, your community, humanity, God?

Creativity - possibly the least relative, but what limitations to creativity will you accept

Respect - for people, animals, the environment, God, natural laws, principles that you hold dear?"

Jeff- Thanks for the questions. Definetly see your point about being alittle generic, I will try to better explain...

Honesty is first and foremost, deeply rooted in me through personal experiences (both in relationships at home, significant others, and professionally). Alittle personal, actually did my Chair project last quarter in Design History based on dealing with Honesty, Truth, and Deception while relating it to my design history period, Post Modernism.

Intregrity for my family and friends. My mother and father instilled what I believe to be sound morals. I have been told as long as I can remember that I am someone people can count on whether that be in times of need, in crunch times at work, in brainstorming to bounce ideas off of, and as a good friend, Hell I have been a bridesmaid 10 times and I still have 2 unmarried sisters. I value being that person and I believe others can see I am very approachable as well as honest.

Respect for myself, again family/friends, and I think people in general. I was at the AIGA Round table a couple weeks ago as a student rep. here in Atlanta where we were talking about how AIGA could affect the community. I suggested some outreach, mentoring, altruism, etc... The other students did not see a point and that frustrated me. I think if people who don't understand design (or what design is) can see designers out in the Atlanta community giving back (grass roots stuff) we then can explain what we do and the benefits of it. An example of this was I went with some AIGA members to a local homeless shelter and we helped the children there do artwork that will later become post cards to help raise money for the shelter.

Respect also of others opinions. I like to hear both sides of a story. I like to have intelligent conversations whether its heated or not. I am a bit of anomaly at Portfolio Center in that I tend to be more conservative than the liberal design world here at school. I bring this up because I respect my classmates (and often teachers) opinions on political issues.

Finally creativity. Not as big as the values above. But I do value my desire to create and be creative whether its personally or professionally. As an undergrad I was a fine arts and education major but due to some curves thrown at me, I ended up doing nothing creative. I was suffocating for 3 years in a cubicle at 27 years old and new something had to give, fast forward a year and a half later I am at Portfolio Center. Happier than I have been in a long time (as well as sleep deprived, but I love it none the same!). Limitations to creativity? For me, none. I quit a good paying job, took out a hell of alot of loans, did a complete 360 but it was all for me and my undying desire to create.

Does that help? sorry so lengthy.

On Apr.26.2005 at 06:38 PM
Matt Squire’s comment is:

I dont think that at the stage you are in at the moment in your design career that you can be too fussy about where you work. You are entering one of the most competitive industries in the world so sometimes it is a case of taking the first thing that comes up. Of course you should think about the work that certain companies do but in the end you need to realise that your true identity as a designer is developed through the work place. University can be very restrictive even though a lot of leeway is given in the projects.

Working for companies and a variety of clients, no matter if you agree with them or not will carve the way you design and think in the future. If you dont think that can work for a certain client then you should probably try and turn the opportunity into a positive and think about what you can take away from that job.

If you are designing work that you always want to do and you are happy with then it may not be as much of a challenge as fighting for a certain idea for a clint you do not feel comfortable in.

On Apr.27.2005 at 03:46 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> I dont think that at the stage you are in at the moment in your design career that you can be too fussy about where you work.

Just to counterpoint Matt, I would argue the contrary. Now — assuming you don't have kids or mortgage — is the best time to not settle for the first thing that comes. If you land a first job in a crappy design firm or in a crappy in-house job — and there are many of them — digging yourself out of that situation gets harder with every passing year and job. For a first job you want a place that will teach you some basics of workplace behaviour and all that that involves in regards to a design firm and one where you can actually get your hands on some projects, build a portfolio of stuff that you have had input on. And, ideally, a place whose values you agree with. Even if you don't, your first job will most likely be a stepping stone. My first job was at marchFIRST, a large internet consultancy that went bankrupt. I disliked the company's mission. I hated the office culture. I despised that they (we) did spec work. Etc., etc. etc. But I wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for that first experience. It at least taught me what not to look for in my next job.

It's all about compromises. Always.

On Apr.27.2005 at 09:18 AM
Matt Squire’s comment is:

I think that in a way Armins 'counterpoint' is basically the same as what I was saying. Taking away the positive from the job you are in.

The first job is a stepping stone and you will never find a job you love 100%. As for digging yourself out of a crap job, that is up to the will power of the individual. Are you passionate about your work? if so then the digging isnt that hard. Truths are realised a lot quicker when you have a passion.

I have a few friends who are in totally the opposite situation, they are so stuck up in finding the perfect job that they are finding it hard to stay motivated. Experience counts for a lot and the earlier you get it the quicker you develop.

I have had a few crap jobs but learnt a lot from each and taken away valuable experience from each, good or bad.

but yeah, its all about compromises. I think designers need to ask themselves a lot of questions when starting out, but keep them brief and simple.

On Apr.27.2005 at 09:37 AM
r agrayspace’s comment is:

When I was in school, Adbusters was the shit and First Things First 2000 resonated big time. I was all set to test my ethical limits on what I would and wouldn't design.

Cigarettes? OF COURSE NOT!!! OMG!

McDonalds? Probably not.

Nike? Well maybe.

After working in the internet biz for several years doing good work that pretty much kept me clear of any ethical decisions, I now find myself in the print world doing work for the Pharma industry.

OH NO! BIG PHARMA! EVIL!

I keep waiting for the project that is going to set off the little buzzers in my head. "This is Bad Medicine!"

So far nothing. Every company I help market, while profit driven, appear to be marketing a product that appears to be a good thing. Something that will help somebody with a condition and they will be better off for it. So maybe I am lucky but I don't feel I have done anything morally inept by helping drug and research companies make money.

There was talk about the office about trying to get work from Monsanto, which is a big Chemical/Genetic Engineering conglomerate which I have heard unflattering things about. Not sure about how to handle it.

I find that as a person who does not own the firm in which I wowk, I really have little control where we try to get paid, especially in these lean times.

So I have discovered that recognizing these ethical design situations is VERY difficult and not at all like Adbusters had painted the picture during my idealistic education. Sure I could quit. And I might if I need to but this kind of control through personal dependancy is exactly how the world gets away with bad stuff one comprimise at a time and probably will continue to do so forever.

Change is hard... and when paired with personal risk it can be paralyzing.

On Apr.27.2005 at 09:48 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

appear to be marketing a product that appears to be a good thing

Isn't that what graphic design is? Keeping up appearances? ;o)

On Apr.27.2005 at 10:09 AM
Joseph’s comment is:

Never compromise. Yes, you serve the client, but the client has hired you for your expert creativity. If they want you to do production, send them to Kinko's. I've sent four potential clients up to Kinko's this month because after an hour consultation it was very apparent that they had no intention of letting me have any creative input or design. They knew what they wanted and weren't budging. So i lost money, right?

No, one of them sent another company to me and they've turned out to be a superb client thus far. If you establish yourself as truly creative and don't give in to compromise, the clients you work for will be better, more creative and dare i say; fun? The output will be superior and you'll have pride and passion for what you've accomplished.

For inspiration on what this article seems to be talking about i suggest reading and rereading, then reading again The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

It changed my life.

On Apr.27.2005 at 10:30 AM
Matt Squire’s comment is:

To say to never compromise is I think a little pretentious. Yes the client has hired you and yes they should trust you to do youre job. And no you would never tell them how to do their job.

The job of a designer is not only to design but also to be aware and understand that the client knows their business. This source of information can be invaluable when trying to create anything from a brand to a sticker. It is up to the designer to point the client in the right direction and make them aware of the advantages of supporting your design.

On Apr.27.2005 at 11:10 AM
Eric Heiman’s comment is:

As a healthy skeptic and one who holds/held some of the same opinions and concerns as Julie, the lesson here is that everything comes is shades of gray and and every decision you make will not be crytsal clear and involve some sort of compromise. I quit my first job (which I loved) because we started working for Nike—partially becuase of their bad rep a la Adbusters and Michael Moore, partially because I simply hated the work, and probably partially because it was time for me to move on. I was an idealistic 28 year-old thinking I was stronger and better than those around me at this job.

Now cut to 7 years later— now mid-thirties, married, running my own design practice, trying to keep the doors open, hoping to someday own even a tiny piece of propety so my wife and I are not wandering the streets begging when we're 70 (in the real estate maddening Bay Area no less), and still living paycheck to paycheck to a certain degree. All of a sudden, the decisions become less clear. If Nike called us today, we'd probably do the work. But not necessarily because we need the money. If anything, we are still trying to keep the bar high in terms of the quality of the work, but also for whom we do it. No, there is also the realization that no company is completely free of sin, not every situation is black and white. Non-profits mishandle funds, university presidents embezzle, the United Nations sets up oil slush funds in the name of peace.

So what to do? One reason I teach is that the combination of pratcice and education makes me a healthy skeptic of each. Teaching gets me out of my head and reminds me that I do have values that I should be upholding in my life and practice. The practice allows me to put these ideas and values in action, but also keep my teaching on a somewhat realistic plane of inquiry. I have loved the AIGA's recent education conferences, but I have continually felt that as interesting as the ideas are, they seem to be percolating in a complete vacuum. While the branding behemoth continues to steamroll our profession, education has simply sidestepped this issue completely in favor of moving what we do closer to the ivory tower leanings of art. I'm not saying embrace branding (though some schools certainly have, free of reflection), but academia could at least address it, criticize it, show alternatives. Design is often about commerce, educators! We need to get over it! (Myself included.) But the only subtsantial critical discussion I could really find in design circles was Helfand/Drenttel's talk in Vancouver and the recent Eye magazine issue.

Julie, it's encouraging to know you are grappling with these issues not even out of school, because it doesn't stop ten years down the road. This is the bind we designers are in--love it or leave it. Recently, a book publisher contatced us about doing some work for them. They traffic primarily in "Christian" literature, though they have many secular divisions with interesting titles. The creative director called because she liked the more "liberal and conceptual" leaning of our work (she herself is more liberal minded than the company she works for). I couldn't be more disgusted with the religious right in this country. But if the work is good, the values epitomized in the specific project jive with ours, do we say no and throw the baby out with the bath water because the company put out the Michael Savage book? Isn't free speech more important (or is this really hate speech?) See, the dilemma never ends. It is never cut and dry.

And if you're going to read "The Fountainhead" (or any Ayn Rand), make sure you are aware of its subtle fascist tendencies. It makes for a thrilling, inspiring read as a teenager when values are cast in nothing but black and white with idealism all over, but re-read as a thiry-something adult not only is it overly pedantic, if not hysterical (both possible meanings), but to me epitomizes the problems in the design (er as God) profession, if not our entire current Bush-whacked society. The book took on a rather chilling tone this last time I read it.

On Apr.27.2005 at 01:22 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

When I quit college I got a job on Madison Avenue in NYC working like a slave at an ad agency, followed by several years of magazine design work with demented editors, and then, finally, freelance. I realize now I like my current boss best. Ha! Lets me lay about in pajamas and draw graphics outside in the backyard under the sky instead of at a desk.

When I work for a Pharmaceutical Company, like last week, I realize that all the pure intentions don't mean a damn thing. I have no problems with these people. I do have problems with the whole toxic culture that they operate in. Ideals are good, but being niave about why you work in Advertising is youthful folly. And, yes, Milton Glaser's 12 Steps to Hell is good advice.

On Apr.27.2005 at 01:43 PM
Elizabeth’s comment is:

Yeah I'm definitely feeling your comments, Eric.

Anyway, this whole essay seemed pretty self-righteous to me. I'm not bashing anyone for having ideals and wanting to work and provide a service with a clear conscience. But I guess I'm sort of sick of hearing about "core values" in general in this society. Why everyone seems suddenly eager to define what side of every fence they're on seems suspicously played into the hands of the religious right.

Like Jeff said, isn't everyone for honesty, integrity, et all? And Julie, isn't everyone for those "values" regarding their friends and family?

Maybe I'm failing to see what the point is...

On Apr.27.2005 at 02:12 PM
graham’s comment is:

eric: "While the branding behemoth continues to steamroll our profession, education has simply sidestepped this issue completely in favor of moving what we do closer to the ivory tower leanings of art."

(leaving aside debating the 'ivory tower leanings of art' thing. where do you get this impression?): good christ but would that this were true. education systems in design have become almost entirely about learning by rote from design/advertising annuals and conditioning for the nine to five-where does all the dogmuck about "entry levels" and "skillsets" and "value systems" emanate from if not from there (only to be reinforced by regurgitation-like a mother bird chucking up half-digested worms for her young-in places like here and through 'design organisations'). it's churlish to pick up on a wrinkle in your otherwise unarguable post, eric (particularly with reference to ayn rand) but it's precisely because i can't disagree with the rest of what you say that i find this bit worth a go.

elizabeth: "Like Jeff said, isn't everyone for honesty, integrity, et all?"

everyone? on what planet?

elizabeth: "And Julie, isn't everyone for those "values" regarding their friends and family?"

that's probably closer to the truth of the human condition: "self-interestedly callous", as william vollmann points out in 'rising up and rising down'. i can't say i've seen much that might prove that epithet wrong.

On Apr.27.2005 at 03:44 PM
Tan’s comment is:

The issue of integrity and core values isn't exclusive to design — it applies to most professions. And as Graham said, it's indicative of the human condition.

Personally, I have a responsibility to my family, then myself. What I do for a living is a means to an end — that is, I work for money that puts food on the table, clothes on my kids, and a roof over our heads. Of course, design means more than that to me personally — but the rest is all gravy as far as I'm concerned.

That doesn't mean I don't care about going to hell, or am "self-interestedly callous" (great term indeed). Business-wise, I have lines that I won't cross, seek alternate paths that help me sleep better at night, and try to produce work and things that I hope do more good than evil. Is that enough? It is for me.

We've had these types of discussions before — about whether corporate work is innately evil or not, whether awareness equates to action, and whether simply viewing design as a "business" is short-sighted and "self-interestedly callous" (love that term).

But ultimately, I believe this discussion is...as M Kingsley would put it, a "fools errand."

There is no right answer.

>So I have discovered that recognizing these ethical design situations is VERY difficult and not at all like Adbusters had painted the picture during my idealistic education.

Yes, and furthermore, to dig for the "right" thing to do — just how far down do you dig the damn hole?

For example. Suppose I worked for Starbucks, and designed materials that supported the Fair Trade coffee international accords. Suppose that accord ended up raising coffee prices in Columbia, which makes Starbucks shift their supply load to coffee from Vietnam and the Phillipines. Then as a result, Columbian migrant workers — instead of picking coffee — in order to feed their children, they would have to go back to picking poppy for heroin and cocaine. The cocaine then ends up here, in the hands of a 15 yr old. Who's at fault, and who's evil? Starbucks, the designer, the migrant worker, or the consumer?

It's not just about how to incorporate values into your work. It's about how you live your life. It's not just work. And it's definitely not just design.

On Apr.27.2005 at 06:03 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

I'm not saying embrace branding (though some schools certainly have, free of reflection), but academia could at least address it, criticize it, show alternatives.

Discussion about “brand” (both as a noun and as a verb) suffer from the same problem as discussions abut “Art”: a plethora of specific definitions leave people believing they are engaged in dialog when they are, in fact, engaged in multiple monologs. (A friend of mine used to be a printer’s rep. He spent a while discussing a designer’s problem with PMS before he figured out that she wasn’t getting unsatisfactory results from Pantone colors.)

What, specifically is (are) the “branding behemoth” problem(s)? When you say “alternatives” do you mean other strategies to offer clients or other sorts of work to avoid said behemoth? On a not unrelated note:

Design is often about commerce, educators! We need to get over it!

I see a real ethical problem in believing that commerce is dirty, evil, unworthy, etc. and avoiding its taint by teaching graphic design. What do people think their students are going to do? One could teach the art of picking locks while disapproving of burglary but under most circumstances it would be self-delusion at best.

On Apr.27.2005 at 07:32 PM
Julie Jawor’s comment is:

Armin, I have been in a similiar past job situation, ie a one I couldn't stand. But that job led me to Portfolio Center and taught alot about what I will not settle for at this point in my life and career. I don't have a mortage or family, so right now I have some freedom. I know the world is not perfect, nor will every job be either.

"Julie, it's encouraging to know you are grappling with these issues not even out of school, because it doesn't stop ten years down the road. This is the bind we designers are in--love it or leave it."

Eric, I constantly asking questions of myself and others. Some times too many, but these issues are on my mind especially since I will be back to "reality" in the next 9 months. Thank you for the advice.

"Anyway, this whole essay seemed pretty self-righteous to me. Like Jeff said, isn't everyone for honesty, integrity, et all? And Julie, isn't everyone for those "values" regarding their friends and family?"

Elizabeth, I wish that everyone did value there friends and family but in my experiences, no. I used to be a special education teacher in a rough school (prior to Portfolio Center, that's an essay for another day) and witnessed first hand what happens to families when parents do not place value on something so important as children and the home. So the answer again is unfortunately, no.

On Apr.27.2005 at 11:49 PM
Liz’s comment is:

Jumping on this a little late, but thought I would jot down a few ideas...

If you work freelance, its easy to pick and chose your clients on a per project basis. If the client or the task at hand seems to conflict with your core values, you can choose to refuse it.

When you're working for a company though, you lose the option to refuse work and to pick and choose which jobs you want to work on based on your moral makeup.

But everything in life is about compromise. Your best friend may do something that morally you find reprehensible, but if the good of your friendship outweighs the bad, chances are you'll overlook it. You'll probably say something to them - explain why you think that what they did was wrong and try to change their minds. There is enormous power in just expressing our beliefs and arguing for them, even if in the end it doesn't make a difference.

In a lot of ways, I think working for a company is the same way. You don't get the option to pick and choose which projects you can work on, and true, some of them may clash with what you personally believe. But as long as the company's core values and choices align with yours, I think its OK to compromise on your own values for a stray project here and there.

On Apr.28.2005 at 11:21 AM
Eric Heiman’s comment is:

Gunnar/Graham,

Let me address some of your questions:

Yes, "brand" is just anothr buzz word (we do our best here at my office to avoid using it at all——check our website and see if you can find it), but the word and meaning are well-timed in our ever corporate consoildating world. While the concepts of what branding do have been the basis of graphic design since the beginning, the scale and scope have never been larger. That raises questions and concerns in my mind, even though I play a role in this system, unashamed.

When I say "alternatives," I am reacting to experience in my own professional life where "brand guidelines" trump good design sense and strategy, where everything is so hemmed in by "the brand" that is strangles both marketing manager and designer alike. If design education is going to maintain a place of authority outside academia, I think grappling with these issues, rather than sidestepping them needs to happen. (At least that is how I feel about where I teach and other institutions I've been to—I can't speak for everywhere.) As a teacher I haven't solved this dilemma in my own classes, but here's what happened in my practice that spurred this thinking.

We've recently completed projects that have been derailed, or detoothed because of "brand guidelines". We suggested that we shouldn't use the brand typefaces (Helvetica and Times Roman, no less! "Because they work with all PCs," they told us) for this certain project, where communicating the concept was dependent on certain graphic cues that would be diluted, if not eliminated, by sticking to the hard line brand rules. Another project simply died on the vine because the brand guidelines (or maybe the gatekeepers of the brand) were too stringent. Now, this is not to say that branding (and by extension, commerce) is bad. Guidelines help, no doubt, and I for the most part was all for them. But these recent experiences raised some questions that weren't that all unrelated to much of the discussion in the recent Eye magazine that tackled these issues. When does branding simply become a form of corporate fascism? Maybe that's extreme, but it felt oppressive being on the other end of the brand guidelines. How this affects the intended audience is to be debated and discussed, but memorable this work being produced is not.

Maybe this seems slight in the big scope of things, but open this up to a bigger (and more academic, even) discussion, and I see some interesting (if not unsettling) cracks in the veneer. Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by embracing this scale of "branding", like creating the HAL computer in "2001", and then having it eliminate us? Again, maybe a little hysterical, but still worth pondering.

As to the "ivory tower" comment, obviously the range of design curricula out there can't be codified into a general statement like that, but in my (limited) exposure to different design programs through my own teaching and conferences I make the comparison to "art" academia and its insular focus on the self, rather than the more audience/communication/community (and commerce!) facet of design. This debate though is a whole other animal, and I am not without sin in terms of these issues.

I see a real ethical problem in believing that commerce is dirty, evil, unworthy, etc. and avoiding its taint by teaching graphic design. What do people think their students are going to do? One could teach the art of picking locks while disapproving of burglary but under most circumstances it would be self-delusion at best.

Gunnar, I couldn't agree more. Probably a lot of self-loathing littering these hallowed design education halls.

On Apr.28.2005 at 02:21 PM
graham’s comment is:

getting off the subject-but with ref. to comments in eric's last post and gunnar:

when brand guidelines are set (imposed, more like-starting form the brand character phrases that tend to be about 6 or so phrases that are so interchangeable from brand to brand that they may as well be random) only from strategy they tend towards the unusable.

when guidelines grow from work (probably an object driven by-at it's best-commitment, passion, pragmatism, dreaming) then the probability arises that no one except the originator will be able to work with them convincingly.

collaboration (trust, responsibility, autonomy) in every sense-from making very separate things which come together as one, to metaphorically chipping away at the same stone together-is really the only answer, not just in terms of branding but across all kinds of work, from interiors to sound to performance to products. among the people i've come across who can actually do this, artists (musicians, writers, visual artists etc. i use the term artists here to mean/include those who are making their own work but who also might work commercially) make the greatest number.

in terms of design: it's worth looking at how product designers work. the majority of the things graphic designers seem to agonise over are sorted out by product designers as a matter of course everyday before lunchtime.

On Apr.28.2005 at 03:42 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

in terms of design: it's worth looking at how product designers work. the majority of the things graphic designers seem to agonise over are sorted out by product designers as a matter of course everyday before lunchtime.

Graham, could you expand on that? I've not spent time with product designers (and I can only call myself a graphic designer because the design police haven't confiscated my home-made licence yet).

On Apr.28.2005 at 06:56 PM
Elizabeth’s comment is:

You guys are awesome. Let's go to the bar--my round. Oh, wait... I'm in BFE Pennsylvania on an all-night press check after my hour-long date with Holland Tunnel traffic. Guess I'll have to stay here and read more awesome nerdiness. I'm serious. I think our circular discussions keep me sane some days.

Thanks for the responses, guys.

On Apr.28.2005 at 11:26 PM
Bryony’s comment is:

isn't everyone for those "values" regarding their friends and family?

Hopefully. You have to start somewhere, and when your client list is zero you better have something to work with. It is with family and friends that you can test the waters and begin to understand where you stand, and what kind of boundaries you will set. And as Tan said, that is the main focus for many of us, the rest flows from our families.

Julie, my recommendation to you, from a big picture perspective would be to first of all follow you gut, but do so with some research to back you up. When you start looking for a job, google the places you are considering (go beyond their websites when ever possible). Try to talk to people who have a one-on-one experience with the place, be it having worked there or freelanced or interned or as a client. If you think they are really worth considering go for an interview and once you have gone over your stuff, talk to them about their stuff. Talk about how they go about things, how they select clients and projects and search for those boundaries. Not everyone will be willing to talk, but you would be surprised as to how many people share your thoughts and will give you insightful information if you seem genuinely interested and motivated. If they don’t give you a direct answer, or hide behind monologues you will find your answers as quickly as if they spell it out.

There is no right answer.

There is but one answer that is different for each one of us and it our responsibility to find it and act on it.

On Apr.29.2005 at 09:03 AM
freelix’s comment is:

I could never (do work) for the Bush administration, not even for a million dollars.”

I dont know about you but I would love 1,000,000.00 from the GOP. Would I submit good work? Hell no. They dont want good. They are going to have someone come up with a generic, mainstream image and boy do I have a few of those sitting around. Give half of it to Sierra Club or whomever you truly endorse. Play the game how its played: dirty.

Eric, good to see you poppin in... see you in SF for ICON in July.

On Apr.29.2005 at 02:17 PM
Ben Weeks’s comment is:

I found this article on postmodernism enlightening. It's written from an unusual perspective and a lot of the ideas show the thinking behind the thinking of a lot of these cultural issues related to values.

The idea of values and standards has become increasingly unpopular in our culture. But are designers more aware of the positive role of standards? On one hand design is subjective, but on the other there seem to be generally shared definitions of quality. Some measure the cultural value, others the social while the business world predictably measures the economic value.

The author Dr. Glendon Tompson has a Phd, is a powerful preacher at Jarvis St. Baptist Church and is President of the Toronto Baptist Seminary. He is about 35 and respects the emotional components of life as well as the rational ones. A man of extremely high personal standards of morality/integrity. Certainly a very compatible client with a designer who espouses the same values.

The Rise of Post Modernism

Appendix:

My Unedited Notes to Self on The Rise of Post Modernism.

-Section on Architecture

The inro seems a perfect description of Rem Koolhas' Work.

"Whereas modern architecture stresses univalence, postmodernist architecture embraces complexity and contradiction. Postmodernists reject the idea of a dominant form. Instead, they believe that buildings should have meaning and symbols. Instead of reading a building one way, they opt for reading buildings in a multiplicity of ways."

The following section discusses values, embodied by the publication "Wallpaper" and Attik's work which are a description of the "commercialness" my work has been described as lacking.

"Veith (1994:117) believes that shopping malls shaped as concrete bunkers best represent postmodern architecture. He points to the diversity found in shopping malls, with their free parking, elaborate and varied decoration as an indicator of postmodernism:

The whole space is attractively decorated and designed around the desires and whims of the customer. Every detail proclaims the message:Spend money! The mall stands as a temple to consumerism, and all its values-comfort, affluence, convenience, and fashion."

..

So If my work is not primarily about these things, what is it about? Certainly there are ideas in Modernism and PostModernism I relate to, but I do hold on to the teachings of Jesus which contradict the fundamental core of those viewpoints.

So I have an unusual blend of thinking, one that is in the world but not of the world. This seems to translate into my work. There is a hope aluded to in my dreams, a sentient presence that would not exist if I completely bought postmodernism.

As Christians we are salt and light. Two unpleasant things for a

wounded, dark world. Unpleasant things necessary for it's

preservation and peacefulness.

INSTANTANIOUS PLEASURE was another phrase I related to. It's also part of postmodernism. The distinction between the search for truth and the search for therapy and feeling good. Reflections of this trend are Oprah and Dr. Phil as well as the "coping and craving" magazines.

Vault 49.com produces visual work that illustrates these principles as well. A sense of self indulgence is so clear.

"The postmodernist rejection of words in favour of images, the

replacement of reason with emotional gratification, the abdication of meaning in favour of entertainment are all inherent in the genre. The TV watcher submits to a collage of unconnected images, to appearances, to surfaces-in short, to all of the characteristics of postmodernism."

This relates perfectly to Semiotics. I would argue however that the internet, instant messaging, etc. are even more post modern than television. Despite the cable channel explosion TV has more

restrictions.

I disagree with most of Sampson's ideas in 4.2. TV and Movies. He seems to be saying that the only carrier of meaning is verbal

communication. Images can be meaningful and deep and do not always represent "surface over depth."

Yes, shows like Seinfeld and Simpsons are not necesarrily "deep" in the serious sense, but they aren't designed to be. They are peices of entertainment. There are other shows like, "Dawson's Creek" and "6 Feet Under" that are well written, tackle complex issues and make good use of the visual medium.

On May.08.2005 at 07:16 PM
Ben Weeks’s comment is:

I found this article on postmodernism enlightening. It's written from an unusual perspective and a lot of the ideas show the thinking behind the thinking of a lot of these cultural issues related to values.

The idea of values and standards has become increasingly unpopular in our culture. But are designers more aware of the positive role of standards? On one hand design is subjective, but on the other there seem to be generally shared definitions of quality. Some measure the cultural value, others the social while the business world predictably measures the economic value.

The author Dr. Glendon Tompson has a Phd, is a powerful preacher at Jarvis St. Baptist Church and is President of the Toronto Baptist Seminary. He is about 35 and respects the emotional components of life as well as the rational ones. A man of extremely high personal standards of morality/integrity. Certainly a very compatible client with a designer who espouses the same values.

The Rise of Post Modernism

Appendix:

My Unedited Notes to Self on The Rise of Post Modernism.

-Section on Architecture

The inro seems a perfect description of Rem Koolhas' Work.

"Whereas modern architecture stresses univalence, postmodernist architecture embraces complexity and contradiction. Postmodernists reject the idea of a dominant form. Instead, they believe that buildings should have meaning and symbols. Instead of reading a building one way, they opt for reading buildings in a multiplicity of ways."

The following section discusses values, embodied by the publication "Wallpaper" and Attik's work which are a description of the "commercialness" my work has been described as lacking.

"Veith (1994:117) believes that shopping malls shaped as concrete bunkers best represent postmodern architecture. He points to the diversity found in shopping malls, with their free parking, elaborate and varied decoration as an indicator of postmodernism:

The whole space is attractively decorated and designed around the desires and whims of the customer. Every detail proclaims the message:Spend money! The mall stands as a temple to consumerism, and all its values-comfort, affluence, convenience, and fashion."

..

So If my work is not primarily about these things, what is it about? Certainly there are ideas in Modernism and PostModernism I relate to, but I do hold on to the teachings of Jesus which contradict the fundamental core of those viewpoints.

So I have an unusual blend of thinking, one that is in the world but not of the world. This seems to translate into my work. There is a hope aluded to in my dreams, a sentient presence that would not exist if I completely bought postmodernism.

As Christians we are salt and light. Two unpleasant things for a

wounded, dark world. Unpleasant things necessary for it's

preservation and peacefulness.

INSTANTANIOUS PLEASURE was another phrase I related to. It's also part of postmodernism. The distinction between the search for truth and the search for therapy and feeling good. Reflections of this trend are Oprah and Dr. Phil as well as the "coping and craving" magazines.

Vault 49.com produces visual work that illustrates these principles as well. A sense of self indulgence is so clear.

"The postmodernist rejection of words in favour of images, the

replacement of reason with emotional gratification, the abdication of meaning in favour of entertainment are all inherent in the genre. The TV watcher submits to a collage of unconnected images, to appearances, to surfaces-in short, to all of the characteristics of postmodernism."

This relates perfectly to Semiotics. I would argue however that the internet, instant messaging, etc. are even more post modern than television. Despite the cable channel explosion TV has more

restrictions.

I disagree with most of Sampson's ideas in 4.2. TV and Movies. He seems to be saying that the only carrier of meaning is verbal

communication. Images can be meaningful and deep and do not always represent "surface over depth."

Yes, shows like Seinfeld and Simpsons are not necesarrily "deep" in the serious sense, but they aren't designed to be. They are peices of entertainment. There are other shows like, "Dawson's Creek" and "6 Feet Under" that are well written, tackle complex issues and make good use of the visual medium.

On May.08.2005 at 07:16 PM