Am I a designer or an animator? Nowadays, in broadcast design, these roles are seen to be two separate specialties. It is true; you cannot be good at both. If you are an experienced animator, you are probably less experienced in design, and vice versa. Each requires its own share of knowledge, skills, and talent. In fact, many broadcast designers prefer to do only design or animation. For design firms and design departments at networks, managing talents becomes much easier if you separate the two roles. For design, one could hire from a vast pool of print designers. For animators, one could more or less ignore their design sensibilities and their understanding of type. This way, as an art director, one has more options.

Part of what is driving this compartmentalization in the broadcast design business is its technical complexity. Broadcast designers are required to think in 3 dimensions as well as in time, which means that there are two more dimensions to deal with than there are in print design. With the introduction of each dimension, the technical complexity exponentially grows. Many broadcast designers are expected to know not only all of the standard design applications like Photoshop and Illustrator, but also 3D programs like Maya, Softimage, and Cinema 4D, as well as animation programs like After Effects. It is simply not realistic for anyone to master them all.

But the division of the two roles has its own problems. Firstly, by separating the two, we create a need for an art director to manage and coordinate the two. Much can be lost in translation between the two, and it is not a cost-efficient strategy either. Secondly, designers who do not understand the dimension of time cannot create designs that are conducive to motion. The latter problem is potentially more serious. The difference between a designer and an animator is like the one between a painter and a sculptor. A painter who does not think in 3 dimensions would come up with a design which is inherently 2 dimensional, so that the only thing the sculptor can do with it is to simply extrude it. In the same manner, most print designers are not used to thinking of design in the dimension of time, and the animators who are given such a design, can only artificially move it. The result is often rigid, limited, and awkward.

Years ago, at a panel discussion, one of the creative directors told the audience that in everything he did at his firm, each and every frame had to stand as a good piece of design. It feels natural to think that way, especially if you come from a print design background. In other words, for him, a good motion graphics consists of a series of beautiful still designs. I disagree. Movement alone can in fact be beautiful even if none of the individual frames are beautiful. A talented animator could take a black square against a white background, and animate it beautifully. Any given frame would then be just a black square against a white background. The creative director mentioned above won’t be able to see the potential of such beauty, and this problem is quite widespread in the broadcast design business. Many people underestimate the beauty possible within the dimension of time. For this reason, I do not particularly like the common practice of using style frames as the first step in the development of a motion graphics.

Another aspect of motion graphics which does not exist in print design, is its ability to tell a story. A static design can imply or inspire a story, but it cannot tell it. Telling of a story must take place in time. And, by “story”, I do not simply mean a series of text presented in sequence, nor voice-overs. Even abstract shapes and patterns can have stories that unfold in time. This storytelling can take on a variety of forms. Like still photographers, print designers are trained to capture everything in a single moment. When you need to tell a story in time, this habit must first be unlearned.

When designing for motion, designers must also take into consideration what is technologically possible. This sounds rather self-limiting, but in the real world of broadcast design, technological limitations are quite real. It is one of the few areas of the creative business where the technology has not yet caught up with our imagination. Since deadlines are always too close in this business, knowing what can be done within a given time frame is critical to the overall success of the work. If you spend 2 weeks animating a design that should actually be given 4 weeks, the result is often unacceptable. A design that is less ambitious would end up looking much better in that scenario.

For these reasons, it is not easy to clearly separate the roles of a designer and an animator. Whether you choose to divide or unite, you are making significant compromises either way. Sadly, there is no perfect solution. The bigger your business grows, the more attractive the divided strategy becomes. By the same token, the smaller your business is, the more attractive the united strategy is. In that sense, both strategies would probably continue to exist. As long as you understand what you are compromising, you can wisely choose your strategy. That way, it is not so much a problem as it is a matter of choice.

Personally, I choose to do both, and I have to admit that when I see others who specialize in specific aspects of this business, I realize how much better they are than I am. Since I’m originally from Japan, I have a tendency to be a generalist, a more holistic approach to understanding the world. A generalist and a specialist offer different perspectives that are equally valuable, especially when it comes to understanding something as complex as motion graphics. I believe, in the end, your own natural inclination would make that choice for you.

Dyske (“Dice-Kay”) Suematsu is a graphic designer based in New York City. He spent half of his life in Japan and the other in the US. He is quite opinionated and writes a lot of what his wife calls “Jibba-Jabba”. His personal site is dyske.com and his business site can be found at dyskedesign.com.