Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Globalization and Design
Guest Editorial by Christopher Liechty

As a child I remember attending secret meetings in the back rooms of conservative bookstores and overhearing urgent talk of the ways in which our minds and attitudes are controlled by an elite few through text books, government propaganda, and advertising. The United Nations was especially despised, and corporations were not to be trusted. They were all different manifestations of the same group of conspirators who wanted to rule the world. I also received another message at this early age — do not trust what you hear but seek the truth for yourself. I tend to be much more trusting than my parents, so I have simplified this to: seek truth from the best sources possible.

In the years since we founded the AIGA Center for Cross-Cultural Design, I have often received e-mails and questions from designers who are concerned about doing business with countries like China that have less than stellar records on human rights and the environment. In 2005, we produced the World Trade Week NYC Global Branding Event on the subject “Branding in China.” I received an e-mail from a designer who challenged me to address the question of whether doing business with China was actually supporting the Chinese government in continuing human rights abuses. This is a very important question and one that has taken me out of my comfort zone into the realm of macroeconomics to try to answer. Is globalization evil? Does it need to be stopped? It is easy to see the downside to globalization, but is there an upside? What role should designers play in the age of the global village?

Weighing the good and bad of globalization
The bottom line is that the world is a complicated place and there are many shades of grey. For example, when working with the United Nations, I have seen both sides of that organization. There is terrible corruption on the one hand and passionate people doing incredibly important work on the other. For me, the issue of globalization is similar. There are horrific abuses by corporations, governments, civil factions, and individuals in many countries. Global corporations, no matter where they are from, enjoy a status above the law of any nation. If one nation will not let them pollute, for example, they will just find another country that will. But, with full recognition that abuses need to be stopped, I believe the net effect of globalization is positive. The free flow of trade between countries seems to have increased economic and political stability around the world and decreased the incidence of war. When individuals in countries controlled by autocratic leaders are allowed to start their own small businesses, power is decentralized, communication and information flow increases, and human rights abuses tend to decrease.

Does more trade mean less war?
A friend once told me that the increase of international trade over the years has reduced the incidence of war in the world. This is a fascinating proposition; is it true? Without giving up my design career for economics, I have done extensive research every source leads me to believe this is true. Here is one personal experience for example. I recently did some work with the World Trade Centers Association (WTCA). Their tag line is “Peace and Stability Through Trade” and they believe it. They are a business association, not to be confused with the WTO, which is an intergovernmental policy-making organization. WTCA has consistently sought to go into countries that are isolated to help open them up. They were in Russia and China long before those countries opened up their economies to the outside world. They have made efforts to help the situation with North Korea and were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. They also have a World Trade Center in Cuba. In addition to this personal observation, there are several research institutes focused on peace that believe there is a downward trend in global warfare. Several reasons are cited for this, including better peace keeping, but a major reason seems be that highly developed economies that trade a lot also have a lot to lose by going to war. Also, democracies are slower and less likely to go to war.

In contrast, some suggest that World War II was partly caused by the fact that the U.S. reacted to the stock market crash by cutting off trade, which had a ripple effect, especially in Europe.

International Trade and Human Rights
Isolation and focused attention on an external enemy are the tools of dictators. When this tight grip is broken and individuals are able to begin trading with the outside world, the power of the economy begins to shift from the few to the many. Communication opens up with travel and cell phones, and individuals begin building wealth and with it power. In most cases, this has lead to the development of democratic rule. Let’s look at the example of the two Koreas. At the end of fighting in the Korean War, both Koreas were about equal. They were both poor, undeveloped countries with dictatorships. North Korea chose isolation, and South Korea chose to seek development and participation in the world economy. South Korea’s dictatorship persisted until fairly recently, but finally gave in to democracy due to the dissipation of power from economic development. In China’s case, the government has opened up the economy in certain areas like Guangzhou. They think they can open the economy and maintain their party control of the government. Only time will tell if they will be successful.

Can designers make a difference?
So in the most basic sense, international trade seems to have positive effects, but there are still a lot of terrible things happening in the world. Can designers really do anything about them? I believe we can if we understand the role design plays in combination with other factors. Here are some thoughts on how we might make a difference.

Think Globalism. Get Involved. Travel.
Step one is to change our frame of reference. Let’s think in terms of globalism rather than globalization. The word “globalization” carries too much a feeling of steam rolling across the world with a profit-at-any-cost attitude. Globalism, on the other hand, has been defined by some like Robert Peters in Icograda as being about equality among cultures and respect for people everywhere. Let’s take the best from every culture. Developed countries don’t have everything right and we have a lot to learn from indigenous peoples, for example. What would the world be like if companies and organizations made decisions like Aveda tries to do? They try to think of the well being of their customers and the environment in equal balance to profits. Many designers have shown that we can make a difference by getting involved in charities. The World Studio Foundation is one example of designers using design combined with other disciplines to advocate for a social cause. Another step we can take is to get out there and travel, make friends and learn as much as we can about the world. When we see the world through the eyes of others, things change.

Icograda Design Week in Seattle
On July 9-15, 2006 we will bring this a global discussion to the forefront at Icograda Design Week in Seattle. Our theme is “Defining design on a changing planet” and we are bringing student workshop leaders and conference speakers from all over the world to address issues like those I have mentioned here. In preparation for my presentation on the last day of the conference, I would like to ask the opinions of the readers on Speak Up. I have been studying issues related to globalism now for several years and I have developed some views, but I want to present more than my views in my lecture. I would like to get a sense for how these issues are viewed by the design community at large. Please post your comments here and I will compile and present them as part of my presentation on Saturday morning, July 15.

Christopher Liechty is partner and co-founder of Meyer and Liechty, a marketing and design firm based in Salt Lake City. He is also a former president of the AIGA/SLC chapter, and current president of the AIGA Center for Cross-Cultural Design.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2737 FILED UNDER International
PUBLISHED ON Jul.06.2006 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Armin’s comment is:

> Can designers make a difference? Here are some thoughts on how we might make a difference.

I still fail how to see designers specifically can make a difference. Traveling, taking the best from every culture, getting involved in charities… all seem a worthy endeavor whether you are a designer, a plumber or a Wall Street investor. These things are about being good, conscious citizens and applying our skills to any given cause. AIGA XCD seems to be pushing too hard to make design into something bigger than it is. We are people working for people. It basically boils down to not being an asshole.

On Jul.07.2006 at 11:53 AM
Kris’s comment is:

Armin,
you fail to realize that our actions as citizens, consumers and producers has an effect on the overall economy.

Take a look at Walmart. They presented their sustainability practices at the Grow conference (AIGA/NY) last year. They have instigated goals and real actionable solutions for the company. Thus any company that wants to do business with them is changing their practices. Thus our purchasing power is forcing a big chain store to change its practices.

They're even talking about 'democratizing sustainability' and have a pitch about how green strategies will help Wal-Mart's bottom line.

Local designers have the ability to affect change as well. Many already spec sustainable products, design with minimal impact considerations, or work with fellow environmentally/global conscience designers. Our choices have an impact upon the world at large.

Additionally, getting involved in your local community, (mentoring or teaching students) can have a huge impact as well. At that point it's all about the content of the conversation.
What are you teaching, is there an underlying discussion that can influence their future choices? Design education should address ethical standards and how students can find their own ethical base point.

Design is above all else, a medium that influences.

This current of change and global thinking is at its infancy. Each industry (and designer) needs to find its own way.

On Jul.07.2006 at 12:35 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

I have to agree with Armin. Interesting article and good points, but really, this isn't a graphic design issue. It's a human issue.

"It basically boils down to not being an asshole."

Well said.

On Jul.07.2006 at 01:27 PM
Randy J. Hunt’s comment is:

If the discussion is considered over with acknowledgement that we should be good citizens and good-natured to each other, then there's a missed opportunity to participate in a critical dialogue that has the potential to develop into specific ideas for specific actions. We need the conversation, because, as Armin point out, we need these specific ideas.

Awareness of so many of the topics at hand are in their infancy, and identifying them comes first. The bearers of this identification are often criticised for not offering solutions or alternatives for individual, specific action. This criticism, while expected, "Okay, so what can I do in my day-to-day?" is unfounded as I see it. We are personally responsiblty for identifying the what for ourselves. It needn't be spoon fed to us, and that too is common sense.

In society at large, we fill different roles. In this issue, or any other of great import, the question-askers and question-answers may or may not be the same individuals (or groups). Let's not dissuade an asker on the grounds of not being able to answer themselves. In that same regard let's please encourage answers from those other than the askers.

To address Christopher's request specifically:

In the design community, I believe there is, as Armin makes evidence, a fragmenting of perspectives. This should be expected and cannot be avoided. I do see some specific issues I find inhibit momentum toward addressing globalism:

One:The language of globalism--corporate business and politics--is not a language designers at large enjoy. This is not to say that many designers don't engage in it in their work, because it is likely that they do, but in the full scope of practicing designers it simply does not resonate.

Many may be disinterested or tired of hearing about metrics, brand localization, and stage presentations utilizing buzz words and market rhetoric. It is a turn-off. How can we address globalism in design without feeling like we're attending a national party convention?

Two:We can't expect everyone to feel the same about this. It is no surprise: designers don't like being told what to do or how to think. Can we talk about globalism, both generally and specifically, without being prescriptive.

Three:There is a gross simplification of "socially responsible design" as it has been covered by the design press. Sadly, this has left specing specific papers or taking on non-profits as clients the gateways to a better world. If that's where these ideas end and they are not interfacing with what it means to be a global citizen, then the perception of them being futile efforts is not likely to improve at a fast enough rate to make the difference they promise. Corporate business and government are huge parts of the puzzle and they need to be de-stigmatized.

See you in Seattle.

On Jul.07.2006 at 01:42 PM
Ghazaleh’s comment is:

I am an undergradute student very influenced by some of my teachers and the knowledge they have given me and the path they have guided me towards.
I wrote this essay for my '20th Century Graphic Design History' course at OCAD (Ontario College of Art and Design).
We had to discuss the role of grahpic design and technology from the late 19th century until the 21st century. It was a very broad topic and I tried to keep my essay broad as well but have a political and social focus.
You are all welcome to read it and comment back. This is very related to Armin's article and I think it's important for all designers to have a proper education in history of the world espeically within the past century. Design is more about how you choose to live your life. You have choices and you make your choices either based on your passion and intergrity or money and profit.
Basically, whatever you believe is how you wish the world would become and to practice that will bring you peace in itself; whether it be spiritual or academic.

Here is my essay called"Fuel for Humanity". Hope you enjoy. Comments welcome at [email protected]

On Jul.07.2006 at 02:01 PM
c.a.’s comment is:

"I received an e-mail from a designer who challenged me to address the question of whether doing business with China was actually supporting the Chinese government in continuing human rights abuses."
This is a weird was to make a difference. Shouldn't you also stop doing business with USA, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Greece etc.

"Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003) the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not violate at least some human rights significantly."

On Jul.07.2006 at 02:36 PM
Tan’s comment is:

This topic is extremely broad, so broad that I don't even know where to begin jumping in. At the macro level, there is the issue of responsibility, both economically and politically. Countries must weigh the fragile balance of their economies versus their natural resources versus their citizens's quality of life. To think that corporate globalism's most crucial determinant is sustainability is simplistic, naive idealism.

The second issue of globalism is to question our moral right to dictate our economic and environmental ethics on developing nations. It's eerie how similar the problems of globalism today matches that of the age of industrialism in the 1800s. Just read the first paragraph from John Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

I'm getting a little off-topic here, but we've had discussions before about how globalism have attributed to the loss of cultural diversity across the globe. No more quaint villages making pottery with handtools, etc. Well, who are we to dictate what constitutes as "a better world" to other countries. Who are we to deny them techology and access to media and culture that top-tier nations take for granted? What right do we have to dictate how they use their natural resources, and how they conduct international trade? How empowered do we make the WTO and the UN?

We are talking about the second age of industrialization. Now, after the politics, the economic models, the morality of wealth distribution — then, about a thousand layers down, comes the role of designers.

And then there's the sustainability bandwagon. Sustainability is the new ROI. I've coined that term first. Here. Every client I have right now has named sustainability as a major factor to good corporate citizenship. That's a good thing. But it's not a new thing. And it certainly isn't a simple thing — not so simple that you can use it as panacea for the evils of globalism.

There's just so much more to this — but I've got work I gotta to back in the batcave.

On Jul.07.2006 at 03:49 PM
Clifton’s comment is:

Your article reminds me of Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat. It's a pretty good read. He mentions some kind of theory that any country with a McDonald's will never go to war with another country with a McDonald's. The intelligence behind this goofy argument is that in order for a country to have a McD's, they must have a sufficiently advanced economy that relies too heavily on other McDonald's-esque countries to go to war with them. It creates a web of economic interdependence where war isn't worth disrupting the economic status quo.

Good post.

On Jul.07.2006 at 05:30 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

I tend to think the world is too big for me to change. And designers are small in comparison to say, Jiang Zemin of China. One can send money to good causes. (www.freetibet.org) But money is never enough. Nor do I don't think design can save the world. Unless you're talking about a new free energy invention or prefab dwelling units or water purification technology available to everyne worldwide and distributed by some amazingly generous world leader - as if the powers that be would allow it. So what's a contientious designer to do?

I believe there are only two places a designer can influence the world: improving oneself and directly helping anothers in need one at a time. The world will keep on rolling, the poor and suffering will continue to be poor and suffer. A hundred years from now - if we survive that long - what will have changed do you think?

I don't have to tell the readers of Speak Up that I am a displaced designer from New Orleans and I wouldn't go thru describing the after-effects that Katrina disaster has had on a large southern portion of our own country. The news has moved on. But if I want to change the world that is where I, personally, must start. Everything else is too big.

I'm leaving for New Orleans in about 3 hours, so I'll not be back online for a while. Good luck figuring all this out, Speak-Uppers....

On Jul.08.2006 at 07:53 AM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

I'm baaaaack...


No, just joking.....My bags are packed... My second sentence wasn't exactly clear English: I DO believe that design can - and is - changing the world in ways we barely recognize. But I mean Design in a larger sense. Think DNA. Genomes. AI. Now there's design work to be done...

On Jul.08.2006 at 08:51 AM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:

We are people working for people.

Not to be a dick, but id rather view it as people working alongside people. its an important difference that doesnt create a hierarchy of importance.

I used to not believe in designers being able to create massive change. And I still dont think they alone can do it. But the wonderful attribute that design has that many other fields dont (or at least not as inherently built into their process) is that we are dependent on interaction with others. Our client base is or first chance to make significant progress. it takes their cooperation, but if we can already sell visual ideas, we should be able to sell ethical ideas as well.

When I began my job at method home, I was cynical about design being a process to change. But after having worked there for 6 months, im sold. We wont ever make significant shifts by ourselves, but a group or one business can really do a lot. I wish it were simply a list of "top ten things to do" Armin, but like design, its based entirely on context (and here again is a principle design has already invested in). What I've learned so far cant be written down, it has to be felt.

I just finished the new edition of Ralph Caplan's By Design and his chapter on situation design wonderfully outlines why designers have the advantage and the skill to create change. Can most deginers do it? I dont know, many of us have fallen vistim to the "creative" role we're normally assigned by outside viewers. We don't even try because most people assume we're just client services — and we begin to believe it ourselves.

On Jul.08.2006 at 03:11 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:

if we can already sell visual ideas, we should be able to sell ethical ideas as well

yikes. that sounds fucking scary — i cant believe i wrote that. that should something along the lines of "we can influence and sell the decisions that are already desired by people on a most basic level"

On Jul.08.2006 at 03:16 PM
Aizan’s comment is:

Not to be a dick, but id rather view it as people working alongside people. its an important difference that doesnt create a hierarchy of importance.

I agree. You're not absolved of responsibility just because you're sort of a mercenary.

On Jul.09.2006 at 01:06 AM
Christopher Liechty’s comment is:

This discussion is off to a great start. Thanks everyone for your ideas and to Tan for posting my article.

I would like to comment on the broadness. I think I wanted to start with a really basic question about the general good and bad of globalization as a foundation for other discussion. There are sooooo many web sites, books (like No Logo) that are about anti-globalization. I felt like I needed to answer that basic question first.

Now with that out of the way, the next issue is whether designers can make a difference or not? Armin's leading comment that "not being an asshole" and trying to be a good citizen in the world is the resonsibility of every person no matter what their profession. I agree. But what do we have to offer as designers? Is there something more? Don't we create mass media messages? Can't we reach more people in theory?

There are several other questions that come out of this thought. If designers take on problems to solve that go way beyond visual communication, are we still engaged in design activity? Is it then design any more?

There is a question about our place in the heirachy. Design is normally down in the middle of the food chain somewhere. Should we be seeking to take a leading role? I have participated in many discussions among designers over the past few years where they say they want to be included in the strategy phase of the process rather than just being handed a problem to solve based on someone else's strategy. They feel that we have more to contribute if we are included in the initial discussions. What is it that we offer?

What if we go one more step and say that designers should start the discussion. Bennett Peji, who recently joined the AIGA national board, stepped out into the lead position in San Diego. After years of working for contractors, doing signage and graphics for architactural and urban development projects, he decided his firm should lead out. They competed head-to-head with the contractors on the redevelopment of a mile-long stretch of San Diego County in a Filipino neighborhood. He put together a massive proposal and presentation to the city council based on the idea that a branding firm was the ideal lead for the redevelopment of this section of the city. If everything about the redevelopment communicated correctly, people would be attracted, the Filipino culture would have a place to thrive. He won the project and this success lead to him being appointed as commissioner of arts and culture for the city of San Diego.

For many corporations like Coca Cola the brand is the most important asset they have. This applies to non-profits as well. The problem for designers is that when we take the lead, we have to deal with all sorts of things like finance, operations, politics, and logistics. We are no longer designing. For some this price may be too high.

What if we start the initiative, the company, the non-profit? What is different about us? What do we have to offer? What would happen differently if desginers were leading?

On Jul.09.2006 at 01:53 AM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

There is something in my head that I'm sure fits in here, somehow ...

In 1984 I went to India for the first time. One of the many things I remember was that Chai sellers walked up and down the trains in the stations, selling chai in small earthenware cups. The cups were barely fired and very fragile. What everyone did was drink the chai and then toss the cup out the window, where, being so soft, it smashed and very quickly and literally returned to the earth from whence it came. Five years later I was back in India, and was dismayed to find that the chai sellers had switched to styrofoam — which, in Indian habit, was tossed out the window to lay rolling around the tracks with all the other styrofoam for, like, ever.

I always wondered what happened. What caused the replacement of what seemed to be a brilliant, locally produced and sustainable design, with a mass-manufactured, polluting option? And why did it succeed? If I were a regular customer, I would have chosen a chai seller with a clay cup over one with a styrofoam cup, even if only because it tasted better from the clay cup.

The relevance of this to this discussion might be that designers need to make themselves more aware of local practices and alternatives before starting design. And I think this might be applicable even in North America, especially in small communities, where there might be a certain way that people communicate, or certain tools they use. Perhaps by noticing and examining local culture designers can actually support or foster a region's unique characteristics and compel people to support their local economies.

I think the great evil of globalization is the mindless steamrollering of one preconceived way of thinking/acting/doing business/[etc.] on any given society. So if a designer's first act is to deeply observe the area or culture of the place their work is intended for, that would make a difference.

In case you're all thinking about rural villages in parts of the world you're likely never to visit, let alone design for, I'd encourage you to think about the unique qualities of your own community. What does it mean, and how can it be built upon that in Manhattan, most people don't own cars? How does a neighbourhood that allows the posting of public posters communicate differently from one that doesn't? What is (e.g.) the dominant crop produced in a given area and how does that affect the community?

The issues raised in this post are vast, and overwhelming. If you try to look at the big picture, it's easy to freak out, give up and do nothing. But if you think locally and pay attention to the unique attributes of whatever group, market or community you are serving (whether that's a local clothing store or a national brand), you can help to create pride of place and encourage local awareness. And the more locally aware people are the more in tune they are with where things come from and where they go, and who suffers when things change.

I think.

Perhaps the catch-phrase is "Think Locally to Act Globally."

On Jul.09.2006 at 12:46 PM
Christopher Liechty’s comment is:

If you would like to make last minute plans to attend Icograda Design Week in Seattle we are offering a late registration discount of 25% off. Please download the registration form at the following link then fax in the completed form. The form says AIGA, but feel free to use it even if you are not an AIGA member.
Late Registration Form

Icograda Design Week in Seattle
9-15 July 2006
Student Workshop 9-12 July
Over The Fence Seminar 13 July
International Conference 14-15 July
seattledesignweek.com

On Jul.09.2006 at 09:50 PM
Jason L.’s comment is:

Seeing that the conference is already rolling I'm a bit late to help you, Christopher. However, this discussion leads me back to a conversation I was having with Meredith Davis of NC State a little while back. She really sort of opened my eyes up to new ways designers, both graphic and industrial, can really start to ask better questions and create better solutions to problems.

Her specific interest is in how design can effect (affect?) education. Which seems to certainly be a place to start, particularly since that is what will seperate the general haves from have-nots in the process of globalization.

Something she said will always stick with me in relation to the often short-sightedness of designers. At an AIGA conference a man (I wish I could remember who) spoke about a $100 dollar laptop that had been developed and was being distributed in certain poorer regions of the world. A $100 computer, through brilliant design savvy and someone thinking to themselves, this will make a real tangible diffrence. From what I understand it was an amazing and compelling achievement. The next speaker was Milton Glaser who being a great speaker gave a great presentation on a pretty standard poster campaign for a non-proit of some variety (sorrry for the lack in specifics).

Milton Galser and his posters got a standing ovation. The $100 laptop did not. Sometimes designers are a little cooky. Somebody in our field got it right when they arrived at the campiagn of "Think Different."

On Jul.10.2006 at 08:39 AM
Randy J. Hunt’s comment is:

Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab, is the founder and chairman of One Laptop per Child, the organization behind the $100 laptop.

Negroponte certainly does not command a stage or speak with the beauty and passion that Glaser does. The room in Boston was filled mostly with graphic designers, few of which likely have much interest in Negroponte.

It may also be telling that only a few short months later, Negroponte's brother resigned from his position at the top of the CIA. Maybe designer applause at national conferences is our gauge for the longevity of political appointments.

On Jul.10.2006 at 09:59 AM
eat me eat you’s comment is:

I believe design is just a little part of the whole picture in contributing to our community. Another option for the many varities of efforts, be it internationally or locally, on the canvas or in a speech or perhaps an act.

I have always pondered on the designer taking the lead of leading a certain community project or initiating a socially benifitial project locally. It seems that it contributes based on the perception of a designer. The disiplines of a designer. By bringing out the best asset that a designer has to contribute, which is via graphics, thinking, ideas, aesthetics, creativity etc. A lawyer too can contribute, in other forms possible, that a designer might not be able to perceive or interprate differently. Say in the courtroom.

Again, a designer in China might better tackle issues in China rather that a designer from Europe trying to propose an idea to help. I believe they might not be able to see past cultural characterastics or behaviours that local designers are part of.

At the end of the day, it still ends up with motivations & decisions. To make and to take. To believe in or of a special intention. Wether which one leads the other or is of more benifit of the other, is always argurable. And of course, not to forget profession.

On Jul.11.2006 at 02:36 AM
Jason L.’s comment is:

Big thanks to Randy for filling in my gaps.

On Jul.11.2006 at 08:39 AM
Mike Williams’s comment is:

To pick up on themes previously mentioned, I think collaboration with others (clients, designers, other industries, etc.) allows designers the largest opportunity to create change; i.e the Bennett Peji example of a branding company taking the lead for redevelopment or the MIT $100 laptop. "Graphic design" takes a back seat to "design" - the design of change, of systems, etc. It hints at a discussion not of how graphic designers are making global change, but rather how globalization is changing our design processes, competencies and the demands placed on us.

On Jul.13.2006 at 09:37 AM
Christopher Liechty’s comment is:

Hello from backstage at Icograda Design Week in Seattle. The speakers and the people discussing in the halls are inspiring. Tarek Atrissi and the people from Work Worth Doing were especially inspiring to me.

Tarek's Web Site

Work Worth Doing's Site

On Jul.14.2006 at 03:02 PM
Christopher Liechty’s comment is:

Thanks for your comments. I also found some mention of the conference on Mark Busse's blog at Industrial Brand and a Flickr Photo Group. Here they are.


Industrial Brand


Flickr Group for Seattle

On Jul.14.2006 at 03:09 PM
cweese’s comment is:

This is a huge topic and I've only had a chance to skim the posts, so please forgive my use of a quote, but I will say this - as far as individual empowerment goes, this is my favorite thought on the topic:

'Anthropologist Margaret Mead summed it up when she said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has."'

So, if I am a designer, it seems logical that I would use specifically design-related processes as part of my tool box.

On Jul.14.2006 at 07:02 PM