Speak Up is run with Six Apart’s 
A lovely quality about weblogs is their immediacy. At times, a fever-pitched volley of instant self-expression and feedback manifests a unique aesthetic — not quite conversation, not quite a measured exchange of belles lettres. And much like Massimo Vignelli gazing upon an Emigre typeface, some of our colleagues have yet to develop an appreciation for the very things that seem so wrong about blogs.
Like our friend and colleague Rick Poynor.
In the May/June issue of Print, Rick opines upon the shortcomings of Speak Up; using certain comments by Armin Vit as his punctum. And while I agree with several of his conclusions and axioms, something about the general tone and structure of the piece left me bothered.
He starts by quoting Armin. "In the past twelve to sixteen months, however, we’ve run out of questions and even perhaps out of steam. Some of us (authors) have gone from outsiders to insiders. ... We have done it all. We started to get repetitive and, well, sometimes even boring." (For the sake of clarity, the ellipsis before the phrase "we have done it all" refers to the wide range of posted subjects.)
Rick then pauses to present Looking Closer 5 — the latest in a series which debuted in 1994 — as a paragon of good critical writing, argumentum ad verecundiam.
Lo, not a single Speak Up post was deemed worthy of inclusion in Looking Closer 5. Rick points out that even though two of the editors are Michael Bierut and William Drenttel — both Design Observer founders along with Rick — they are absolved of bias because Armin works for Michael at Pentagram and Michael often comments on Speak Up. Another editor, Steve Heller, is extolled as having a track record of "encouraging new design writing from every direction," yet finds blogs too unsophisticated "to be taken seriously."
The fundamental problem of causal inference is that we can only be positive about things which are observable. In this case, we can only prove the following:
1. Speak up debuted in 2002.
2. The Looking Closer series debuted in 1994.
3. Armin Vit is a founder of Speak Up.
4. Michael Bierut, William Drenttel and Rick Poynor are founders of Design Observer.
5. Michael comments on Speak Up.
6. Armin and I both comment on Design Observer.
7. Armin works for Michael at Pentagram.
8. There are posts from Design Observer in Looking Closer 5.
9. Nothing from Speak Up appears in Looking Closer 5.
10. Steve Heller thinks blogs are unsophisticated.
11. Steve Heller encourages many people to write for his many collections of essays.
12. Both Armin and I have written pieces for Steve Heller.
13. Steve Heller paid me $75 to do so.
14. It took me a couple weeks to write the piece.
15. That's a shitty hourly wage.
Correlation does not imply causation. The absence of Speak Up posts from Looking Closer 5 indicates only that there are no Speak Up posts in Looking Closer 5. Any inference otherwise is fallacious.
And if Steve Heller has a problem with blogs, it doesn't seem like he has problems with bloggers writing essays for him. But I don't know for sure; ask him.
Anyhoo... after Rick establishes the missing Speak Up posts as a straw man, he investigates what the problem could be, and comes to the conclusion that it's a lack of editors.
He writes: "It seems obvious that when an untrained intermediary is handling copy by an amateur writer, the results are unlikely to be sparkling. Designers are quick to reject amateurishness within design; exactly the same considerations should apply to editing and writing. These are crafts that need to be learned, ideally from working with professionals. Output that falls short of basic standards is no more satisfactory or persuasive than clumsily matched typefaces, botched kerning, or trite design formulas used as though they had just been invented."
Yes. I agree that it is better to learn one's selected craft. I agree that untrained people generally don't produce fabulous work. But the same could be said for the host of future professionals churned out yearly by design schools and English departments across the country.
And the dogmatic insistence on one's standards makes for a dull life. I love a clean, crisply set block of type as much as the next guy; but there's room in my heart for Corky McCoy's work for Miles Davis or Sun Ra's home-made graphics. I love their work because it's passionate, and not perfect.
If there's one single thing I learned from my time with Brian Collins at BIG, it's the preëminence of the personal connection. Graphic designers are often caught up in the minutiae of spacing, materials and proportion to the detriment of making that connection. And if you can connect emotionally, you can influence.
This is what Speak Up did.
It's a mess, there's a lot of shitty prose to wade through, and many of the ideas are half-baked. But at its best, Speak Up makes that emotional connection.
After four years of design school and several years of diligent attendance to AIGA events in New York, I realized that the best design lessons often came in very relaxed settings. The off-handed comment from a working professional offered in an informal manner is a gift shared, while the same information in a classroom is a rule espoused. Which has a better chance of being remembered?
Rick claims that Speak Up and Design Observer are "really magazines by another name." No. They are blogs: a different kind of animal with magazine-ish elements, a more immediate sense of community, unbridled passions, a water-cooler informality, and one that judges people by the merits of their contribution — even if it is as strangely written as Design Maven's comments. And with this new form, comes different aesthetic criteria.
Perhaps now is a good time to draw attention to one of the more interesting posts to appear on Design Observer: Rick's post Critics and Their Purpose, a 62-point list from 1966 which describes "Critical Method." The following selections have significance in response to his Print essay. My comments are in italics.
8. The content and level of criticism is determined by the audience addressed. Blog and print audiences are different
12. Criticism should be persuasive, not dogmatic. I've addressed this above.
13. The critic should discipline his prejudices and remember that he is subject to error. Hmm... Editors calling for more editing?
14. The critic should remember that all art is based on experience, however remotely. The blog experience is different than the print experience.
16. Criticism must see beyond superficial décor to spiritual purpose and order. Speak Up participants are expressing thought. Why is this a bad thing?
17. The critic should understand the limitations of the medium and have a sense of the interplay of the medium with the subject, but he should not get lost in the discussion of techniques. Technical criticism “murders to dissect”.
20. The critic must allow for the fact that his reaction will be biased by the context in which he experiences the work.
22. The critic must get outside himself to criticise fully. He must abandon built-in expectations and have a sense of possibilities.
25. Criticism begins with a description of the impact of a work of art and proceeds to consider its intentions and whether they have been realized.
26. The act of describing will reveal the critic’s own biases. The description of phenomena plus the description of feelings equals the definition of values.
29. An interpretation of a work can still be valid even if it does not correspond with the artist’s intentions. Agreed: we all could write better.
31. Of two carefully considered but contrary opinions both may be right. Hopefully avoiding logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. Rick's second-to-last paragraph was beneath his abilities and unworthy of a point-by-point response. As someone who has spewed ad hominem myself, I'm a bit sensitive to this.
While I take issue with the "woolly thinking" behind his essay — just the kind that, ironically, an editor should have questioned (sorry Joyce) — I do agree with the general sentiment of Rick's essay.
Yes, I often find my eyes rolling back when reading Speak Up — posts and comments included — but it's only because I care. Who wouldn't want their colleagues to be better? It makes you look good by association. But you know what? There are a lot of half-assed comments dressed in intellectual drag over at Design Observer; and not every post is golden either. Call it Sturgeon's Law (90 percent of everything is crud) or call it natural ebb and flow, this is the way of the world.
The word "essay" comes from the French verb "essayer" — to try. The first practitioner of the essay was Michel de Montaigne, who, in his Essais of 1580, asked the ultimate question to begin all inquiry: "Que sais-je?" or "What do I know?"
That's all we're doing here — just trying to find out what we know. Thanks for the moral support.
[Ed.: Link to Poynor's article added — 05.09.2007]
Jump to Most Recent Comment
ben...’s comment is:
is rick saying design observer is better than speak up?
On May.04.2007 at 12:35 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Ben, it's inferred, but the main point is he has found what we do here to be unworthy. Readers' comments are described as having to "wade through a lot of bilge to fish out" sharp and revealing exchanges.
On May.04.2007 at 12:44 PM
Tselentis’s comment is:
kingsley, what prompted you to write this and why do it now?
On May.04.2007 at 01:09 PM
mandy’s comment is:
Readers' comments are described as having to "wade through a lot of bilge to fish out" sharp and revealing exchanges.
Funny, that about sums up my feelings about Print.
On May.04.2007 at 01:11 PM
Christina W’s comment is:
... the dogmatic insistence on one's standards makes for a dull life.
... if you can connect emotionally, you can influence.
I can only tell you what I know - one, Speak Up is the only website I have ever come back to read regularly, going on two years now. And two, (can I blaspheme? apologies beforehand to people who deserve all due respect), I just posted on being an obsessive reader and often enjoy tackling abstract and theoretical essays... but try as I might, I find it hard to plow through much of Mr. Poynter and Mr. Heller's wrtiting. The subjects sound so interesting, but the emotional connection I get is so cardboard, I can't even say I dislike it. I guess that's often the point, to critique without emotion, but if you're not passionate about the subject, why bother even having a debate? Provided, of course, you are willing to throw out dogma and be equally as passionate about the other person's point of view... you get two people like that in an arguement where both start playing devil's advocate and that's a debate worth having. That's Speak Up.
On May.04.2007 at 02:10 PM
tonepoems’s comment is:
Why does everyone take themselves so seriously all the time? The outside world already thinks all designers are pretentious - this isn't helping.
On May.04.2007 at 02:24 PM
Joyce’s comment is:
>
Please reread the column and you'll see that Rick was citing Looking Closer 4, which indeed was published in 2002. Thanks!
On May.04.2007 at 03:18 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Thanks Joyce. Duly noted.
On May.04.2007 at 04:02 PM
pesky’s comment is:
Somehow I always feel personally guilty when someone says SpeakUp is lightweight compared to Design hit-the-snore-button Observer. But I don't give a flying f#ck. I've lead so many down the path of anti-intellectual design I will probably be burned at the stake someday anyway. I don't remember the last time I said anything weighty on design. (That I hated Helvetica and Modernism was as far as I got.)
I don't get this rivalry. It's pompous ego wars by insecure designers as far as I'm concerned.
On May.04.2007 at 07:09 PM
Derrick Schultz ’s comment is:
Yes. I agree that it is better to learn one's selected craft. I agree that untrained people generally don't produce fabulous work. But the same could be said for the host of future professionals churned out yearly by design schools and English departments across the country.
This to me is part of the difference (and appeal) between SpeakUp and DO. While I've been critical of SpeakUp on occasions, Armin and every writer here has established an environment where you can speak your piece without the risk of feeling stupid or ignorant. It is a learning environment. It is a school. Its what makes a blog or whatever you call this much more engaging than a magazine. Learning comes form interaction in my opinion, and SpeakUp encourages interaction. I assume that the decision to make it a blog with comments grew out of this ideal.
Armin gave me my first chance to publish a writing. I know the same article would have been rejected by almost any other design blog. I recognize the quality of writing was pretty low, but as yet the content, the meat of that article, has not shown up anywhere else on the internet. I think that speaks a lot to this site's beliefs. Where else is a young designer who finds spare moments to write on topics he finds important going to be published? As Rick has constantly sad, there's a real lack of good design writing. But theres an even less places to learn how to write good design writing.
We all need to start somewhere. My first article here has led to me writing, and most importantly thinking, a lot more about design and the world around me. I don't think anyone should underestimate that importance. Sometimes the articles on here are eye-rolling from an audience standpoint, but they are eye-opening for the writer.
marian bantjes’s comment is:
I thought we had come a long way since the days that Speak Up and Design Observer (while Rick Poynor was involved) sniped at each other over our respective styles, territories and willingness (or not) to engage with our readers. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Speak Up is *not* an online magazine or a journal, but a place where people gather: much closer in analogy to a bar than a publication. The purpose of Speak Up was never to create the perfect article, but to engage commentary, and at that it did very, very well, and did so before anyone else at that level. I would not expect to see a Speak Up post in a journal of concise, edited material—it wouldn't belong (and such decision-making, while an exercise of bias, is part of the editorial process). The best Speak Up posts are dependent on the ensuing discussion, and the character that that entire discussion brings to the thread. For some it may invoke a desire to get out the hip-waders, but you sometimes do have to take the bad with the good to appreciate the whole.
A blog is an open forum, with an overt invitation to participate regardless of writing skill. Either you're willing to engage with the hoi polloi, or you're not. Speak Up always has, which is exactly what gives its best threads their vitality, for better or worse. We have had a lot of fun and expressed a lot of passion and enthusiasm for design, and it shows in a way that simply can't be imparted through edited, journalistic writing. I believe that that is valuable, relevant, and worth preserving.
I do find it a bit strange that Rick considers Looking Closer 5 a benchmark for the be-all and end-all of design writing. I don't know who's in and who's out, but I find it difficult to believe that of all the design writing from the past 5 years, only the worthy are represented. I do hope there are not a lot of heads in ovens over this.
On May.05.2007 at 01:13 AM
Armin’s comment is:
I haven't received this month's Print, so I'll have to wait before I comment any further, even if I'm dying to.
On May.05.2007 at 09:43 AM
ben...’s comment is:
i'm better than you... that's just great, man if we all work together we might actually change this world...
On May.05.2007 at 11:56 AM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
From the Truth be Told Department.
Several people -- Marian Bantjes, Steve Heller, Joyce Rutter Kaye and Debbie Millman -- all either privately or publicly sent me editing notes: one misspelling, one error in chronology, and one distracting non sequitur removed.
These were received with gratitude and applied to the post.
N.B. there were no suggestions about structure, general argument, nor logic.
For printed media, this is an essential process which protects the reputation (legal, financial, credibility, etc.) of the publication, its staff and the writer. Once something is printed, it's hard to redact.
Not so in the online world. Posts are easily altered and/or removed. My posts in particular are under constant public flux for the first few days. Punctuation, spelling and individual points in the argument may undergo revision; but so far, I have yet to significantly change or remove a post. This isn't to say that I may not in the future.
The point I want to make is that these little bits of editing didn't change the soul of this post. And if there's any smidgen of creativity, that wasn't changed either.
Editing may sharpen a piece but it's a stretch for me to see how it makes a written work more creative, passionate, or even interesting. That is the job of the writer.
One of my favorite things to read on both Speak Up and Design Observer are the public train wrecks. Remember how Art Chantry hijacked a thread two years ago? Fucking brilliant... and just the sort of thing that you wouldn't find in print.
On May.05.2007 at 12:41 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Editing may sharpen a piece but it's a stretch for me to see how it makes a written work more creative, passionate, or even interesting. That is the job of the writer.
I have to disagree with you on this point, Mark. It depends mostly on the relationship between the editor and writer, but I do think there are times when our creativity and passion get in the way of what it is we're trying to say. Aside from keeping us from looking foolish, I think a good editor/writer relationship can help to find the path through the good stuff and out the other side to The Point in a way that does make it more interesting.
However, with admittedly a limited experience working with editors, I think finding that perfect writer/editor relationship is rare.
On May.05.2007 at 01:05 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Marian, I'll try to make my point in another manner: the difference between David Sedaris and Calvin "Bud" Trillin lies more in their individuality as writers than the contributions of their editors.
On May.05.2007 at 01:23 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Sigh.
And now, despite all my comments about our acceptance of all, good and bad ... a kind of bloggism "acceptance of diversity," I really have to say that given that, people really should think before they write.
The worst thing about blogs is the ability to remain anonymous, and therefor post idiotic things without the embarrassment of anyone discovering that you were, in fact, the idiot who posted them.
In the absence of editors, the onus falls upon oneself to edit. Some very, very basics are:
1) Check your spelling: particularly of people's names. Particularly of people whose names are referred to and spelled correctly in the initial post.
2) If you're going to use big words or other languages (Latin, French, etc.), double-check the meaning (and spelling) in a dictionary before committing (I myself have made this grievous mistake in the past).
3) Mind your grammar and sentence structure.
4) Decide whether you're actually saying anything of value and whether it makes sense. (Yes, sometimes I start to comment on a post, maybe even write a few paragraphs, read it over and think "naw, this isn't contributing anything," and either edit it massively or decide not to comment after all.)
5) At least pretend to be a professional communicator behind your anonymous mask.
For instance, I think what "Ben ..." wanted to say was something along the lines of, "Having read Rick Poynor's article, I got the impression he was saying that he, as a paid writer working with paid editors, is better than the unpaid writers of Speak Up. I find this unconstructive, and think it would be a better world if he engaged with us on a more equal level."
But "Ben ..." is not grown up enough yet to articulate his thoughts clearly. And alas, Speak Up is not a bar, and we do not have an age-limit.
Su’s comment is:
When Rick left Design Observer, he levelled several criticisms at blogs, on a blog he founded, while writing about Emigre, who were publicly dismissive of blogs.
In the comments, I asked a very simple, direct and to me, obvious question, that given the above context it might have been...informative? to get a response to.
(Disclaimer[weak]: He didn't respond to anything at all in those comments.)
So. Now that he's seen fit to turn the guns on someone else, I think maybe it's time for me to get an answer.
On May.05.2007 at 02:17 PM
KevinHopp’s comment is:
I'm just really bummed that Armin had to go and belittle Helvetica, the movie.
And now Rick is talking trash about the highly informal SpeakUp.
So I ask you both... are you really commited to creating a say and a name for graphic design as we know it today?
Rick, you should be happy there is pedestrian chat like SpeakUp.
Armin, can't you say anything nice without some kind of disclaimer? My gosh, a MOVIE about a TYPEFACE, and YOU have problems... get real bro. Where's the love, compunero?
And M. Kingsley, why did you have to stoke the fire?
There are so many more issues for us to face.
Don't be a wimpy designer.
On May.05.2007 at 07:49 PM
Black Olive’s comment is:
A lot of designers fall into the vacuum of focusing on technique to the point of almost forgetting the intended communication. Rick (and I can only make this judgment based on this post, as I've yet to actually read the article) seems to be discrediting blogs as a medium because they are not technically perfect as compared to other mediums. I think it's important to remember that the idea –– no matter how imperfectly it may be conveyed –– is what matters most. This is what blogs are the best at –– getting to the soul of the matter.
The rest is mainly refining and it has it's place, but maybe not so much in the blogosphere, where ideas and concepts and connections are key.
On May.05.2007 at 08:22 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Kevin, I would guess there are no more than 5000 people on the planet who would even care about this small matter. In the grand scheme, it's insignificant and the fire you speak about is more like the brief flash of a match strike.
Within that framework consider:
1. I happened to have a bit of piss and vinegar stored up after a long-time absence from Speak Up. Isn't that what you love about me?
2. The lobbing back and forth of missives between public figures follows the tradition of debate.
3. This little dustup may actually drive a few people to buy the current issue of Print just to see what the fuss was about.
4. The name (and charter) of this site is Speak Up.
This too shall pass.
On May.05.2007 at 08:59 PM
Su’s comment is:
There are so many more issues for us to face.
...and won't somebody please think of the children/Ethiopia/global warming? Really, Kevin. Other issues have and will be covered in...other posts. As in: If you have problems with Armin's take on the Helvetica documentary(which in my reading amounts to "maybe it's not as great or important as all the fawning praise" rather than belittling), how about fielding them over there where you have been mysteriously absent all this time?
Also, please refer Marian's point #2 on the (all too often patronizing) use of other languages. I certainly have no idea what a compunero is.
On May.05.2007 at 09:29 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Further to Kevin Hopp, I also think that when one is, essentially, publicly called out, one can hardly just ignore it. Armin and Speak Up were pointedly targeted as the focus of the article. A non-response would have been nothing short of cowardly ... or aquiescence.
As for Armin's opinion on the movie Helvetica, c'mon bro' take your thumb out of your mouth and dry your eyes.
On May.05.2007 at 09:39 PM
Tom B’s comment is:
A man walks into a bar...
He finds an empty seat right in the middle and sits there, on his own, listening to the varied conversations of those around him.
After half an hour, he gets up suddenly and storms out, shouting 'You're all a bunch of idiots! You call that discussion?'.
Puzzled glances are exchanged around the bar. A few people giggle quietly.
Everyone goes back to their interesting conversations.
On May.06.2007 at 10:54 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Also, please refer Marian's point #2 on the (all too often patronizing) use of other languages. I certainly have no idea what a compunero is.
Su, I think Kevin was trying to say the Spanish word, compañero, which means friend. But no one uses that word, really.
To the real problem at hand, then...
Re: No Speak Up posts included in Looking Closer 5
Poynor proposes that the space between LC4 and LC5 is equal to the amount of time Speak Up has been active and as such the publication of LC5, and the possible inclusion of Speak Up posts in it, is the grand test we have all been waiting for. So... No, it is not. At least not for me. I couldn't care any more about not having anything in LC5 than I do about missing an episode of Dancing with the Stars. Speak Up is a blog, and its place is the internet; not a publication with the weight of four previous volumes that have to maintain a certain level of complexity and intellectual stature. If this is the test, I'm more than happy to stay back one grade.
Poynor also comments that "not a single one of Speak Up's longer texts have been deemed original, relevant or durable enough to join the 44 essays in LC5." First, "durable"; correct, Speak Up posts are about the moment, if they don't last, that's fine, there is another post coming in a few days. Then "original and relevant"; original in respect to what and relevant in context to what? If only to the standards of LC5, then fine, I don't need that approval.
And there may be no bias against excluding Speak Up — I would never claim there is — but the grey area of conflicts of interest of including Design Observer posts when two thirds of the editors are its founding members is, to me, debatable. But, it's not my book, I'm not the publisher or editor, and I sleep like a baby not worrying about it.
Re: Amateurish writing = Bad kerning
Fine. We are not the best writers. Heck, we are not even writers. But so what? We write like human beings, like we would if we concentrated real hard at a bar, we don't want to write like literary laureates because we are not. We are graphic designers writing as best as we can about the things we do. Sometimes that connects with people, sometimes it doesn't. That's fine. Some of the writing in LC5 is as choppy as the acting was in the O.C. so beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Re: No editing = bad
Again, that's fine. I'm the closest thing Speak Up has to an editor and, guess what, I'm not an editor. I'm a designer with my own preconceptions, biases, agendas, interests, inclinations and understandings of what is good and bad and I make decisions based on that alone. I learn from what happens and I move on. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. If everything is sparkingly perfect and edited, then you lose the realness. We all do things off kilter and we should not cover that up by smoothing and making perfect. This is not what Speak Up is about. If you want perfect articles in a perfect setting turn to any of the numerous magazines where editors won't hesitate to change author's words. If this is your cup of tea, drink it until it dries. It ain't mine.
Re: My horn
Poynor says, referring to the post Kingsley linked above, "Vit blows his own trumpet with a gusto few printed publications would stand for, but a lot of it is hot air. His post is full of grandiose claims about how critical Speak Up has been." Alright, let me make one thing perfectly clear so that there is no confusion: I love blowing my own trumpet. I really do, I'm not being sarcastic. I have confidence in what I do and how I do it, sometimes I can back up my claims sometimes I dramatize for effect. It's called self-promotion and we all do it. I have worked my ass off for four years and I'd be damned if I didn't pat myself on the back. I managed to make something out of nothing with the help of our authors and readers. So excuse me if I like to enjoy what I have done and thump my chest and try to make big claims. It helps me create goals and establish expectations. Whether I meet them, for myself and no one else, is a matter of how much harder I am willing to work and figure out what I am striving for.
Poynor's criticism is well taken. I agree with some things and disagree with others. Luckily, I don't live and die by what gets printed.
On May.06.2007 at 11:13 AM
ben...’s comment is:
Honestly, I get tired of people who think they're better than everyone else. I'm not an english major, I didn't take any classes in critical design writing. I'm a graphic designer. I come here to read, participate, and be part of a community. I like speak up.
In addition, Marian, it is safe to assume you don't know me, so for you to say i'm not grown up enough to express myself is a smack in the face and i don't appreciate it. i guess i'm with a bunch of grown folks who don't want to have a little bit of fun... lighten up. life is to short to wear tight, scratchy pants. what is the point of the free-writing of a blog if you're going to bitch about how something is written or the content? if a comment crosses the line, someone finds it offensive, or the owner of the site doesn't want to disrespect the esteemed gentleman we are discussing, i'm fine with that, it's his web site.
all i'm saying is for rick to abase a part of the graphic design community is wack.
***
Ivy Walker: Oh, berries! What a splendid present!
Lucius Hunt: Be cautious. You are holding the bad color.
Ivy Walker: This color attracts Those We Don't Speak Of.
Ivy Walker: You ought not pick that color berry anymore
***
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Ben ... I didn't have to assume anything. You posted an image (which the Ed. has removed) of asinine childishness, accompanied by a comment which proved everything I needed to know for the time being.
You really must get over the complex of feeling like criticism implies that everyone else is better than you. It won't serve you well. Furthermore, many people are better than you at certain things: get over that, too; it's a truth we all have to live with.
For instance, Rick Poynor is a better writer than I am. He is also a design critic of international repute who has every right to abase any part of the graphic design community he sees fit. While I, an admittedly inferior writer, feel perfectly comfortable pointing out what I believe is the fatal flaw in his argument. This I do without pouting, whining, leaping about making ape noises or creating the graphical equivalent thereof.
On May.06.2007 at 05:08 PM
KevinHopp’s comment is:
Yeah really Su... I've been here much longer than you and the amount of social relevance in this blog is overwhelmingly stagnant.
Do you always use sarcasm in the light of other peoples' problems?
On May.06.2007 at 08:15 PM
KevinHopp’s comment is:
Marian,
I'm sorry you feel that way.
For me I view Helvetica as a major achievement for our industry, and I'm embarassed that someone like Armin is in the corner gathering up his groupies and getting them to believe the movie failed.
I rarely draw the line, and I wasn't even going to say anything, but I think he should have considered our industry before himself this one time...
It wasn't a nice day for design, and so what if I cried about it. Thanks.
On May.06.2007 at 08:55 PM
Elizabeth’s comment is:
While I think Poynor's comments about Armin and SpeakUp were a bit juvenile and close-minded, they also happened to provide some evidence of a passionate opinion; something I've very rarely experienced in his writing.
Is anyone else starting to notice the old-man-set-in-his-ways tone of both Poynor and Heller?
On May.06.2007 at 09:51 PM
Su’s comment is:
This is getting silly. Kevin, you have an e-mail coming. Everyone else as you were.
On May.06.2007 at 10:14 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:
i don't recall Armin saying the movie was a failure, i remember him giving an unbiased account of a movie, and pointing out that it was so heavily lauded because by designers with a bias, and a movie that was relevent to them...
furhtermore, while this had potential for a great conversation, it's sad that some of the most engaging people on here are having to argue with trolls.
In my opinion, SpeakUp isn't as much about the posts and the topics as much as it is about the people who are writing them (I mean that in a good way). While marian (as she stated) isn't as talented of a writer compared to Rick Poynor, or the current DO crew, I find her posts much more engaging and interesting. DO is too detached, side some of Michael Bierut's writings.
Bo’s comment is:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
On May.07.2007 at 08:21 AM
Daniel Green’s comment is:
I hate coming in late to a good discussion.
Much of what I would express has already been said. But I do feel the need to comment further on this point:
Rick claims that Speak Up and Design Observer are "really magazines by another name."
If a blog is the same as a magazine, then a telephone is the same as a megaphone. (I think not.)
While I admire and am very appreciative of Rick Poyner’s contributions to design writing, he doesn’t seem to understand blogs, and the (distintively different) value of a 2-way conversation.
On May.07.2007 at 08:53 AM
Randy J. Hunt’s comment is:
I have yet to see this issue of Print.
(new address, a joy for working, a pain for mail-forwarding). Here's what I can gather, without yet reading the piece.
Speak Up doesn't bring to the conversation what Rick Poynor hopes it would. I can't disagree with that. His hopes are for something that suits his taste--a taste I very much respect, even if I'm best fed by a variety of flavours.
Of couse, I also respect Speak Up for what it has been and what it is, and I look forward to its evolution.
Poynor and Heller along with a small handful of others are so crucial to the design dialogue. Regardless of their opinions, they have extremely deep knowledge in many specific areas of design practice and history and champion the idea of design in wider dialogues and more popular (as in...for the populous) media outlets.
"Set-in-his-ways" is probably more of of what's needed in design criticism. Not in the sense of being closed-minded but in having strong and distinct point of views. This is where journalism and criticism may part ways. It might be best if we learn to understand a similar line ourselves.
I look forward to many voices, including and in addition to Rick's, to build a full and healthy dialogue.
felix’s comment is:
great piece, mark.
welcome back.
On most days, Speak Up is a Lone Star beer in lower east side's Doc Holiday's as DO is an expensive read in Midtown's Whiskey Bar. Both are good, stiff, relevant.. and needed in any conversation.
Just be mindful of the order. (beer before liquor, you've never been sicker- better cap the night off with a taste of Armin's burly chest hair)
On May.07.2007 at 11:09 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Armin, Marian, Randy, and Felix have already found gracious and thoughtful ways to respond to Rick's article (and M. Kingley's post about it); nevertheless, the issue of definitions -- was is a blog, what is a magazine -- could bear a bit more discussion.
Frankly, I find that the meaning of the word "blog" has been stretched to the point of becoming somewhat useless; it's more of a badge than a descriptor. Some are little more than collections of links, others a form of public diary-making. Others work mainly as venues for otherwise established writers. To suggest that there is a common audience or a set of editorial standards for such a range of content is silly. Of course, the same could be said about printed magazines -- do we expect InStyle to have the same level of content as The New Yorker? The issue is not the medium, but the intent of the publication.
A site like Speak up, with its regularly posted articles and its editorial process (informal as it is), seems to wander into the territory of online magazines. Marian is right: it also works as a community. But insofar as it provides editorial content, I think it does open itself to the kind of criticism that Rick has leveled against it.
That said, I think Rick is being unfair to Armin in assuming that his aim with Speak Up was to revolutionize design criticism; if I remember those heady early days correctly, it seemed that more often than not the editorial target was the elitism of the AIGA (also an unfair criticism, but that's for another post). The goal was to expand the conversation, not to transform it. By those terms, Speak Up has succeeded beautifully.
On May.07.2007 at 01:58 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Mindful of Marian's first rule: I meant M. Kingsley, not Kingley...
On May.07.2007 at 02:01 PM
Brad Gutting’s comment is:
Anyone ever get the feeling that we're all just dancing about architecture here? Trust me--I'd LOVE to slam down a Nikki Sixx line instead of something from Elvis Costello, but it ain't gonna happen cuz Nikki and the rest of the Crue are too busy getting Hep C. I'll give the two diametrically opposed musicians heaps of credit for being what they are: rock 'n rollers. Boo-ya.
Criticism in all fields matters. There's no disputing that, as much as I'm sure many of us...dislike criticism, to put it lightly. Tempted as I am to say that certain individuals write about what other people actually DO, there's no reason to.
But there's no "there" there in this discussion after awhile. So, some internationally recognized design writer whom I rather enjoy reading periodically doesn't take Speak Up seriously. Or that seriously. Or as seriously as some would like.
So?
While the profanity on Speak Up has dissipated over the past few years, its still a NHB, critical, unpredictable environment different than anything printed or otherwise "official." We know its relevant. And that's what counts.
So while I've accidentally aligned Speak Up with Motley Crue, and Poynor with Costello, and therefore torpedoed all credibility, the point is that making noise, posing arguments, thinking quite seriously about things, being playful, being harsh...is kind of all the whole point. Focus on that, keep the energy and attention on DESIGN, and all will continue to be provoking and worthwhile. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
On May.07.2007 at 04:47 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
But insofar as it provides editorial content, I think it does open itself to the kind of criticism that Rick has leveled against it.
Yes and no. I think that all of the authors on Speak Up have written posts with has much diligence as we can. Most of the time we do try for a certain level of professionalism in the post. The few times I've whipped off some diatribe, I've usually regretted it. So, yes, this does make it closer to a magazine than many of the other blog-forms you mentioned. But I do think the intent, or the focus of this site has always been clearly focussed on interaction.
I do know someone who is not a blog writer who was peeved that his work didn't make it into LC5. When I talked to him about it (some time ago), it never even entered my head for me to be peeved for the same reason. I do consider myself a writer (and have been paid for it), and if I thought that making it into the Looking Closer series was the only way of being deemed relevent, I would have ... well, lobbied! But I don't. And I maintain that for most of the best of Speak Up, you had to be there.
On May.07.2007 at 04:54 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Marian, I see you point. Intent, however, only gets you so far. Even if the purpose of the articles is to encourage dialogue, they are read as editorial content. Obviously not every single one: David Weinberger "Recent Rebranding" posts were clearly prods for discussion. But in the last five years there have been plenty of postings (several by you, as matter of fact) that read very much like magazine articles, even if they were written by non-professional authors. This is a compliment, by the way, as well as a reminder that when we put words out into the public sphere they have a way of spinning out of our control.
As much as I respect Rick Poynor and the DO crew, I don't think that inclusion in LC5 is the only badge of relevance in design writing. In five years, Speak up has built an audience that would make most print authors jealous. That's something to be proud of.
Besides, for all its amateurishness, Speak Up has never published anything as silly as this.
On May.07.2007 at 07:27 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Thanks for the compliment, Jose. But I think intent should get us far enough that we shouldn't have to endure any nya ny' ny' nya nyas for not making it into an arena we never intended on entering in the first place, no?
On May.07.2007 at 09:35 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Fair enough: the article did read a bit like a taunt. All the same, I believe that Rick has every right to criticize Speak Up's output by his own standards. Where I think he makes a mistake is in conflating the general claims for blogging ("it will replace journalism," "the wisdom of crowds," etc) with the more modest goals of Armin and company. Also, I think he's overemphasing the value of LC5 as a measure of good writing in the field. I can't, however, disagree with his call for excellence in design criticism, regardless of venue.
On May.08.2007 at 08:54 AM
David Weinberger’s comment is:
I haven't read the article yet but it seems a bit strange to measure a new medium by the standards of an old one. The authors from DO learned their craft decades before blogs came around and some have adapted their writing style well and some haven't. You decide for yourself on which side Rick falls. The authors from SU learned their craft while writing for a blog and have, in the process, set the standard for design blogs, DO included.
On May.08.2007 at 09:17 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
it seems a bit strange to measure a new medium by the standards of an old one
David, the medium is writing, not blogging. You could make a case that blogging constitutes a new genre of prose, and it would certainly be wrong to criticize it without acknowledging its trappings (it's like saying a science fiction novel is bad because it is set in the future), but to claim that it cannot be assessed as prose is a cop-out.
Look, the label for this article (and many others) reads "Essays." Is it strange that the writing is being judged as such?
On May.08.2007 at 09:31 AM
David Weinberger’s comment is:
hey, again I haven't read the article yet but no it's not strange. However it doesn't seem that SU posts were excluded because they didn't qualify as "essays."
On May.08.2007 at 09:48 AM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Jose, I admittedly chose the "Essays" label with a touch of irony. Somehow "Critique" didn't feel quite right in this particular context -- probably better used when discussing a work of design or art than as a (and this is for Marian) cri de coeur.
Also keep in mind that these categories act as a search aid -- a very bloggy function. Beyond that, I wouldn't read too much into it.
On May.08.2007 at 10:51 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
"Cri de coeur" would make a great category name, even if it confuses the search bots. It certainly sounds classier than "Rant" (which I believe was the title of an issue of Emigre).
By the way, now that Amazon allows you to search within books and Google is planning to digitize the text of all published works (unless they're stopped by the EU, I guess), I wouldn't call searchability a particularly bloggy function.
On May.08.2007 at 12:21 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Jose, in answering the question of which came first, chicken or egg; Aristotle argued that since actuality supersedes potentiality, the chicken came first. An object can be a potential something only if there already is an actual thing for it to become.
So I remain by my point. Searchability is a web-based metaphor and thus "bloggy."
On May.08.2007 at 01:22 PM
diane witman’s comment is:
I'm really coming in late on this one but I read this article over the weekend. While I didn't muster up the amount of displeasure that M. Kingsley has expressed, I wasn't exactly thrilled with some of the comments made in the article. I love Speak Up, it gave me a place to connect with the design community who are just as passionate as I am when it comes to design.
Also, I want to point out the difference of the blogs names. Design Observer are really posts that don't focus on passion or desire from the writers. I like Design Observer and visit the site often, but I feel as if the articles presented are unbiased, and almost detached. Doctors use this method to distance themselves from patients which is understandable but when you are a designer talking about a subject related to design, how can you not offer a passionate, feeling stirring opinion?
And next, Speak Up. The name says it all. We all come to this site to be a part of it, not to just read or observe. The site is no longer Armin and Byrony and the contributing authors, it's all of us visiting the site to read, post and share as a community. I have to admit that this is why I visit on an almost daily basis. I know when I come to read a post on Speak Up, it will be an article that is informative, relative and most of all expressive.
On May.08.2007 at 02:15 PM
felix’s comment is:
for those of you, like Diane, who seem to thing DO doesn't or can't offer a passionate rant every now and again, I give you Dan.
back to my AC DC CD
On May.08.2007 at 03:10 PM
Sarah’s comment is:
The thing I find so interesting about blogs is their conversational nature. I personally develop my ideas far better and easier when in conversation in and around a certain topic. For me, the discussion in the comments are equally important as the content of the article.
While magazines have letters to the Editor which somewhat serves this function, there really isn't the same sense of synthesis of ideas through dialogue that can be found on forums such as Speak Up. Plus, as a young designer (and person), I tend to spend more money on life and can't justify costly design publications (but can't live without the internet).
I have already heard the argument against blogging that it's just amateur writing. But before there were professionals (in any field, especially Design) there were amateurs, working on developing their skills out of a desire and love for the area. I think the argument against someone's ideas purely on the basis that they lack 'professional training' is extremely closed minded and only serves those who lack the confidence in their own abilities.
I have somehow lived in a bit of a bubble and haven't come across Design Observer until today. My initial reaction to the homepage is 'yuck.' Looking at it makes me yearn for some whitespace and some leading. And the tone is generally too serious for my liking, but I may grow to appreciate it more.
There seems to be some interesting fragmentation in the Design world. Some of us want to be taken as serious professionals, such as Doctors, Lawyers or even Architects, and write about Design on such academic terms, while others aren't too concerned with taking themselves too seriously. I respect the desire to be respected as a profession, and would really like my mom to understand what I do all day, but I didn't become a Designer so that the world would celebrate me.
I don't have the writing skill or stamina to be part of an Academic discourse. I don't like writing essays and personally find it such a struggle to communicate and develop my ideas on paper. Official debate with rules and points of order has never really interested me. There ends up being a winner and a loser without any room for collaboration.
I agree that it's important to use full sentences, proper grammar, and use words that you understand the meaning of. Editing is of course a good idea to make sure the point you mean to make is in fact being communicated. Sometimes all those levels of the process get in the way of just saying something. The idea can get lost in between the different stages of the writing process.
I read about Design in my spare time, outside of my professional duties so I am not really interested in reading long winded, uninteresting, detatched analysis of Design. I'm much more interested in hearing about what Armin thought of the Helvetica movie, or learning about the language of heraldry.
So I read and sometimes participate in the discussions on Speak Up. I prefer the relaxed tone and find it much more inviting for participation than more 'official' venues for Design discourse where I feel I haven't read enough to be allowed to talk.
Maybe the ideas developed in the articles and comments of Speak Up aren't ground breaking enough to be included in Looking Closer 5. But the community that congregate at Speak Up engage in a less formal version of Design discourse that I feel is no less valid even if we don't always use the spell check.
On May.08.2007 at 04:37 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
DO has published plenty of rants, some of them bordering on the incoherent (Jessica Helfand, a writer I generally respect greatly, has written her share of head-scratchers).
Mark, as anyone who has worked with computers in the pre-internet era knows, searchability is a database metaphor, not a web-based one. Texts have been stored in databases (and hence searchable) long before there was such a thing as the web.
Whether that makes databases chickens or eggs, I have no idea.
On May.08.2007 at 04:39 PM
Christina W’s comment is:
...in answering the question of which came first, chicken or egg; Aristotle argued that since actuality supersedes potentiality, the chicken came first. An object can be a potential something only if there already is an actual thing for it to become.
I'm going to have to disagree with Aristotle and agree with David Weinberger. If things can only become potential somethings that already exist, nothing new would ever evolve. A blog is an evolution of writing, towards informal conversation rather than formal discourse. And, being human, it's difficult to not compare it to a printed magazine, since that's what we know. Aristotle's chicken theory may be right about the way we think - we can only make sense of something new by aligning it with what we already know (take your horseless carriage to work today, anyone?).
(disclaimer: of course I don't mean by "evolution" that the blogs are the new super-race and books should be burned; it's not a value judgement, it's just, well, evolving)
On May.08.2007 at 07:07 PM
diane witman’s comment is:
felix, thank you for the link. I did read that article on DO and thought it was a good review and opinion of the Design Triennial on Dan's behalf. I wasn't trying to say that DO was completely lifeless but it certainly doesn't motivate me to participate in the way that Speak Up has.
On May.08.2007 at 08:37 PM
tarpitizen’s comment is:
Print and blog audiences are different? If so, how come "we" (the readers of this post and responses) seem to know all the editors by their first names? Because the world of design is teeny-tiny, and it all (Print, Eye, Speak Up and Design Observer, etc.) matters...so it seems weird, even Poyner's rant (if M. Kingsley has reported it fairly) to go after one or the other of the forums, especially when the players are so interlinked. As far as Speak Up's inclusion in Looking Closer, at those rates, who cares? It's all archived....right?
On May.09.2007 at 01:36 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
Maybe Speak Up's exclusion from Looking Closer 5 doesn't say so much about Speak Up's viability as an editorial source as it speaks to the Looking Closer series' fraternal tendencies. Which is ok.
As far as Poynor's arguments, they seem like the issues of an established writer worried about being supplanted by a new form. It has to be tough to be a critic whose words were once treated as the final say (inasmuch as they could be), now his final say has to be endlessly commented upon by those he considers (rightfully) less-informed. It's kind of like what's gone on in the design community itself - DIYers starting to have a little more pull than they used to, supplanting some designers. What he (and all designers worried about such things) needs to realize is that there's substance, and then control over a substance. I'm not worried about my job as a designer, because I'm good at it and there will always be a place for people who are good at what I do. I can control the substance, and I use that ability to be as good a designer as possible. But there are others who can produce substance, and I don't try to belittle what it is that they do. It's not unlike a commercial director being upset at the video quality on YouTube. Just because you can do it more correctly than someone else doesn't necessarily mean that it's better, or worse.
On May.09.2007 at 10:37 AM
Armin’s comment is:
For those that haven't had a chance to read the article, Print has posted it on their web site.
On May.09.2007 at 02:57 PM
Su’s comment is:
As far as Poynor's arguments, they seem like the issues of an established writer worried about being supplanted by a new form.
This is an easy view to take, but I think it's wrong.
Let's remember that he had plenty of time to try that new form out firsthand, and presumably doesn't like it; he isn't just taking pot shots. I see it as more of thinking the form hasn't matured(enough) yet, though with possibly misguided assumptions that the maturation should follow the same line as and result in the same process as print.
He's chosen someone to use as example of these failings now, though more interestingly it seems he's also got no one to use as the positive example. Including Design Observer, which I at least will lump in with the non-ideal. One would think he'd use his experiences there as the basis for suggestions as to what needs to change, or even what he attempted to change, but instead seems to avoid discussing it altogether.
On May.09.2007 at 05:55 PM
Michael B.’s comment is:
Having read Rick's piece, which I did — ironically? — only after it had been published online, I'm finally ready to dip my toe in.
Imagine that a new community of graphic designers suddenly appears. By their own admission, they are unqualified, untutored and sometimes downright amateurish, but they have moments of brilliance, attract big audiences and lots of media attention, and — get this — give it all away for free. How would you feel about this?
I suspect, on some level, that's how the blog world looks to any professional journalist who relies on his or her skill to put bread on the table. Face it, the graphic design community would go absolutely insane if the tables were turned.
On May.09.2007 at 08:07 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Michael, I do think there is a distinction here, and it may be a fine one, but here goes.
You can't stop people from writing, or speaking or drawing, or fiddling around with fonts on their computer. As blog writers, we're discussing, we're working out some shit, we're thinking out loud. And yes, our writing is less polished, less researched, less knowledgeable because we're doing it in our spare time. But what we're not doing is going to Print or any other publication and saying, "Hey, this writing thing sure is fun, I'll write for you for free." That is to say we are not offering our services to anyone for free.
Nor, I might add, are we whining that we didn't get into LC5, so we're not even competing on that front.
So while I understand that it made no sense for Rick to keep blogging: i.e. to do for free what he shd be and needs to be paid to do, I really don't think it's at all threatening to him, nor shd it be.
That community of graphic designers has appeared ... that's all those sons and nephews and neighbours we hear about, seemingly ad nauseum, every time we say the words "graphic design." But Greg said what you have said on this very blog in the past "Do good work," and that's the difference. By the time I'm in a position to be taking food out of the mouth of Rick Poynor, I'll expect to be paid for it, too.
---------
As an aside, I have to say I'm mystified by magazines' online presences. I look at every magazine's attempts to get me to go to their website and read the additional *free* articles etc, and I wonder "Why?" Why do they want me to go to their website? Why do they start blogs? I don't get it. I don't get what's in it for them.
JOe MOran’s comment is:
Think outside the naval.
VR/
On May.10.2007 at 02:08 AM
ed mckim’s comment is:
what is the argument here? that the writing is poor or that the responses are for the most part, worthless? Or is it both?
As far as the responses go, most of the people who read and post here read and post on Design Observer, not to mention some gimmick users, people like "Design is Not Art" and "Jessica Simpleton" seem to hack, troll, hijack and flame more DO threads than SU ones. That's from my experience at least.
On May.10.2007 at 09:16 AM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
Ed, no, the argument, as I read it in the original article, was that Speak Up has failed to become the brave new voice of design critique, as evidenced by its lack of inclusion in the publication Looking Closer 5, and that therefor Armin's claims to Design Relevancy are dubious. Furthermore, the reason for this failure is given as a lack of editorial process applied to professional writing. Design Observer is intimated to be slightly more successful in this regard.
On May.10.2007 at 09:55 AM
Pesky ’s comment is:
Coming into the party a little late....
"ONLY DEAD SALMON SWIM WITH THE STREAM..."
...falling on my face out of the chair....
Steve Mock’s comment is:
Greg typed: Just because you can do it more correctly than someone else doesn't necessarily mean that it's better, or worse.
What does it mean, then?
I always thought that being more correct is better.
Michael typed: Imagine that a new community of graphic designers suddenly appears. By their own admission, they are unqualified, untutored and sometimes downright amateurish, but they have moments of brilliance, attract big audiences and lots of media attention, and — get this — give it all away for free. How would you feel about this?
It has appeared and continues to appear. I am not going insane. I really could not care less, having my own garden to attend to.
Do good work. Don't play the victim. Don't whine.
On May.10.2007 at 10:17 AM
Pesky ’s comment is:
I do apologize. I'm only an illustrator. Only serious thoughts on Design are acceptable now.
Accusations of silliness against SpeakUp aren't helped by any of my remarks if it is to reach the pantheon of Serious Consideration.
I read both forums, now and then, and both have merits, but it's strictly cannibal stew when you designers eat each other for breakfast.
On May.10.2007 at 10:31 AM
felix’s comment is:
All good things start with whining.
Whining is right.
Whining works.
Whining clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the Speak Up spirit.
Whining, in all of its forms -- Whining about life, money, love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And Whining -- you mark my words -- will not only save Speak Up, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the Design Observer.
On May.10.2007 at 10:49 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
One would think he'd use his experiences [at Design Observer] as the basis for suggestions as to what needs to change, or even what he attempted to change, but instead seems to avoid discussing it altogether.
My thinking, despite it's "ease," is that it's because he's attacking a form of dialogue, rather than a specific site. And I'm not just talking about Blog v. Print, but any forum-style discussion, mainly because it encourages self-exploration of a subject matter rather than rote acceptance of an espoused doctrine. I'm not saying that anyone's trying to brainwash us, but that sitting at a seat of, well, for lack of a better word, "power," tends to make people miss it when it starts to go away.
And Steve, what I meant is exactly what Michael said (a little better than I did), that "they are unqualified, untutored and sometimes downright amateurish, but they have moments of brilliance." Sometimes a moment of brillance can outshine a well-polished, edited work. We'd all be wise to learn that.
On May.10.2007 at 11:01 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
I think Marian has encapsulated Rick's argument well. There is a subtext to the idea that Speak Up "has failed to become the brave new voice of design critique," however, that I think is causing some confusion.
People who have argued that Speak-up has never claimed to be a voice of design criticism are correct: as Marian and others have pointed out, the goal has always been to encourage dialogue. There is a whole school of punditry, however, that argues that blogs are the future of publishing. These pundits also make extravant claims for the value of "collectively-generated knowledge" (the whole Wiki phenomena) and predict the passing of individual expertise as a generative force in the culture. As I understand it, Rick's article is mounting a defence for individual (and professional) expertise, and suggesting that designers, by the nature of what we do, should be there with him on the ramparts.
By the way, Marian, if people are reading Speak Up (or DO, for that matter) instead of buying Print, Eye, etc, you are, in fact, taking food out of the mouth of Rick Poynor: less profit equals smaller per-word rates. I'm not saying that it is intentional, or even, frankly, Speak Up's fault. But I'm sure it's an issue that weighs on the minds of traditional journalists.
On May.10.2007 at 11:28 AM
Sam Potts’s comment is:
Not a single Speak Up post was included in Looking Closer 5? I can't think of a bigger non-issue. Can't anyone do some honest work around here? The only marginally intersting issue in all this is the laughable conflict of interest (blithely dismissed by Poyner in the Print article), but it's really on the same level as Susie getting more photos of herlself in the yearbook because her boyfriend Bob is the editor.
Just goes to show the level of critique in Print, Speak Up, Looking Closer, New York City, England. Shame!
On May.10.2007 at 11:29 AM
m.kingsley’s comment is:
Sam, as I said in an earlier comment: in the grand scheme, it's insignificant. But the alpha dog in me can't let an insult pass unchallenged.
Woof.
On May.10.2007 at 01:01 PM
lorraine wild’s comment is:
I've got an essay in LC5 (got the $50 today!) and really, that essay isn't fit for reading on a screen. It's too long, it has too many footnotes, and the yarn it spins is just too much for scrolling, at least to my taste. I was lucky that Emigre, with its relatively liberal editorial policy, was around to publish it: I don't know where such a piece would go today. It was satisfactory to have it published, but had it not been chosen for LC5 I would barely have known that anyone noticed it, that's how little feedback I ever recieved about that piece. "A lovely quality about weblogs is their immediacy," indeed. On the other hand, there are real limitations on the kinds of design writing that work online (which you can see in both DO and Speak Up): perhaps this loss is made up for by the newfound delights of ranting in disguise, but it is a loss.
And if you look at the entire "ecology" of design writing, it's the publication of design criticism in print that is the most endangered, the hardest to sustain, and clearly this is the anxiety fueling Poynor's argument. I don't see how anyone should be really excited about the withering of what was hardly a surplus to begin with.
The lingering "blog versus print" argument is strange, since, as Tarpitizen noted above, a substantial slice of the audience (and the authors) are participating in both: and isn't that audience capable of distinguishing between the different sorts of writing spaces? Certainly when I put down my $28 to buy a copy of Eye at the newstand, I expect something different than when I click on Speak Up, but...here I am, reading both, always waiting to encounter something I have not thought of before, which is relatively rare in these alleged days of critical quietude. But maybe that new program in design criticism at SVA will change all that, hmmm?
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Mark,
Pardon my lawyerly dissection but the cliché is missing a word. As stated, the egg came first. The problem is that the preceding eggs is not a chicken egg until we know there is going to be a chicken and we only know that there was going to be a chicken when there actually is a chicken. A different answer might come from questioning which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg.
It would seem that Rick has failed to find reasonable critical standards for a discussion of online conversations but the self-congratulation one reads on Speak Up about blogs supplanting print is so much nonsense.
I would suggest that everyone read Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson (including his discussion of why his book was a book rather than a video game of a television show) before engaging in media bashing of any sort. Different media are different. (Duh.) Mr. Poyner seems to complain that the omelet failed to be sushi made with sea urchin roe. His notes about the dish being poorly cooked may transcend his categorical errors, however.
All of the relativist excuses, mindless bragging, denial, and self-contradiction make me wonder what will come first, the soy protein simulated chicken or the freeze-dried eggs. Rick got it wrong but that is no excuse for assuming that someone who got it right would have been much kinder.
So everyone listen to Marian, Su, Lorraine, and Steven Johnson. And have some vegetables with the chicken or the egg (whether avian or echinoderm.) No overcooking, please.
KevinHopp’s comment is:
Gunner and Su, I don't understand why you think Poyner should focus on improvements at DO.
That wouldn't make any sense in his article. Some of their contributers have been published in LC5...
I don't see the relevancy, please discuss.
Su’s comment is:
I don't think I said or even implied he should focus on anything. I just find his seeming reticence[1] curious.
You can't publish for two years on one of the few at least somewhat respected sites in this area(the one that got four pieces in the book), then take off while tossing out a bunch of generalized failings in blogs as format, and then hoist another one up as failed example(and I can come up with a few worse ones) without raising some questions. Such as my original one.
Some of their contributers have been published in LC5...
Which would give the impression that DO is getting it right. So why'd he take off?
[1] Maybe just publicly? I haven't mailed him on this, though it's now a public question, in my opinion.
Su’s comment is:
And because I just realized nobody's brought it up, these are the four DO pieces in the book:
- My Country is Not a Brand (Drenttel)
- Designing Under the Influence (Bierut)
- The Shock Of The Old: Rethinking Nostalgia (Helfand)
- Method Designing: The Paradox of Modern Design Education (Helfand)
...which those more versed can comment on the quality of. I'm personally more interested in the media/format comparison itself than the specific examples involved.
On May.11.2007 at 01:35 AM
Greg’s comment is:
For a little debate fuel, as though it was needed, I found this over at DO from July 2005 (I was wondering why my memory was itching so bad). Of particular interest was this paragraph (italics added for effect):
"Designers’ widespread fantasy that they could easily operate as editors given the breaks is part of the general devaluation of expertise in our culture and a growing suspicion of those who presume to decide what we should know about. The Interne