Over the last couple of weeks I have slowly panned the 2007 edition of Print’s Regional Design Annual — one of the heftiest magazine annuals around. Unlike other years, browsing this annual was a pleasure: The images were big, the captions were easy to match with the numbers, and the 1,026 entries felt integrated in a way that no other Regional had before, in their typically headache-inducing collection of postage-sized thumbnails and finger-bending, hand-cramping weight. (I still browse it every year, no matter). But it was through this newfound clarity and accessibility — enabling me to spend more time looking at and considering the winning entries and passing judgment of my own — that a long brewing set of concerns about this collection in particular and a larger question about design judging in general bubbled to the top of my to-poke list.
The Print Regional Design Annual is judged in a span of three months. First, they receive tens of thousands of entries every year — 22,000-plus this year alone — that are screened and filtered by Print’s editors and art directors in two rounds, whittling down the selections until further scrutiny seems necessary. This is when the work is divided into regions: Far West, Southwest, Midwest, South, East, and (the most awesome and smallest region ever) New York, and when regional jurors step in to make the final selections in a day-long process along with Print’s art director, Kristina DiMatteo, in this year’s case. But unlike other annuals, the jurors are not designers. They are editors and writers. This year’s roster includes Colin Berry, a writer and contributing editor at Print; Cathy Fishel, the editor of LogoLounge.com and contributing editor at Print; Jeremy Lehrer, a freelance writer and contributing editor at Print; Edward Lovett, a writer; Angela Starita, a writer; and Angela Voulangas, a writer and the only juror with “designer” in her bio. When I look at an annual, the first thing I read is the jury list — not to big-name-check, but to get a sense of who has made these selections, as the inherent personal biases, preferences and inclinations (good or bad) of each judge define the selections, so that then I can establish my own personal biases, preferences and inclinations (good or bad) towards each judge and their selections as a whole. And what my personal biases, preferences and inclinations force me to ask is, can and/or should writers and editors judge design annuals?
This is in no way belittling the credentials, knowledge or design sensibilities of any of the above, as all of them have written lucidly about design in general and design projects in particular and have demonstrated an understanding of the intricacies of our profession. But I can’t help but question if their lack in design practice is a detriment to the selection process. I emphasize that I question, not decree. As I was going through the annual, many selections seemed less than interesting or downright questionable, and I instantly wondered if these selections would have made the cut had designers had the final word? Of course, out of 1,026 selections, not all can be brilliant and the sheer volume of the annual renders more of the bad, as well as the good. So my concern about this annual in particular segues into the traditions of design judging in general…
Usually, it’s designers we all know, whose work is well covered and widely respected, that end up judging design annuals. This is the way it is, for better or worse. Some might disagree with me, but I do think it’s for better. When a group of designers that have done successful work over a period of time — and by successful, I mean work that is interesting and engaging, both in its execution and communication, that is done under the scrutiny and rigor of a client- or self-driven process — come together and agree that a design project is worth considering as successful, I feel it constitutes a valid vetting process. And I think this is where the in-the-trenches experience of designers accounts for a more appropriate judgment lens than that of editors and writers. The flip side to this could be a vicious case of the pot calling the kettle black, where designers form an incestuous cycle of sameness, reacting to the same design cues over and over again, creating a snowballing set of expectations for what kind of material should be considered good, culminating in irrelevant compendiums. This is where a slightly more detached eye, an outsider, who isn’t so much concerned about the appropriate kerning of Mrs. Eaves or how well two spot colors have been trapped, but is placing more emphasis on the message and tone of voice of a design project might be beneficial. Maybe.
My personal inclinations favor the designer-judged annuals, but as I read the introductions to each region, penned by the assigned juror, I found that I was more interested in what they were able to extract, as writers and editors, from the winning entries and the selected designers than the selections themselves. I could have read all those paragraphs by themselves and get a feel for what each region was experiencing and doing without seeing the actual work — and this is something that designers can’t do, or at least can’t do well enough, when contributing to a design annual. Clearly there is room for both approaches and maybe it’s time for a fully integrated annual put together, piece by piece, by designers in collaboration with writers and editors. But, for now, I still have one or two regions left to go in Print’s Regional Design Annual.
"The flip side to this could be a vicious case of the pot calling the kettle black, where designers form an incestuous cycle of sameness, reacting to the same design cues over and over again, creating a snowballing set of expectations for what kind of material should be considered good, culminating in irrelevant compendiums."
Interesting point of view. When are the standards set by the innovative — After they are emulated enough times? And when do the these new standards or trends become stale — With new innovations or the tiredness of the old trends?
On Nov.07.2007 at 12:08 PM