Main Entry: graphic design

Function: noun

Date: 1956

: the art or profession of using design elements (as typography and images) to convey information or create

The software knowledge and black turtlenecks--definately.

A designer has to be able to create visual solutions to complex problems. It's more than acting as a Graphic stylist (though that's how clients often view the situation). It has to do with being able to think about a problem holistically. To understand how it impacts everything else. And then to translate that knowledge into the visual solution.

a designer is simply someone who creatively solves problems.

though defining the difference between graphic designer and a production artist or graphic technician is a little more difficult. suffice to say, there are more of the latter. that is not a good thing. anyone can make something pretty, but not everyone is a good designer. most of the "design community" on the web are just kids who copy other people's styles.

that brings up the whole accreditation problem. how do you make it easier for a business person to understand what they are getting when they hire someone? there is definitely no easy solution. i wish there were some way though, but i haven't been able to come up with something that is fair.

>a designer is simply someone who creatively solves problems.

I don't think it's that simple. This description you just gave could describe many people: Art Directors, Architects, Product Designers, Fashion Designers, etc.

The definition has to be more than we are creative, and that's why we are designers. Otherwise you could have any creative person doing Graphic Design and that is not a good option. Education and Training must account for something, right?

>though defining the difference between graphic designer and a production artist or graphic technician is a little more difficult.

That is also what I'm trying to define, a Production artist is not a Graphic Designer, their role is to produce or help in the production of a Graphic Designer's idea. A production artist doesn't necesarily need to be very creative but must have extensive knowledge of graphic software and production tools. A Graphic Designer must have that too, added to the creativity.

Here is another question - much harder to answer. How would one be able to measure creativity? It would be almost impossible to define what makes a designer better than another one, but we still know and acknowledge that some designers are better than others. Could we say "No, young man, your work sucks and you can't be a graphic designer." Elitist, I know. But there should be some sort of standard that could separate a Graphic Designer from a Production Artist or a bad Graphic Designer.

A Graphic Designer must be talented. But how do you measure that?

>the art or profession of using design elements (as typography and images) to convey information or create

First of all, the art?!? Second, if it were that easy, everybody could be a graphic designer... uh... ha, yeah... that's exactly what is happening.

>that brings up the whole accreditation problem.

Oh, yeah... that.

This is a tough zone to outline, Armin. Rather than the literal, I chose to define graphic design more broadly.

A graphic designer is a visual interpreter, lyricist, engineer, and anthropologist:

A graphic designer takes unfiltered, non-sequential messages and information and re-interpret it into visual statements with purpose.

A graphic designer skillfully uses typography to expand visual metaphors and other intangible realms of communication, including the emotional and the visceral.

A graphic designer uses design tools and elements to integrate structure, rhythm, scale, and form into all visual environments.

And lastly, a graphic designer constantly absorbs and spews out visual markers of culture.

And yes...we all wear black and sport tiny, funky glasses.

I like the more ethereal direction Tan has attempted, he is using an essential skill needed to be a graphic designer.

The ability to tune into subtle seemingly unrelated concepts, theories, and elements and then being able to assemble those pieces into a strong visual communication.

In that vein, I believe a graphic designer is an observer, a chameleon, a concience, a tour guide, an intimate friend, a pshychiatrist, a microphone, a catalyst, and a memory.

There, that was probably no help whatsoever.

It is ironic, a bunch of designers musing about the textual definition of a graphic designer. Is that not like "dancing about architecture" as Zappa would say.

>>a designer is simply someone who creatively solves problems.

>I don't think it's that simple. This description you just gave could describe many people: Art Directors, Architects, Product Designers, Fashion Designers, etc.

i am only saying "designer" here, not graphic designer. anyone who designs would, i believe, follow that description.

i just can't think of a way of fairly making an accrediation. this is always compared with how architects are accredited. it might need to happen, but i'm not sure how. at first glance, using a person's education would seem ok. but i know good designers with no post-secondary education, and i know terrible ones with MFAs. there are famous terrible graphic designers! so who knows....

> if it were that easy, everybody could be a graphic designer... uh... ha, yeah... that's exactly what is happening.

As said before, is it time to consider a new label for what's inside a true graphic designer? And therefore, maybe it is not the title, but the name of the industry.

There are those who approach and/or view graphic design as a:

principled discipline

software technology

decorative art/craft

Often, all three can sit side by side and work on the same project for a firm, agency or corporation.

On the accreditation thread, do we have any Canadian designers tuned in?

I think I remember hearing about a national accreditation test in canada to earn the title of designer (or was it some sort of crazy dream?). Is there an online sample of this test? I would be curious what kind of test questions are used to define a designer.

Everything so far has been excellent. Let's try this now:

You are up to your neck in work and you need to hire the best graphic designer available. What would you look for? What skills would you require the candidate to have?

Think of this person as the "Robocop" of all graphic designers. What would it take to make him/her the most well rounded person for the job?

Ok, let's get practical here. If I was hiring a graphic designer for my team, these are some essential skills I'd look for.

1. Concepting ability. Whether it's a logo, a layout, or a website -- a design execution is only as good as its concept. So a strong designer must be able to absolutely kill with concepts.

2. Excellent typographic skills. Let's face it -- a graphic designer's primary discipline is typography. All other design elements are secondary.

3. Excellent craftsmanship and an obsessive pursuit for details. I find that designers who can build a perfect print comp can also craft a wonderfully intricate, perfected website. Design crafsmanship can translate across many different media. God is in the details.

4. Good communication skills is a must. To be a great designer, it's not enough to be able to execute. You must be able to sell your ideas, and be able to incorporate client feedback -- whether it's constructive or not.

To answer Griff's question -- I'm friends w/ the GDC execs (Canada's AIGA). So I'm very familiar with their pilot accreditation program. And it's not implemented throughout Canada, just in BC and Quebec provinces I think.

Currently, it's not that formal. To gain accreditation with the GDC (in other words, to join the org), you must submit a somewhat lengthy application. Then, all applicants must submit their work for review by a panel of 3 veteran/GDC designers. They determine an applicant's qualifications -- and in instances of denial, can recommend action to gain accreditation. It's not a perfect system by their admission, but hey, it's a start.

There's a lot of other pertinent details I'm leaving out, but that's the basic gist of their accreditation program.

I know that AIGA national is quietly observing the experiment with interest. We'll see...

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but what about an accreditation system for becoming a graphic designer that is based on a point system?

Points would be awarded for work that was recognized by design annuals and publications. Points could also be awarded for memberships, teaching, volunteering, etc. Here is a sample list:

1 pt per year for membership in AIGA and/or similar organizations

15 pts for earning a BA in graphic design

5 pts per year for each piece published in a nationally recognized design annual like CA, Print, How, etc

3 pts for article written about designer or studio during other issues

10 pts for being included in Type Directors Club or Graphis annual

5 pts for inclusion in a coffeetable book about design

5 pts for writing an article that is published by a magazine

Points could also be awarded for completing pro-bono work, teaching classes, winning Webby’s, etc

This would then allow for a scale of accreditation that would take longer to complete (more like architects), but would be flexible enough to embrace self-taught individuals. It could also be used for job postings or to see the general output of a graphic designer over their lifetime:

20 pts Entry Level

50 pts Jr Designer

100 Sr Designer

10, 000 Milton Glaser

The benefit of the system is that it would provide a flexible measure of a person’s evolution to become a seasoned graphic designer. The path that individuals could take could vary depending on their education, work, outreach, and general desire. Rather than being judged by a limited panel, the individual would be judged by a wide range of current peers and mentors over a longer period that would (hopefully) require designers to develop skills that outlasted trends.

If a person choose to follow Bruce Mau’s suggestion (#26) then there are still other paths that could lead them to accreditation: teaching, producing pro-bono work for non-profits, going back to school.

Just a thought.

the point system above would rely far too much on being "published." this would suggest that all designers inherently seek recognition. this is simply not the case. it would also punish people for specializing in one or two areas.

and relying on design annuals to recognize good work is risky at best. there are always special interests at work in those publications, and they too often focus on design which is trendy. that is little more than rewarding people for stealing style and not for having original ideas.

once again, it seems like a good idea on the surface, but you can find far too many faults underneath. i think the way the canadian program is described above is better. it needs that subjectivity.

I agree with most of your observations Brook, but I think there is something that could work in a point system. For objective and factual attributes it would be a good measuring tool. I think that yes, focusing so much on published work would not be the best approach, but it could account for a strong percentage. After all, not all designers are published nor is it easy, even if annuals or publications have their own agendas it is good to be published. Other awarded points could come from:

- Years in business

- Happy clients (referrals called for confirmation of happiness level)

- Client retention

- Projects completed succesfully

- Revenue

- BFA's and MFA's

- Other accreditations

- Courses completed

- Number of turtlenecks in closet.

I agree that design annuals have their own agenda, perhaps if they had more of a role they would change. And while they are trendy, I would argue that part of being a graphic designer is being aware of trend and then reacting with or against them.

However, I also wanted to provide a system that could allow designers to work outside of the "annual circle." By rewarding designers for community involvement, buisness practices, etc the system could potentially round out the field, letting us prove that there is more than just looks.

Finally, while I think the Canadian system has merit, it does have the potential for elitism. It seems like just having several people determine the validity of ones work could be a bottleneck for accredidation and potentially creativity. Would have a board in the late 80s looked at a young designers with no degrees like Carson, Chantry? I think that a point based system would allow rises and changes in trends better than a group of individuals.

I'm intrigued by the point system, as well as the GDC's review protocol. The quick answer would be to implement both things. They are not mutually exclusive. Sort of like the multiple choice, and the essay section on an SAT. Objective and subjective.

But let's discuss what accreditation means. It should not be a rating system for design verility and awards. It should not be a classification or sorting filter for design castes. And lastly, it should not be exclusive, but inclusive to as many types of graphic discipline as possible -- which would promote and ensure the growth and evolution of the profession.

Accreditaion should primarily serve as a standard of professionalism and excellence to uphold for the profession. A way for our governing professional body (AIGA) to define what we do to the public -- including businesses, schools, and even our mothers. It's to set a minimum standard for professionals to qualify before they can call themselves a graphic designer -- that's all. However they perform after that is a different issue.

right. i think if it were this set of points that you earned...it would only turn into a contest among designers. which is definitely not the point. the point is for businesspersons and other clients to be able to know they are getting a certain minimum level of designer for their money.

maybe a good way to do, at least part of it, is to accredit design schools. but that would be imperfect also. as, again, there are some terrific designers who have studied solely on their own.

the aiga and the national association of schools of art and design have an accreditation program.

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm?CategoryID=34

this seems like a good start. maybe they should push the schools to promote their accreditation a little more. that could force other schools to do so, and make more potential students aware of the system.

It's exactly what's happening at the moment. There are discussions among AIGA's education group to do just that -- formulate a process for accreditation of graphic design programs in schools across the country.

Accreditation for working professionals is a harder issue, since many veterans are self-taught or arrived at graphic design through different disciplines. Part of the cause for this is because formal graphic design programs and degrees (not commercial art, desktop publishing, graphic illustration, etc.) were not widely accepted and available until the late 70's and early 80's. And of course, what I'd call "legit" interactive graphic design programs are still few and far in between even as we speak.

But I think that as more years go by, there will be less and less 'seasoned' designers who haven't been formally educated. So a degree will become less of a major issue, since it will be more of a given to enter the profession. Accreditation can be more fairly applied. Right now, the only thing stopping the process is agreement on the process itself.

But I'm convinced that accreditation is inevitable.

So what makes a graphic designer? A graphic designer is a man who is able to manipulate content (in case of graphic designer content must be graphics) and give it a certain form that conveys certain predetermined message. To manipulate means to use appropriate software and hardware; �graphics’ is very broad term but generally when I talk about graphics I mean - photos, type, illustration etc, i.e. things that visualize in only 2 dimensions. So everyone who manipulates 2 dimensional visual content is a graphic designer. It is completely another question if every graphic designer produces good or bad graphic design. One cannot say that if a graphic designer produces bad graphic design, the he/she is not a graphic designer at all.

Professional accreditation and licensing is just a scheme to collect professinal dues and instill a sense of self-importance and exclusiveness amongst a group.

Don't forget that you need to consider what the clients want. I can't see any client caring whether or not a particular design firm is accredited or not. They just care about your work.

Graphic Design is not some highly complex profession. All people are graphic designers. It is a basic means of communication amongst humans. It's just that some of us take the time to concentrate on improving those skills typically through some sort of formal education, and then, hopefully, get paid to do is as a career.

>Professional accreditation and licensing is just a scheme to collect professinal dues.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to get paid better.

>and instill a sense of self-importance and exclusiveness amongst a group.

Why not? In my opinion, it should be harder for people to claim they are Graphic Designers. Call it self-importance if you think that's what it is. If I didn't consider my job to be important I would be flippin' burgers. Or tacos if I was still in Mexico.

>All people are graphic designers. It is a basic means of communication amongst humans. It's just that some of us take the time to concentrate on improving those skills.

Well that would be like saying "all people are architects, it is a basic means of survival— building a roof to sleep in" but I don't go around buying AutoCad and claiming I can build you a house for a $100.

The value of a sytem of accreditation would be determined, like all things capitalist, on the free market. For some clients the higher prices of those so accredited would be justified by experience and skill and therefore worth paying.

There would also be plenty of folks (I'd wager the larger portion of the marketplace) for whom this would be less important. They'd still hire little cousin Joe, fresh out of school, to design the new Burger Bunker signage, menus, and website, and likely be very happy with the results, just as they are today.

So how is accreditation different than what we currently have? Sophisticated clients (and those striving to appear sophisticated) hire "name" designers, and everyone else gets the best work they can from the folks they know or work geographically near. Would this change?

As to the original question, Tan's four-point description was pretty thorough in my opinion.

That and the designer glasses.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to get paid better.

How does accredidation help me get paid better?

In my opinion, it should be harder for people to claim they are Graphic Designers.

Isn't that a bit elitist? Remember that graphic design is a rather subjective profession. It's not like plumbing or medicine, where right/wrong is a bit clearer.

Well that would be like saying "all people are architects, it is a basic means of survival— building a roof to sleep in" but I don't go around buying AutoCad and claiming I can build you a house for a $100.

Yes. It's exactly like that.

>How does accredidation help me get paid better?

I thought that's what you implied when you said "Professional accreditation and licensing is just a scheme to collect professinal dues." Shit... forget that, when I read dues for some reason I thought you were saying money. My bad.

>Isn't that a bit elitist?

Maybe just a tiny teenie wee little bit. But I think there are certain objective criteria that could make it a tad harder for people to design the shit out of anything that comes their way, when instead they should be doing plumbing or medicine where right/wrong is a bit clearer.

>Yes. It's exactly like that.

You yankin' my chain man? : /

A decent portfolio seems far less complicated—and more straightforward—than any of the above accreditation schemes.

(Armin, now who's getting all riled up? Take your own wise advice my friend.)

Accreditation is always a very polarized topic. Love it or hate it -- there's never a middle ground. Funny, but that's also an apt description of graphic design.

Is accreditation necessary? It depends. Can bad graphic design kill people like bad architecture can? Not usually. But does that mean design accreditation is a bureaucratic, unnecessary thing? No.

From the client's perspective, I don't see how a system of professional design accreditation would be bad. If I was a CEO and had to choose a firm to rebrand my company or design an annual report or ecommerce website, hell, I'd love to be assured that the designer I'd hired was accredited. Just like my CPA, or my tax attorney, and a number of other professionals that my business depends on -- professional accreditation is expected. I may not fully understand what design accreditation means, but I would assume that there's a professional governing body looking out for me.

From a design firm's perspective, accreditation would allow my firm to show my clients that the people who work for me have been properly trained and skilled. It matters when I need to justify the professional opinions and support the work that we produce. Accreditation also helps to establish mutual respect in the business world. It can also help to set mutual ethics guidelines and business practices among my competitors.

From an individual designer's perspective, accreditation would validate a sense of professionalism for doing something that I love to do. Is it self-serving? Maybe -- but Armin's point is correct: self-importance is necessary for all professions. If I didn't give a crap about being a designer, why would I continue doing it? Accreditation tells me that graphic design is a tangible, valuable profession that takes skill and years of training to do.

With all due respect to Darrel, I don't quite understand designers who are opposed to accreditation. Designers who have made it this far, and have carved out a career -- the path getting to where you are has been full of hurdles and competition to overcome. Unskilled, untrained designers just don't survive. They become paper reps or bartenders. So why worry about accreditation? It has nothing to do with creative restrictions. It has everything to do with helping to further your career and the profession. How is this a bad thing?

>Armin, now who's getting all riled up? Take your own wise advice my friend.

You wanna a piece of this too? : )

Actually, I wasn't riled up at all. It's just this bloody web thing, where nobody can see the body language. I'm as cool as PowerPoint Clipart...there I go again, one could assume I'm not cool, since PPT clipart is not cool. But I'm cool. I love getting into it with Darrel.

oooh Armin...you shouldn't have asked for that kind of hurtin. If smack talk was a design skill, they'd rename MoMa after me.

Keep the peace 'bro.

Tan, the goals you outlined are worthwhile but

I still don't understand how they're not met by a good portfolio.

I don't quite understand designers who are opposed to accreditation.

I would never have gotten started in this field if it were governed by accreditation. I'm self-taught and had virtually no experience when my first employer took a chance on me. Some of the best designers I know have never set foot in a design school, yet they're judging design shows and running acclaimed art departments. Entrenching the establishment just creates more barriers for people coming from the outside.

Rebecca, you're absolutely correct. And I think we're more in agreement than disagreement.

I don't think a formal design degree is an absolute criteria for accreditation. I do agree that a portfolio review is a very fair and subjective way to show that you've earned the skills and rights to a professional standing. So in that sense, the GDC's accreditation process by a review committee makes a lot of sense.

Ideally, a fair procedure for accreditation should account for formal education, as well as field training and experiences. Could we agree on that?

As to my second point -- maybe I can put this another way. What if we viewed accreditation not as a restriction, but an affirmation for the profession? Not being accredited doesn't mean that you couldn't practice design. It's a professional accomplishment to achieve, rather than a barrier to cross. It's much like AIGA. If you don't believe in joining the professional organization, than you certainly don't have to. But of course, you wouldn't truly benefit from its membership.

In your case, I'm sure you've earned the right as well as your successful colleagues. Accreditation would just confirm it, and validate your accomplishments.

Isn't that a bit elitist? Remember that graphic design is a rather subjective profession. It's not like plumbing or medicine, where right/wrong is a bit clearer.

it does sound a little elitist. but there is good and bad, and a "good" designer is able to distinguish between them, but many businesses or clients cannot.

remember, half of this discussion derives from the fact that anyone can make something look nice. it is way too easy just to flip open an annual, find something that looks cool and appropriate it.

a design firm or other employer will be able to recognize who is for real. but what about those without the knowledge to make that decision, which is going to be quite a few clients.

maybe there are better answers than accreditation. maybe the aiga needs to keep pushing the promotion of design as an important partner in successful business, etc. but i'll tell you, it's getting to the point that we're going to be outdated and relatively useless unless we can keep convincing business that GOOD design contributes to their bottom line, and give them something to distinguish between good and bad.

example:

half of the new emigre focuses on "the new modernism." this cookie-cutter, helvetica neue, form-follows-function(but poorly), geometric, overreaction to post-modernism takes most of our responsibilities out of graphic design. it removes any emotional influence and discards much potential visual language as "style." it's dangerous. if business decides that's all they need, then they won't need us. anyone can make something like that. a software program ccould be written to handle that. limiting our graphic language to simple geometric shapes and using type and image free of "personal-bias" is just dumb. and impossible. it is just choosing an eighty-year old concept of pure-design. i could choose any other style, and it is just a style, and call it pure and style-free. graphic design would be nothing but one big template. it wouldn't take a "good" designer to do that, anyone that is half-assed intelligent would be able to pump out that crap.

ok, end rant. that last part goes off on a bit of a tangent. but maybe that issue of emigre (Rant) is kicking in a little.

> I still don't understand how they're not met by a good portfolio.

Just one more comment to add, Rebecca.

Many clients can't truly discern between good design and bad design. It's not that they're stupid or anything -- it's just not their world.

Designers and firms are often evaluated and differentiated by other criterias such as reputation, familiarity of the client's industry, and price. While all valid, these criterias are business-based, rather than creatively-based.

So while to you, a good design portfolio may be sufficient proof of your ability -- it's simply not to clients who can't guage design. So what do you do? Tell them to take your word, and call your other clients to verify that you are indeed, good at what you do.

And that you're worth every penny that you charge.

Isn't that a form of professional, self accreditation?

I love getting into it with Darrel.

Isn't that what the internet is for? ;o)

I do agree that a portfolio review is a very fair and subjective way

If it's subjective, then it's arguably unfair.

What if we viewed accreditation not as a restriction, but an affirmation for the profession?

An industry that needs affirmation from an accredidation board seems like a fairly insecure industry.

The AIGA has a new-ish website that tries to define graphic design--it's targeted at high school students. AIGA :: What In the World

I think it does a better job than some of their past efforts. (although that was targeted at a different audience.)

>The AIGA has a new-ish website that tries to define graphic design--it's targeted at high school students.

That's actually pretty good. Thanks for the link Kyle.

The AIGA has a new-ish website

"And, it’s concocted by creatively-charged humanoids called graphic design-ers"

"And, in order to understand the problem they need to LISTEN. Once it’s comprendo on the problemo"

My eyes hurt from being rolled back so far...

;o)

Hey Tan. A fair accreditation procedure is definitely a start; I'll agree with that. But any accreditation scheme, even a fair one, seems like it relies on the informal credibility checks we currently use but then abstracts the results. I'm in favor of the more straightforward "self-accreditation" you describe, even if it's haphazard, because it is on the ground instead of imposed by a governing body. And no, I'm not a libertarian. ; )

As far as accreditation being a form of validation, I don't feel enticed by that benefit but I can see how others might be. I also feel no desire to join the AIGA and am continually surprised by the audacity of their membership fees. We're graphic designers, not investment bankers!

> An industry that needs affirmation from an accredidation board seems like a fairly insecure industry.

I sort of agree -- but follow me for a minute.

First off, I think our industry is rather arrogant and a little cocky. Designers are celebrated for their originality, so we all strive for individualism. But the irony is that throughout most of our careers, we must work collaboratively with other designers, as well as clients, to come up with the best work. But even so, a designer's tendency is to remain isolated -- keeping as many design secrets to themselves as possible. This is where the insecurity stems from. (I'm going somewhere with this, I promise.)

As a professional group, we are often too arrogant and selfish to share ideas and experiences with one another. We never learn from each other's mistakes. We rarely work together to collectively raise the professional standards of our industry. We claim that design can be self-taught, but complain about every shitty student portfolio we see. And we don't really try to educate the business world about what we do. We may try individually to educate our clients, but we could care less what our competitors do. And we rarely can separate ourselves from our work and profession. We take design personally -- because again, we depend so much on our individualism.

Doesn't anyone see this as a problem? As a group, designers are all immature, selfish, arrogant, and insecure to some degree. To me, it's why we're constantly struggling to justify the value of our profession.

Yes, accreditation is affirmation. But it's collective affirmation. It's a way to collectively establish a standard of professionalism and excellence for a working professional in our field. That's all.

It has nothing to do with your individual values. Accreditation has nothing to do with whether or not you're a good or bad person, if you have good hygiene, or if you're bad at math. It is simply an affirmation of your professional skills and standards. It can benefit so much for so many, yet all opponents care about is how it will affect them as an individual.

Typical.

I think you've all managed to convince me that I am definitely NOT a graphic designer. : )

oh well....

The only problem now is I have no other sense of identity. Ah! Help!

>The only problem now is I have no other sense of identity. Ah! Help!

I can design one for you. Cheap.

Wish I had more colorful commentary but I have tons of work.

I also feel no desire to join the AIGA and am continually surprised by the audacity of their membership fees.

Don't get me started on the AIGA... ;o)

Tan, I understand your argument. The fact remains, though, that there is no way to judge a graphic designer's abilities at graphic design objectively.

A plumber does plumbing. They work with pipes that carry liquids. That's all they do. They must understand codes. That can be tested.

It still doesn't mean they are a good plumber or not, but it means they can past the licensing test.

Graphic Design is a broad, somewhat random collection of people. Going back to the AIGA, I think one of the biggest problems they have is that they want to be an organization of GRAPHIC designers that acts as an umbrella for larger audience (Illustrators, Photographers, 'New Media' Designers, IAs, IDs, Producers, Motion Graphics, etc, etc, etc). Graphic Design is just a broad skill set...too broad to objectively measure in terms of skills.

As for some GDers being insecure and arrogant, well, I'm not going to disagree with you on that (though that's probably true of any industry), but I don't think accredidation would fix that. Rather, it'd make it worse, by further dividing the group into two camps.

Yes, I agree with everyone that it's difficult to collectively define graphic design. (Hey Armin, the discussion has come full circle.) Pessimistically, I also agree that it may ultimately be an insurmountable roadblock. This failure to speak collectively is also why the business world will never truly understand what we do as a profession. We can't even agree ourselves.

I'm not claiming that I have any answers to this. I only claim that there's a need, and accreditation is a start.

My point is that the arrogance and insecurity in our business is what's stopping the process of accreditation. It's the cause, rather than a goal to fix.

We can't even agree to attempt to agree, before proclaiming the need as useless and process as unachievable.

One more thing.

I buy a grande vanilla latte almost everyday at Starbucks. It's $3.85. That's $19.25 a work week, roughly $1000 a year.

My AIGA membership costs $285 a year. Compared to most expenses in my work life -- I think it's a bargain.

$3.85??? Every day???

Here's a story: a designer who freelances for my company is a letterpress printer and bookmaker. One of his books was selected for inclusion in 50 Books/50 Covers a couple of years ago. He has to freelance to support his letterpress work and could barely afford the entrance fee, hanging fee, and cost of the AIGA Annual (yes! he had to buy one, for $65!) that depicted his book. Needless to say he could not afford the $900+ to attend the annual meeting that year. His protests fell on deaf ears at the AIGA offices. I have no doubt that AIGA is a beneficial organization for many designers with a certain kind of income and client base, but a sizable number of us are way outside of that fold.

Hmmm, i think all your answers are great, and in the multitude of minds presented here, you have all defined pretty well what a graphic designer is.

If theres one thing ive learned in my years in this industry, its not to over analyze or complicate things.

In essence, you cannot put us into a box so to speak.

You have those who can convey an original idea to a broad base of markets, those who are specialised in a specific area, and those who just express personal inspirations.

They are all wonderful artists.

What may not appeal to you may appeal to someone else and vice versa.

But one thing is common, experience and dedication will broaden anyones vision..

A passion for their work is essential to becoming a great designer.

That is my 2 cents worth. Cheers!

>but a sizable number of us are way outside of that fold.

The ATypI lowered their fees for countries with low income based on a signed petition that went around a couple of months ago. I don't know if the AIGA would be open to listening to what is a real concern though.

I spend $1.76 at Starbucks daily on a Regular coffee. I think it adds up to $28 a month and $450 a year. Shit.

Sorry, it's a grande vanilla soy latte. I know...$3.85 a day is a goddamm drug habit. But guess what city I'm in and you'll better understand.

As to AIGA dues, everyone wonders why it costs so much. Let's look at how the money is spent. Here's a brief breakdown (as accurate as I can recall):

1. There's the cost of paying a minimum national staff of 6 (I think) in the NYC office.

2. The cost of the national office/design gallery in NYC.

3. There's the cost to produce around 6 or 8 curated design shows that tour chapters all over the country.

4. AIGA holds 4-5 national level conference a year, including the national bi-annual conference, the design business conference, an experience design (interactive) conference, a design education conference, among others.

5. AIGA publishes 3 quarterly journals for its members that I know of, including The AIGA Journal of Design, and Gain.

6. AIGA publishes and sells a number of books and annuals, including 365, 50/50, etc.

7. AIGA frequently supports regional and national design initiatives, including the national "Get Out the Vote" campaign, and the 9/11 memorial campaign.

8. Costs to maintain its national website.

9. AIGA pays for a lobbyist in DC to speak up for the profession. Try to convince the bureaucrats to let a designer actually design the next currency bill, to let a designer help redesign voting procedures in Florida, work with the FDA on packaging protocol, etc.

10. And all the money that's left gets sent to each of 47 local chapters so they can support their individual design communities and membership.

I'm sure there are many other expenses that I've left out. But you get the idea. The money's not sitting in NY waiting to be used for something frivolous.

If you think the fees should be lower, then suggest programs that should be cut. But wait, if you cut the quarterly journal, then someone will complain that they never get up-to-date editorials. If you cut a conference, then others will bitch about a lack of pertinent events. Fire the lobbyist, and we'll all be hypocrits when we complain about how crappy the new $20 looks.

So you see, it's not as simple as petitioning for lower fees.

And for comparison, IDSA dues are around $300 a year. AIA is around $1,200 annually.

I think just about everything has been said about what defines graphic design and the designer within the profession. Like some before, I feel that the most important thing to take away from this discussion is that subjectivity rules our daily lives more than clients, work, employees or employers.

In a professional field where there are some so called objective "rules", our creative decisions must be made based on subjective thought. The way I think a client might benefit from a design strategy might differ greatly from someone else, but does this effect the overall success of the strategy once it has reached the masses?

In otherwords, it's not always so important to define "graphic design" as this one overwhelming, overly encompassing, professional thing but more importantly as an individual practice, that is filled with original and individual thoughts, actions and feelings about our own work.

To say graphic design is simply "creating graphics for clients or for ourselves" is too simple, but even more importantly, too restrictive. I believe graphic design can be defined as a personal andeavour just as it can be defined as a professional one. At the end of the day we all do things a little differently when it comes to our practice and it is these differences that makes graphic design what it is.

well said Ben. I'm starting to feel like a graphic designer again. Thanks : )

Does anybody have any factual numbers on how many graphic designers are practicing professionals? And also how many grads there are coming out with design degrees? I think somebody has mentioned this before but I can't find it.

If somebody has the answer, a reference of where it came from would be greatly appreciated.

I only have recollections on unofficial numbers.

A few years ago, I remember Ric telling us at an AIGA retreat that there were something like 400,000 IRS registered "graphic designers" in this country. That sounds about right to me.

As to students, I vaguely remember a figure around 12,000 yearly graduates. Don't remember where I heard it from.

Why don't you shoot Ric or Denise Woods at AIGA an email? I bet they'll have real figures handy.

What for, may I ask?

>What for, may I ask?

Nosy fella...

Just kidding, well, I'm writing an article for AIGA Chicago's journal inForm. It's my way of "making the AIGA what I make of it." I think.

Bound to be controversial. Or not. A little something along the lines of this thread and Bradley's "Better Living."

Can't spill all the beans all at once.

Will e-mail them AIGA folk. Thanks for the tip.

writing an article for AIGA

Doesn't the AIGA have your email address blocked?

>Doesn't the AIGA have your email address blocked?

Ha! I think just at National level, in Chicago it does go through.

Hey, I liked the stuff about getting accredited and whatnot. What's the requirement for architects?

I mean, obviously, this is different because shitty graphic design won't result in someone's death. But still, as opposed to a reward system that might create too many begging dogs for a limited number of milkbones, are there any "standards" worth applying/following?

> Hey, I liked the stuff about getting accredited and whatnot. What's the requirement for architects?

Oh man, let it lie. Trust me.

We beat that topic like a red-headed stepchild for about a month it seems. To no resolve, and absolutely no concensus on anything.

We also touched on accreditation again in a Canadian GDC thread last month -- again, to no real resolution.

It seems that I was one of the staunchest supporters, but even I've given up with this crowd.

Fucking insecure, too cool for school, I'm-a-fucking-artist-so-don't-standardize-me crap out the ying-yang. Typical bullshit as always it seems.

Sorry, but you asked.

Nah, I love it. That was actually pretty funny.

I'd like to find a way because I'm sure there's something to be done. Maybe its not the most important thing, but...you know...I don't know if it'd hurt things.

what makes a graphic designer? microsoft frontpage, microsoft paint, verdana, and your sister's best friend whose uncle has a co-worker whose son needs a website for his lawn mowing service, filled with drawings of circles as a metaphor for a well manicured lawn.

or so it sometimes seems.

How did the person interviewing me score on the below scale? Do they have all the below in aces? or is it just some hypocrite scoring me? Scary road, next I'll have to punch a clock and ask to go to the bathroom, this is a totally sub-standard way to judge anyone creatively.

man, how unforgiving.

1 pt per year for membership in AIGA and/or similar organizations

and what if I don't like belonging to clubs? deducting points due to "affiliations" is bullshit at best.

30 pts for every-time during the interview the words "I put this in because I liked how it came out better than the one they picked"

15 pts for earning a BA in graphic design

okay and this is to who's benefit? yours? when you write in the trades you've hired me and you get to mention some fancy school to attracted clients? again what if my book kills it and I never went to design school? oh hell just say I went to whatever school you did.

50 pts for every piece where the designer wrote copy that made it in.

5 pts per year for each piece published in a nationally recognized design annual like CA, Print, How, etc

dude, this has got to be the best one okay add em' up we all knew those expensive statues would amount to something, someday. I thought design annuals sucked? oh hell in the end they land me some points with some taster doing the addition at least I get humor out of it.

30 pts for not one thing mounted on a black board.

3 pts for article written about designer or studio during other issues

Some one wrote about me!? another 3 points... is that a word or the whole article? Better yet I'll hide the article on myself showing that during an interview makes me look like real taster not to mention my last brilliant boss said no one reads.

20 pts for not wearing the uniform.

10 pts for being included in Type Directors Club or Graphis annual

now we're talking! if I was in a type annual it means I'm good. as soon as I get my cubical I'll make sure I hang up that page from TDC on my wall so EVERYONE knows I know how good I am.

5 pts for inclusion in a coffeetable book about design

shit! I'm in a hard cover book, I've made it big time! this should be upped to 20 pts just for the people who carried that anchor home.

5 pts for writing an article that is published by a magazine

I originally write something with my own thoughts and it gets crap points...

VERY TELLING.