Thanks, Tan. I hadn't gotten to purchase the mag yet or read all the articles online. On the surface, I did sense a lack of reference (reverance?) to graphic design. Product design is always easier to understand. It's form and function. If you can't use it properly, it's bad design. A bad annual report or logo is a bit harder to qualify initially beyond its beauty.

wired magazine did a similar all design issue in January of 2001. Newsweek's theme seemed to be much more slanted towards design for the consumers as oposed to wired's which I found to be more process driven.

After reading the Newsweek articles, I couldn't resist posting the intro to the article Design is Evil from the wired issue.

It creates an intense desire in people for new stuff. We're responsible for making products that people feel a great need to own, maybe for just a short period of time. And then they pitch 'em. Let's face it: Our standard of living is based on the demise of the planet.

www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.01/

It creates an intense desire in people for new stuff

This is just going to reopen the "consumerism is bad" argument here...sigh. I see this 'creating desire' as an essential part of what I do. Whether it is desire to purchase something, desire to donate or contribute or a desire to learn, design is indeed about this. By the time I'm hired, the decision to create a product or launch a program is completed and I have an assigned task. Why hide from or be ashamed of this?

By the time I'm hired, the decision to create a product or launch a program is completed and I have an assigned task.

Why wouldn't you want to be at the table helping shape those decisions?

Interesting article surts -- thanks, I'd missed it.

But I don't buy into the notion that design increases consumerism. Consumers will keep consuming, regardless of whether the things they buy are well-designed or shit. Better designed products improves the consumer environment, and elevates the expectations of the market, which creates a more educated consumer. How can that be a bad thing?

But everything goes in cycles. Nothing ever stays constant -- and this article may just mark the beginning of a swing away from the consumers' penchant for slick design. Utilitarian and "Undesign" will become the desired Element.

Speaking of design desires, check out Fossil's new line of watches by Frank Gehry. Purdy...me want...

Tan wrote:

But I don't buy into the notion that design increases consumerism.

I would suggest that a more accurate way of putting it would be that design enhances consumerism.

It drives consumerism.

It allows consumerism.

It directs consumerism.

It focuses consumerism.

etc.

A better exploration of what increases consumerism can be found in the criticism of authors like Fredric Jameson, John Berger and Mike D. of the Beastie Boys (he's made insightful comments on the emptiness of a visit to the record store).

jonsel wrote:

By the time I'm hired, the decision to create a product or launch a program is completed and I have an assigned task. Why hide from or be ashamed of this?

This sentiment greatly worries me. It admits defeat in the struggle to consider designers as vendors rather than as consultants -- consultants who bring a greater value to a project.

And since it was brought up...

The Gehry watches?

To my eyes: grotesque in form, suspect in intention, and a sad attempt to cash in on a designer's reputation. But let's not fight over this one, ok?

> grotesque in form

ah...but it wouldn't be a Gehry if someone didn't think this, would it?

but you're right, it's fashion. no need to argue...

These cutting-edge timepieces are true to Frank Gehry's bold imagination and forward-thinking vision and, at the same time, exhibits his sensibility that revolves around simplicity of form, function and movement.

Ugh.

Watch out for chunks of ice falling off of his "simplistic forms." You wouldn't want to end up in hospital and hurt the building's feelings.

Initially I was going to post in response to the question of the design time we're in, and comment that wired magazine did a better job of covering "design" a couple years ago. As I was thumbing through the old issue I came across the design is evil article. I didn't intentionally mean to start another thread on the value of consumerism. To me it seemed like a good response to Newsweek's articles.

As a consumer, I buy a lot of garbage—usually on compulsion and desire too. I'd luv to buy a mini... Maybe it's worse when you know it's bad and continue to do it. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not some super ethical designer that only buys hemp clothing and lives in a commune. When I throw a link up, it's more for a point of discussion then suggesting that this is how things should be.

Anyone ever seen the price of some of that Bauhaus furniture? Or how 'bout the Modernist stuff? Take a look at the number of zeros and tell me that it's for everyday people. Bullshit.

Fact is, everything anyone makes is design. It's just either better or worse. Sometimes what non-designers make is even better. Notice how the design field fell all over itself to immitate cheap xerography techniques of late 80s 'zine, notice our constant reference to hand-painted signs (ideally from a developing country) etc.

And design can certainly be a commodity. And design can change a commodity into real product (good examples: shoes ala Nike, coffee ala Starbucks; "A New Brand World" covers those two cases).

But anyone getting all ripped up over whether design is or is not for the "masses" (who the hell are the masses anyway?) is wasting billable time.

g

disclaimer duly noted surts -- go back to sewing your hemp shirt. And you forgot to mention vegan -- all super ethical designers are vegan too.

look, it's fine to take this discussion somewhere, whether it was intentional or not. Wire's article is a good contrast. Newsweek's article is mostly fluff -- it celebrates the resurgence of design, but doesn't reveal anything of consequence.

> Or how 'bout the Modernist stuff? Take a look at the number of zeros and tell me that it's for everyday people. Bullshit....whether design is or is not for the "masses" (who the hell are the masses anyway?) is wasting billable time.

One word -- IKEA. You must not have one near you. Modernist stuff without the zeros.

I dunno, designing for the masses presents its own challenges I'm sure. The high end designer stuff usually costs so damn much because it's quality manufacturing for small quantities. It's a different set of problems when it's a design line of watches for Target.

I was amazed when I saw the line of Graves watches at Target for $39. I had seen his other lines at design stores for hundreds of dollars. But what was sad was that few consumers saw the value of the line, so it sold terribly. I eventually picked one up on clearance for $12. Maybe the phlebians don't deserve design after all...

There's no doubt that a lot of us, as graphic designers, are here to help corporations sell more crap. That's our job. We're part of the machine. That's just what we do.

The fact that we only have a handful of design-driven retail success stories as a reference in the US (Ikea, Target, Apple, VW?, umm...what else?) says that there's probably still a bit of room in the marketspace to sell quality design to the masses.

I'm having lunch with Bruce Sterling on Friday (as part of the AIGA conference). I chose him over a number of designers because I thought the conversation would be more interesting--but still I didn't know what he was doing at the conference or what he might be talking about. So I picked up "Tomorrow Now" and started to read it.

Allthough I'm only half-way through the book, I think I know what he'll be talking about at the conference: probably on his theories of design and its relationship with the consumer. He forsees an increase in the 2-way relationship between consumers and products. We buy the i-pod to feed it music; we buy the computer to feed it software. He says The nineteenth century made machinery. The twentieth century made products. But the twenty-first century makes gizmos. Allthough I take issue with most of what I've read in his book so far, this point may have some relevance here.

It may be our obsession with "interactivity" that is driving this new design consciousness. The more you have to interact with it, the more important its functional design is. And as Bruce Sterling notes, things are becoming more tactile, squishy, and pet-like (he calls these "blobjects"). So in his model, I think we once would have had a wooden spoon, a spoon used by our mother, and maybe even grandmother, worn smooth with use, familiar and utilitarian. Then we would have had many wooden spoons, cheap and disposable, ugly, rough, and with an unpleasant tendency to go mouldy. But soon we will have the ultimate, designed un-wooden spoon, which fits our hand as well as our grandmother's did, and has the ability to morph from spoon to spatula to whatever, cleans itself and responds to temperature as required.

Hmmm. I'm not sure where this fits in. I need to go eat breakfast.

Jonsel:

By the time I'm hired, the decision to create a product or launch a program is completed and I have an assigned task. Why hide from or be ashamed of this?

Surts:

Why wouldn't you want to be at the table helping shape those decisions?

M Kingsley:

This sentiment greatly worries me. It admits defeat in the struggle to consider designers as vendors rather than as consultants -- consultants who bring a greater value to a project.

MK, that is a very idealistic view and one that is far from the truth, except in very few cases. Jonsel's admission is based on reality, not on happy wishing and the utopia we all (as graphic designers) wish to live in. Let's be frank, I can confidently guess that 85-90% of graphic designers get approached by clients once the product to launch — or service to be offered — has been thought out by them. Whether we like it or not we are at the end of the manufacturing process. It's neither defeatist nor pessimistic (and I don't like it), we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't accept all of this.

But that's why we are all here and why there is a whole conference to discuss our role. For change.

Armin wrote:

MK, that is a very idealistic view and one that is far from the truth, except in very few cases. Jonsel's admission is based on reality, not on happy wishing and the utopia we all (as graphic designers) wish to live in. Let's be frank, I can confidently guess that 85-90% of graphic designers get approached by clients once the product to launch — or service to be offered — has been thought out by them. Whether we like it or not we are at the end of the manufacturing process. It's neither defeatist nor pessimistic (and I don't like it), we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't accept all of this.

I wasn't suggesting that, but pointing out the danger of beginning any project with such a mindset. I don't know any ambitious designer who likes being the "hands" that execute a preapproved direction. Yes, we are involved at "the end of the manufacturing process" -- but shouldn't we also try to involve ourselves earlier in a project's development?

It took years for me to learn the value of evaluating potential clients with the same degree of scrutiny they judged me. And after a while, I started getting better clients: ones who ask me to help figure out what we're even going to do, ones who want to know my opinions. The work was more difficult, but I didn't notice as much.

(Art Chantry alluded to similar sentiments during his recent presentation in New York.)

Thanks for the compliment though. Idealism interpreted the wrong way can also sound like cynicism.

On to the Newsweek articles...

The general focus of all the articles is light and superficial -- exactly what a general interest magazine should be. I even suspect the articles have been sitting around for a bit, waiting for a slow news week.

Any attempt to shed light on design and the design process (and any comments against McMansions) is welcome. I do disagree with the happy-time banality of the Issac Mizrahi article, but we've already beaten that dead horse.

I posted a design question to their "Live Talk" at the Newsweek Site and was pleasantly surprised that it was responded to. Below is the question and response.

Edmonton, Canada: Why weren't any graphic designers consulted or interviewed?

Cathleen McGuigan: We did -- one of the best is Canada's own Bruce Mau of Toronto. He, like many graphic designers, has expanded his design work beyond doing graphic design but that's part of what he does.

Two others : stefan sagmeister and chip kidd. But again, one trend we noticed was that designers were breaking out of their individual categories.

Personally, I'm a little disappointed, but not surprised, that graphic design is not specifically mentioned. But I guess it's easier to talk about the design of a toaster than the brand that identifies it.

Design may or may not be completely dominated by consumerism, but journalism, especially on "soft" topics like design, certainly is. Those stories on the design of toasters go nicely with the ads selling toasters. On the other hand, not many Newsweek readers are in the market for a logo (and those that are probably have a nephew with a Mac.)

This actually is my first time experiencing this site and what it has to offer. I learned about it from one of my Graphic Design Professors. I am in a class now called Critical Issues. It basically is a class exploring our roles as Graphic Designers for "Profits, People, and the Environment," our abilities to problem solve, and to be "Agents of Social Change."

I am sort of new to the whole, web "Response and Post" phenomena, so i will just pose a few questions and ideas in response to this site's current articles, in particular, "It's not about the glass is 1/2 full...": Is is not really about-- the glass, who designs it, who makes it, who sells it, whether it's half full, and half empty?

First off, I think that it is not the New Age of the Bauhaus, b/c I think nothing is New. I do believe in trends, and I do think that society leads, follows, starts, stops, revives... them. I think it is very significant that the article about the wine glass in Newsweek was commenting about how it is about the Actual Glass itself. The idea that form creates a function is very Bauhaus oriented indeed. However, to the everyday consumer, sometimes the glass is just to drink out of and when one is thirsty, one looks at it from either a half -full or half-empty point of view, depending on how thirsty one is. ( ?...)

From Paola Antonelli, as quoted in Newsweek:

> Just like people can tell good steak from bad, I want it to be the same with design

From Michael B.:

> On the other hand, not many Newsweek readers are in the market for a logo

These statements set up an interesting dichotomy, to me. On one hand, an interviewee from the original article itself is pitching a glorified version of design understanding, celebrating a theoretical world in which everyone can admire good design, and subsequently reward good designers with their business. On the other hand, the designer says, 'the general population isn't particularly interested in what is directly offered by our kind.'

The hope that the population at large will understand, admire, and reward good design work is, at best, a long way off... and realistically, unrealistic. But is it necessary to discount the hope completely? Through all of the trials and tribulations of working with clients, knowing that they are less informed about design, and seeing that as a designer you must guide their understanding, why lose hope now? Seems to me there must be some neutral territory between the shining-happy-people view of the article and the it's-all-been-done-and-said-before attitude of designers.

Even before entering into the Graphic Design program at my school, I had wondered whether most people could actively distinguish something well designed from something poorly designed. My answer is yes. Our problem is whether those same people place more value on something well designed. Will people pay more simply because they like the way it looks? That, I don't know about. In fact, I would say people expect less expensive items to be inherently poorer in design.

For instance, at the supermarket, the house brand always looks cheaper. Even at expensive Whole Foods, their 365 branding is awful. But you come to expect that.

Should good design be accessible to the masses? Sure, but that's not really a relevant question unless the masses are calling out for it. And my guess is that depending on how much good design costs them, most people are not interested.

Those same people won't buy Macs or Volkswagens simply because they cost more than PCs or Chevys. Supporting and taking part in the design philosophy behind Macintosh and Volkswagen apparently isn't worth the extra cost.

I guess my purpose as a designer is to put better design out there. Hopefully my peers will be taking note. Obviously our challenge is to have our work, work, whether that translates into more products sold or a message sucessfully delivered. And that challenge alone continues to be intriguing to me.

By the way, I'll be graduating this Spring from RISD. Posting a comment on this site is part of the homework for a class I'm taking called “Critical Issues.”

Ha! We're invading! Already three of us from the same class have posted on this thread.

Now we have to decide whether to respond to each other online when we will be meeting tomorrow.

There's been some good questions posed from risd.edu, more than I can put some serious thought into at the moment. But... For instance, at the supermarket, the house brand always looks cheaper. Even at expensive Whole Foods, their 365 branding is awful. But you come to expect that. I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the design as poor, you need to consider what the audience's expectations are and perhaps the strategy and psychology behind the packaging.

Should good design be accessible to the masses? Sure, but that's not really a relevant question unless the masses are calling out for it. Some of the best designs are invisible, if it's good people take it for granted. Think of way finding systems, let's say your in a new hospital. You don't know where anything is, yet within a couple minutes of walking around you get to the destination through the system. Perhaps aesthetically the system isn't that sexy, but you never got lost - I'd consider that as good design.

While I agree that some of the "best" design is transparent — that what makes it both good and effective are in fact its invisibility — I think that aesthetics are as critical as function. A way-finding system should work damn well and look damn good.

There's no question that Americans consume design through an unfortunately binary sieve: good design=expensive/bad design=cheep. And decision-makers in the marketplace certainly like cheap. But the larger issue is whether or not Americans are visually informed enough to distinguish between good and bad design.

I agree with Anthony D's critique of Whole Food's 365 packaging, yet I kinda like Trader Joe's undesigned anti-aesthetic. I think we can assume that Trader Joe's packaging is cheaper to develop, implement, and produce than Whole Food's store brand. Which is better/more effective?

This article made me think less about the design for the average consumer and more about design for the designer. As designers we look for good design in our environments; we are trained to know the difference. As Jamey stated, "good design=expensive/bad design=cheap." I think the aveage consumer is concerned about the quality of a product, but when it comes down to making a buying decision, the importance of price often transcends the quality of the design.

However, this may not be true when excellent design is apparent. In Murray Moss's article he speaks of Josef Hoffmann's $70, muslin wineglass. Good design makes us think twice about how we experience something. Hoffmann's delicate design "modifies your behavior. You become more graceful." Reading Moss's description of the glass convinces me that good design is critical, but do we all have the opportunity to experience a $70 wineglass? Design such as this is exclusive to those educated about design. I think as designers we should never stop striving to acheive design with function, attraction, and affordability. Every type of consumer should have the right to experience this type of grace and delicacy and it is our job as designers to make it happen.

Simply I like pretty things. I would perfer to live in or visit an enviornment that makes me enjoy my surroundings and is just nice to look at. I use a mac and prefer VWs to Chevys. (Anthony D.) If I am shopping for a product and there is more than one object that does the same thing, after checking the prices, I do usually buy the cheapest product with the best design. I like to dress a certain way and read communications arts.

I also think it is incredibly arrogant to assume the general culture doesn't recognize good design. Perhaps people's tastes are different or some people don't really care about what shape their trash can is as long as it does the job. Just maybe some people have other things to care about...I don't know health insurance or the electric bill. I wouldn't say most people perfer "bad design" to " good design" but I would say many people don't care as long as something is getting the job done to the standards they expect.

And that is something, the expectations of how well something should be design in relationship to its price. People expect the store brand to be not as well designed as the expensive brand. Good design is a luxury. A luxury I enjoy and do think should be available anyone of any economic level.

Wouldn't it be nice if the whole world was one big well designed party with free drinks. But like Shona said its just not. My biggest problem with my avenue of study, graphic design, is was all that time pulling all nighters to make a poster beautifully well designed to have my immediate world see it, worth it. Or could that time have been better spent voluntering at a local school helping a child learn to read. Yes, dramatic but hey the drama will continue..My problem there are just more important things than design. Why should we all improve this luxury in the world when there are children fighting in wars in Africa---but its like your mother said -"eat your vegetables there are children starving in china." Should be creating a better design for that package of vegetables, or finding a way to get those damn vegetables to those children in china. And perhaps the way to do that is creating a poster about it, and all those all nighters creating that beautiful poster gave me the skills to make a poster that got the vegeatables to china, I dont know. Look I know the value of design, but sometimes I need more of a purpose than to have pretty things.

sometimes the glass is just to drink out of and when one is thirsty, one looks at it from either a half -full or half-empty point of view, depending on how thirsty one is. ( ?...)---Nevi

That just says it all..funny too

I know that the masses recognize good design, it just might not be done as consciously as we might think. The Williams sisters make tennis look effortless to the casual observer [me], just as designers make the final product look like it was created with ease. The good design, whether people realize it or not, will always do the job better than the average design, and people absorb that. Whether someone is purchasing a product off the shelf or following hospital signs, the design cannot work without being processed. The things that ordinary people wouldn’t processed, consciously or subconsciously, seems excessive to me. Would this be the design for designers? Maybe just what happens in an oversaturated market and a million desktop publishers?

From Jamie:

>>A way-finding system should work damn well and look damn good.

Is it really worth the resources to make hospital signage sexy? I have conflict with the idea that everything should look damn good. On the one hand, I like to make things, I like to be experimental, and I like [or try to] be clever doing so. If I had to make a toaster, I would try to make the coolest toaster ever. But the other hand, what does the presence of a cooler toaster actually do, especially if some people can’t afford it?