Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
What are we Doing?

All this talk lately about what it is we do, how we do it and how we talk about it has kept me… let’s say entertained. I have enjoyed the “questioning” albeit showed resistance and restraint to really answer some of it. In any regard, I thought now might be a good time to revisit the conversation that took place November 18, 2003 during our second seriouSeries in the wake of the AIGA conference in Vancouver — which consisted of a cozy evening with Kathy Fredrickson, Marcia Lausen and Joseph Michael Essex.

This is not intended as a recap of those two events, rather a brush on some issues relevant to a few of the discussions we’ve been having around here. Obviously, the theme of that conversation revolved around the power of design but there were great insights that went further than the topics of the conference and provide interesting items for discussion regarding how we profess as designers. Please excuse the length, possible redundancy and if some of the ideas are disparate, I will try to make it as cohesive as possible.

The first issue that arises when talking about graphic design is mainly what is it? Every designer has a different response to this, yet it invariably revolves around the end product (i.e. I make logos, web sites, etc.). Rarely do we think to explain it, even amongst ourselves, as a process of investigation, collaboration, discovery and ultimately of implementation. Essex points out that “[The power of design] comes not from collaboration alone but from focused collaboration towards an end goal and we don’t talk about design that way. Nobody talks about process being the core of design”. He adds, “Design firms are being classified by what their office does and delivers not by what they actually do”, leading to a profession defined by a categorization of specialties rather than by a definition of the valuable service it is providing.

Part of defining what design is involves a certain maturity in realizing that it in fact can’t save lives as commonly as we wish or as rudimentary as doctors do. We struggle to find the value of our service, and find that “helping somebody facilitate their argument,” as Fredrickson says” in a clear and understandable manner” is not enough to think of our profession as important. She also relates the following story:

I was sitting next to a woman that I didn’t know on the plane and was telling her about a project we were doing. It was an invitation, for which we hired an illustrator to do a gargoyle. I was telling her that at the last minute the client decided the tongue of the gargoyle was too insidious and disgusting — this was a crisis for us because we had to go to press — so we had to go back to this major, New York illustrator and ask him if we could remove the tongue, he was very accepting and gave us permission to do so and in the end everything turned out great. I finished telling her the story and asked her what she did for a living. She said “I’m a pediatric thoracic surgeon, I operate on children that are chocking” I paused and thought �well, I’m not that’ and I’m OK with it.

We tend to compare ourselves to other professions like accountants, doctors and lawyers — and as of late to plumbers — that have achieved a high status and respect within society and culture. We must get over this inferiority complex, as a profession, that many of us seem to believe in not because we are dumb or uninformed but because we are constantly at the end of the production line to pretty things up. Only we can change that and prove that our service has real value but up until now, we have been doing it wrong according to Essex, who says, “We end up evaluating the wrong thing. Don’t just look at the end, look at the beginning — that’s where the value is.”

Moreover, this brings up the relationship with the client — we are a service-based profession, remember? — the constant cry of practicing designers is that their client doesn’t get it. Well, the problem is that we don’t facilitate them getting it — mostly, because we keep talking in terms of finished products and deliverables as our contribution to their business. “Clients don’t know what they are buying” says Essex “they think they are buying the blob that’s on the piece of paper instead of buying what that blob will do to the people that see it. That’s the difference. Otherwise [clients] would realize how important [design] is.” Until we emphasize that graphic design is about collaboration with clients to find and implement the best solution possible we will be continually viewed as vendors and not counsels.

Finding concrete examples of effective “design” when talking about graphic design is harder than it should be. When trying to explain what we do (whether to our parents or the client sitting across the table) we fumble for “things” to point at and say “See? That is good design and it increased sales for them, we can do the same for you”. The latest AIGA brochure, What every business needs, includes images of Nike’s logo, FedEx’s shipping label and Amazon’s web site (although I don’t believe they are referring to its design) — all great examples. Perhaps, the only ones readily available for designers and understandable for clients. Essex mentioned Greenfield/Belser’s Nutrition Facts box, now found in every single consumable product in the US, he thinks it is one of the best designs of all time: “It’s organized, it’s considered and it functions; it sets a standard and it can be evaluated from box to box and package to package and it’s understandable — those are pretty high-praise items for something that is designed.” Lausen also pointed to another low-profile design undertaking: evacuation plans in buildings. About that, she says: “It’s one of those areas, it’s not glamorous nor fun and you have to deal with a lot of people who don’t want you there because you are going to cost them time and money but that’s unfortunate, as it is there where a lot of our power lives — in worlds that don’t want us.”

This dichotomy of design projects (cool, high visibility Nike logo vs. bland, low visibility evacuation plan) is part of what makes it so hard to define what graphic designers do. So how do we do it? Essex takes a humane approach as to how we should embark on our process of better explaining what we do and what graphic design entails: “Part of what we have to do is we need to know why we are doing what we are doing. That we are conscious of it and we accept it and we relish in the opportunity to do it and take pride in it — that’s where the power comes from, in that we first appreciate this ourselves. Where we miss out is in being reluctant to being outwardly passionate [about design].”

In the end, I am baffled about graphic design. Confused and tired, motivated and optimistic. Why is it so hard? Is it really so hard? Perhaps we are thinking too much or, worse, too little? Do we think too little of ourselves or, worse, too much? Answers to all these questions can be answered with both yes and no and I’m not lobbying for either specifically. Isn’t it time that we figure this out? Specially now that everybody seems optimistic about a (possible) rebounding economy and the trust (and challenge) that has been put on us (specifically by the AIGA) as both agents of social change and as leading architects of sustainable solutions for a troubled planet. I am absolutely not criticizing that statement, I am simply questioning if we are in reality ready to assume those lofty roles we strive for. Ultimately, it all lies in what each of us can and wants to do, yet without a common goal and a lack of understanding of what we offer as a profession, those goals seem ever harder to reach.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 1869 FILED UNDER Critique
PUBLISHED ON Mar.14.2004 BY Armin
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Greg’s comment is:

I think the trouble in defining Graphic Design as a profession lies in it's product. What we produce, as Armin here is saying, is an outward expression of an inward process. Doctors produce healthy people. Lawyers produce free people. Plumbers produce comfortable people. As a service based profession, what kind of people do we produce? Hopefully, we produce convinced people. We make people want things. That's not to say that we "manipulate" the buyer, not by any means. Subtle persuasion should be all it takes, if the product or service we are helping to sell is worthwhile.

Another problem we have as a profession, and this is the one that causes the most discourse, disagreement, and confusion, is that we exist between two worlds, that of art and that of business. We are middle ground, and we gravitate towards two opposite extremes. Many of us ask, "Why are we so focused on art?" or "Why can't we practice more creative freedom?" The question that should be asked is "Why can't both exist simultaneously?"

Design (the noun)isn't hard. It's a matter of plan. Designing (the verb) is near impossible, and it takes a Designer to do it.

On Mar.14.2004 at 05:09 PM
JonSel’s comment is:

I thought a site called Beyond Graphic was interesting because it suggests the basic terminology we use to describe ourselves is flawed. I don't think a change in semantics is the simple solution, but there is logic to bringing the notion of "communication" to the forefront and not "graphic", because one is subjective and one is not.

Advertising isn't caught up in this game, because they clearly are on the side of business. So why aren't we? Yes, design is so hard to quantify. Despite all the comparisons to doctors and plumbers, there is a major difference. And here's where I think Essex has it right. Doctors and plumbers have a process and a skill set to achieve a singular goal. But where design differs is the result. If the doctor wants to remove the gall bladder, well, he's got a set way of doing it and it gets done. In the end, you've got no gall bladder. A plumber wants to put in a sink, he puts in a sink. But put 5 designers together (who might even come from the same art school) and tell them to design a logo for X corporation and you'll have 5 completely different results. So it's just impossible to tell what is the right and wrong result. Too subjective. But where we gain respect and the acceptance of the business world is through opening up our process to them and explaining that we start with an end goal —�the client's end goal — and through strategic thinking, are able to develop visuals to achieve that goal. Magic is fine for David Blaine, because nobody's business (except his) is resting on whether that bird comes out of his hat or not. But our clients just won't accept that the logo magically appeared to us in a dream. They can relate through process.

Many designers are very reluctant to embrace their role in marketing, because it seems to exclude the "art" of what we do. You know what, it's time we got over that completely. There's "art" to what many professions do, but they don't get distracted by the notion of it. To a physicist, there is beauty in a discrete equation. To a lawyer, there's art in crafting the perfect closing argument. But you know what? Who gives a shit, because there is a clear goal in mind, whether it is putting away a sociopath or solving riddles of gravity. And frankly, "marketing" is a much more understood term by businesses. A client understands the need for "marketing" to grow sales, gain awareness, sell tickets, etc. If we accept this and allow that our services — of communication — are an integral part of marketing, then the clients will come to accept us more as well.

On Mar.14.2004 at 06:14 PM
Greg’s comment is:

Many designers are very reluctant to embrace their role in marketing, because it seems to exclude the "art" of what we do. You know what, it's time we got over that completely.

*sigh*

Case in point. Does it have to be one or the other?

But put 5 designers together (who might even come from the same art school) and tell them to design a logo for X corporation and you'll have 5 completely different results.

Assuming the designers are all at the same skill level, I disagree. The result that is the ultimate goal of designing is the reaction, not the mark. Does it sell the product or service better? If the answer is yes, then the results are all the exact same.

I agree that marketing is a huge part of what we do and I agree that some of us are deeply entrenched in the artist's corner...but do we have to pick marketing over art? Can't we have both?

On Mar.14.2004 at 07:28 PM
Bradley’s comment is:

Greg, you are a sick yet funny man. From now on, instead of telling people that "I sell dreams" for a living, I'll let them know that "I produce convinced people." This should be entertaining.

Couple of things. First off, for as long as Donald Trump talks about "the art of the deal," then I agree that we're better off talking about design as being art and business simultaneously; shit, all the big-time artists infused one with the other anyway, from Michelangelo to Warhol. Business is an art, its always relied on invention, innovation, and progressive thinking to get anywhere, that's how you create growth, or as Greg would say "produce money." But for as much as business relies on creative thinking, it also depends on things being black & white and that's where we often run into trouble. From my point of view, you should create one solution that you stand behind completely and sell it as being the best, rather than giving a number of options. First, it looks more decisive, and secondly, I'd much rather put 100% of my time into something that I deem the best, rather than 33% of my time into 3 things that I can't qualify as superior to one another. Of course, I understand that this isn't an easy thing for most people to start doing.

Its also interesting being a designer for an advertising agency and working as an art director--design is much more of a tool in the mind of an agency, things can be very utilitarian and not as many people pay as much attention to all the little details that designers tend to slave over. But what's interesting is that with the declining influence of paid media advertising, the role of design is becoming MUCH more prominent. Some agencies get this, many more do not. But two of the best, Goodby Silverstein and CP+B have been doing some very interesting work lately that operates outside of traditional magazine ads and TV commercials for clients like Burger King and Virgin Air. It's important to think holistically, and I think its ridiculous for "design" and "advertising" to be so separated--but that's another discussion.

On Mar.14.2004 at 11:55 PM
justin m’s comment is:

Wow, so much to think about.

When trying to explain what we do (whether to our parents or the client sitting across the table) we fumble for “things” to point at and say “See? That is good design...

This is where I stumble most often still being in school, professors, my parents and my fiance all ask me "What do you want to do?" I sit there and stare at them not knowing what to say. It's hard to explain when you are sitting at Old Chicago on Friday night, notice they have new menus, pick it up and then state, "Hey, I really like these menus except for this," and then begin pointing to various areas on the menu which bother me. Or when I got excited to see the new AOL package in our mailbox. Friends and family also stare at me in amazement when I make comments on catalogs, technical manuals, school books, and everything else that crosses my path.

Seriously, how do you explain to someone you like the packaging of a product but hate the product itself?

I admit that I obsess over the process and what I am doing than the end product sometimes, but isn't it the process that creates the end product?

But our clients just won't accept that the logo magically appeared to us in a dream. They can relate through process.

What if your process is simply going to sleep and waking up in the morning with this fantasic new thing? I didn't think this was math class with your teacher standing over you chanting, "Show your work. Show your work." I tend to work problems out in my head before I ever get close to putting anything down on paper or on the screen. My sketchbook? Practically empty.

Many designers are very reluctant to embrace their role in marketing, because it seems to exclude the "art" of what we do. You know what, it's time we got over that completely.

*sigh*

Case in point. Does it have to be one or the other?

Listening to the people around me it does. They either just want to sell the product whether the design is pretty, ugly or somewhere in between and complain that it doesn't matter as long as the product sells, or they want to make pretty pictures and complain that people don't get it and everybody else sucks. We just want to complain about something because we would have done it differently and better than the other person.

On Mar.15.2004 at 08:12 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> But our clients just won't accept that the logo magically appeared to us in a dream. They can relate through process.

I think this is another myth that we tend to propagate. Sure, sparks of creativity come at the strangest of moments but those sparks in reality do not come by divine intervention. Perhaps they don't come from following a tangible process of sitting down, doodling, and voila — logo. But our mind, as designers, goes through a process of distillation of information, evaluation, rationaliztion and ultimately manifests in, hopefully, a visually interesting solution. And we fail to express this, which is where our expertise really lies, I think.

It is great fun to talk and joke about how much bullshit we write in proposals to back up the logo that came to us while showering, but we should be placing much more importance on it — as that does, as much as we hate it, expose our thinking and process. Hopefully, this sheds some of the "artiste" associations that come with design.

> Assuming the designers are all at the same skill level, I disagree. The result that is the ultimate goal of designing is the reaction, not the mark. Does it sell the product or service better? If the answer is yes, then the results are all the exact same.

Not that I disagree with JonSel's original comment, but this is exactly what we need to focus on. Well put Greg. We quantify results by how things look instead by how people react to how things look. Now, don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to emphasize the importance of things looking good and well crafted, but it is there where we have to find the balance and strenght of what we do.

On Mar.15.2004 at 09:06 AM
Rebecca C.’s comment is:

Does it sell the product or service better? If the answer is yes, then the results are all the exact same.

On the flip side, what about when your client wants to change an effective design approach "'cause it isn't pretty enough"? When an ADs personal aesthetic is guiding the project? How do you sell effective when they want attractive? Have we as Designers trained the business people around us to see us only as pretty-makers and not part of the business team?

On Mar.15.2004 at 09:35 AM
JonSel’s comment is:

Lots of interesting thoughts and questions being fired off, so I'm just going to cherry-pick around and hit a few of 'em.

Assuming the designers are all at the same skill level, I disagree. The result that is the ultimate goal of designing is the reaction, not the mark. Does it sell the product or service better? If the answer is yes, then the results are all the exact same.

This is a good point, Greg. While I agree that the results should be the same, the actual designed mark is a completely subjective item. In the plumber's case, an installed sink is an installed sink. Maybe they used flexible tubing instead of PVC, but the sink installed is not subjective. Maybe I'm getting lost in analogies. The point is that five plumbers will do the same thing every time; five designers will not. So, to move beyond the subjective phase, we open up the early stages of our thought process to the client and make them aware of the development of an idea, because that is what we sell in the end. Armin mentioned this as well. I have always told clients that my fees really pay for the idea, not just the physical product they'll hold in their hands at the end.

From my point of view, you should create one solution that you stand behind completely and sell it as being the best, rather than giving a number of options.

Bradley, I know you work for an agency, but do you do this? Do you show up to crits with only one — damn perfect, of course! — idea? I love this in theory, but I'm sure interested to know if you've been successful at it in practice.

Seriously, how do you explain to someone you like the packaging of a product but hate the product itself?

You can love a package for its aesthetics, but if you want to be successful in the business of design, you need to understand why a package is successful. "Oooh pretty colors" doesn't cut it and it just perpetuates the designer-as-cranky-artist stereotype. Explaining how the logo makes it pop off shelf, how the colors differentiate it from the competition, or how the actual package form is enticing brings a sense of intelligence to your viewpoint and reminds the casual observer that there are forces at work beyond "pretty/not pretty" that only a good designer can bring to bear.

On Mar.15.2004 at 10:38 AM
Bradley’s comment is:

Bradley, I know you work for an agency, but do you do this? Do you show up to crits with only one — damn perfect, of course! — idea? I love this in theory, but I'm sure interested to know if you've been successful at it in practice.

I've got the latitude to do this more and more internally, and I choose to do it sometimes if we're that secure with what we've got. The work my writer and I do tends to get killed for really bizarre reasons, and always by account execs, but from a creative point of view its always been positive.

As far as going to clients, I've had a lot of success with it--the biggest problem is usually getting the AEs on board with it, so sadly it doesn't happen that frequently. I'm not in any sort of power-position where I can consistently make this call. And I do know you that you have to be careful with it, because while one of my favorite agencies takes the one-solution approach all the time, they've managed it so poorly and presented so abrasively that it seriously cost them a lot of clients.

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:25 AM
justin m’s comment is:

Sorry JonSel, I meant for my question to be more rhetorical than anything. I appreciate your answer though. I often do explain why I like or dislike something, whether it is the type, colors, overall layout, materials, etc.

With the new AOL package I explained that instead of the usual ugly tin that everybody is accustom to, they finally switched to something newer. Makes sense, it goes with their "new" product. Although, I do think it is an improvement, I was more suprised by the fact that it isn't the tin. I actually wanted to open the box and see what was inside. My fiance just looked at it as another piece of junk mail that shows up every couple of months. I find it interesting and she found it mostly dull.

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:44 AM
JonSel’s comment is:

See, I had this nagging thought that it might be rhetorical, but I figured I'd play along, at least to make the somewhat obvious point that there's so much more to a good design than colors and fonts.

And that AOL package is much better than their usual, but it's still not great.

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:51 AM
marian’s comment is:

Some disjointed thoughts:

I am confused by an industry where "art" is a dirty word, but "talent" is not.

I believe that our "intuition" (partly devine, partly from years of experience) is one of our most valuable ($$$) assets.

I've been thinking of myself lately as a "skillset" which I bring to the table, with the client and various others, to help achieve some end result. Those skills are definitely artistic (and organizational and rational) and they contribute to a "process." The process, however, is fluid, and varies widely from project to project.

I believe that design is a subjective process and there is more than one "right" answer -- and further that "right answer" or "effective" or "successful" are also, in some ways, subjective when it comes to measuring the end result.

I am interested that we continually turn to analogies to explain -- even to ourselves -- what it is we do. To be honest, the closest analogy I've come up with so far is "prostitution." (Please think about it before you jump all over me with your negative connotations.)

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:53 AM
Armin’s comment is:

Before you come to any conclusions please read about the difference between a designer and a hooker, too.

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:59 AM
Jason Tselentis’s comment is:

Design? Prostitution? Designers have clients; Hookers have clients. Designers work in service; Hookers work in service. Designers communicate, sell, express, stir dialog, illicit emotional response, etc.; while prostitutes may have to perform these duties, they do not worry about truth. They do not concern themselves with matters of honesty as related to the client, customer, or financier. Is the client telling the truth to their customer? Are designers telling the truth to their clients? Is the client selling something that the designer trusts (believes in)? Does the designer trust the conceived visualization? Can the designer get the client to trust the concept. For hookers, making it home at the end of the day without being brutally beaten or murdered is a chief concern--being true to oneself and/or one's client is farthest from their mind.

What are we doing? I can't answer for the we. But me? Well, I'm going to do things that interest me. I'm going to find clients with strong values and well-conceived products/messages. I'm going to be a good husband. I'm going to work with people whose company I enjoy, design for clients and products I believe in, and God willing, never ever visit a hooker. That's what I'm doing. Hold me to it.

On Mar.15.2004 at 11:30 PM
Greg’s comment is:

How do you sell effective when they want attractive?

What I think your asking for is a way to use an old idea that works instead of coming up with a new idea that works, and if that's so, than that's a very lazy approach. I've scrapped (literally) several projects in the name of the client's personal aesthetic. You take a step back at that point, go do something else, and then come back with fresh eyes, as though you've never done the project before.

Have we as Designers trained the business people around us to see us only as pretty-makers and not part of the business team?

Yes. Our ways are all so different from each other, but business people see them all the same way: strange. Different. Creatives are weird. I laughed pretty hard at what Armin said about coming up with a logo in the shower, I've done that a time or two. But business people have their ideas in board rooms in brainstorming sessions with a guy going over overhead Powerpoint presentations. We have them in the grocery store in the cereal isle with a child screaming about how they can't have their Lucky Charms. To some business people we're just "those crazy creatives," with nothing to say and just a frivolous expense. What they should see is a viable and indeed necessary business solution. What we need to figure out is how to make them see it, and embrace our marketing capabilities.

On Mar.16.2004 at 08:46 AM
marian’s comment is:

OK, Jason, Good points. I thought about it a bit myself yesterday and came to a similar conclusion (i.e. differences) in that in prostitution the client is always right, and their satisfaction is the #1 goal, whereas designers must often circumvent the clients desires to serve a higher goal.

But when I--perhaps flippantly--wrote it, I was thinking about how we sell something of ourselves which is meaningful to us, how that something is creatively manipulated to suit a given situation, how there is both art and rote skill in what we do, how for some it is torturous and heart-breaking and for others it is joyous and liberating, how we elicit emotional responses through our work, how we are both banded together and alone ...

Excellent point about the job risks though. As irresponsible as it is to compare ourselves to those who save lives, it was equally irresponsible of me to compare ourselves to those who risk theirs.

On Mar.16.2004 at 09:07 AM
Tim Lapetino’s comment is:

Maybe this has been stated before in another way, but I often (gently) tell my responsive clients "My goal is to give you not just what you *want*, but what you *need*." And I feel like I've succeeded when we can meet both of those things--getting 50% of that isn't an option for me.

I think this tactic can be helpful b/c it communicates to my clients that I *do* believe there is a "better" or "best" and I don't want to be completely at the mercy or whim of their personal likes/dislikes. I recently told a client (whose identity I've redesigned, who has spent thousands on the relaunch and new campaigns) that their "like" of the logo was *sort of* important, but it had to fall below the needs of their target audience, competitive branding needs, and how much it communicated the *soul* of their company.

They really liked "letting themselves" be hard-core in realizing this, and sticking to it.

But they liked the new identity anyways. :)

On Mar.16.2004 at 10:35 AM
Jeff G’s comment is:

the ultimate goal of designing is the reaction, not the mark. Does it sell the product or service better? If the answer is yes, then the results are all the exact same.

Greg, that was the most enlightening point I've read all week. As JonSel said, we're selling the ideas that get the required result.

Our ways are all so different from each other, but business people see them all the same way: strange. Different. Creatives are weird. I laughed pretty hard at what Armin said about coming up with a logo in the shower, I've done that a time or two. But business people have their ideas in board rooms in brainstorming sessions with a guy going over overhead Powerpoint presentations. We have them in the grocery store in the cereal isle with a child screaming about how they can't have their Lucky Charms.

But that was perhaps the silliest sweeping generalisation that I have read in the last six months. And you only ust saved your neck with the "some" in the next sentence.

A useful step in helping them see that we are necessary would be to realise that they are as individual as we are and not just a bunch of cubicle rats whose brains can only function when they get hopped up on Powerpoint in the boardroom. Or something.

On Mar.16.2004 at 10:37 AM
Javier’s comment is:

At Korn, we've also found it difficult to describe what we do as our services have expanded into more consultative projects, when work with restaurants and hotels we develop an overall philosophy for the project, and often specify things like dishes, uniforms, coasters, fabrics, you name it. I guess you'd call what we do "Strategic brand positioning and development" although I hate how that sounds.

We did an internal brainstorming session to see what we could call ourselves - some of the names we came up with:

Design Engineer

Creative Director

Design Guru

Design Strategist

JonSel, thanks for the link to Beyond Graphic. I like the idea of Communication Designer.

On Mar.16.2004 at 11:40 AM
Armin’s comment is:

Oh, please not Design Guruplease.

On Mar.16.2004 at 11:44 AM
Zoelle’s comment is:

I had always thought that it was country-wide trend with most art colleges to change the term graphic design to communication design. The school I attended, Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design, changed the name of the graphic design major to communication design. I believe that took place in 1998. Was this an isolated incident?

On Mar.16.2004 at 12:02 PM
Greg’s comment is:

But that was perhaps the silliest sweeping generalisation that I have read in the last six months. And you only (j)ust saved your neck with the "some" in the next sentence.

True. I apologize. I meant that there are business types, especially those I run into in the Conservative Midwest, who believe that identity is a luxury. I was generalizing the business person in the same way they generalize us to illustrate my point, but should have been more clear about who I was generalizing.

To be fair, I hadn't had my coffee yet.

On Mar.16.2004 at 12:13 PM
Linda Cooper Bowen’s comment is:

It's interesting to "overhear" this dialogue about design and designing. I wish I could say that any of this sounds new, but designers have been hashing over the same dilemma for years. It all seems to be rooted in a very narrow education that produces "artists" at war with "business". Soon these same young creatives are fighting the client or struggling to land them. Yes, we hear about the collaboration between client and designer, but few designers seriously believe it!

Design is not a fine art. It is rather, as Deborah Sussman once said, "A Gross Art." Get over that precious attutude. Be part of the bigger picture, be inclusive, not exclusive... lighten up.

Visit lindabiz.com

On Mar.17.2004 at 12:38 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Linda, while this may not sound new, it is still funny to see very few actually embracing it.

On Mar.17.2004 at 01:23 PM
Greg’s comment is:

Design is not a fine art.

Why not? That's a fairly large statement with no basis except to quote someone who also said that. I'm by no means criticizing here, I just want to know. It sounds like you're pretty close to the marketing aspect, by looking at your site. Try not to exclude the art.

Maybe I'm naive, but it always seems like there are two types, artists and marketers, like you can only inhabit so much of the spectrum that ranges from business to art. What I want to know is why we can't inhabit the entire spectrum!

On Mar.17.2004 at 02:27 PM
Jeff G’s comment is:

In agreement with Greg's clarification of generalisation:

We designers tend to have an ability to see & appreciate detail, uniqueness & indiviuality. That is a skill that complements and is very necessary to those generalisers in suits.

It's a matter of repostitioning ourselves & marketing our real skills & services more effectively. Which makes me wonder: do those of us with money hire marketing & PR firms to help us do that? It seems like a sensible thing to do, just as sensible, in fact as a business hiring a design firm to create an identity.

On Mar.18.2004 at 05:22 AM
justin m’s comment is:

It all seems to be rooted in a very narrow education that produces "artists" at war with "business".

Still being in school, I see this as a very valid and discouraging idea from my point of view. Aside from the business classes I have taken in the past while pursuing other degrees, I have taken zero business related classes. Perhaps the closest I have come is "Intro to Marketing Communications." The absolute worst class I have ever taken. It did however reinforce my disdain for advertising and make me focus on other areas within design.

At my school when I discuss with instructors that our course work is lacking in a lot of places they agree and continue teaching what they are teaching without further thought or I get, "We're trying to change that." That however is for another thread.

Design is not a fine art.

I may be wrong, but I don't see design as a fine art either, at least not the way the average person sees fine art. It just all depends on your definition of fine art. I see graphic design as fine art in the way I see finish cabinetry as fine art.

Anybody can make a dish cabinet or shelf in theory. Take some wood, cut it to the size you need it, nail it all together, slap some paint on it and call it good. My grandfather would laugh at that description of what he does. To build a beautiful cabinet you need to have knowledge of the woods, stains, paints, joining techniques, where it is going, what it will be used for, and who's going to use it. My grandfather builds things I could only dream of building. I equate what he does to what we do with selecting papers, colors, type, images, etc. It is something that is learned and takes time to develop.

We designers tend to have an ability to see & appreciate detail, uniqueness & indiviuality.

To me, that coupled with our ability to create the same, is where the "fine art" of our profession is. The average person can slap words and pictures on a page, push them around and make something pleasing to the eye eventually. Our fine art should be in that we can do that and explain why we have done it.

It's a matter of repostitioning ourselves & marketing our real skills & services more effectively.

This goes back to earlier in the discussion but how do we do this when we can't even decide on what we're doing or more appropriately for this, What do we do? Possible things to tell clients: I make your words look good., I have creative ideas for you, I solve visual problems, and my personal favorite, I think so you don't have to.

Although these are all true statements, is that what we honestly want to tell people? Last spring when looking for a job and reading job sites constantly I came across an interesting idea, when somebody new asks what you do or an aquaintance asks how your day is going reply with something like "Well, I'm currently [creating a book cover of ... for ... / working on a layout for ... a hip new company / designing t-shirts for ... my new company which produces ... for you if you let me." Don't just leave it at, "I'm a graphic designer," or, "I'm doing well today."

Yesterday I made business cards for myself. Today I'm writing this and getting ready to go to a monotype class. We do so much. Is there really any way we could fit it all under a single title? In one sentence? One paragraph?

Sorry for such a long post, I've just been getting asked what I want to do when I finish school and to the dismay of numerous people, I do not have a concrete answer that includes a fancy title.

On Mar.18.2004 at 08:49 AM
Linda Cooper Bowen’s comment is:

Don't misunderstand my perspective... if you checked my site you learned that I started as a graphic designer and worked for a dozen years before moving into new business development. I was a good designer and I still have a discerning eye. To my surprise, I found that marketing is also really creative. The truth is, just between us, not all design work is creative, sometimes you just have to pay bills, and staff etc. What bother me is the attitude that clients are stupid and have to be led to agree with what the designer wants to do. I have met stupid clients, but I have also worked with very smart business people who have taught me a lot . I respect them. I think they appreciated my function as a liason between the "creatives" and the "corporates".

Regarding how many designers hire a marketing pro for help... sadly, not as many as there should be. It's that attitude thing again. "People should hire me," they say, "Because I am good and I win design competitions etc." Actually once you have been hired to do the job, your talent is assumed and now you have to sell your ideas and your credibility. You have to market yourself to get the job and continue to sell to keep the client. A marketing pro can analyze how to help you do this better. This is the best investment in your practice that you can make.

On Apr.02.2004 at 12:36 PM