Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Is that a Graphic Designer with your Client, or are you just Happy to See me?
By Armin Vit
This essay was published, in part, in inForm (Spring 2004), AIGA Chicago’s Journal of Design

If you ask me, there are far too many people without the proper qualifications claiming to be graphic designers. What tickles me isn’t necessarily the fact that they are out there “doing it,” as it probably makes them happy, allows them to pay rent and satisfies their creative cravings, I am more troubled and concerned that it is rarely (or objectively) addressed. I feel it is a clear repercussion of the inability of graphic designers (myself included) to clearly, consistently and vehemently establish, define and diffuse what we do and how we should do it. As a quick example: I have no clearly defined, tangible description that I can confidently use as reference to write under “what we do” nor a clever portrayal to better explain “how we should do it.” It’s a funny thing being a graphic designer, a large majority of people (read non-graphic designers) whom we occasionally do business with, have absolutely no idea what we do. It does sound terribly cliché, and in retrospect doesn’t seem a funny thing. I guess this mystique at some point was attractive to graphic designers and served as an excellent excuse to avoid explaining ourselves to anybody. But now it just seems, well, sad. And confusing. Every time I visit family and friends in Mexico I experience this bewilderment: When going through customs on the way back, I have to state to the immigration officer (a person responsible for inquiring thousands of people, daily, about their profession) that I am in the US to work as a graphic designer. Not once have I gotten a remark, more than one time I have been asked “What’s that?” and I always get a doubtful look, like they are thinking “Graphic designer… right. Next!”

You may sense that I am somewhat bitter, fairly mad and to some extent resentful. Not really. I would say I am eagerly curious, constantly enthralled and rarely complacent with and about the people who operate under the umbrella of graphic design. When I first started my – excuse the sentimentalism – journey in this profession I never thought there would be such confusion and I believed everybody strived for the same goal: making stuff look cool. I was naïve, young and, come think of it, feebly educated about the importance of graphic design as a cultural, political and socially relevant discipline. Professionally, I craved leaving Mexico City, where the indifference towards graphic designers overshadows its visual and cultural richness and suppresses the potential to develop a successful practice. In due time I headed to the US with the intention of developing my career in, what I then thought to be, a well-established profession and community. What I came to find was (is) not exactly the creative and professional utopia that was many a time rendered by design publications (books as well as magazines) – the only viewpoint I had from where I was standing.

You could argue then, quite acceptably, that I am an outsider. That I haven’t been here long enough to experience, notice and share the, hard at times exuberant at others, evolution of the profession from its humble beginnings as commercial art through its outbreak during the internet boom in the late ’90s. I take no offense in that, but it would just be another excuse to not listen to criticism – an activity we seldom subject ourselves to. Plus, I was already here during that “boom” which in my opinion presented to the public, in that one window of opportunity where they were paying attention, some of the worst creative work the profession has produced. But I digress. What I have noticed is a crowded and fragmented profession, constantly (for good and bad) experiencing growing pains driven mostly by individuals not by a common goal or shared scope of practice.

Of course this is not necessarily as bad as I make it sound as it is a profession that, by fostering individualism and entrepreneurship, has produced some of the smartest, most intriguing icons (both human and visual, i.e. Milton Glaser and I[heart]NY) of our lifetimes. My constant worry is that this fragmentation has given way to a slew of practitioners, under the guise of creativity, that lack the understanding or knowledge of the very basics of graphic design: From the formal and technical, like the craft of typography and theory of color; to the intangible, like the ability to conceptualize abstract ideas; to the non-teachable, like talent. I am not talking about the creation of cheaply printed menus with tacky clip art of shrimp and chicken at neighborhood restaurants, I am referring to sound businesses being serviced by unqualified individuals who indiscriminately develop inadequately researched, poorly executed and ineffectively implemented logos, packaging, brochures, web sites or annual reports.

I am not implying that people be banned from graphic design, but the standards of what a graphic designer is should be more clearly defined and less loosely interpreted – if only for the benefit of businesses looking to work with professional graphic designers. I understand, and actually embrace, that people in our field come with distinct backgrounds, assorted skills and differing intentions. In its positive outcome this cultivates a myriad of personalities creating exciting work; yet in its negative effect it presents to potential clients a profession that lacks coherence. It is these differing extremes that I struggle with; on the one hand, I want the profession to be as versatile and wide-ranging as possible, but on the other, I am worried that by not clarifying (at least) what a graphic designer is, we will never be taken as seriously (a battle cry of the profession) or as powerfully1 as we all crave.

Ideally a graphic designer is trained, educated and introduced to the profession through a design program, be it in a major college or a specialized institution (do not read loony bin). Education alone does not guarantee success as it can’t provide talent, vision or the innate ability to make things work visually and as a viable solution – something you are either born with or learn to develop over time. There are certain skills, verging on the intangible, which a designer must develop throughout his career, like the ability to produce a “concept.” Designers can choose to make things pretty or make things pretty with a reason; the latter more valuable in the business of communication. The ability to filter a client’s need through a process of investigation, development and implementation is essential. Typographic skills are necessary simply because we work with words – good from bad graphic designers can be told apart by this skill alone. Graphic design is about communicating, hence a designer needs flawless communication skills to be able to sell, explain and strengthen ideas. Today, software knowledge is required because the computer (whether we like it or not) is the only way to get things produced, although it’s proven that in the wrong hands it can produce awful results.

The grand question then: Must a designer be subjected to a list of bullet points to be considered one? Therein lies the problem as well as the beauty of diversity many (as well as I) argue for because the answer is no. Some of the greatest designers never had a design education, yet they have a better grasp of design principles than their schooled peers; older generations don’t know how to open files in any software application, but can create marvelous concepts and executions with a Rapidograph; recent graduates and young designers handle over a dozen suites of applications, however, they don’t know who Herb Lubalin is. Obviously, there are those lucky enough to have the full package of an education, software knowledge, design basics, communication skills and heaps of talent, while simultaneously there are those who hold none of the above and still operate under the title of graphic designer. Unfair, yet common.

With running the risk of rendering my concerns futile, not to mention contradicting, here are five cases disparately showing what makes a graphic designer.

Tradition, experience and understanding.
Michael Bierut is a partner at Pentagram in New York where he manages a team of eight designers. Having graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a Bachelor of Science in Design in 1980 – his experience in the design industry accounts for a quarter of a century. He is responsible for the office’s business development as well as playing the role of designer and design director (“whatever that means” he jokes) for his client’s projects. Michael readily admits that he knows how to use “Microsoft Word and absolutely nothing else” when it comes to design software, however, he still keeps a notebook that is “filled with sketches for logos, posters, sign installations and page layouts.” Michael is the perfect example of a designer who started in the profession before the advent of the desktop publishing revolution in the mid 80s and hasn’t been phased out for lack of technical knowledge. Rather, he has established himself as a prominent designer by using strong concepts and flawless execution, backed by a long-standing tradition of design principles. Michael sums it up best: “I still do the same things that I wanted to do when I started studying graphic design 28 years ago.”

How about them apples?
Labeling James [Joseph Dude Lee] Victore is like trying to keep a racehorse inside a broom closet. James took the industry by storm with his wit, strong social commentary, acerbic sense of humor and raw style. Surprisingly, Victore has no formal design education; the last time he was in a classroom was in high school – thirteen years ago. He has no knowledge of design software except, as he amusingly puts it, he does know “a bit of Querk.2 Victore also claims to: “scan really good.” He assumes all tasks involving his projects and mostly works alone but seems happy that “there are always talented young designers hanging around my studio.” Young designers who tackle the production chores because Victore proclaims to “suck at it.” With no design education, no software skills and no production abilities what could possibly make Victore a graphic designer? He simply responds: “Because I say so. Really. Also because I have a way of thinking or apply a way of seeing things that is different from others views. I can find the truth buried within a project or a memo or brief, and draw it out with sex appeal or humor or poetry to make it memorable and strong. How about them apples?”

Why specialize?
Typefaces, signage, identities, motion, print, web – you think it, Patric King has done it. A graduate of the University of Tennessee (BFA in Design) he has been taking stabs at anything that crosses his path for the past ten years. Better known for his work done at Thirst and Thirstype, he has managed to develop a language all his own through a bevy of projects that span almost all areas of design. He currently operates as a freelance design strategist and visual designer; involved in all facets of a project from writing to development to implementation. He describes himself as “more of a writer, even though my final product is generally visual in nature. I always begin by writing.” Besides great writing abilities, Patric can claim knowledge of almost any application available to designers, just to name a few: Adobe’s Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat and After Effects; Macromedia’s Freehand, Flash and Dreamweaver; as well as QuarkXPress, FontLab, BBEdit, Cinema 4D, Carrara and many, many more. Patric’s love for design doesn’t stop there, “I design all the time. Quite literally. You should see me geeking out with my powerbook or a bevnap (beverage napkin) in a nightclub. This happens nearly every night. It’s really pathetic.”

Big brands, big budgets, big responsibilities.
It is not everyday that a designer has the opportunity to create the identity for one of the leading fast food chains in America – James Grant did just that. As Design Director for Sterling Group, a leading branding consultancy, James’ responsibility is to “create and direct exceptional creative solutions to our clients marketing or business initiatives” as he proudly states. He has exercised that responsibility for clients like Burger King, Star Wars, Right Guard (in the United Kingdom) and Pepsi. James, who is proficient in many of the industry’s software of choice, has been in the industry for twelve years, where he has worked for big multi-national corporations operating under big budgets and expecting big returns on their investment – fast. It all requires big responsibilities. He has amassed “an exceptionally strong portfolio of work, the highest communication and presentation skills, a thorough understanding of print media,” says James and by having “the ability to work in a fast paced, fast changing non-traditional environment.”

Affordable design in a jiffy.
A new trend is emerging on the Internet: Logos done cheap and fast – no strings attached. How cheap? As low as $245. How fast? Order today and see “first revisions” in three days. It doesn’t sound glamorous; nevertheless Logoworks (one of the companies offering this service) employs a broad pool of graphic designers such as Sam Sherwood, who has created more than a hundred logos for the company in over a year. Logoworks is a side venture for Sam, he spends most of his time as Internet Director of a women’s clothing catalog. A Logoworks project starts with a brief, “the company’s name, tag line, what the company entails, color preferences, among other tidbits of information.” After the brief is received, Sam describes the process: “ideally, one would start with paper sketches, but the time frame involved allows for a day of random thoughts at the most. Though limited in time and resources, I never employ the shame of clipart, nor do I delve into design clichés (swooshes and the like).” Sam’s designs, along with more logo ideas by fellow Logoworkers, are submitted to the client for selection of the “winner” concept, which is then finalized. Although not ideal, this process fits a niche of businesses and graphic designers alike. Sam does take it in stride: “since I’m so young, I honestly have trouble believing that I can be considered a graphic designer – especially without any true classic training. I have always been proud of my work, but when compared to the heavy hitters of design, this field can be quite humbling.”

This probably just adds to the confusion. Is Michael Bierut more a graphic designer than James Victore because he has been schooled in the design profession for over 25 years? Is James Grant a stronger example of what a graphic designer is since he works for bigger companies with bigger budgets than Sam Sherwood’s clients looking for a quick solution? Does Patric King’s versatility make him a better graphic designer than the rest? These questions can all be answered with a resounding No, as well as a definitive Yes. Which is why it’s so hard to define what makes a graphic designer and even harder to define the profession because of the individual, unique and assorted expertise of its practitioners. Yet, there are a few basic attributes – and probably the hardest to achieve – that should be expected from graphic designers: a strong business understanding, excellent typographic skills, effortless communication abilities and most importantly the capacity to make intangible ideas a tangible reality through a scrutinous process. If you ask me, it is time to take a stronger stance, parallel to the decades-old tradition of defining what graphic design is, about what makes a graphic designer. Not by limiting the definition (or the profession) nor by the urge to please ourselves (or offend our peers) but by making it undoubtedly clear to potential clients what they should be looking for when working with a graphic designer because in the end, as a service-based profession, we are here to serve them – not us. But I guess you weren’t asking me, were you?

Notes
1. Full allusion to AIGA’s Power of Design conference
2. Italicized by the author, misspelling left purposely uncorrected






Armin Vit is a graphic designer, observer and aspiring critic. Unafraid of public scrutiny, he has written for AIGA’s VOICE Journal, Emigre, Eye, HOW and STEP magazines among others. His work has been published in numerous publications around the world and has been awarded many times with much fanfare. He is founder of UnderConsideration and the (in)famous Speak Up. Feisty behind the keyboard, Armin remains timid at heart.
Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 1982 FILED UNDER Essays
PUBLISHED ON Jun.11.2004 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Jonathan Baldwin’s comment is:

It is frustrating when you see poorly executed design, or are undercut for a job by a "non-designer" with a cheap computer and a shareware DTP program, or undervalued in a norganisation because you are perceived as a Mac operator or a technician, that it is the computer that does the work.

But we shouldn't feel too affronted. Design is like a lot of other professions in that most people misunderstand it and think they can do better, and sometimes will try to.

Let me ask you this: how many of us have attempted some sort of minor building work ourselves? Like tiling a bathroom, for example, or laying some flooring. Doing some electrical work, maybe, or tackling a major bit of gardening? Fixing a leaking washing machine or installing a new shower?

I mean, how difficult can it be to do a bit of plumbing/gardening/building/flooring?

Most, if not all of us have tried our hand at things that really are jobs for the "experts", and if you've ever had the "pleasure" of the company of one of these experts in your home tutting about the shoddy amateurism of your work (while you simply blame the tenant or owner before you) you will know that they don't like it when people do it themselves.

But whereas we might say that's because they don't like the competition, and pride ourselves on saving a lot of money, when it comes to our own professional tutting at non-designers muscling in on our territory we get all defensive about our arty little profession.

All professions have cowboys, and all suffer from DIY-ers. I think part of the problem is that we tend to dress graphic design up in an air of mystery and obscure terminology, fail to communicate with our clients in plain English, and assume a posture of artistic integrity which really doesn't fit with 99% of what we do: designing menus for pizza restaurants, 20% off stickers for supermarket chains and tourist leaflets for villages with the good fortune to be sited near an ancient ruin. No wonder people get fed up with us and think they can do it themselves, or get in the cheapest designer they can find.

We also have to remember that "good" design is not, as Armin puts it, "making things look cool", but facilitating communication. The cool bit comes after, and even then it's not necessary except as a point of differentiation. A tonne of fast food flyers come through my letterbox every year. Most look awful from my point of view, but they work. It wouldn't matter if a menu had been put together by the spotty teenage son of a friend of the owner, or by Milton Glaiser. The only people who bemoan the fact that the spotty teenager is somehow innocently claiming the sort of sainthood we bestow on Milton are "Designers" with a capital D.

99% of designers aren't famous, never will be. They get on with the job.

Design, in communication theory terms, is "redundant" - it aids communication but it isn't necessary to it. And the mark of redundancy in communication is familiarity. In other words, the moment someone starts talking about the "wowee" design of a menu rather than the choice of pizza toppings, the designer has failed.

No, I don't like bad design either (which is what Armin is talking about). But more than that I don't like the tendency some designers have to talk about what we do like it matters more than the thing it serves. Far more urgent than protecting our profession from amateurs is the need to protect it from ourselves.

On Jun.12.2004 at 03:45 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> Let me ask you this: how many of us have attempted some sort of minor building work ourselves? Like tiling a bathroom, for example, or laying some flooring. Doing some electrical work, maybe, or tackling a major bit of gardening?

True Jonathan, but you don't go around doing it for other people, charging them under the guise of a professional plumber/gardener/builder/um, floorer(?).

> We also have to remember that "good" design is not, as Armin puts it, "making things look cool", but facilitating communication.

In the context that I said that, it was reflecting on what I originally thought design was right after I came out of college, not now. Just to be clear.

> No, I don't like bad design either (which is what Armin is talking about).

Not exactly — I talk about bad design as an effect of many of the things I mentioned. Bad design happens, and that's OK, bad stuff happens in every profession, but why so prevalent in graphic design? Or perhaps it's not bad design and this is as good as it gets? Either way, it's not good.

On Jun.12.2004 at 10:09 AM
Armin’s comment is:

I shoud also add, as a sidenote, that the theme of this issue of inForm was Inclusion/Exclusion. Hence the exclusionary tone of the essay.

On Jun.12.2004 at 10:13 AM
Jonathan Baldwin’s comment is:

> but you don't go around doing it for other people, charging them under the guise of a professional plumber/gardener/builder/um, floorer(?).

I don't, no. Maybe I should ;-)

I think my point was that we are all guilty of underestimating the skill required of a job, and that design - like those examples - is seen as fair game as something to attempt yourself, or simply seek the cheapest and the quickest quote rather than the "best". It's very much a commodity - not saying that's a good thing or defending it, but it's a fact.

>In the context that I said that, it was reflecting on what I originally thought design was right after I came out of college, not now. Just to be clear.

No, I pefectly understand your context of what you originally thought design was. My badly made point was that this is still how people see it, and how it is sold at college.

Apologies. There is no edit button on this forum otherwise I would have clarified it at the time, and am happy to do so now. I dupicated my post over at my blog and will clarify the point there too shortly.

>Or perhaps it's not bad design and this is as good as it gets?

Well that's the point I tried to raise - what is bad design? You and I might wince at lousy kerning or some such, but does it really matter? I was in a museum today with some rather tastefully designed signage, but neither my friend nor I could find our way around. I would call that bad design. I'd have settled for a felt tip arrow on a piece of cardboard at one point!

Are we talking aesthetics here? Decoration rather than design? (I'm being deliberately provocative here, you understand!) You see, while you originally thought design was making things look cool, and suggest now that you see beyond that, we need to differntiate between good design (i.e. it works) and good design (i.e. it looks cool). I actually think a lot of the bad design we see around us is stuff that looks cool, is technically great, but at the end of the day doesn't work. You seem to be suggesting that bad design is design that pays no heed to "redundant" (n the technical sense) aspects like, as I say, kerning and other stuff.

That's not to dismiss those elements - far from it. But my job as a teacher, I would argue, is to ensure firstly that design students understand how design works, then to understand how to make it look nice. You have to bake the cake before you can decorate it, and while I don't mind eating undecorated cakes, I soon feel sick if I gorge myself on icing and marzipan. ;-)

On Jun.12.2004 at 11:50 AM
graham’s comment is:

jonathan: 'I actually think a lot of the bad design we see around us is stuff that looks cool, is technically great, but at the end of the day doesn't work.'

a flyer? a t-shirt? a plastic bag? a poster for a one-off gig? a magazine? a c.d. cover? a film title sequence? a book? visuals for a club? a shop sign? a signage system? a logo for an international company? a way of thinking about colour usage that transforms a part of everyday life? a label whose information can save lives? a vote card that could change world events? the thinking, making, producing and distribution of a new product?

jonathan: 'But my job as a teacher, I would argue, is to ensure firstly that design students understand how design works.'

i'd be interested to hear more to do with how you go about this, if you've time.

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:22 PM
Jonathan Baldwin’s comment is:

>a flyer? a t-shirt? a plastic bag? a poster for a one-off gig? a magazine? a c.d. cover? a film title sequence? a book? visuals for a club? a shop sign? a signage system? a logo for an international company? a way of thinking about colour usage that transforms a part of everyday life? a label whose information can save lives? a vote card that could change world events? the thinking, making, producing and distribution of a new product?

All of the above! Each serves a purpose, but if I had time I imagine I could find examples of cool-looking flyers, magazines etc etc that just don't work in terms of serving that purpose.

I have nothing against looking cool, but my personal opinion (and it is just that) is that affect is more important than effect, but it is the latter that tends to be discussed and taught.

>i'd be interested to hear more to do with how you go about this, if you've time

Always. If you're coming to the Brighton show next week, email me and I'll buy you a beer (I have a spare ticket for Saturday's private view). Alternatively, you can read me talking to myself over on my blog. When this year's grades are confirmed I'm intending to write a bit more on how I go about it, hopefully in preparation for a conference paper next year.

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:41 PM
tuan’s comment is:

art directing - making things look like something.

intuitive, subjective. i think of david carson of raygun.

versus

design - making something intrinsically work.

objective, user-centered. i think of erik spiekermann of meta.

there is a difference between a display face versus a body face.

guess which designer designs what.

in one area you can work alone.

in the other area you work on a team.

in one area the problems are small.

in the other area the problems are big.

carson won't be working with the berlin transport authority anytime soon.

spiekermann (and team) can work on raygun, it might look dry.

if you don't get educated from school, you'll have to get educated on the job.

if you work on the job alone, you will be working on small projects.

designers who are doing powerful things aren't worrying about self taught designers. those who are insecure about their occupation have built their ideological foundations on shaky grounds. they should realize their place in the order of things.

design vs style

design vs art direction

graham, mentions an interesting point about "a flyer? a t-shirt? a plastic bag? a poster for a one-off gig?..." it's interesting to think about the scale of those things and how much a designer should charge for designing those things. you can blow up the designing of t-shirt into a whole branding, strategizing, planning thing or it could be just that, a t-shirt. depending where the client envisions the scale of the t-shirt project, the financial/social value will be assigned accordingly.

On Jun.12.2004 at 01:01 PM
graham’s comment is:

it was a bit obvious but the notion of design 'working'-in terms of affect as you say-is not fixed. it would be only a little extreme to say that every task is different, and that for some things the aesthetic is the 'affect'. the trick is to take on the responsibility of understanding the nature of each project and approaching it accordingly-which may seem pretty obvious but it can be surprising how often the responsibility bit is forgotten or just missing.

i won't be at the show-i don't live in the u.k.-but one day a beer would be lovely. i read your site most days and i like what you say. looking forward to more writing-hope the show goes well.

On Jun.12.2004 at 01:34 PM
Jonathan’s comment is:

I agree - sometimes the style is the effect, which is why I'm cautious of sounding like I am anti-style!

I'm a Yorkshireman - the offer of buying a drink is so rare it must be worth a plane ticket!

Thanks for the compliment - I will try to write more about my teaching philosophy over the summer...

On Jun.12.2004 at 02:45 PM
Armin’s comment is:

> You have to bake the cake before you can decorate it, and while I don't mind eating undecorated cakes, I soon feel sick if I gorge myself on icing and marzipan.

Very right.

I think we are both making the same argument in the different ways. Which is good, of course.

> I'm being deliberately provocative here, you understand!

That's why we are all here!

> I agree - sometimes the style is the effect, which is why I'm cautious of sounding like I am anti-style!

I think we have managed to paint ourselves into a corner with the style/substance debate. Because much of what we do relies on good style (whatever that may be) and refined aesthetics (whatever those may be) it has become counterproductive to shun style as an "affective" solution. Many times you have designers feeling "guilty" (myself included) for indulging in some high-end marzipan instead of baking the cake. It seems like anything that is not backed up by some high-tootin' concept or idea is dismissed. A lot of it should, but not all.

On Jun.13.2004 at 10:54 AM
Matt’s comment is:

Its simply all about perception that distinguishes any of us amongst ourselves. Sure there are plenty of hacks and so-called potboilers out there that "give our profession a bad name". But do they really? Just like any profession, ours is filled with the good, the bad, and the ugly. Do you really think a client with a wide understanding of design or appreciation for it is going to hire one of the uglies? It really just comes down to a shared perception of what well designed information, messages, artificats, etc. can accomplish.

It sure can be frustrating sometimes when you have such a broad understanding of something like design; something that is so widespread, either in its recognizable or transparent forms. I for one have become hyper-aware of any and all things that could touch the hands of a designer, even if its just for a simple aesthetic touch.

I also see that graphic design is still considered a trade-like profession. This can be seen in the education that I recieved at R.I.T. The program consisted strictly of studio work with a lectured history class squeezed in there, not to mention some liberal arts as well. However, not an ounce of critical thinking is injected into the cirriculum aside from the occassional side conversations you might have with a professor. Even this only happens because you are a little more self motivated than the students struggling over what typeface to use all day.

But its not just the education of designers thats at fault either. Its the education of business owners. I hardly know anything about business education but is there a cirriculum that has anything about the value of hiring intelligent and informed designers? Beats me! But I would think, although I am not entirely sure, that an overwhelming amount of business owners are hardly ever enlightened given their differences in education or lack there of.

On Jun.13.2004 at 02:15 PM
Arikawa’s comment is:

To further muddy the mix...

My wife, a professional in the fashion industry, who -- by her own definition -- is qualified as both fashion designer and textile designer is classified by her company as a 'graphic designer.'

I remember the term being loosely flown-about while job-searching a year or so ago.

Equally distressing to me as the exclusionary classification of the 'have-nots' is the inclusion of others under the title 'graphic designer' who do not wish/do not belong so.

(Aside: Our own experiences at customs have produced similar results: Graphic Designer... Huh? Textile Designer... Wha?)

While the graphic design 'community' seems to have a sense of its identity -- and as any community, tries to serve up rules for inclusion in said -- the vast majority of folks (often those doling out titles) have no idea who/what we are. Perhaps some sort of advocacy/public service announcements are in order. But the real question is (and has been discussed numerous times on SU), "real" or "fake", who cares?

The cream rises to the top (mixed metaphors? I can't remember)

On Jun.14.2004 at 08:29 AM
tim’s comment is:

Some perhaps tangental thoughts:

I have been fortunate to have people understand to a certain extent what I mean when I say "i'm a graphic designer"... or at least seem to. On the flip side, I've seen ads in the classified titled "Graphic Designer" only to describe positions best classified as pre-press jobs.

I have opportunity as an in-house graphic designer to touch posters, flyers, etc. that would normally be churned out by a poor admin assistant in Word or (choke) Publisher. The results are better - that's my job - and the associates I produce this work for are aware of the value I bring.

Recently I've been trying to avoid the icing and focussing on the cake. I think that's been some of my best work so far.

On Jun.14.2004 at 03:56 PM
Omar (a non-designer)’s comment is:

How quick graphic designers are to romanticize the role and purpose of their trade! Rightfully so, I say, but quick nonetheless.

What amazes me more, though, is how quickly a graphic designer will lower the standard of his or her trade in order to deem something as bad design. Aha! Even quicker.

Now it seems to me that if you are going to uphold design to a standard which touts an inner logic, you must not recognize those who do not adhere to those principles as practitioners of the same profession - for they are not.

I encourage you consider the existence of two modes of graphic design. That which attempts to reconcile the theory of graphic design with the practice of it, and that which has no knowledge of the theory.

The confusion, as I see it, lies in the fact that capitalism has (as it is magically able to do with everything else) co-opted current aesthetic design trends into its collection of salable items. And as a result designers, who are professionally engaged in "making things look cool," have found themselves in high demand, allowing for designers to execute without said inner logic.

But therein lies the complexity of our problem, for the mode of design which most closely reflects the state of contemporary culture is that which has no knowledge of graphic design theory. But to correctly operate with this in mind, one cannot be void of all design theory. Alas, this binary approach does not lead us to a logical solution. But it does point us to the correct answer.

You see even if you go house to house laying some flooring, you are not a professional...um, floorer - which is why your wood panels never line up perfectly. A graphic designer can never successfully fulfill his job without some knowledge of what graphic design is. Its not about laying the wood flooring down. Its about laying it down straight (you get the idea).

Which is why I'm confused as to why you insist on recognizing some amateurs with computers as graphic designers. They're not. They've just come to understand a technology at an opportune time, and as a result industry has borrowed the title of graphic designer out of necessity.

All in all, if you're going to extend graphic design to that which facilitates communication (without redundancy) then make sure that what you're criticizing as graphic design is doing just that. But you must retain an abstract notion of communication for this to work. Read:

>I am not talking about the creation of cheaply printed menus with tacky clip art of shrimp and chicken at neighborhood restaurants, I am referring to sound businesses being serviced by unqualified individuals who indiscriminately develop inadequately researched, poorly executed and ineffectively implemented logos, packaging, brochures, web sites or annual reports.

Don't define graphic design (and ultimately communication) as logos, packaging, brochures and annual reports. I see a double standard between your definition of graphic design and your definition of graphic designer. Fortunatly, the former retains the higer standard.

The question is not how to define who is and who is not a designer. A designer is someone who designs correctly. Simple. The question is how to rise above these unqualified individuals and put them out of business. A graphic design crusade, if you will.

Educate the public perhaps? Just a thought. Cheers.

On Jun.14.2004 at 08:35 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

Brilliant, Omar. I'd change the last line to "educate yourselves", though. The reason why these hacks are competition is because many "professionals" don't have much more to offer.

On Jun.14.2004 at 09:16 PM
Michael Bouchard’s comment is:

Speaking of cake, I think that the icing is at least partly to blame for the prevalence of so-called graphic designers today — the icing, and the software people use to make the icing. That, and the fact that most people really don't know what graphic design is. There seems to be a certain amount of glamour, or coolness, associated with graphic design; all you need is this fancy piece of software, yeah, you can get it on Limewire, and you can make all those cool graphics you see in that magazine, or on MTV. It's easy.

I for one had absolutely no idea what graphic design was when I decided to pursue a career in the field. I knew that computer graphics were cool, that I was good with the computer, and that I had a knack for drawing. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

With a little luck, I managed to land a job as a "graphic designer". It took me about 2 hours to realize I had no idea what I was doing and that my education was really a lot worse than I had thought. Luckily, there were some people along the way who thought I had talent who inspired me to stick with it. Today, I cringe at the knowledge that some of the things I’ve designed are still in use.

It took me years, my entire career, to come to the understanding of design that I have today. And I expect I'll never know enough or be good enough to satisfy my desire to design. I love/hate design. It drives me crazy at times. Sometimes it makes me sing. It was hard work getting to where I am today. I imagine it will continue to be hard work, but the rewards are great. I know that most of us don't become "graphic designers" upon graduation, or even within the infancy of our career. We learn from our experience and grow, therefore, we must all be guilty of bad design at one time or another.

On Jun.14.2004 at 10:14 PM
Matt’s comment is:

I agree Omar. I just wish I could have said it better in my earlier post. I need to start writing more.

On Jun.14.2004 at 11:37 PM
Omar’s comment is:

Tom wrote: I'd change the last line to "educate yourselves", though. The reason why these hacks are competition is because many "professionals" don't have much more to offer.

Sure, I agree to some extent that there are a lot of professionals who have come out of reputable design programs but remain grossly unqualified and untalented.

BUT...the problem I think Armin and others like him face is that those seeking the services of a graphic designer don't know what to look for or what quality of work to expect. There's SO MUCH crap out there that potential clients are conditioned to expect a very low standard of design. As a result, they don't realize that a local, small-time designer can deliver big-time results (wow, that sounds hoakey). Its just a matter of putting more effort in finding that designer. However, to motivate potential clients to put more effort in their search, the bar has to be raised - they must expect higher quality work from designers. So Tom, maybe I do agree with you after all.

Educate the public and youselves.

On Jun.15.2004 at 08:54 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> Educate the public perhaps? Just a thought. Cheers.

Omar, "educating the public" is not a new thought at all, so don't pat yourself in the back so quickly. Probably, the number one complaint/concern of graphic designers is public awareness about the profession. The AIGA has had many initiatives, some have worked, others have failed. I still think their little plaque outside their NY headquarters is the most effective, but that's another story. Educating the public is an ongoing challenge we face and I'm sure everybody does it in their own little way when talking to potential clients.

> The reason why these hacks are competition is because many "professionals" don't have much more to offer.

Still on the previous topic, it is sites like this and Design Observer that strive to "educate" hacks and the public…even savages. *wink*

> I encourage you consider the existence of two modes of graphic design. That which attempts to reconcile the theory of graphic design with the practice of it, and that which has no knowledge of the theory.

This is something I have mentioned previously (somewhere towards the end of the comments here) and that I have talked about before. It seems more and more like there should be some differentiation between those who are only concerned with the icing and those who want to bake the cake. So that those who only want to do icing don't feel guilty about not baking the cake. I'm not saying this is a solution, but something to think about as the profession grows/expands/divides.

> Don't define graphic design (and ultimately communication) as logos, packaging, brochures and annual reports.

You are right in that. The above mentioned are manifestations of graphic design, not graphic design itself. Perhaps that was wrongly worded in the essay.

> The question is how to rise above these unqualified individuals and put them out of business.

It is not about putting anyone out of business, everybody deserves to make a living I guess. It is about "raising the bar" but when a large chunk of designer set the bar so low (with low pricing and "bad" design") it is harder to do so. Of course, "the cream rises to the top" but the crud at the bottom is what most clients can afford are willing to pay for based on the value they place on the importance of design.

On Jun.15.2004 at 09:12 AM
Steve Mock’s comment is:

This is going the way of everything else. The middle is disappearing. There's either junk or really, really good work.

Would seem the only hope for the high-minded would be to position the cake as a luxury item, put a premium on it and learn how to best cope with a small percentage of the market. If one really desires to be an elitist about the trade, cater to the elite. Nothing wrong with that.

Seems, though, that we'll never be able to really, truly quantifiably measure whether the very good returns any better than the very bad. Most humans just can't see it.

It's a commodity now. An auction.

On Jun.15.2004 at 10:27 AM
Stephen Erickson’s comment is:

A definition (perhaps):

Professional Graphic Designer: One who can organize information into a meaningful construct and thereby generate measurable value for his/her clients.

Graphic designers unlike other professionals can not bring measurable harm to their clients or their property. Therefor I understand why until now it has not attracted the attention of government regulation as many other professions. But awareness of the value we create is growing and the ability to measure that value is becoming more robust. Young & Rubicam Group have been measuring relative brand asset value for several years and have recently coupled this with brand economics to give definitive value to the impact of Landors work. The basic tools of ROI are available to any one with grade school level in math.

Recently AIGA has defined the process of creating value in terms we can all share broken down into three main areas: define the problem, innovating and generating value. However, the process of designing value is not and end. It is only a beginning.

At the very least the design community must continue to place into common context the methods that we use generate value for our clients. Methods that until now have only been articulated in a propriety manner (Young & Rubicam for example). When we begin to share a common language and measure results in a meaningful manner we will as a profession take the next step toward relevance and respect in a more objective light.

When a majority of designers can speak a common language about the process, the methods and the measurement we will have the basics to qualify as professionals.

On Jun.15.2004 at 12:48 PM
justin m’s comment is:

When a majority of designers can speak a common language about the process, the methods and the measurement we will have the basics to qualify as professionals.

So where do we start forming this common language for all graphic designers, let alone start teaching it? School obviously doesn't always teach it and it's not always learned on the job either from what I can tell.

So much to think about. How do you say who is a designer though? Some people have never had formal training, others have been to school, and others still no matter how much training they receive will not be quality designers. Once again where is the starting point and who gets to call themself a designer?

What if it is a design student doing this shoddy work? Is it okay then because they are still learning? Numerous people here have said that students should freelance to gain more experience.

This is just one of those uncomfortable topics that we don't seem to have a solid answer for.

On Jun.15.2004 at 01:40 PM
Jess’s comment is:

It is frustrating to see so much poor work out there, and so many people who call themselves designers who seemingly shouldn't. But there are good and bad members (and work) in all professions, aren't there? There are bad doctors, bad business people, bad laywers. Yes, professionals like doctors are held to a legal standard and must be licensed, but can designers, in such a subjective field? It's so much easier to see where a doctor has made a terrible mistake. And yes, those professionals must be educated, but do we really want to leave out those designers who learned in other ways (through apprenticeships, by doing, etc)?

On Jun.15.2004 at 03:10 PM
Stephen Erickson’s comment is:

Perhaps I am also naive but It would seem that a good start to the process of design has been offered by AIGA. The method of design employes elements and principles arranged in a myriad of styles that have already been well established for years. The next target should be a common description of measurement.

I believe the hurdle for accurately measuring our value is found in extracting the current methods from the private domain and offering them to the profession as a whole. The value added we bring to our clients is a measurable effect. These tools can be complicated as in my earlier reference to Young & Rubicam or they can be quite simple.

If you have a client who requests a design for a restaurant menu. It is quite simple to inquire about sales before and after the design. An effective design can increase sales in general or of specific items. Canonizing the method could be simple. In the grand scheme of things there can only be so many methods of measuring success, increase sales, change an attitude, increase awareness, generate positive brand value. -- None of terms I just used should be unfamiliar to designers. None of the tools necessary to measure them are exclusive to another profession. Yet I don't recall ever hearing there mention in the design classes I attended for my BS. Our professions close ties Art at it's origin have blinded us to reason and purpose. I think it is time to change.

No amount of conferred or achieved professional status can prevent the lay public from trying on the designer's shoes. However, I do not think it is impossible to conceive a day when Design Professionals are tested and given title.

On Jun.15.2004 at 03:32 PM
Jess’s comment is:

I agree that some system of recognizing true design professionals would be beneficial. And actually such methods of measurement are mentioned in at least some design programs. So far, it seems to be up to clients to recognize these methods, probably by the designers informing them of their successes. But even if a system of testing or measuring is formalized, how do you enforce it? Are designers fined if a project is unsuccessful? Certainly even the best, most prestigious designers have had failures. And are these measurements REALLY the only factors in the success of a project? What if that restaurant menu was great, but the waiters were rude and poorly trained? What if word of mouth actually increased the sales of say, apple pie, and the menu had nothing to do with it? Or if word of mouth let people know not to get the seafood, even though the menu was designed very well in all aspects? Can you really and truly measure the success of a design in such objective manners?

On Jun.15.2004 at 04:46 PM
Jess’s comment is:

Another thought about testing people before they could have the title "designer." I think that doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. are tested on their ability to provide the correct answers to specific questions. In architecture, the test would include building codes and the like, but that doesn't necessarily make a good architect. A doctor's knowledge is tested, but that doesn't mean they have a good bedside manner or client counselling abilities. All of these tests seem to be about objective quailities. So if we're talking about let's say print design, the only testable qualities would seem to be production and terminology related. (Do we know how to use software, preflight a job, conduct a press inspection, and what is the definition of hierarchy?) But that kind of test totally disregards all of the subjective qualities, such as the emotional response, the overall feel of a piece, etc. So an architect who passes the exam might know everything there is to know about the technical side of architecture, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to design a memorable, meaningful building. I guess what I am trying to say is, sure, we could test designers on their technical knowledge, but that doesn't mean that they will be a good designer. And how do you create a test that doesn't box in design? It's so organic, and covers so many different areas.

On Jun.15.2004 at 06:49 PM
Stephen Erickson’s comment is:

I don't think I am alone in my desire to see certification of Design Professionals but I don't think it will happen any time soon. In order to lay claim to a certification process our professional organizations will need to unite around the common ground as defined by a majority of designers. As of today none of our professional organizations are prepared to take this issue on, nor should they try independently.

Testing designers is in its very nature an exclusionary process. The creation of a testing process would bring into question the veracity of many design icons. We are faced with a decision to make. Is it more important to take the next step in with our profession or are the histories of many design icons to great to call into question. I don't know. But I suspect the day is coming when we must decide.

If we as designers are truly ready to take the next step we must prove out worth in measurable ways. It is because the end results of our work are not inherently apparent, like curing the ill or saving more money on a tax return, we need preform the measurement ourselves. Because many of the models we can use to measure results are multi-variable in nature accuracy can become difficult to compute but under controlled environments (perhaps like drug testing) the voracity of methodologies can be tested and proven. The difference between a doctor and a hack it could be said is the ability to dingoes and proscribe the proper treatment -- the difference between cool and effective as well.

As with the medical profession no single medical designation covers every area of practice. There are an entire host of professional paths a doctor can take. Some doctors have multiple designations and some have only one. Each, however, was tested independently every designation achieved. In our profession many areas of practice have common ground. I personally would like to think I can do it all but I know my lack of experience in packaging design would make me a poor candidate for success on a project of that nature. So I think testing would also change the very nature of free movement between application of our design knowledge to new mediums.

I certainly don't have all the answers. But, at this point, it is not a question of CAN we take the next step. It is now a question of do we WANT to take the next step as a profession.

On Jun.15.2004 at 11:23 PM
Omar’s comment is:

No back patting just yet Armin. When I said "just a thought", I was referring to the whole post. I realize educating businesses of the merits of graphic design isn't new, and I encourage AIGA to continue their ventures in that area. Slowly but surely the public is catching on, though.

As useless as it may be, I would love to see some kind of certification or standardized testing for graphic design. I don't think it needs to be limited to production techniques and technical understanding though. I would like to see something more along the lines of some IQ tests, which employ things like pattern recognition and visual perception problems. Its a fortunate consequence of communication that it must be standardized, and seeing as graphic design and communication go hand in hand, I don't think it would be terribly difficult to put together a fairly interesting and effective test - without assessing the more intangible and artistic qualities of a designer.

On Jun.16.2004 at 09:11 PM
Maya Drozdz’s comment is:

I just want to point that one can practice architecture without being a licensed architect. In a sense, I could call myself an architect simply by virtue of my vision and ability to get a client, and then work with, and get sign-off on my drawings from, an engineer or a licensed architect [I think the AIA-approved term for me would be Architectural Associate, rather than Architect]. A system like this could potentially work for graphic design and wouldn't exclude 'visionaries' like David Carson, who have managed to establish their careers without the 'proper' credentials.

I'd also like to point out that licensed architects have an annual [I believe] professional obligation to continue learning, through courses, workshops, etc. Considering that technology [among other things] in our field moves so quickly, we could certainly use a bit of that same professional pressure.

On Jun.16.2004 at 09:24 PM
Dyske’s comment is:

I know this is an old post, but I'm new here. So, I'm going to put my two cents.

As much as I respect Armin's accomplishments, I have to disagree with him. All that the standardization would create is "the box" as in the expression "Think outside the box".

I was born and grew up in Japan until I was 16, and then moved to the States. I'm an odd mixture of Eastern generalist tendencies and Western specialist tendencies. I am specialized in a few specific things, but also a generalist in that I've switched my specialties many times. Armin's concerns are quite specifically Western. The underlying assumption is that the more specialized you are, the more qualified you are. This assumption has currency only in the West. In the East, it would be seen as a form of naiveté. (No offense to Armin; this is just the way people see things in the East).

Some people mentioned doctors above. I think it's a good comparison. Eastern doctors assume that everything is related. So, to specialize in one organ, like the way some doctors do here in the West, seems nonsensical to them. I myself had a problem with my liver once where the Western doctors could not figure out the cause. When the cause is unknown, Western doctors are worthless. All they did was to tinker around with my body for months just to make things worse, because their primary concerns are with finding the cause, not with helping the body to help itself. When the problem is interrelated, no one feels comfortable with treating it, since it lies outside of their specialties.

Everyone is blind to his/her own ignorance. Well, that's the very definition of ignorance. All the people who expressed their frustrations with unqualified graphic designers are no exceptions. They see the poor aspects of the works of others because they know better, but they do not see other aspects that they are ignorant of.

Take for instance Armin's own work. He has pieces that are categorized as "Motion Graphics". Some elitist motion graphic designers would probably say that he shouldn't be presenting himself as capable of doing motion graphics because he had no formal education in music, film/video, and animation, and that it would be equivalent to some graphic designer billing himself as an industrial designer. But such elitism is uncalled for. Any job would have multitudes of aspects that you would not be a specialist for.

Armin says:

"...like the ability to produce a "concept." Designers can choose to make things pretty or make things pretty with a reason; the latter more valuable in the business of communication. The ability to filter a client's need through a process of investigation, development and implementation is essential."

How does one produce an effective concept? By understanding the nature of your client's business. To do this, you must know much more than just how to kern your type. This is where generalists would excel, and where specialists would fail. And, the specialists would not see the weakness of their own concepts, because you cannot judge something that you don't know much about.

After graduating from SVA, I decided to entirely switch my focus and went down to Wall Street to work. I wanted to see a world that was the opposite of the creative world that I was in. I sat next to traders and watched them trade millions of dollars every day. Later, when I settled into my career as a designer, I got one client who happened to be in the same area of financial business I was in. I knew their business inside out; so they trusted me to even design the user interface of their own software. In terms of the aspects of graphic design Armin mentions above, it would be very difficult to find a graphic designer more qualified than I was for that job, but would Armin be able to see those aspects and objectively judge them? He could only see the aspects that he is familiar with, and make judgments based only on them. One cannot judge what one cannot see.

So, from my perspective, establishing a standard for "qualified" graphic designers is counter productive. I wouldn't fight to oppose it; if some people really want it. They would just be building "the box" for designers to think within. And, some clients could use it to avoid designers who can't think outside it.

On Nov.06.2004 at 10:37 AM