Me, me! I have a question…

So, here in Chicago I have noticed a slight unbalance in attendance depending on the event. A few months ago we had the incite/insight series here, three nights, three speakers. I only managed to attend Bill Drentell's presentation and sadly missed Piotr Szyhalski and Sheila Levrant de Bretteville. To my surprise only around 50-60 people showed up for Drentell's presentation. This from the second largest chapter in the US with more than 1,500 members (at least that's what I remember them saying last year). Then a month ago was a Bingo event with Marc English as the caller so it was definitely a fun-filled evening and a good 200 people (probably more) showed up. So, um, what gives?

I'm not sure if other chapters experience similar problems. Because it is a problem. For an organization concerned with furthering the profession I doubt a good turn out to play Bingo does that. Sure, the proceeds went to a good cause (scholarships and such) but how does playing Bingo educate designers or the public? Getting together is nice and all but when you have less than 10% of a chapter's members showing up for more important events somebody is doing something wrong. Maybe it's simply fault on the member's side? Apathy? Laziness? Boredom? But as the good ol' saying goes: the AIGA is a reflection of their members.

I still see no relevance for anyone designing outside the world of print. I'm not even sure if that is really something AIGA should be focusing on anyways, so maybe it's a moot point.

Recently, there was this event: MOVE | design for film + television. Clearly not a print-focused event. Although that is the exception rather than the rule.

Personally, I'm not interested in the AIGA becoming everything to everybody. I'd rather them focus on the bigger picture of design than trying to focus on specialty areas of design, be it web, print or motion. I'll go see Hillman Curtis talk as much as I'll go see Wink.

What would it take, Darrel, for the AIGA to have relevance to you that are "outside the world of print"? Make their web site W3C compliant? Have events featuring web designers? I don't think the AIGA is about print or web, it's about design and that encompasses print and web — neither specifically.

>I still see no relevance for anyone designing outside the world of print.

You're right Darrel. AIGA's "Experience Design" Community (for Web/interactive/motion graphics design) seems to have gone into witness protection. I haven't seen or heard anything around town lately either.

Could it be that people are realizing that one's design, while the other is more about technology?

...

Brady — a few requests, kind sir.

1. Thump Steve Hartman on the head for me.

2. If you guys get a preview of the Boston conference in 05, please share. Would love to know the theme, the chair and committee, etc.

Ask the head staff how they're responding to the success of the last HOW conference, which eclipsed Vancouver's attendance in 03? Are they perhaps losing touch with their membership's needs?

3. Oh, one last thing. Post us a photo taken from the top of the Arch. And have fun.

Wish I could be there. The retreats are the things I miss most about my former pres days.

Could it be that people are realizing that one's design, while the other is more about technology?

spoken like a true purely-print designer. as with all designed media, the truth of this statement depends entirely upon your approach.

back to the topic at hand: i never see any sort of communication from AIGA chicago in public at all. is there a discussion list, maybe? i'm not a member, but i was thinking about it. the site's not very good, and frankly i need some evidence to chuck out the money.

> i never see any sort of communication from AIGA chicago in public at all

Public? Only the Poetry in Motion stuff on public transportation. Which has little to no impact on little to nothing. I think.

> is there a discussion list, maybe?

Nope.

> the site's not very good

'Tis awful. And they have been trying to redesign it for more than a year. Even a year ago they already had a whole look and feel but it never got done. They are — as all other chapters — trying to build an on-line local community. The only chapter I have seen pull it off is LA's.

Just checking in from St. Louis where I will make sure that Brady, if he hasn't already checked in, will get these comments. And the both of us will make sure they get addressed and answered (as I'm sure Debbie will too.). The more questions the better. We want to know how we, as AIGA, want to know your issues and how we can better meet the needs of the design community.

BTW, I am VP, Education for the Baltimore chapter.

it's about design and that encompasses print and web — neither specifically.

Ah...well, that's the issue. They're not about 'design'. They're about 'GRAPHIC design'. And that's OK. That's probably why any attempt at embracing the web only leads to commentary/critique on a web sites visual design.

(BTW, why does the national graphic design association call themselves graphic artists?)

They've tried to embrace the web...especially with Clement Mok, but any event I've either been a part of or attended failed to discuss any design other than the visual aspects of things. We've had a few events with good discussion, but the audience tends to still remain largely print-based. It could be a chicken/egg thing...how do you get interactive folks interested if there are no interactive folks in the organization?

As a web designer, I'm interested in visual design, accessibility design, usability design, functionality design, application develop design, etc.

The big brown phone book AIGA annual with the pathetic (my opinion) statement as to why web projects were excluded was kind of the pinacle of my realization that the AIGA just didn't do it for me anymore.

Which is OK.

Just throwing it out there. ;o)

As an aside, I've always longed for a national 'design association' with sub-groups like the AIGA, AIA, ASID, IDSA, etc. There are so many overlaps these days (as there should be) that it seems to me that we should be embracing each other a tad more. Granted, the political hurdles of attempting such a thing are probably gigantic.

What should we as leaders be paying attention to? What are we doing right? Where would you like to see us improve?

1. Transparency

Why isn't the AIGA a transparent organization? The very fact that Brady felt compelled to post this on Speak Up strongly suggests that whatever system for members to communicate their needs, concerns, etc. does not work — or exist.

2. The Stepford AIGA

Further addressing the previous question; why is the AIGA so Branding happy? I had a small laugh when reading Darrel's comment on the organization's relevance to web design. As a mainly print designer, I feel like there's a minority of non-branders.

Is Branding a conveyance towards greater 'relevancy' in the corporate economy? Are we so insecure that we feel the need to jargonize our activity with marketing speak (which isn't that rigorous to begin with)?

3. The Portrait of Dorian Grey

For as long as I can remember, most of the 'communiques' that appear in my email deal with issues appropriate to younger designers. What about designers over 40? over 50?

4. Nice Talk, Shame About the Action

Organizations like the Graphic Artists Guild and the

American Society of Media Photographer (ASMP) are active advocates in copyright legislation, the Ask First campaign, have legal resources (meager, but existent), and an established member-to-member network for advice and development. I would assume that the AIGA's main activity is advocacy, yet it's track record shows otherwise. In the late 70's they submitted a collection of standard signage iconography, in 2000/2001 there was the ballot redesign, and there's an annual salary survey.

As a mid-career designer, I'm finding it harder with each passing year to justify maintaining my membership. I don't call my studio a 'branding consultancy', I'm not just starting out, and the financial savings of membership benefits often cost more than if you went out and did a bit of research yourself — esp. phone rates & insurance.

> whatever system for members to communicate their needs, concerns, etc. does not work — or exist.

Well, there is this…

Mark, I'd like to answer some of these if I may. I'm still on the advisory board of our AIGA chapter, and occasionally involved w/ the national staff in some capacity.

1. Transparency -- Why isn't the AIGA a transparent organization?

It's not that they aren't available. It's because most members won't contribute feedback unless asked. Which is what Brady is doing.

On the national site, there are countless numbers of national discussion forums on a variety of topics. And under the directory, there is direct contact listing for every chapter president and vice president.

When I was president for our chapter, I received an average of 5-10 random questions from membership per week. I always did my best to respond.

So transparency is up to you. So is involvement.

2. The Stepford AIGA -- Further addressing the previous question; why is the AIGA so Branding happy?

Maybe it seems that way, but it seems that programming for national has been fairly balanced from what's posted on their site.

Each chapter is mostly responsible for its own programming. If you've felt NYC has been too "brand-happy" — then complain about it directly to their chapter board. Or better yet, suggest alternatives.

3. The Portrait of Dorian Grey -- For as long as I can remember, most of the 'communiques' that appear in my email deal with issues appropriate to younger designers. What about designers over 40? over 50?

Membership has consistently been about 35-40% students across the country. Also taking into account the influx of designers w/i the last 15 years — it's easy to see that the median age of current membership is probably 35 and under.

AIGA tries to be responsive to the issue most pertinent to its membership. So your impression is probably accurate, but justified.

For members 40 and over, the issues that matters most are more business-oriented, and more directed towards commerce and running a business. The brand talk proliferation you mentioned earlier is probably a result of dealing with issues for older members.

I'm curious — what would you like to see AIGA do more of?

4. Nice Talk, Shame About the Action -- Organizations like the Graphic Artists Guild and the (ASMP)...

This is the primary difference b/t these 2 orgs and AIGA: GAG and ASMP are commercial arts trade guilds, AIGA is not.

AIGA is mostly made up of designers — independent, as well as those who work in firms or in-house. Copyright contracts, usage agreements, and work-for-hire issues are not daily issues with most designers. They should be aware of them, and understand their implications — but they aren't as pivotal to day-to-day business.

That's where GAG and ASMP come in — for illustrators, photographers, and other commercial artists.

And just FYI, AIGA does have recognized partnerships with both GAG and the ASMP on a national level.

I've taught in two graphic design programs where, try as I might, I couldn't get an AIGA student chapter going. You can partly blame student apathy or my own ineptitude, but even bringing in a local AIGA rep to explain the benefits in detail didn't work. One question they've asked repeatedly is, why are the portfolio review events only open to seniors who are just about to graduate? [I'm speaking about the Boston chapter now; this may be different elsewhere.] My students are savvy enough to realize that this is too little, too late, so they don't take advantage of the opportunity, regardless of its other potential benefits.

They are — as all other chapters — trying to build an on-line local community. The only chapter I have seen pull it off is LA's.

Just want to mention that San Diego's site is also very nice.

San Diego's site is beautiful and lovely to look at. Once.

LA's has managed to keep their members coming back to the site often and building a dialog based on interests common to LA's community, which is a really cool thing. Chicago's chapter is trying to do that too, but as I have told them, they will need a miracle to light a fire under this town's members' asses.

I tend to think that Tan is right. If you’re not interested in branding then a little seems like way too much. If you’re exclusively interested in design for the screen then everything else will look like paper fetishism.

It is true that the AIGA hasn’t done much about interactive design for several reasons. One is that the farther one gets into web design, the less it’s about graphic design per se. Another is that most graphic designers don’t know that and don’t want to. It’s too bad because many of the web issues that seem unlike graphic design are the very issues that will allow (print-based) graphic design and graphic designers to become more. The third most common complaint you hear from graphic designers (after “My mother doesn’t know what I do for a living and likes my sister better” and “People who aren’t as good as I am shouldn’t get work or be allowed to pick up women at bars”) is that they are not taken seriously enough and are relegated to page decoration. One likely explanation is that everyone is right and most of us are just page decorators.

The AIGA seems to be making real attempts to drag the business into a more respectable position. The area where people figure out quickly that strategic consideration is in order is branding so it’s not surprising that it might get stressed a bit more. Talking about strategy in publication design gets a little more arcane. People don’t show up for a serious discussion of information reception. We like bright, shiny things with nice type. So, yes, the AIGA only has half a clue but that’s 5/8 more than most graphic designers have and it is, after all, an organization made up of graphic designers.

Maya—I’ve started two AIGA student chapters. One of them died in my absence but the other is, I believe, still going strong. They were both places where the students weren't particularly convenient to the chapter, however. It may seem less important to a student who is a subway ride away from events and has many opportunities than to one who is otherwise isolated. I’m not clear on your problem. You seem to think that there should be a student chapter but it’s not clear why. Maybe that helps explain the problem.

Ten years ago I was one of the main organizers of portfolio events for the L.A. chapter and I’ve looked at a lot of student portfolios. It’s a difficult call: Most portfolio reviews are set up a bit like a job interview except without the job. It’s a chance for students with a working-ready portfolio to get the sort of reaction they would get at an interview plus some tips on how to overcome problems. Unfortunately, most students don’t have the portfolio needed for such a discussion until they are about to graduate. They would benefit more from earlier reviews in the sense that they would have time to rework their books but most wouldn’t benefit because most of the reviewers are talking on the level of “are you ready for someone like me to hire you?” rather than “What strengths do you have here and how might you best develop them?”

Are you active with the education group in the Boston chapter? Have you talked to them about extending the invitations to juniors? Have you tried to organize events that would help students earlier on?

there's always been something so old-fashioned seeming about the AIGA; it's so one-track-mind. "graphic artists" is so not a way to address all the different flavors of designer in practice today.

also...i asked the old head of the ACD what happened to our memberships once the organization died. he told me the AIGA had taken over the roster, which gave me hope that maybe they were gonna actually step into the late twentieth century...but of course, nobody from the ACD received word one from the AIGA. that was like three years ago and i'm still waiting.

Wow, this some great info and great questions. I think we as an organization are really trying to change our focus from being about 'graphic design' to be more about the profession of communication design. Obviously this brings up the issue of how relative our name is to our organization as our focus has changed as the industry itself has changed. This identity issue is something I think that will become a bigger discussion over the next year and I would love if Ric Grefe (Exec. Director) of AIGA will directly answer some of the above comments and concerns.

I'm sure Brady has mentioned this discussion to Ric and I will be sure to remind him and encourage him to add to the dialogue.

Since I am an education director, I'd like to address the student group question from my own point of view before going to the next meeting. I think it's very important for the faculty advisor to build a partnership with their local AIGA chapter, as Gunnar mentioned, as well as be an advocate and cheerleader for the benefits of membership in the organization. It's up to the chapter to deliver those benefits to students and prove that being a member is worth more than the price of admission. (Which for students is $65). I've noticed that the student chapters that do the best are those with strong leaders who are energized by their involvement in AIGA and genuinely believe in the organization and how it can help them in their careers. Not too surprising. One of our biggest challenges as an organziation to retain and convert those students into associate members.

One more thing, which M. Kingsley, was kind enough to address is the issue of seasoned profesisonals and AIGA. I would love to hear what kinds of issues and programs could get these respected members of our profession more involved. We brought C&G into Baltimore this year and I think I only saw one or two 'seasoned' professionals. Some of the comments I've heard here in St. Louis is that the fact that most events are held in the evenings during the week is one factor that turns off many of these professionals.

As someone with two kids I can understand the difficulty in being at evening events and would love to hear suggestions, ie lunch meetings or events, etc. that would attract our seasoned professionals. My purpose, really, is to just ask. What works for you. How can we make AIGA work better for you and add value to your career and your business? I have some ideas but would love to hear your's. Things like mentoring, case studies in front of business groups are just something's that come to mind.

Your experiences and knowledge are so valuable to all of us as an organzation and a profession. It's from studying your work that most of us have gotten where we are and we really don't want you to feel or be overlooked for your contributions.

Okay, I've really got to run. But one more thing, in late Design Legends Gala will be held in New York. I think this is a great opportunity for all of us to celebrate those who have inspired our careers and our designs.

>"graphic artists" is so not a way to address all the different flavors of designer in practice today.

Yes, but AIGA did address this in the last national conference, where emphasis was placed on Design, with a capital D.

In that instance, everyone became a designer — from genetic scientist to government officials.

Personally, I thought that was even more ridiculous and useless.

It's all semantics in the end I guess.

>We like bright, shiny things with nice type.

Amen, Gunnar.

I can't tell you how hard it is to develop programming for an AIGA chapter.

Program stuff for owners and businesses, and designers complain about brand-speak. Program events for web and interactive, and the same 30 people show up with the same issues about technology everytime. Program lectures to showcase cool design, hundreds show up, but then you get accused of promoting eye-candy.

Rob — give it up.

Let me guess. There'll be a break-out session tomorrow that's all about ways to "Get Veteran Designers More Involved" in your chapters.

Got news for you. That's been on the agenda since they've started having the retreats.

The truth is that you can solicit all of the ideas you want from seasoned designers, but they still won't come to the events and participate more. There are those that will always give of their time and resources, and those that never will. You'll just hear lots of excuses and whining about timing, topics, and relevance.

The key is not to cater your programming solely to suit those cantankerous old fogies who grumble about the loud parties — but to find veterans in your chapter who are generous with their time and are just waiting to be asked. They're out there, the trick is taking the time to find them.

Ask some of the seasoned chapter leaders tomorrow and see if my assessment isn't true.

For what it's worth - I attended the AIGA leadership retreat last year in Austin. (At the time I was one of the VPs of the LA chapter's online committee - and we had just launched our new site.) I have to admit, sadly, I've kinda given up on the LA chapter and the national organization. Maybe I'll change my attitude with a bit of distance... I'm not sure if I was just frustrated with the LA chapter, or the general disinterest in interactive design by "traditional" designers. Maybe a bit of both -- plus a million other things... grrr

As far as new initiatives for the AIGA go, I'd like to hear some more discussion about how they're planning to deal with their big design competition from now on. I have my own mixed feelings about how much clout is implied by winning something, but since this last annual was the last they're planning to publish in book format, I'm inclined to say that the value of the competition is diminished even further without it. Does a web-based presentation of competition winners have the same kind of value as the book? If not, is is worth paying entry fees? And even if the value of the competition is questionable, the book has been a nice perk of our anual dues.

I have to admit, sadly, I've kinda given up on the LA chapter and the national organization. Maybe I'll change my attitude with a bit of distance... I'm not sure if I was just frustrated with the LA chapter, or the general disinterest in interactive design by "traditional" designers.

david,i assume you are the "mastermind" behind the l.a. site., which in my opinion is the best thing the l.a. chapter offers. so your reaction is unfortunate. my problem with l.a.'s interactive design events was that they were soooo behind their times a few years ago that i kinda eliminated them from the "interactive list". you getting involved might have made a difference, but just as with branding.... (there we go again)... it takes time...

personally, a few years ago i thought i'd be time to start a fresher, younger, more up-to-date organization that was not run by the old farts that had established names and thought they were the shit.. and the only shit... and talked bad about any design done by anyone younger than 30. now, for the past few years i feel as things have improved tremendously. they offer better tools, better conferences (gain), schools (harvard) to name a couple, plus they seem to get, and listen to feedback.

i do also believe the annual membership fee of the aiga is very reasonable (and i think even in a bad year it would be worth it.)

finishing up my comment....

drop the annual.. the aiga should not be about competition among peers, the selection process cannot live up to what it truly should. it works against what the aiga seems to promote, its a big freakin' bulky book that makes my recyling can way to heavy. and it usually goes straight in there.

Everyone, there is a great dialogue going on here and I personally appreciate what most of you are saying.

I think Tan has done a great job at answering a lot of the issues. And, like Tan, I believe that most of these issues are ones that sit at the local level.

Student groups, for instance, require the board to first have an Education Director AND then a Faculty Representative AND Student Representative from each student group. It takes a lot of passion ON BOTH SIDES to coordinate this and make it run well. In the past (my experience) the Raleigh Chapter was really good in creating and MAINTAINING this realtionship with our design school.

Getting to what Ithink is the most telling issue raised so far.

> 1. Transparency - Why isn't the AIGA a transparent organization? The very fact that Brady felt compelled to post this on Speak Up strongly suggests that whatever system for members to communicate their needs, concerns, etc. does not work — or exist.

Tan answered the existing part. I'll answer for my reasons for doing so.

I posted this discussion on Speak Up for the simple fact that the most outspoken critics (member or not) seem to be voicing their criticism in this forum. This may be the reason why the AIGA system may "not work". Instead of taking these criticisms to the the national organization or even your local chapter, they are being aired here.

I've had local members let their membership drop after their year is up and we of course follow up and ask why they are not renewing. They each tell us different reasons, some overlap, but the point is that 99% of the time this is the first time we are hearing about their issues. This after I personally tell everyone, at every meeting that...

AIGA is only as good as its members. And if you have ideas, criticisms, disatisfaction... let us know.

I can only do what I can to make AIGA a great organization. I can anticipate what our membership / community want. But I can't read their minds. It is imperative, if not implicit, for members and others to voice opinions to those who can affect change or otherwise get involved and affect it from inside.

Since August of last year, even with going directly to people to ask them to participate, we have yet to fill our board.

Ooops, gotta go! Debbie is waiting!

Back for more later.

PS: yeah - the LA chapter's online events have always been embarrassing. Mostly because of their lack of understanding of the field. I only got involved two years ago, but getting them to do any sort of "new media" event was almost impossible unless I was to do it myself (and I was too busy with the website to start running an event). -- Besides, I'd rather not have isolated "RGB" events, but have the whole digital thing integrated into ALL events. We shouldn't ghettoize different types of design, but treat the specialties as similar and related. (And, I think these problems exist at the national level, too.)

You'd be surprised at how few people actually keep (or kept) the LA site running. Almost all the postings were done by just a few people. And getting members to post comments, submit member profiles, design skins, etc etc was like pulling teeth. The membership seems very reluctant to have conversations/discussions online, or help grow the community. Is this a print vs. digital difference in how people communicate and use websites? I don't know.

Brady -- I agree that the chapter is what you make of it. But there is a limit to how much they can change. I was pleasantly surprised at the freedom I was given in the LA chapter to help shape their online presence (maybe only because they had no clue what we were doing!)... but found that making actual changes to how the chapter ran and behaved was too hard. I tried for a couple years, but in the end, think that there are limits to how much an individual (or a small group of individuals, in the case of me and the rest of my committee) can actually change a group that's not that interested in change.

Things take time -- but the trick is choosing where to invest one's time.

Q: why is the AIGA so Branding happy?

A; ...it seems that programming ... has been fairly balanced said the brand happy board member.

I have complained about this for some time (along with the BrandGuidelines for the AIGA 365- heavily slanted in favor of big branding firms)

The AIGA is acutely aware of who greases the wheel and seem driven to satisfy professionalism over ethics. Big money work reigns over smaller, more important works.

Tan wrote, Rob — give it up.

Let me guess. There'll be a break-out session tomorrow that's all about ways to "Get Veteran Designers More Involved" in your chapters.

Appreciate the sarcasm. And yes, it's long been an issue for AIGA and you are right. There are those that will give their time and effort and those that never will. But still, it never hurts to ask what the organization can do for them.

LA's site was made by David, Rob Bynder, and me — with committee discussion from others. We're all pretty much ready to give up (David already has left the chapter and I'm likely next — then we call all watch the LA site sadly wither and die). The reality is the AIGA in LA is 99% a print-design organization, period — which is fine, but it's simply misrepresentation of goods sold to pretend to be more. Do I sound bitter? I am. The national organization talks the talk but it seems too few chapters walk the walk.

I also had my share of frustration with the AIGA on many levels before largely giving up. (I’m one of the old guys that probably could easily be refurbished as a useful member, though.) Before Tom, Rob, David, et al, did such a wonderful job on the Los Angeles chapter website I butted heads with the board about their use of the web. (I wish I had a copy of the old site. It was a veritable textbook of web problems.) No matter how clearly I stated otherwise, everyone interpreted it as an attack on the web design team when I meant it as an attack on AIGA/LA as a client. For all the talk we hear about design as strategy, they didn’t get that they had failed to manage the project in a way that would make the site into an extension of their policies and of the organization’s personality. (Either that or their policies and personality left a lot to be desired and the site was an accurate reflection of that.)

Basically, the design was doomed to failure because the AIGA/LA board treated their designers in that manner that we decry our client’s treating us—as creative monkeys to be set loose in hopes that they’ll make something useful.

Some of the board saw me as wildly lashing out (since I tried to make the point that this was not a failure of design on the superficial level but a failure on the strategic level and that reflected on the organization’s management, not just a group of hapless volunteers.) Others emailed me with replies ranging from “I didn’t even know we had a website” to “I went to it once and it was so bad I never looked at it again.”

I would like to think that they learned a lesson about the strategic management of design but I suspect that the current crew managed to put together a great site despite the board, not because of them. The national organization is trying to deal with design-as-management (which is one reason that many designers think they are too “branding happy” or that they unduly favor the big boys) but it’s a difficult thing to deal with in a substantive way, let alone to get to seep down to the chapter level.

I’m sure it’s no consolation but the web team’s experience of a small group doing a thankless task is pretty much the norm for everything in a small volunteer organization. (Sure, there may be a thousand people in the chapter but the part of the organization that gets anything done is probably a couple of dozen people.) It was true when I was involved in education for AIGA/LA and it was true when I was involved in events for AIGA/LA. The sad thing is that if you guys quit, the chapter’s greatest asset—the wonderful website you’ve put together—is likely to wither. It’s also, unfortunately, likely that the only way programming will broaden is if people like you insist on being involved with it.

I know I’ve said this to you in person but I’m sure it hasn’t been said enough: Thanks for all you’ve done.

This has all been very interesting reading. I am a new member of AIGA/LA and blame it on my youth, but I am optimistic about this organization. Actually, being a student, I am optimistic about the whole field in general. And I love the website that you and your committee put together, Tom, David, et al.

Unfortunately, it is disheartening to hear about the problems that you have encountered in trying to expand the narrow view print-obsessed designer have towards web design, and operational difficulties in bringing together the print world and the web world and that you will be leaving the chapter soon, Tom. Ack! How unfair it is, as I have just discovered you and your insightful postings on the LA site.

Considering that a good chunk of the membership is made up of students and younger designers, do you think that maybe the organization is soon moving in a new direction? Or am I just naive and the so-called Old Boys' Network will stay and be just that? Because in that case, perhaps I will just let my membership expire as well.

Brady, perhaps there could be a discussion among the leaders that asks the question "what are we doing wrong that some of the best, most motivated, and enthusiastic members are giving up on the organization?"

And Tom, since you are more or less in charge of the website, how about using that as a vehicle to incite support for things and opinions that are on your agenda? I'm sure there are members out there who would voice support. BTW, did I mention what a cool website we've got here at the LA chapter? good job - i really get a kick out of the skins, too. :)

Gunnar, just to answer your question [though this is swerving off-topic], in both cases, I was trying to start a student chapter in a smaller community in which this kind of networking seems imperative and very needed. The first time, I was helping an enthusiastic student who really wanted to get this off the ground. In the second instance, I tried to feel out my students, explain the benefits, etc. but gave up because of a clear lack of interest.

I have my own issues with the AIGA but I believe in the value of membership for students and beginning professionals, especially in the two contexts I mentioned above. I'm not even certain that the AIGA is at all to blame for what happened; I'm just pointing it out.

As for the portfolio reviews, they could happen a bit earlier in the final semester. Or, they could be called informational interviews, which is perhaps more accurate.

I just found this thread thanks to David Young's quickpost on the AIGA/LA site. I was a member of the LA board from 99 to 2003, at which point the current site was in the works. Looking back at the past few boards it seems to be almost tradition that the people behind the website retire from their posts frustrated, bitter and without leaving a forwarding address. It's understandable: At best, they face an outsider's enthusiasm from open-minded, but uninitiated print designers, at worst their contribution isn't desired. I'd imagine that the large middle greets them with benign apathy. Not the best environment to do one's work. Which makes David, Tom and Rob's feat all the more brilliant.

It's sad to see that the experience has left them so battered and bruised.

It's happened with other parts of the organization, too. When I was on the board I picked my causes and tried to get them done as best I could. The main problem I faced was that it is a volunteer organization with the ambitions of... not a volunteer organization. Everybody had their own pet projects---me definitely included---and only so many hours in the day to give to the cause.

The result is a somewhat gangly animal that sways and stumbles as it bravely lurches onward. It ain't the lithe panther of my mind's eye. But while I left the board a bit burned out, I still think it was one of the most interesting things I've had the chance to do, mainly because of the other people I met in the process. AIGA is built on a highly inefficient, often friction-heavy mix of individuals. That's what slows it down, makes it endlessly frustrating and infuriating, but it's also the best reason to join up. So don't let your membership lapse, Nary. The chapter evolves as it glaciers into the future, but it does so because of your energy.

Other than that, I'm an ink guy, but some of my best friends are web designers. I'd still like to keep the annual in book form, because my folks can hand a book around to their friends and brag about their boy. At the same time I'd like to see a brilliant---and aesthetically independent---web presentation of the show, too. Why can't we get both?

The reality is the AIGA in LA is 99% a print-design organization, period — which is fine, but it's simply misrepresentation of goods sold to pretend to be more. Do I sound bitter? I am. The national organization talks the talk but it seems too few chapters walk the walk.

Having been a part of the process of redoing the AIGA Baltimore site, which is still an on-going process, I can understand some of the frustrations expressed by the LA team. And, might I add, you guys have done a truly fabulous job.

But while I can understand your frustration, I'm not totally understanding of your actions. If you truly want the organization to change—which I think it is, though not as quickly as most would like it too—you need to be an agent of that change. Quitting to me seems like the easy way out and if anything, passive aggressive.

Truly I know that no organziation will ever fit our exact views of what it should or could be. But it is up to us, as members of the design community, to insure that AIGA works better for its members as well as the community as a whole. As the organization becomes more focused on communications design, I think you will begin to see a fundamental shift in attitude and action. But to really, really see it and help guides it's direction, you have to be there.

It's a shame and a loss that David chose to leave the LA chapter. It's obvious that he and the rest of the web team put something together that can and should be shared with AIGA as a whole. I hope that Tom and Rob will be able to carry-on and be along for the ride as AIGA itself makes the necessary changes as it becomes the voice of communication design.

>It's not that they aren't available. It's because most members won't contribute feedback unless asked. Which is what Brady is doing.

--snip--

>When I was president for our chapter, I received an average of 5-10 random questions from membership per week. I always did my best to respond.

>So transparency is up to you. So is involvement.

I think you're confusing transparency with access. Transparency is knowing what issues are under consideration and, hopefully, having the ability to voice one's thoughts. Transparency is an open dialogue where all members have access to various points made.

Examples:

Dan brought up the imminent suspension of publishing the design annual. If true, I for one would surely like to know how that decision was arrived at. To pull text off the AIGA website, "This annual seeks to capture the attributes of reasonableness, clarity and narrative, using both text and images". That certainly sounds like part of the AIGA mission statement. Why would you suspend it?

Tan mentioned his intentions of responding to member questions. Sadly, my personal experience in contacting AIGA staff has left me generally dissatisfied. Over the past 5-6-7... years, I've had a couple reasons to send email to Ric Grefé — most notably concerning Broadwing Communications' (a membership business-service benefit) bill padding. Never heard back from anyone. Ever. And this is a matter which could affect every member who, following AIGA's recommendation, decides to purchase phone service through Broadwing.

I've also on several occasions spoken to Gabriela Mirensky with suggestions and criticism about the categories and methods of the annual competition. While always polite, I left each conversation suspecting my thoughts never went beyond that phone call.

These dialogues are internal to the organization and probably best kept in a members-only subdivision of the website. Such access could transform what used to be one-to-one discussions and interpersonal black holes into an open forum; and a source for consensus, improved board support, contrasting opinions, etc.

I don't think it's enough to yatter off the old boilerplate "we want to hear your opinions..."; that's too vague. Speak Up is a great example of what happens when you post a focused discussion opener. So ask questions like "Is the FedEx member discount enough?" or "Are we confusing the matter by using the word Brand?" or "We're thinking of dropping the annual, what do you think?" To me, a platitude like "what should the AIGA be like in the next 5 years" sounds like you really don't want to know. The question (written by an anonymous staffer) wasn't thoughtful, why should the answers be?

Much of the language on the AIGA website is bloodless; and that's fine... for a public face. But if the inner workings are as passionate and frustrating as previous comments suggest; how are we to know? Where is this passion now? Why isn't the membership invited to join in? The language of the 1980s version of the AIGA Journal (an internal organ for members only) was a hell of a lot more interesting — than many of the anonymous postings currently on display in Design Journal. Paula Scher admitting that she sometimes felt like a fraud, Tibor openly saying that if you properly figure out how to estimate a job, you'll probably come to a figure "that would choke a horse"; this was engaging, this was entertaining. Personally, I also found it informative.

And like I said before, if Brady feels compelled to ask an internal AIGA question on a non-AIGA blog, then something is broke and there ain't no dialogue between leadership and members.

***************************************************

>why is the AIGA so Branding happy?

>Maybe it seems that way, but it seems that programming for national has been fairly balanced from what's posted on their site.

My opinion is more anecdotal than scientific, but if you go to the Communities of Interest section; which community is publishing more books? Which community has it's own board? If you go to the Initiative page and from there read "GAIN"; what are all the interviews about?

Now my problem isn't with the fact that Branding exists in the world, but with the vagueness of the language surrounding it. I find it's ersatz hermeticism to be more about the insecurity of the people using it, and detrimental to the design profession in the long run.

***************************************************

>Membership has consistently been about 35-40% students across the country. Also taking into account the influx of designers w/i the last 15 years — it's easy to see that the median age of current membership is probably 35 and under.

>AIGA tries to be responsive to the issue most pertinent to its membership. So your impression is probably accurate, but justified.

>This is the primary difference b/t these 2 orgs and AIGA: GAG and ASMP are commercial arts trade guilds, AIGA is not.

I'm assuming that if the AIGA is not a trade guild, then you're probably thinking that it's a 'professional organization'. A quick perusal of two other professional organization websites — The American Medical Association and The American Bar Association — you will see similar activities to the Graphic Artists Guild and ASMP: governmental lobbying/advocacy, continuing education, and broader member benefits (discounts on computers, office equipment, mortgage savings, etc.).

Much of the peer-to-peer information available on the AIGA website is basic knowledge: contracts, when or whether to do spec work, work for hire... Given that our trade profession utilizes technology and is also under great transformational pressures; why not offer improved on-line resources. I'm of a generation that didn't have Motion Graphics offered in design school — why not help me expand my abilities? You know, tell me what equipment I need, software basics, broadcast production standards.... There's the occasional mention on Speak Up of 'old fogies' who don't know HTML — wouldn't it be nice if the professional organization helped them out? And them young kids, they didn't learn the basics of 4-color printing. Too busy makng skins for their blogs...

The one greatest thing that the New York Chapter does is their ongoing relationship, through Mentoring, with the High School of Art and Design in Manhattan. This activity speaks of community, education and inclusion. Why not spread this spirit amongst members through a members-only section of the website, partnerships with local technology educators, peer-to-peer resource networks? To pull off more text from the AIGA website: "AIGA is a national not-for-profit educational organization".

I'm also struck by the irony that a 'professional organization' seems to be mainly made up of members 35 and under. Where are the professionals? Sounds more like a club to me... but then, do we really know? What is the make up of the AIGA? Perhaps a quick questionnaire when members renew online. And if there are break-out session(s)... all about ways to "Get Veteran Designers More Involved" in your chapters; them why is this the first time I've heard about it?

***************************************************

All these issues: engaging membership in better dialogue, better/continuing education for its members, maintaining a relationship with "veteran" designers are merely design problems. Hell, they're even Branding problems.

I know it's easy to sit in my recliner of rage and criticize. But know that in the days before the internet, I once called my local chapter and volunteered. I wish I could then regale you with glorious tales of me stuffing envelopes, but I can't. I suspect a mechanism for corralling volunteers wasn't in place, and that, plus the less than enthusiastic response on the other end of the phone... well, you know.

It's a design problem.

> ...but since this last annual was the last they're planning to publish in book format.

Nowhere have I read or heard that this is the case. What may be contributing to this rumor is that AIGA is in the process of archiving EVERY ONE of the past 24 - and likewise, future annuals - for the web. This archive will serve as the largest on-line archive of graphic design in the country if not the world. It will be a searchable database where anyone wanting to view the selections included in the annual since 1980.

>1. Thump Steve Hartman on the head for me.

2. If you guys get a preview of the Boston conference in 05, please share. Would love to know the theme, the chair and committee, etc.

Ask the head staff how they're responding to the success of the last HOW conference, which eclipsed Vancouver's attendance in 03? Are they perhaps losing touch with their membership's needs?

3. Oh, one last thing. Post us a photo taken from the top of the Arch. And have fun.

1. Hartman was properly thumped on his shiny noggin.

2. Not much of a preview yet. Only that John Hockenberry will be brought back by popular demand to fill the familiar role of Conference Moderator. He seems to be the franchise player.

Eclipsed attendance? Not so sure about that assertion.

How had less than 1,500 published pre-conference registrants on their site, but reported, "Nearly 2,400" attended.

AIGA had published a list of 2,200+ pre-conference registrants on the site. I'm not sure what the final count was.

Attendance is one way to measure success. Affect is another. Look at the dialogue generated by the content of the AIGA conference compared to the HOW conference. The fact that the AIGA conference did generate quite a backlash from some does not discredit its effectiveness and actually proves two things. One, the content of the conference was compelling enough to generate dialogue about right/wrong, good/bad, present/future and more that spanned more than a month on Speak Up. That to me is the purpose of the conference - to formulate opinions, generate dialogue and then create action - not for AIGA to extol the anointed prophecy upon us.

Since HOW and AIGA conferences serve different purposes, I don't think you can judge the two on attendance alone (which was negligible in difference) nor their content. "Cheap Type Tricks" and "Positioning Your In-House Team for Growth and Profit", and "Culture is not always popular" and "Designers as "solutionists" are very different yet that does not diminish their individual value, even more so in the context of their respective conferences.

> (BTW, why does the national graphic design association call themselves graphic artists?)

First to clarify… AIGA's mission adopted in 2000 reads as follows. "AIGA's purpose is to further excellence in design as a broadly defined discipline, strategic tool for business and cultural force. AIGA is a professional association committed to stimulating thinking about design through the exchange of ideas and information, the encouragement of critical analysis and research and the advancement of education and ethical practice."

In its 90th year, AIGA is an organization rich in history; beginning with it's founding by 40 professionals as " a source of pleasure and intellectual profit". This was before Dwiggins was credited for coining the term "graphic design". The equity embodied in the AIGA acronym is difficult to ignore and will remain for at least 10 more years if not more.

This is akin to IBM, incorporated in 1911, who has not referred to their products as business machines for decades. Yet, the equity embodied in their name (acronym) is undeniable. While the world of commerce has changed drastically since their incorporation, they have modified the way they position their business to adjust for change.

Likewise, AIGA is entering a phase-out period for the use of the phrase "American Institute of Graphic Arts" in communications. Utilizing more of a tagline along the lines of "The Professional Organization for Communication Design".

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that most of what is being said here is more focused on the local chapters and their specific issues.

As an different example of the internal workings, the Charlotte site was a great process. We literally treated it as a client/designer relationship. While we created and filled an Internet Director position, that person (James Sack, who is now the chapter VP) insisted that it was not done "by committee" and that we treated it like a normal business relationship. Is our site perfect? No. But as a young chapter we are happy with the power it has given us to communicate with our members and community; and Jim was integral in that success.

I would suspect that you might see, in the near future, a move toward individual chapter sites becoming more integrated with the AIGA site. This would create efficiencies, while maintaining the vernacular voices of the chapters.

As for the W3C compliance of the AIGA site, I am not an expert in that area, but while I am happy with the new site in that it provides better understanding and access to information, and moving the VOICE journal online was a needed change, the site would need to be more compliant in order to best facilitate the integration mentioned above.

I've just skipped the national board retreat in favor of a week in Hawaii and I come home to this? First of all, thanks (from David, Tom and myself) for all the compliments regarding the LA chapter's site. It was a lot of work and it's true that the burnout factor is quite high. That said, our chapter has decided to fold the online committee into the communications committee (as it should be after the task of building it is over) and I will be continuing in my two year commitment to the board as VP Communications. It's true that the soul of the original site will not be present without David and Tom, but I will do my best to continue it with whatever new crew comes in (anyone interested?) Hopefully, David and Tom will still be posting cantankerous comments, quick posts and features. It's true that the organization is primarily print-based and it's also a good point that Stefan makes about us all picking our own projects. Mine, originally, was the LA site. However, I do see change happening through the increased emphasis on Design rather than merely Graphic Design. My own interests are in web and print design, as well as the business of design. Things change, but in volunteer orgs it takes a bit longer. OK, a long bit longer. But, I agree with Rob Bennett's comment about being the agent of change. I've always preferred the concept of change from within (maybe I should become a fundamental republican politician? ...ugh, never mind).

I think this is the most constructive discussion about the AIGA we have had. Thanks Brady for starting it. And thanks Mark for some good examples.

It's funny to hear all the comments from the LA chapter… and there I thought you guys had it made. Let me tell you though, you guys did a fantastic job, you have gotten 257 comments from an otherwise silent membership. That's no easy task. Again, this is something I don't see the Chicago chapter pulling off if they wanted to. Or even if they got their act together.

>Attendance is one way to measure success. Affect is another. Look at the dialogue generated by the content of the AIGA conference compared to the HOW conference.

...easy there Brady. I agree, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that HOW is the epitome of design conferences.

The national conference is a fine line. For most members, it's the only visible presence for AIGA. Many join just the for discount to the conference.

For AIGA, the national conference is also the top revenue earner — providing funds for exhibitions, publications, and operations for the 2-year periods between. So while attendance isn't a mark of success, it's an important goal. If Vancouver had garnered 3,500 participants instead of 2,200 — we might still have a printed version of the AIGA annual next year.

Sometimes I wish that AIGA would be a little more mindful to attendance and not be so exclusionary about their programming. But I'm not suggesting they become as prefabricated as the HOW conferences.

Personally, I love the AIGA annual conference, and will attend no matter what. But I've been hearing a lot of flack from designers who find less and less professional value in attending them. They complain that the topics aren't relevant to their business and craft — and therefore, not deserving of their hard-earned funds.

Eh, you can't please everybody I suppose.

Personally, I love the AIGA annual conference, and will attend no matter what. But I've been hearing a lot of flack from designers who find less and less professional value in attending them. They complain that the topics aren't relevant to their business and craft — and therefore, not deserving of their hard-earned funds.

I heard a lot of this flack, specifically about Vancouver, in St. Louis and I believe that the message has gotten through to those planning Boston '05.

I think this is the most constructive discussion about the AIGA we have had. Thanks Brady for starting it. And thanks Mark for some good examples.

Yes, thanks to all for sharing their thoughts and complaints. I think it's great to have had this discussion and even Mark's examples. While I don't agree with Mark that this is an inappropriate forum for this conversation, many of his other points are quite relative and gave me personal insight into some of the issues facing AIGA that I had only a slight knowledge of.

I also appreciate Tan's comments, both in support and challenging AIGA. I think all the comments will help as we lead the organization toward it's goal of becoming less graphically focused and beecoming an advocate and supporter for communication designers, no matter what medium they may be working in.

One clarification Rob...

My issue wasn't appropriateness. AIGA issues appearing on Speak Up are symptomatic of a missing dialogue and possibly larger organizational ills.

My blue-sky comments about members-only forums were simply a possible solution to maintaining a separation between the public face of the AIGA and the inter-mural dialogues of members.

>I think all the comments will help as we lead the organization toward it's goal of becoming less graphically focused ...

Less graphically focused? Does this mean that the Illustration and Typography sections of 365 are being discarded? Does this mean that we're not going to be able to hear Art Chantry speak?

>... and beecoming an advocate and supporter for communication designers ...

Is there a goal? Phrases like this are rather vague.

... no matter what medium they may be working in.

Hmmm... in 1974 Robert Rauschenberg was awarded the AIGA Medal. Has the pendulum swung back around? ... ... ... nahhh!

Rob, forgive me. My intention isn't to pick on you, but to gracelessly further the point about bloodless AIGA-speak — which sounds nice at first, but has little resonance. I worry that if the language is vague, then so are the ideas behind it.

If I read and re-read your last sentence, then I get the idea that the AIGA is being taken over by marketing people. ...or is that Branding people? Quel Stepford!

Less graphically focused? Does this mean that the Illustration and Typography sections of 365 are being discarded? Does this mean that we're not going to be able to hear Art Chantry speak?

Mark, pardon me if my statement mislead you into believing this. It is not what I meant and allow me to clarify. Clearly, illustration and typography are not being discarded and there has never been any discussion near to this line of thinking. Nor has there been any comments about discontinuing events featuring speakers like Art. All of these activities are part of our mission of educating designers and are not in any danger of being discontinued.

What I think the organization would like is to build alliances and work more closely with other 'design' oriented professions akin to the British Design Council.

It's not something that would replace AIGA but improve it.

One of the goals here, in my opinion, is to increase the exposure and understanding of design in the public arena. I think it's clear to all of us that for the most parts, American's have a limited view of design when compared to other countries in the world. And I think for all of us, that would be a good thing.

AIGA issues appearing on Speak Up are symptomatic of a missing dialogue and possibly larger organizational ills.

Why? I think that Speak Up is the perfect forum for discussing AIGA. I don't feel that there's any missing dialogue nor any organizational ills. AIGA is a DESIGN organization and the audience here is DESIGNERS. Some are members, some are not but all could be and I think it's vital for AIGA to be in-tune with the DESIGN community and this is the perfect forum. Brady offered all of you an opportunity to voice your opinions and concerns so that we, as leaders of the organization, can make sure the organization is being responsive to the needs of its target audience.

...one greatest thing that the New York Chapter does is their ongoing relationship, through Mentoring, with the High School of Art and Design in Manhattan. This activity speaks of community, education and inclusion. Why not spread this spirit amongst members through a members-only section of the website, partnerships with local technology educators, peer-to-peer resource networks?

This is actually something we are doing right now. But why should we limit the 'spirit' to members only? We represent designers, whether they are members or not. We are not a club that only exists to serve the needs of it's members, we exist to serve the profession of design. (And Mark, your participation in the mentor program is great and giving back to the community as a whole will only further the understanding of design in the public arena).

I'm also struck by the irony that a 'professional organization' seems to be mainly made up of members 35 and under. Where are the professionals? Sounds more like a club to me... all about ways to "Get Veteran Designers More Involved" in your chapters; them why is this the first time I've heard about it?

Tan was being a bit sarcastic with that comment and there wasn't a break out session on that topic but maybe there should have been. It's clear that many 35+ design professionals have made up their minds to either be active in AIGA or to just ignore it at all costs. But I'll say this again, AIGA is not a club. It is not a members only organization. It's the professional organization for designers, and while there are a few perks to being a member, there is no agenda of exclusivity towards designers who don't want to join.

AIGA is changing like everything in life is required to do. I see it as an imperative to move the organization in a direction where web designers, type designers, etc...feel that the organization is serving them as well as it serves print designers. That is the nature of the change in emphasis from graphic to communication. It's not about being branding happy. It's about reaching out better to who consider themselves designers.

So Rob, how does that happen? If it's "an imperative to move the organization in a direction where web designers, type designers, etc...feel that the organization is serving them as well as it serves print designers," how do we make boards who are dominated by print designers and more tradition art directors move off the dime?

About a month ago organizers contacted me for recommendations on jurors for the Made in California show, looking for people qualified to be web and interactive design project reviewers. As I expected would happen, no one I recommended was selected (accomplished web designers tend to be young and names not recognized in the print world), and the jurors selected (a presitgious lot) are distinctly in the AIGA old-school sweetspot — no one who has actually laid hands on a website it seems at first glance.

In my 18 months of involvement I've heard a lot of talk and general head nodding about this "imperative" but I've not only seen zero action — but rather, resistance to move one inch. The pervasive attitude seems to be: "We like it the way it is, it's hard enough already to do anything as a volunteer org, spot pestering us, what paper sponsor can we get for our next portfolio celebration?" I'm hoping to see a shred of evidence that this "imperative" actually exists outside this comment thread. Perhaps I'm just not focused enough to notice change at a glacial pace. I'm not sure the organization has the luxury to decide what speed it wishes to evolve at — I think if someone doesn't step things up it will be going the way of the dinosaurs.

>Tan was being a bit sarcastic with that comment and there wasn't a break out session on that topic but maybe there should have been.

Actually Rob, I wasn't. I'm surprised there wasn't a session on that topic — Austin was the first retreat I haven't attended in the previous 5. And in all of them, there was a session about bringing veteran designers back into the fold.

Hmm. Maybe everyone gave up and came to the same realization I did for our chapter.

>AIGA is not a club. It is not a members only organization. It's the professional organization for designers, and while there are a few perks to being a member, there is no agenda of exclusivity towards designers who don't want to join.

I love the fiesty, enthusiastic energy that you AIGA exec newbies are bringing here. About freaking time — I've been holding down the fort forever it seems. Keep it up.

So Rob, how does that happen? If it's "an imperative to move the organization in a direction where web designers, type designers, etc...feel that the organization is serving them as well as it serves print designers," how do we make boards who are dominated by print designers and more tradition art directors move off the dime?

Tom, I really feel that National has to make this one of its top priorities if AIGA is going to move forward as a viable organization serving the design industry. How we do it, as you well know, is a bigger challenge. I think the first step is getting print people educated that design isn't limited to a 2-D environment or a 40" sheet. (Now I know not all of us print designers are that way but many of us are). We need to embrace design at all levels, not necessarily as members, and encourage its support and celebration.

Step one in my mind is building alliances, co-sponsoring events and generally working harder to include those that have felt left out. Pushing for boards to have a variety of designers as members and not just those that are print oriented. (Our board in Baltimore is fairly diverse with several web designers as well as design educators).

As far as why the organizers chose who they chose, I have no clue. Possibly Jeffrey is the only one I consider as being less print then the other ones. But I do see your point and agree. I guess the question to the organizer's should be, what's more important big names or legitimate judges who know what they are seeing? Or were they just afraid to let someone from the RGB world be a judge, which I can't for the life of me figure out what they would do that. Either way, there has to be a better balance of judges in events like this. And I can promise, any event I'm involved in will have that balance. (Tom, I'll let you know if I need any names.)

In my 18 months of involvement I've heard a lot of talk and general head nodding about this "imperative" but I've not only seen zero action — but rather, resistance to move one inch.

I think one of the things that surprised me the most about St. Louis was the attitude of change. It seemed that everyone shared the same ideals about wanting to improve AIGA and really bring things up to speed. There was little or none of the previous year's chapter battles—having not been in previous years I can only say this from what I was told—and there was a genuine feeling throughout the weekend that we were a national organization and that it's not us vs. them (chapters vs. national) but all of us working to make things better. But obviously, these are just words and now the action must come.

And in all of them, there was a session about bringing veteran designers back into the fold.

From what I understand, this year's event was organized much differently than past year's and the issue of attracting older members did arise but it was not a separate session. I'm still a little unsure why they lose touch with the organization but I've made it my own goal here in Baltimore to do what I can to bring the ones that are willing, back into the organization. Only time will tell if I am to be successful.

So, if you can't tell, this past weekend's retreat has me very excited about the direction of AIGA and the opportunites that lay before it, if everything stays on track. It is not an easy task to bring change to any 90-year old but we certainly have the people in place that want change. Will work for change. And change I think, in this case, is only for the better.

Now, I don't mean to be a complete ass, but what's with all these leader[ship] innuendos? Like, the Business Perspectives for Design Leaders… just because the attendees can afford the hefty price doesn't make them "leaders". I don't intend to insult anyone who has attended (like peter or Debbie), but that is the kind of language that tends to come from the AIGA that is a bit off-putting for me. (Mark also alluded to the language issue before and was my main complaint about the original Why brochure).

Then of course is the matter at hand, the leadership retreat. I'd just say to not confuse "being in charge" with "being a leader".

It might only be a case of harmless semantics, but I just feel uncomfortable with the whole heroic rhetoric.

Oh Baltimore Rob, how the rose-colored glasses blunt your understanding of my sharply-pointed epistolary. Mayhap a poetic confirmation in your disconnect; a smile blossoming through the careful reading of others.

Yet, there remains one last mole to whack:

... your participation in the mentor program is great and giving back to the community as a whole will only further the understanding of design in the public arena.

WRONG.

Mentoring is about the community and about the lives of high-school-aged students. Period.

If you, or any other leader think that Mentoring is a way to further the understanding of design in the public arena; then you are horribly myopic.

If your main concern is to further the understanding of design in the public arena; Mentoring is quite inefficient. Take out an ad.

The relationship between the NY Chapter and the NYC School of Art & Design exists through their logical common ground. This common ground is merely a vehicle to begin a relationship. The mentor is not there to proselytize a career, but as a resource. The only goal... THE ONLY GOAL is the growth and development of the student.

If that student goes on to a design-related field — gravy.

THE ONLY GOAL is the growth and development of the student.

If that student goes on to a design-related field — gravy.

Mark, I totally understand that the goal and only goal is the growth and development of the student. And even the mentors themselves grow from the experience.

That being said, the mere fact that these kids are being exposed to design professionals at a young age means that they will have at least a more thorough understanding of design than most. They may share this with friends or family and in that way, design is better understood in the 'public.' I did not mean to imply that the Mentor Program was in some a way a PR campaign for design. Nothing could be farther from the truth and we both know that.

rose-colored glasses blunt your understanding of my sharply-pointed epistolary

I understand your criticisms, I just don't totally agree with them and if anything, feel that they are totally justified or accurate. Sure, I have a extremely positive view about the potential AIGA has for the industry. It's clear there are those, like you, who do not share this opinion. And that's fine. I also know that it is going to be a difficult task to make AIGA better and more responsive to the design community. But if we don't at least try, than what's the point. Clearly, you have had bad experiences, frustrating experiences, with AIGA. I can't change those. I can only tell you that I will try and do better. That's all I can give.

Now, I don't mean to be a complete ass, but what's with all these leader[ship] innuendos? Like, the Business Perspectives for Design Leaders…

It's 'leadership' in the sense that all attendees are board members of their local chapters, and therefor consider the leadership for the organization in combination with the national board. This event is the "AIGA Leadership Retreat" and is held annualy for the purpose of getting all the local leaders and national leaders together to work on improving the organization on all levels.

Rob, great comments, well said. Thanks for taking the time to be thorough. I agree with you - I believe in the potential influence of the AIGA and am proud to be an advocate of their initiatives.

Tan - Ask the head staff how they're responding to the success of the last HOW conference, which eclipsed Vancouver's attendance in 03? Are they perhaps losing touch with their membership's needs?...If Vancouver had garnered 3,500 participants instead of 2,200 — we might still have a printed version of the AIGA annual next year.

If you'll recall, Tan (as I understand, you were in attendance in Vancouver), The general session room at the Power of Design was occupied to capacity. Due to the amount of resources available, AIGA sometimes limits the number of attendees to events to a compromise between needed revenue and their ability to serve the needs of the attendees. Numbers alone are a poor gauge of success. The fact that it appeared "fully-attended" is enough for me. To my knowledge there has never been a statement from AIGA proclaiming the end of a printed annual.

Maya - One question they've asked repeatedly is, why are the portfolio review events only open to seniors who are just about to graduate?

At local events (both Orlando and Jacksonville) all portfolio reviews I've seen or been involved with were open to anyone, student or otherwise. Even non-members could participate for a small fee. At the Power of Design conference in Vancouver, the portfolio review was open to all student attendees.

David - For what it's worth - I attended the AIGA leadership retreat last year in Austin. (At the time I was one of the VPs of the LA chapter's online committee - and we had just launched our new site.) I have to admit, sadly, I've kinda given up on the LA chapter and the national organization.

I asked David Womack and Orin Fink about you during the web-site breakout session this year. I was curious about the L.A. site story a year later and if National had learned or observed anything it found applicable at a larger scale after witnessing your experiment. I'm sorry to hear about your disenchantment. I, for one, would be happy and proud to have you active in the community again.

M Kingsley - In the late 70's they submitted a collection of standard signage iconography, in 2000/2001 there was the ballot redesign, and there's an annual salary survey.

It is true that for many years the AIGA did not have the cultural or professional influence that it has today (or tries to have today). Until about 10 years ago, it was all fairly dormant. You'll notice that many of the local chapters have been established since that period. With the help of key players at the national level that has changed (or is trying to change, again depending on your viewpoint).

M Kingsley - if Brady feels compelled to ask an internal AIGA question on a non-AIGA blog, then something is broke and there ain't no dialogue between leadership and members.

As a professional organization that represents the industry as a whole, it is appropriate for Brady to solicit input and opinions from those outside the membership. Also, is it not tactical and appropriate to discuss the needs, disappointments, etc. of former or potential members to see how those might be addressed in the organization. I say thank you Brady for acting in the interest of everyone involved.

I am disappointed to hear that your experience in Chicago is less than satisfying Armin, but I disagree that the use of this forum to discuss these issues is a sign of broken channels of communication between leaders and membership. If nothing else, it is raising the visibility of the AIGA by taking the dialogue into a public venue.

Tom Dolan - how do we make boards who are dominated by print designers and more tradition art directors move off the dime?

These changes don't happen overnight and there will always be specialists who prefer some channels over others, whether in theory, practice, or both. The future of design as a profession relies on the understanding of design as a process and approach. Our studio's owner has been practicing for 15 years, yet has embraced new media with an understanding of its possibilities and importance to the design process a process that shapes, edits, and gives form content. Minds like these do exist, and with some luck and effort they will continue to permeate the local leadership of AIGA chapters and keep them in close alignment with national initiatives.

> I am disappointed to hear that your experience in Chicago is less than satisfying Armin, but I disagree that the use of this forum to discuss these issues is a sign of broken channels of communication between leaders and membership.

My disappointment doesn't have much to do with broken channels of communication. Randy, sorry, I just don't see how you paired my original comment with Mark's.

> is held annualy for the purpose of getting all the local leaders and national leaders together to work on improving the organization on all levels.

Here is a thought… why aren't the leaders more involved in places like this? Yes, Speak Up, Design Observer, Typophile, HOW's forums, fuck, even their own forums. I would love to hear what Vanderbyl, Grefe, Willoughby, Arnett, Irwin or even Randy's studio's owner think about finding employment, about the TBS logo, about evil brands , about selling design as a product or service, about Blechman's No Zone IX, about their own events. You don't lead by having retreats and wishing for change, you lead by example, by doing, by being there. Here we have amazing forums where they can steward all they want about AIGA's initiatives and they can affect change within the community. It is not about converting people to believers or members, it is about putting a message, any message out there.

So seriously, what is it? Are they all too busy? I'm busy too, I have work to do, clients to tend to, conferences to prepare for, articles to write, e-mails to respond but I take the time to see what is going around our community, to make my opinion heard whether people want to hear or not — same with AIGA leaders, I might not agree with what they have to say but I might still be interested in what they have to say. If they drop the obtuse language. Or is it that design forums aren't worthy? A waste of time? Too "digital"? What?

Afraid of getting your hands dirty? Because that would show some leadership.

When Mark (sorry to keep dragging you into this Mark) originally mentioned invisibility I understood it differently, and in a worse way. The leadership, the board, whatever you want to call it, seems invisible, where are they? They surface every now and then on national conferences, provide a quip or two for a few magazines… that's not very effective. Write, talk, scream, anywhere, here, on Fast Company's blog, on the New York Times, anywhere! See what Marcia Lausen did for the voting campaign here in Chicago? That's leading. What Bennett Peji has been doing in San Diego? That's leading. That's doing.

So here is a simple challenge that you might have not addressed in the retreat: be present.

>Numbers alone are a poor gauge of success. The fact that it appeared "fully-attended" is enough for me.

Thanks Randy. I agree, big numbers doesn't necessarily mean a good conference. I attended Voice in DC, and attendance there was only 1,200. I thought that was one of the best AIGA conference I've ever attended.

But Ric did say that Vancouver's attendance fell a few hundred short. Capacity was probably around 2,700 — and attendance was probably closer to 2,200.

My comment wasn't specifically about attendance. I guess I just feel that the national AIGA conference should be the most important, well-publicized, fully-attended design conference out there. Those kinds of gatherings are important for our profession, and its financial success is an indicator of good health for AIGA.

There are plenty of smaller, more specialized conferences like the IDCA (excellent, btw), TypeCon, as well as regional AIGA conferences — which is fine. But I start to get concerned when (overly)commercialized conferences like HOW start to legitimately compete for dollars and mindshare of designers across the country.

To dismiss the growth of HOW, and at the same time, justify the dwindling attendance at AIGA conferences as "enough" is a mistake, IMHO.

>To my knowledge there has never been a statement from AIGA proclaiming the end of a printed annual.

I've heard the contrary. Probably due to the loss of a paper sponsor. I hope your optimism is more accurate.

Armin - So here is a simple challenge that you might have not addressed in the retreat: be present.

Armin, a point well made and well taken.

I've taken your criticism as one of critique without personal investment in changing that. This seems similar to how I've interpreted Mark's comments as well, hence the association. (My apologies for not presenting that clearly above. Admittedly, I'm making assumptions that might not be accurate.) I deliver mine with every intention of standing behind my committments and encouraging developments that improve this organization that I find extremely valuable.

I don't feel the problem lies in the organization at the top (and by that I mean, those at the national office, on the national board, and those serving on national committees). They contribute and comment to a level I find satisfactory. The local leadership is another issue: Wouldn't it be nice to see every chapter president commenting here? How about the 200 or 300 attendees at the Leadership retreat.

To All -

Are the members a reflection of the AIGA, or is AIGA a reflection of its members? This isn't intended to be rhetorical drivel; I'd like some more insight as to where these problems are precieved to be rooted. I want AIGA to be better. I take an active role in doing that. This dialogue is extremely valuable.

I've heard the contrary. Probably due to the loss of a paper sponsor. I hope your optimism is more accurate.

I hope so too. I'll try to conjure up an "official" response on this. I'd hate to spread anything inaccurate and much as I'd hate to see physical artifact disappear.

> I've taken your criticism as one of critique without personal investment in changing that.

Well, unless I write under their names I don't see how else I can make a personal investment. I have invested in building this forum — my part of the argument is there. Most of the board members are aware of Speak Up through my constant e-mailing, I have sent copies of Stop Being Sheep to a few or gave them one in Vancouver. And if they venture unto these parts they will see plenty of references to Design Oberver, Typophile, Typographica, etc. And I believe — more like hope — that they are aware of their own national forum.

> Wouldn't it be nice to see every chapter president commenting here? How about the 200 or 300 attendees at the Leadership retreat.

That would be wonderful. Perhaps next year there can be a breakout session on how to connect with the design community.

Here is a thought… why aren't the leaders more involved in places like this?

I'll comment further tonight (too busy at the moment), but I can say this now: I'm an AIGA leader (at least according to the Leadership Retreat nomenclature), and I post here as often as I can. We could certainly have a larger presence, but I think the issue is (lack of) time -- being an AIGA board member is a significant commitment. There is no question in my mind, however, that the AIGA leadership needs to embrace the online communities, particularly Speak Up. We're all creative: I'm sure we can figure out how to do it.

BTW, it was nice to meet you in St. Louis, Brady. (Wait, isn't that a musical?)

I totally agree with Armin's question "why aren't the leaders more involved in places like this?"

One of the reasons I got involved with AIGA was I wanted to have discussions about design. About the bigger issues. About small little things. Whatever. And that was a big part of the design of the L.A. website... to encourage discussion -- not as stand-along forums, but attached to the feature articles, events, everywhere. Sadly, our experience is that not many people post -- most of the posts have come from just a tiny handful of people. And getting board members to post has been virtually impossible.

Similarly, at board meetings, even events, the "design discussion" factor has been pretty low. Events seem to be more about socializing. Meetings are nuts-and-bolts stuff of an organization. Honestly, you can barely tell that it's a design organization's chapter.

Regarding Randy's comment - about his asking David Womack and Orin Fink about how the LA chapter's website influenced the work at national... I'd love to hear what they said. For while I had heard positive things from David about our site, we were never asked for our advice or opinions about any web development at the national level. In fact, other than people generally saying nice stuff to us, the only real questions we got were about how to set up e-commerce. Once again - not design comments, but tech stuff... a feeling that the org doesn't really think about web "design" but only that it's a technology.

Finally, I'm glad Rob (and others) came back from St. Louis with a renewed energy. I came back from Austin with a similar enthusiasm. But, unfortunately, things in our chapter continued business-as-usual and, as Tom Dolan mentioned, the chapter basically refused to evolve. They give lip-service to wanting to be more inclusive, but nothing happens. New people will come along and get involved, but I suspect that the pace of change is so slow that the people with real energy and enthusiasm will get quickly frustrated and give up.

Are the members a reflection of the AIGA, or is AIGA a reflection of its members? This isn't intended to be rhetorical drivel; I'd like some more insight as to where these problems are precieved to be rooted. I want AIGA to be better. I take an active role in doing that. This dialogue is extremely valuable.

I'd have to say that AIGA is a reflection of it's members and I find it quite disappointing that our national leader's, even many of our local leaders, are not taking part as much as I'd like in forums such as this.

Armin is correct. You have to be present. If we are to move AIGA forward, then every leader, local and national, should be at least lurking around these forums to read what's going on in the 'street.' The opinions are as diverse as the people who give them. Wouldn't we all be honored to have our design leaders participating here with the rest of us. (My hat's off to Debbie, who I consider one of those leaders, who's very active not only with Speak-Up but also the AIGA NY Mentoring program, not to mention many other conferences, plus her job. Despite how busy she is, she still makes her presence felt here.)

And again, I want to echo my thanks to Brady for inspiring this conversation. It has been quite informative as well as instructional in how AIGA is seen outside it's walls. I realize I can say change all I want and nothing will happen unless there is significant action. I'll take my participation here as part of that action. I will use my role in Baltimore to begin to take action and with my contacts made in St. Louis, take action nationally to move this organization in the right way.

My intentions for this post were to not encourage recidivism to the previous AIGA posts.

While there is some constructive conversation being attempted here, I feel as though the overall conversation again turned into another bash AIGA party.

Some things have been thrown out there as generalizations and suppositions that if addressed, it looks as if I (or anyone else in the "leadership" as you speak) am being defensive when I attempt to answer them. And when they are answered - like the exchange between Rob and Mark - after a while, it really starts to feel like we are getting nowhere.

It's like a Democrat trying to convince a Republican that they are wrong.

Mark is displeased with AIGA - and by his tone it seems as if he will never be convinced otherwise. Hardened opinions are hard to break.

Personally, at one point was displeased with AIGA because I felt a huge disconnect for whatever reason. I, along with others, initiated the formation of our own chapter. I have been very involved with the development the chapter over the last 4+ years. While I am entering my second year as President I am considering what my involvement will be at the end of my term a year from now. At a minimum I will move into an advisory role. But, I see myself playing an active role in the leadership of our chapter and the AIGA for a long time.

Why?

BECAUSE I KNOW I CAN EFFECT CHANGE.

I'm not riding some wave of feisty, neo-enthusiasm. I've seen it happen because I've worked hard to make our chapter what it is.

For example, with the advent of a new chapter forming in our region, the leadership of our little, young chapter is taking the initiative to solve some organizational challenges that, when they are solved, will be a model for others in the organization.

That is powerful.

That is what I mean by involvement.

> I feel as though the overall conversation again turned into another bash AIGA party.

I would like to slightly disagree. Compared to our old AIGA bashings, which were commonly unsubstantiated (much of it my fault), this has — as Tan asked for in the Good Brand thread — not just been slinging rhetorics; opinions and impressions have mostly been backed up by concise experiences. There is a reason why the LA guys are so pissed, there is a reason why Mark is concerned and there is a reason for my own voicing.

If every time anybody here says "no", board members of the AIGA are going to say "yes" or viceversa, then we have a problem.

> Some things have been thrown out there as generalizations and suppositions that if addressed, it looks as if I am being defensive when I attempt to answer them.

You are right, let's skip the defending, after all, it is always the same responses.

And I don't think we are being offensive, if people are airing their concerns and bad experiences they should be viewed as feedback, not offending comments that require constant defending, specially if there is a lack of time because being an AIGA board member is a significant commitment… so jot down the complaints on a piece of paper and see what you can do about it. (Not you personally Brady, just in general). Action… good ol' action.

I have never understood what AIGA does for anyone other than host monthly self-stroking cocktail parties that are paid for by paper manufactures. I would like to join a chapter and get involved but it seems like every chapter suffers from the same old problems.

Hell I may as well join a bridge club.

As a designer I have yet to see any real world impact from anything that an AIGA, as an organization, has done to improve the world through and for design.

And this battle between new and old-hat members (and other problems) aren't going to go away through anything debated and decided at a leadership retreat.

I know a few persons within AIGA chapters who have put a lot of time and energy into trying to find new ways to improve the the group yet each time they hit an iron curtain of tradition, arrogance and martinis.

I think it's time for those who are tired of the old ways to put down the mixed drinks and door prizes, get together and form a new group that's not so concerned what color of pen to use for the name tags. It's time to let the old wither and die.

And let me know what's going on so I can join.

I have never understood what AIGA does for anyone other than host monthly self-stroking cocktail parties that are paid for by paper manufactures.

Armin, maybe that's is why one gets a tad defensive.

If every time anybody here says "no", board members of the AIGA are going to say "yes" or viceversa, then we have a problem.

Point taken. But it's not just a matter of jotting things down, as you put it; the chapters need to develop the infrastructure to properly deal with member's (and non-member's) feedback. That's our challenge as local AIGA leaders. Here in Boston, I think we're moving in that direction, but we still have much work to do.

BTW, I misunderstood your previous post about leaders not being involved -- I didn't realize you meant AIGA national leaders. From talking to Ric Grefé, I think that there is a sense in that particular group that Speak Up is a free-for-all, where real, substantive exchange simply cannot happen. What scares them, I believe, is the democratic nature of the Speak Up conversation. When Steve Heller posts here, for example, he doesn't have a spotlight on him; he's just another voice (albeit a very smart one). My guess is that much of the national leadership is uncomfortable with that. Frankly, it's their loss.

> Armin, maybe that's is why one gets a tad defensive.

Agreed Jose, you are right on that one.

And for the record, I have attended plenty of non-self-stroking events here in Chicago. In fact, being the antisocial (more on this in a future thread) person that I am, I get to most events once the cocktails are over and get straight to the lecture or whatever it is and I usually stick around for 10-15 minutes afterwards to see if anybody wants to chat about what we just saw. So there is a way to avoid the mingling if it's really that bothersome to anyone.

> From talking to Ric Grefé, I think that there is a sense in that particular group that Speak Up is a free-for-all, where real, substantive exchange simply cannot happen.

Yup, I'm aware of that — of what they think, not that substantive exchange simply cannot happen. Being dismissive is easier than being responsive, I guess.

What scares them, I believe, is the democratic nature of the Speak Up conversation.

Boy, democracy sucks doesn't it? Having to listen to what everybody has to say? I don't know how many discussions we have had about things that are wrong with Speak Up or even me personally. We have them in the open, they give me heartburn and I get bitchy, cranky and depressed. But if I just kept doing things the way I want to regardless of feedback this would be a horrible and boring place to visit.

> When Steve Heller posts here, for example, he doesn't have a spotlight on him; he's just another voice (albeit a very smart one). My guess is that much of the national leadership is uncomfortable with that.

Good. That's my intention and goal. Everybody is crammed unto the same pedestal here. Or spread on the floor, whatever analogy works better.

Frankly, it's their loss.

Correct.

Here is a thought… why aren't the leaders more involved in places like this?

Amen Armin. The answer is it's a print organization, which operates at print speed, which has its events sponsored by primarily by paper companies, and which pays next to zero attention to design (or design discussion) that occurs online. It's just not a place where 'leadership' is, or where most members think they need to be. Perhaps Greg is right and it would be more expedient to start a new organization than to try to get this one to evolve. Maybe I'm selfish in that I'd like to have an organization that is up to speed before I'm ready to retire. Sometimes a new org is the only solution ... it's like the AIGA is the Met, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to become MoMA (or the DIA). It doesn't mean there's not a need and a place for both types of organizations, it just means there isn't the new one yet. I think I'm ready to put my money on it happening outside the AIGA.

> The answer is it's a print organization, which operates at print speed, which has its events sponsored by primarily by paper companies, and which pays next to zero attention to design (or design discussion) that occurs online.

Armin,

This is what I am talking about - overstated generalizations that are quite possibly meant to enrage rather than generate a dialogue.

How is one supposed to respond to accusatory statements like these in a constructive fashion?

That kind of approach is rooted in the zeal of tearing down what we don't agree with rather than discussing . We've seen it before - here, here, here and here... oh and here.

There is a lot (a ton) of good that comes out of Speak Up and I am proud to be an author - I hand out my cards all the time. But, I choose to retire myself from discussions that devolve into mudslinging. Especially when it comes from an honest attempt to bridge the gap with the AIGA haters.

I have an idea Tom - since you have a major beef with the organization, why not post your thoughts and comments about the AIGA on the AIGA forum? Why just lay them out here; take them to the source.

Boy, democracy sucks doesn't it? Having to listen to what everybody has to say?

Armin, I think one of the conundrums of any online community is trying to figure out the difference between "everyone" and "people who visit my site" and "people who actually post on my site." Unlimited access does not equal unlimited participation, or, perhaps, not even representative participation.

That makes it tricky for a "democratic" organization like AIGA to assess their success or failure, or set their future direction, based on what's posted in places like SU or even in their own forums at aiga.org.

As someone with feet uncertainly planted in both worlds (a former AIGA president, regular visitor to SU, and co-founder of my own weblog), I've thought about this a lot. I can promise you that thoughtul criticism is taken seriously by the "leaders" of the AIGA whereever it comes from. The trick is trying to figure out what's right for the membership and what's right for the profession and there's never been any single answer to that.

Ironically, I'm sure that all of the authors and regular posters on SU are considered "leaders" in their own right by the thousands of people who visit the site and post rarely or not at all. And like it or not, you can assume that at least some people consider those leaders an "exclusive" group. The only possible response -- anyone can post, just do it -- is exactly, in effect, what AIGA has said to its own disenfranchised members and non-members for years. I'm come to believe that some people are more content shooting in from outside the tent, and that doesn't make their ideas, or their contribution, any less valid in my opinion. It's just human nature.

Brady, I've been 'taking my issues to the source' since becoming active on the board member of the LA Chapter almost 2 years ago. I'd post them on the nation forum if I thought anyone actually went there and an active dialog could occur there, but frankly Speak Up is a far more active and viable online community. Together with other like voices I've agitated for change on a local level as agressively as decorum allows. I've communicated directly with Ric Grefe and with members of the incoming national board. In LA we've gotten a lot of wonderful praise for our online efforts, but we've seen zero change in the local organization. As I mentioned, instead of a new enthuiasm or any feeling about any 'impertive to move' towards non-print designers, we've instead encountered little but resistance to anything but doing things the way they've always been done.

I'm not trying to enrage (although perhaps some amount of rage is a good thing), I'm reaching a conclusion based on my experience. All I know is the truth of what defines my local chapter. My statement is far from 'mudslinging' — it's the way it is. Sorry if I didn't phrase it delicately enough, but I'd love it if this organization would really take a look in the mirror — isn't that what a leadership retreat should be all about?

Perhaps this is simply a local issue — I've always felt that my chapter does a very poor job of delivering the product promised by National. I'm jealous if your local chapter is different, and bravo if you've had success in making it so. I don't mean to disparage anyone's efforts. In LA the fact is that the local chapter is first and foremost a print design organization which maybe dips its toe in a couple other puddles once a year. I wish there was an abundance of evidence that this is not the case elsewhere as well, but frankly, I don't see it.

I wish there was an abundance of evidence that this is not the case elsewhere as well, but frankly, I don't see it.

Tom, here in Boston both our president and vice-president are veterans of the Experience Design group, and are certainly not "print obsessed." Our volunteer coordinator is an environmental designer (albeit with a print background), our membership chair is a management consultant, and so forth.

There are real issues of inclusion in the AIGA, but I think they are not centered on the (somewhat artificial) web/print divide. So far, the AIGA has done little to serve the in-house design community -- it fact, at times it seems hostile to it. Also, the organization remains about 95% caucasian. These are significant challenges to an organization that aspires to be a national voice for communication designers. Nevertheless, I left St. Louis feeling positive about the level of attention that these and other issues are receiving from both the local and national leadership.

Unlimited access does not equal unlimited participation, or, perhaps, not even representative participation.

No argument there. Still, that should not preclude the leaders of the national organization from participating in the conversation. I have to say, Michael, that the best exchanges in Design Observer take place when you, Rick, and Jessica jump in to the fray, rather than just post articles. A dialogue has a better chance of leading to insight than a monologue.

Jose, that's cool, and if gives one hope. Here leadership seems passed around amongst a small [print-dominated] group in a manner that reminds one of electing a new Pope or General Secretary of the Party. I'm not sure there's any other way to do it — it's a complex organization to run, but it seems [intentionally or not] engineered to discourage change and I think it's part of that transparency issue mentioned above. While we have tried to create a greater potential for participation in board nominations (through an online system) it doesn't seem to have altered the dynamic appreciably.

Sidebar: I'd also wager that 98% of our membership didn't even know there was such a thing as a 'leaderhip retreat' or what it's purpose was. Did any chapters actually inform their membership at large of the goings on in St. Louis and what was supposed to be accomplished beforehand? Any plans to do so after the fact?

> Did any chapters actually inform their membership at large of the goings on in St. Louis and what was supposed to be accomplished beforehand?

I found out because I was in NY, stopped by AIGA headquarters to see the Sensacional exhibition, asked for Ric Grefe (I wanted to say hi) and was told that he was away at, and I quote, a "big meeting in St. Louis". Then Debbie, a leader in her own right, told me about it.

> Unlimited access does not equal unlimited participation, or, perhaps, not even representative participation.

True, point well made.

> The only possible response -- anyone can post, just do it -- is exactly, in effect, what AIGA has said to its own disenfranchised members and non-members for years.

Touché!

There are real issues of inclusion in the AIGA, but I think they are not centered on the (somewhat artificial) web/print divide.

I completely agree, and I appreciate this personally as my studio practice spans the divide and reaches into other areas of design as well. I'm not hostile to print, I do print, I do indentity design, I do packaging. I also do a great deal of interactive work and I'm active online. I continue to run the LA site.

My bottom line is that this organization needs recognize it has a problem: It's perceived as print-centric, old-school, and largely irrelevent to many young designers, particularly those working outside print, who are often the very designers pushing, discussing, engaging, and innovating. If the AIGA wants to connect with this community they have to do more, and do it now. They can't plead ignorance and thrust the problem back outside itself. They have to integrate and champion leaders from outside print on a National and local level — or embrace the reality that maybe the majority is quite comfortable as a "graphic arts" organization and leave it at that. That's fine — just change the mission statement, and don't misrepresent the offering to potential customers.

Still, that should not preclude the leaders of the national organization from participating in the conversation...A dialogue has a better chance of leading to insight than a monologue.

Jose, this is very true. A dialogue is a commitment, though, and you've got to be there to go back and forth in a true online conversation (versus just the occasional hit-and-run comment). Frequenly if you wait until you've got time to post, the moment is lost (or the comment you're reacting to is a few yards back on the thread).

I've noticed, on our site and on others, that various visitors have had a few weeks where they are enthusiastic message posters on all kinds of topics, and then virtually disappear. It turns out they overdose on the experience and then decide that it's taking up too much of their time.

So it's hard to figure out how to make the best use of the forum. And, of course, most people don't realize that "Armin Vit" is in fact a syndicate of more than two dozen specialized individuals, many of whom work out of Bangalore. ;)

> And, of course, most people don't realize that "Armin Vit" is in fact a syndicate of more than two dozen specialized individuals, many of whom work out of Bangalore. ;)

I haven't such a good chuckle in a long time. Thanks Michael. We'll soon be off-shoring some Armin Vits to India and China, they are currently being trained in our Kansas City Control Center.

You're a very rare exception Michael to be this involved.

How many people on the national board right now is willing to risk sharing their views and opinions in forums like this?

Sure, many of them have been published — but their messages are crafted and non-dialogue. It's difficult to get any real impression of the person.

I don't think it's about lack of commitment. I think it's an unwillingness to be involved, and be tested on their thinking and convictions. And to be truthful, I think there's a snob factor as well. Again, you're a rare exception — but I think many board members (and chapter presidents) dismiss the value of joining online communities such as these.

Well hell-o. I would have to agree that there are great differences between online communities and the benefitis of (semi)anonymity, vs. taking an active offline role in whatever community it may be that floats your boat. Any snapshot view from outside an organization is likely an less-informed one.

For me AIGA is not unlike a continuing education program and ongoing professional tune up. I am part of other groups and I don't wear my AIGA "happy branding" sash and march up and down the aisles (at least not publicly), but I can say that locally we endeavor to add diversity our local membership as it makes sense to membership's core values and purpose. It was still a design-centric organization last week in St. Louis (hello?).

I wish the 35 people who showed up for our first San Diego (and now barely breathing) Experience Design Group meeting were still active, as our site is a visually appealing crossroad of frustrating dead ends. The bastard child of both worlds having collided perhaps. Clearly the rgb posse varies as greatly as the offline world in abilities and levels of commitment. There are as many points in common as there are differences. Clear communication is the second part often missing from the equation.

One of the major obstacles is special interest group exchanges are free ("like the Internet was meant to be" - minus of course, the value of one's time). AIGA cost something to join, and costs even more to be active. Ever take a college class and then have to buy books AND supplies? And then go to a class or two even. I'm surprised at how many people feel entitled without caring to do any heavy lifting, expecting growth through osmosis. It is even easier to be a critic when you remove the human side of interactivity and sit down one on one with your favorite access portal.

Dear Speak Up: At times you seem like the ever-engaging Crib Notes Chapter of the AIGA. The subtleties are often lost in the translation. But I still like you. Peace from San Diego.

72 "comments", uncountable issues, and 139 question marks.

In general I don't post in discussion forums unless I have an answer, that's just me. After reviewing this thread and feeling excited, surprised, humored, perplexed, ambitious, dis-enchanted, etc. I still don't necessarily have _the answer to any one issue but I couldn't close the lid on this laptop without saying "something, anything..." after spending a fine three hours+ reading and soaking this all in. But maybe, just maybe that's why discussions on aiga.org are a little light on the comments. Answers are much harder to come by. Maybe this is why we don't see some folks we'd like to see posting within many threads.

At any rate, back to a few of the other points this thread addresses...

What should we as leaders be paying attention to?

The AIGA should keep an international, outward facing agenda in mind. It feels to me that the organization would not be serving it's overall mission by supporting forums that provide more issues than answers. The discussions on the AIGA design forum _are moderated and I highly doubt they ever won't be (although we did learn from L.A. that it might be a good idea to support some degree of freedom, comments are now posted immediately rather than first reviewed by the magician behind the curtain).

Let me know what you think should be the future of AIGA.

Regarding the AIGA's membership and our participation in discussions...

Next post, focus on providing an answer, we all have enough issues to deal with already. Maybe we shouldn't always wait for the answer to come from "above". Let's start providing a few of our own answers.

Just to answer Tom's question:

Did any chapters actually inform their membership at large of the goings on in St. Louis and what was supposed to be accomplished beforehand? Any plans to do so after the fact?

The members of our board that went to St. Louis will report back to the entire board about what happened in St. Louis, what the outcomes are and what the goals and ambitions are for the coming year and beyond at our local board retreat in two weeks.

After that meeting, and I'm sure more discussion, we will publish in print and electronically a local 'annual report' that will inform our membership of what we've learned and what our goals are. I am planning on requesting that a mechanism in both versions be provided to members for feedback.

I think one of the most difficult things that AIGA faces, both locally and nationally, some of which can be seen in the comments in this thread, is that there are people who'd rather spout out about what's wrong but not do the work, or stick around long enough, to make the change happen.

The other problem is that most members are just damn apathetic. They pay their membership, attend the events and that's it. They don't care to volunteer their time to help out or get involved in issues outside their own needs. Now, of course some of those people have legitimate reasons they aren't more invovled. But on an organziational level, these are very difficult hurdles to tackle but of course, it must be done.

Tom, having not involved in the LA situtation I can't tell you why your board seems so print dominated. I can tell you that here in Baltimore we do have both print and web design events and the board is totally supportive of these efforts. I know that Orin has read this thread, and maybe it would be a good suggestion, for the rest of the LA leadership to at least read the comments here and see what can be done to facillitate any change that may be necessary in your chapter.

I can't say this enough. If you care enough to complain about a problem, then you should become part of the solution. It's obvious that doing that can often be a frustrating, arduous task. But if you believe your position to be correct, and it's something you want to see happen, then aren't you better off making sure it happens?

Hope everyone has a fabulous 4th and a great weeekend. : )

Rob, yes. And thanks for your thoughtful comments. But realistically, how long can one be expected to stick around without progress? A year? 2 years? 5 years? At some point you realize life is too short and your energies might be better spent elsewhere.

I've put my hours where my mouth is and I spend time on AIGA tasks just about every day, often for hours not minutes — a reality that I'm sure each of the board members here shares. David and I and Rob (who will soldier on) have consistently urged evolution, outreach, and new efforts, and we've had supporters, but any real change takes a majority effort, not just undersupported actions from a progressive faction.

The AIGA in LA is print-domintated (and will likely remain so) because it's a chicken and egg problem: Why would non-print designers want to join if it's an organization that largely ignores them? How will the organization evolve if it remains dominated by print designers? How do we raise sponsorship dollars if it's not from the same print vendors and paper companies that have been giving us money for 20 years? Answers might require some thinking outside-the-box, some brand definition, and some refocused messaging ... and the real disappointment has been that a creative organization has seemed so incapable of that — the very thing that we're supposed to be good at.

Can't you build a concensus - even an outside group of opinions, or people with similar needs to present a cause or concern to your local board? Not implying this hasn't been considered but I can't believe Mick and crew wouldn't have open minds - and ears. Non-members and members alike are always invited to San Diego board meetings, introduced and given Q&A time at the end of chapter business. Not enough take advantage of this.

The LA site is certainly another space to vocalize issues. In San Diego, we conducted pre-St.Louis roundtables and limited member surveys. More are on the way and this also filters into our chapter retreat in two weeks (while it's still hot) to develop annual programming that resonates with the community-at-large (not just fishing in the same pond of designers).

Hey, if you are passionate and your needs aren't being met, the weather's great in SD. C'mon down. The time investment question is valid. As much as it takes, perhaps? How much time do you have, and how many people can you rally to contribute to the change. If you are Luke Skywalker on a solo mission it may be too daunting. If you believe there is potential and value to a change in perceived chapter focus, then use the force young jedi... too many great thinkers tune out too easily.

I question that the commitent issue is such a rare one, so long as the mission and purpose are relevant and the group is open minded and engaging, there are many dedicated professionals with something to offer that make this a richer experience.

I hope to shift my commitment hours to working with Mick (and others) to address the issue — consensus that there is a problem is the easy part — there's not a lot of disagreement with any of the points raised, as the realities are pretty much self-evident. Figuring out what to do about it is the [much] harder part, along with mustering the will to then actually do things a bit differently — especially if that involves even more energy or working outside a well-established comfort zone.

Tom - But realistically, how long can one be expected to stick around without progress? A year? 2 years? 5 years? At some point you realize life is too short and your energies might be better spent elsewhere.

Well, I'm going on year three with AIGA Orlando board. Progress has been slow, but there has been progress. I'm in complete agreement with recent comments (and Armin's and others' earlier). The solution is in doing, not waiting for someone else, leadership from 'above' or otherwise. Ultimately the membership controls the organization. The apathetic ones may end up complaining and become disenchanted. The active ones make changes they feel personally responsible for. Obviously this is not always productive and/or rewarding (as seen in the LA web scenario), but often it is.

Did any chapters actually inform their membership at large of the goings on in St. Louis and what was supposed to be accomplished beforehand? Any plans to do so after the fact?

Before each leadership retreat, the general membership in our area is informed of the upcomming event. Upon return, we have a local board retreat that evaluates the information and communicates it locally by email. We openly encourage the membership to participate in event planning and the local programming we spend our time and money developing.

> I'm surprised at how many people feel entitled without caring to do any heavy lifting, expecting growth through osmosis.

Look, I know I am not in "the trenches" like many other AIGA members or volunteers, and I'll be the first to admit that. But — and this is not making excuses — I tend to focus my energy on, well, here. I try to put together events — small that they are — that I think are relevant to me and that the AIGA doesn't offer (ie the seriouSeries). Instead of spending energy trying to talk the event chairs into letting me have Jim Coudal, 37 Signals, Gapers Block and Threadless do a night on Web topics I just do it myself. I like hearing Rick Valicenti talk so I invited him over and some other guys and we had a nice evening. I wanted to talk about the Vancouver conference so I asked former and current chapter presidents to do it and we did it. So, so much for not doing.

And when I have been approached by the AIGA here to help out, I do. Bryony and I did a workshop that Connie Harvey put together with Marwen with the help of Adobe, and uncomfortable as I was with the idea of spending a day with teenagers I did it, because it was a worthwhile cause from the AIGA. When Steve Heller invited me to write for the new AIGA Journal, I did, and that is time I could have spent on writing for Speak Up. When they asked me for a contribution to the AIGA Bingo, I gave a donation and spent some time designing a fabulous bingo card. When they wanted me to help them do the new chapter web site I went to an initial meeting to check it out, the guy who was in charge was so damn burnt out I got burnt out just by looking at him. That was a year ago, and the web site is still not done. So I keep investing time, money, etc into my own site.

I don't want applause or anything, but I think I'm entitled to have an opinion — good or bad — about an organization I belong to.

Thanks for joining the conversation DJ.

Many thanks for enriching the experience. I was referring more to a general majority and an often vocal non-member contingency. I think it is equally noteworthy, if not a greater effort, to take on this commitment as an indepedent inititative.

Glad to chime in. Hope you took time off on the 4th.

Good lord, I'd love to get involved with the conversation here, but geez, it would take hours, and i have a day job! Look at the times of these posts...get back to work all you designers with big ideas. I had a great time in St. Lou, for me it is about perspective, timing and being open--they all coalesced on one incredible weekend in the Midwest for me.

First I want to say that the Seattle AIGA Chapter is having Ze Frank speak this Thursday July 22nd.

http://www.aigaseattle.org/events/ze/zefrank.htm

And I know Portland just had an event where they partnered with Goto+Play to bring Matt Owens in to teach.

The Seattle board is roughly made up of an equal number of Interactive/Experience designers and Print Designers so it may be more accepting to the idea of programming for different types of Design.

Tan: AIGA's "Experience Design" Community (for Web/interactive/motion graphics design) seems to have gone into witness protection. I haven't seen or heard anything around town lately either.

I find this an interesting comment coming from Tan. Since we in Seattle have had quite a few Experience design events in Seattle over the past two years since his Presidency ended and they were all planned by Greg who at the time of the events was working at the same company as Tan.

I guess this just goes to prove that people often filter out the events/information about things they personally aren't interested in.

Seattle has also done a large amount of programming this last year around In-house and Pro-Bono design. These topics aren't web or print specific.

Also events like the membership party, designer bingo, and The Seattle Show aren't specific to any type of designer (they are basically parties and I know web designers that drink). Our Student events like the portfolio reviews aren't print or web specific either. I sat in at the reviews and saw a large amount of web work in many of the portfolios.

If you want to see a better representation of your areas of interest by your own chapter you need to get involved and take part in your local chapter. The AIGA isn't a "them" it's an us.

Now I know that the LA group may refute this and I'd understand since working on the website is a bit of a burden to bear. It's unfortunate that they've come to the conclusion that it isn't a fight worth continuing as I think it's something that has potential for change.

Well I'll stop blathering on now and just offer up myself as a resource for suggestions if someone needs more specific suggestions on how to get their chapters to do web related events.

> find this an interesting comment coming from Tan.

Yes, I'm fully aware of those afterwork gatherings Marty, but how many have we had in the last 6 months? And nothing against Greg's gracious efforts or the local ExDesign community — but it seemed that the same 20 people were showing up at meetings that were basically just show&tell/technology discussion groups. Not what I would call a swelling Experience Design effort.

>needs more specific suggestions on how to get their chapters to do web related events.

I'd concentrate on that Seattle website first. Whatever happened to the new site that's been in the works since I was pres? Four years and counting, right?

...

Look, I'm still an avid AIGA supporter, volunteering time to help revive Design Camp and spearhead the ICOGRADA conference. Not to mention designing and producing the Seattle Show catalog and website almost single-handedly. I'm the last person you want to accuse of "filter[ing] out the events/information...they personally aren't interested in."

Let's see how you take the reigns Mr.Hall.

Well, as Tan mentions above, "where has ExDes been the last 6 months." No excuses here, the local chapter has relied on me to be the leader of this and I have failed miserably. I'll admit it was tough and time consuming and I had to do it all myself, so I had a bit of a defeatist attitude. I should have drafted a larger group so I could have delegated. I should have asked for help. Perhaps this is an example of what NOT to do, an example that represents what is needed to support a community...backup! People to help out and lend a hand. I wonder if I would have asked and people did contribute, we would have had more events, I would hope so. But here is the lesson, as chapter chair, get two or three others to be committed to help run the group and then maybe between all of you, you would have enough steam to follow through on some great ideas. Sorry Seattle I should have served you better. And ironically I am now the VP of the chapter! But I feel like I have learned some great lessons, and I look forward to helping the chapter in anyway I can.

No Greg, I really don't mean to lay blame on you. Despite your Herculean efforts, the ExDes community has yet to reach critical mass. You're too humble of a guy, and too quick to claim responsibility.

Who's fault is it? No one's, except perhaps the mother ship, AIGA national.

All of the responses on this threads points to the fact that as a whole, interactive designers don't feel connected to AIGA. Or they don't have a connection with the ExDes messaging or leadership from the organization.

It might be a characteristic of the interactive field in general — a field perpetually redefining itself and questioning its fit. Is it design, or is it technology? Is it AIGA's problem to fix?

These are complex issues — problems that an AIGA Bingo Night cannot solve. It's not a matter of local interest or personal interest in my case, as Marty stated the situation — but a matter of AIGA's national commitment to the interest group.

First my apologies Tan, I didn't mean for that to come out as any sort of attack on your commitment to AIGA or the Seattle Community. I merely thought it an interesting place to illustrate how perceptions can vary from individual to individual.

As for your quick turn to change the conversation from how to improve the AIGA's attention on the interactive community into a who's done what lately pointing of fingers, let's just let that die here.

We're all volunteers who sweat blood and tears to make the best of the AIGA organization and I only have props for those that take up the mantle, you included Tan, your an asset to our city's community and it’s rare that folks get the credit they deserve.

All of the responses on this thread points to the fact that as a whole, interactive designers don't feel connected to AIGA. Or they don't have a connection with the ExDes messaging or leadership from the organization. It might be a characteristic of the interactive field in general — a field perpetually redefining itself and questioning its fit. Is it design, or is it technology? Is it AIGA's problem to fix?

Tan, well put, and the crux of the issue. My complaint is the chasm between the talk and the walk, particularly between all the high-falutin' design with a D discourse from national and the seeming complete lack of interest in anything beyond traditional [print] portfolio shows at my local level. This is only an AIGA problem to fix if the organization really has ambition to be about design leadership. This is a monumental challenge, and one that I'm not very confident the AIGA is up to, given the difficulty they have reaching out to print's closest sibling, web design.

Not only do interactive designers feel not connected to the AIGA, other leading design fields find even less relevance with the org: environmental designers, product designers, industrial designers, game designers, motion graphics, animators. [Interactive design is no more about 'technology' than any of these other fields, or than print — it's just different technology.] While there's a smattering of light attention paid to these practive areas in AIGA efforts, it's by and large lip service and frankly comes off as insincere half-measures. Dedicated practictioners in these fields are outsiders within the organization, which is really (surprise) a Graphic designers org.

Frankly, I think national should stop fighting it and consider just embracing it. They are a graphic arts organization for graphic designers. They serve a membership that is overwhelmingly print designers, who look to the organization for portfolio show celebrations and social networking. Perhaps that's a fine role to fill.

It's not design leadership however, and if the organization really wants to embrace that mandate they need to step out of their comfort zone and be willing to change. Either that or stop talking about it, because it's little more than deceptive advertising. I paid my money to be part of that organization. I've been very disappointed that the chapter I joined seemed to have very little resemblance to it.

You're right Marty, I was too defensive. My apologies in return.

Many of us, including yourself, go to great lengths to volunteer our time and resources because we believe in what AIGA stands for. But once in a while, it's good to look at AIGA with a critical eye, and question if it's necessarily heading in the right direction.

Best of luck to you for your term, Marty. One piece of friendly pres-to-pres advice — be vigilant. As president, the action and responsibility of each and every board member falls immediately on your shoulders. Make sure you always know everything that's going on.

I just have one additional question.

By the heated responses on this thread and previous ones, it's obvious that there's lots of interactive designers out there ready and able to volunteer their efforts to course-correct AIGA's ExDes group. So where are you when the boards start looking for volunteers to chair or help out on ExDes events? Heck, where are you when they hold the events?

Maybe the reason why most AIGA chapters are print-biased is because those are the only designers that take the initiative to show up at events and raise their hands when asked to volunteer.

Or is it all chatter guys?

I can only speak for myself, but it's far from chatter with me. I joined the chapter, built the LA site with Rob Bynder and David Young (and others), helped spearhead bringing the first big non-portfolio show event to LA (The Brand Gap seminar), and together with Rob and David agitated, cajoled and pushed for a broader scope to event planning and chapter perspective at every instance — frankly, to the point of making ourselves personas non grata. Single individuals cannot change this organization's course unless leadership is willing to embrace, participate in and champion change.

So, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Print-biased chapters will attract print designers and few others. Without non-print practioners supported in leadership positions, programming and overall scope doesn't change. Without the direction changing, it's pretty unreasonable to expect non-print practioners to stick around for (2-3-5?) years fighting an uphill battle. It's hard for me to imagine how this cycle is broken in the foreseeable future.

I meant other than you, Tom.

You set a great example, and expended great effort. It's a shame it wasn't built upon. But that might not necessarily be the case across the other chapters.

>Single individuals cannot change this organization's course unless leadership is willing to embrace, participate in and champion change.

That's not true, Tom. I originally joined our chapter's board with a mission. By the end of my term, I changed a lot of things, helped to foster new ideas, laid groundwork for future execs to follow, and fixed as many things as I could.

As a single individual, I made an impact — I think. I know lots of people in AIGA that are relatively unknown professionally, but have empowered themselves to create change in AIGA.

Tan, well you were leadership, so maybe that's a difference. As a president you were able to make change happen. As 'online' committee VPs, we had very little success in changing overall direction when faced with a board majority of entrenched veterans really not interested in change. My point is an individual can only effect change if change is desired. Your election (or selection) to chapter leadership is a testament to your personal and diplomatic skills, but I think also reflects a willingness of other chapter power-brokers to embrace your energy and support your new ideas. It can happen, but let's just say it was not the case in our situation.

I think it's not realistic to expect that new thinkers are going to toil in the muck for half a decade before earning their stripes and getting a crack at changing things. If a corporation thought their culture needed changing, and time was an issue, they would go out and do whatever it takes to get an infusion of new blood in decision-making positions. I just don't see than happening in this organization, or even a perception that it needs to entertain the idea.

Tom, you obviously did a lot there, and your frustration is justified I think. When our chapter puts in the time and effort that you seem to have put in, I would hope that the rewards would be profitable...if not, then I might be in the same boat as you, rowing in the same direction. Since our efforts here with Exdes and the design/technology conversation are little more than scratching the surface, I have yet to judge the true commitment of those disenfranchised folks. But you can be sure if my conscience says we are doing all we can, and still not getting traction, than I think I'll be mad more than frustrated.

Thanks for your comments Tom, and yours Tan, I like the thinking about design/technology.

side note: I'd like to call all of us designers, with out the prefix of medium. Is that insulting or realistic?

I'd like to call all of us designers, without the prefix of medium.

I think this is what is implied by any organization that says it wants to "set the national agenda for the role of design in its economic, social, political and cultural contexts." There's no qualifier of "graphic" there, but that agenda is a lot easier said than done. It's incredibly presumptuous of the AIGA to think they can set a national design agenda without vigorously reaching out to other design disciplines. As someone mentioned (in another post I think) with all the talk lately of design as a business tool, graphic design is hardly ever mentioned and environmental and industrial design is usually front and center. It's like a an organization saying 'we want to set the agenda on civil rights leadership' without having minorities in positions of power. That's insulting.

o0vpvatr44jrnhui