My comment is only somewhat relevant to this interview, but given that there's a lot of talk about knowledge and recognition here, its worth pointing out that Hitler killed 11 million people. Six million were Jews. 5 million were of other origins.

It's nobody's fault--but our society really does perpetuate a lot of "incomplete" information and finding truth can be EXTREMELY difficult.

What is it about the world we live in, or at least in the USA? I find this culture to be indifferent and narcissistic--we worship that no-talent ass clown Paris Hilton with reckless abandon, and treat Donald Trump as a business guru even though his casinos once again face bankruptcy. There are more news outlets now than ever before, yet they're all based on abbreviation and entertainment, not curiosity and information.

I think there are MANY designers out there doing work that confronts their audiences with the real issues, the real facts, the real outcomes. But if nobody wants to listen, what do you do then? Or what if they're simply unable to hear in the first place?

I think there are MANY designers out there doing work that confronts their audiences with the real issues, the real facts, the real outcomes. But if nobody wants to listen, what do you do then? Or what if they're simply unable to hear in the first place?

For those doing work that confronts real issues, it's a hard, challenging, and tortured road. Surely, they ask themselves those same questions, but continue their work because of one reason that drives them. Each of us has that one thing. It's personal and unique, driving one to hold firm to values. Much of Natalia's writing errupts out of her values and beliefs. I hope that some will get the chance to become familiar with her work, and ask themselves what they value.

Natalia has written eloquently about how graphic design culture hobbles graphic design’s progress and she’s right that music is one of the models worth looking to. (It’s interesting how many interactive designers I’ve known started off as musicians.) It is worth expanding on her statement—

I’d have them work more communally in school: in more groups during their education.

The structure of most educational institutions works against doing this as is really needed. Since like people are grouped together a group project ends up with the equivalent of eight lead guitarists working together.

And for the off-topic rhythm section:

Hitler killed 11 million people. Six million were Jews. 5 million were of other origins.

Of course this is about the death camps. If you count the war he set off, Hitler can get credit for more than 30 million deaths. There’s some amount of question on camp numbers. Credible estimates seem to range from just less than 11 million to just over 13 million. The latter, slightly lower estimates seem to be winning out but this is not a personal obsession of mine so don’t trust my take on that. Jews were the largest group represented in the death camps but probably slightly less than half the deaths in the camps.

Recent research brings Stalin’s score much higher than previously thought so he could win the Death Derby after all, depending on who is counting what. Does Pol Pot still have the bronze or did he test positive for EPO?

Not to let the conversation dissolve into a "my dictator killed more people than your dictator" conversation, but Bradley has an excellent point here about the difficulty of finding "truth." Particularly today, when all web sites look somehow "equal," and the "truth" of some neo-marxist site seems as true as the "truth" of the Columbia University Slavic Department site. When you google "Stalin's murders" you get lists between 25 and 40 million people. That's a tremendous range-- what is true there? I got the nine million number from what happened in the Ukraine during the "false famine."

The exact total number of persons affected remains uncertain and depends on how the count is made, especially depending on the time period considered and whether deaths related to the Gulag and transportation losses are included.

In this search for exactitude, Stalin's quote is the real truth, no? We're playing with statistics here, ignoring the massive human sadness of all of these numbers because that sadness is too painful. If we really let it in, it would affect the way we deal with the world. It would affect the way think, what we value, the way we design. And what would the result of that be?

As far as nobody wanting to listen: well. You don't need everyone to listen. But refusing to put your own truth (preferably well-researched) out there gives no one a chance to listen.

NI: You’ve just said it. I’d have them work more communally in school: in more groups during their education.

Why is this a good idea? Design by committee generally produces crap. Having seen education up close through my son's school, I would say teamwork and communal education are relentlessly over-emphasized. This is the typical trajectory of an educational fad. It's much more important that a student learn to face a blank sheet of paper alone.

Why is this a good idea?

Because it’s the way the big, interesting, and important projects will get done.

Design by committee generally produces crap.

Because people don’t know how to work with teams.

I would say teamwork and communal education are relentlessly over-emphasized.

Pretend teamwork and communal posing are what are overemphasized

It's much more important that a student learn to face a blank sheet of paper alone., huh? I can see the value of creating and visualizing under self-driven circumstances, but a select few have the ability and drive to work as 100% solo designers, and they're more artists than anything else. Design students won't be working alone in their professional practice, so if they like that kind of caged environment they're in the wrong field.

The practical circumstances of a designer's work predicates an ability to work with others and deal positively with the inevitable compromises. That reality does not make a designer socially responsible, which is what I take Natalia's comment I just wish designers would open their eyes a bit. I would like to see them take some responsibility for the ways their work affects real people in the world… to mean. Whether in a group or individually, it is meaningless to teach future designers a sense of social responsibilty if there isn't a supporting environment outside of academia to make those lessons real. Designers have the ability (and the responsibilty!), to foster and construct an environment that reflects a truth that will not allow the murder of however millions of innocent people be confused with a statistic. We have to sleep in the bed that we've made like it or not. If not, then we have to change it today and not hope that future generations will somehow, miraculously, get a clue and do the hard work for us, just to satisfy our ideals.

> Whether in a group or individually, it is meaningless to teach future designers a sense of social responsibilty if there isn't a supporting environment outside of academia to make those lessons real.

On most given days I would pesimistically agree with that comment. However I do think that if you can instill a sense of social responsibility, a desire for collaborative efforts and other sort of good things in students they will be able to form that "supporting environment outside of academia" once they go out in the world. You can't program a student to be any of these things but you can try to teach them the sensibility.

**

As a side, complimentary note, good interview Jason. And thanks Natalia for your time. I enjoyed reading it.

Jason--loved the interview. It was great to read the perspectives of such an accomplished and strong female designer.

Regarding the design student's need for a better understanding of socially-aware contexts, I wonder where this education comes into play in art school. I started off as a liberal arts student and transferred to art school later, so naturally my previous education in literature, sociology, and history was a bit more prevalent in my student work. But I think that as long as the form is taking precedence in design education, designers are going to remain uncomfortable with launching into full academic analysis of topics that stray too far from the "I'm making something that looks cool comfort zone."

Most of the art students I went to school with fall back on their art as 'visual masturbation' (as my favorite prof used to call it) because the outside world is pretty daunting for those who've had no experience with it. And sadly, I don't think that most design students are first-and-foremost interested in the broad cultural comments they could be making with design. How many students did I graduate with who weren't even registered to vote? How many senior projects did I see where gazing at their own narcissistic reflections in mirrors of their own making was the primary message?

Because it’s the way the big, interesting, and important projects will get done.

Perhaps this is a bit over-categorical. I can think of many big, trivial, boring projects; as well as some small ones that are pretty interesting. Unless, of course, this is only about bucks.

Design students won't be working alone in their professional practice, so if they like that kind of caged environment they're in the wrong field.

I can see your point if the design student ends up working in a big corporate in-house environment; or one of those monster design firms we hear about occaisonally. They may never be required to come up with a concept on thier own. However, if the student ever has their own professional practice, the ability to come up with concepts on their own is valuable and neccesary. After all, we're supposed to be creatives, right?