Brilliant. Well done. Now I feel like an incredible loser. Can't wait to see this bird cage acted out on Oprah. "You get a finch. You get a finch. You get a finch." Everyone gets a finch! (visual: birdseed drops from ceiling; cage opens- finches go wild! Naked women, naked Steffen, naked Oprah!)

PS- A little birdy told me Stefan really has issues changing type faces. I kid Stefan. I kid because I love.

Great interview.

I have a strange issue with this book that I haven't seen anyone on any review comment on before, so I'll share:

I ordered WorldChanging because I wanted very badly to dig into the design and content, of course, and when I recieved it I was ready to spend a lot of time with its huge amount of information.

But about 1 minute into opening the book, I was struggling to read. The damn thing had such stiff binding that I could hardly open it enough to read the inner column text. Trust me, I tried very hard to read it, because I wanted to so bad, but I returned it the very next day, tired of fighting the book.

I checked the local bookstore then to see if my copy was a fluke, but sure enough every one of them had this beartrap binding.

It really sucks that the design (or production, whoever is to blame) kept me from reading such a great book.

Has nobody else noticed this?

J Tyler, I did note that the book was difficult to open when I first got it, but I don't have that problem anymore. I think I must've just adjusted how I hold it.

J Tyler. I noticed that too. and, IMHO the margins are a little narrow (gotta work to keep my thumbs out of the way). but overall I think that these small issues are outweighed by all the good things.

I just got a note back from Stefan. He said the tight binding was in fact a production problem with the first run of books and has been corrected in the subsequent runs.

J Tyler, now you've got reason to get the book again.

Great interview Agent Hunt. Over the past few months – and I realized this more, when I read this – I've been thinking that design "coverage" has been shying away from case studies of individual projects and it's easy to forget how much work and thinking can go into any given thing. It's as if unless we are dealing with a major rebranding the process of designing can not be that complex, interesting or revelatory. There is so much to tell and learn from small projects and I'm glad Stefan took the time and energy to share with Randy and the rest of us.

Maybe you'll see more of this on Speak Up. Could be interesting.

Maybe you'll see more of this on Speak Up. Could be interesting.

I'd like that very much!

And I got this book several weeks back, and have been digging into the material. It's literally life-changing. And finding out that Sefan's studio designed it was just icing on the cake. Good work, all!

I'm with you. Armin and Tim. Please, expect more.

Great interview! I too await more content like this on Speak Up.

I have a suggestion for the second edition that I hope will be considered because it can help the use experience of the book rise to the level of the design and its content.

It has to do with the overall size and weight of the book. It’s pretty uncomfortable to read in bed or to hold open even on the table. Did you ever consider breaking up the sections into separate thinner books that will all fit into the slip cover? This would make it much more physically comfortable and physiologically approachable and also easier to take on trips. It would also open the great possibility of lending different sections of the book to different people and therefore become even more usable.

Great design communicates with meaning and emotion through an appropriate usage experience.

Stiven:
Wouldn't that make the book significantly more expensive both to produce and in terms of materials?

Whether it's (too) heavy is obviously subjective, and I'm not questioning whether you might think so, but on the other hand, trying to keep its weight down to that of "a novel" was specifically mentioned, so... Unfortunately, I can't remember my impression of its weight last time I saw one.

Wow, Stefan Sagmeister broke even on this one. Way to go, Stefan! At least that's better than he probably did on all those AIGA invitations and the stuff he does for his girlfriend that we always see any time there's an article about him.

Maybe someday someone will write an article about what Stefan Sagmeister actually does for a living. Now THAT would be interesting.

The secret to becoming a high profile designer that appears to always do cutting edge work:

Only show pro bono and experimental work. Never show bread and butter work. Otherwise you will look like the rest of the industry.

1, that is quite the generalization you've got going on there. Care to share some examples of pro-bono and "experimental" work compared to "bread and butter work" of high profile designers that support your theory?

Plus, you'd be surprised at how little "experimental" work — if there is even such a thing — goes on. Good designers don't screw with their clients' end result just to try a new, crazy typeface combination.

1 of 300,000,000 was basically saying the same thing I was (though with less sarcasm). I don't think it would be possible for him to share any examples of whatever it is that pays Stefan Sagmeister's mortgage, because it hasn't been shared by the designer or the design media.

You're right though; there is very little of what he calls "experimental work" ("experimental" was probably the wrong term. "High Concept work" is more accurate). In fact, it probably accounts for no more than .1% of all graphic design being done. And if the design media wanted to devote .1% of their space to arty books with holes in the cover, that would be fine by me. But the real design for the real world – the other 99.9% – that's what I find the most interesting.

I once saw Stefan Sagmeister speak to a group of design students, and he as much as said that anything but High Concept work is not a worthwhile pursuit for graphic designers. His lecture was accompanied by a multimedia show featuring a lot of work he obviously made little to no money on and an art installation with foamy liquid running through some kind of contraption (*yawn*). If that's not trying to create a bullshit perception, I don't know what is.

If you really, really look closely at the examples of outstanding design that are often reproduced in the history books (Meggs, et al), you might notice that many, many things from the 20th century fall into what would be called, in this discussion, "high-concept;" some even only existed as "comps" or rejected designs. Of course the history of this detail has not been very well developed, but if you have radar for this you can see it. I think what this says is that the very way our profession has valued itself is usually by the idea and its execution, and not really by how large the commission was or how widely the design was used. I for one am always puriently fascinated with how other designers "really" make their money, but that has been, at least up til this point, a subject that most people have separated from the cultural and social worth of the work.

If you really, really look closely at the examples of outstanding design that are often reproduced in the history books (Meggs, et al), you might notice that many, many things from the 20th century fall into what would be called, in this discussion, "high-concept"

I don't disagree. Like I said, it's not just the designer's fault, but the design media as well. That includes history books, magazines and websites.

I think what this says is that the very way our profession has valued itself is usually by the idea and its execution, and not really by how large the commission was or how widely the design was used.

I'd say it's the design media's realization that a more romantic picture is more enticing to readers and sells advertising in their magazine. But you're right… that is where the emphasis is, unfortunately.

…how other designers "really" make their money… has been, at least up til this point, a subject that most people have separated from the cultural and social worth of the work.

And that's what's the most unfortunate thing: the fact that the arty little project that's precious to the designer and no one else is held up as something for everyone to aspire to. The things that are the most widely used (often the projects with the largest commissions) ARE the ones with largest potential for cultural and social worth, because they play the biggest role in our culture and society.

Pi skyy, you are being very polemical here, as if it's an "either/or" situation, when I would maintain that it is a "both/and" situation. If ubiquitousness was the measurement of social and cultural importance, than the Coca-cola logo would rank as one of the most important design objects of all time. And it is, in terms of a specific history of design, one that would track the development of identity and branding in public communication, and a relationship of business to design and vice-versa. But if you use that same ruler when you turn to book design, well, then, the phone book becomes the most important artifact in design historical terms: and while I think the phone book is pretty important in a history of the distribuiton of technology, you'd be hard pressed to find an American phone book that was singular in its importance for its design and typography. There are so many lenses through which one can view things : and while I agree that it might be tiresome to always see "the design media" fall back on the trope of writing about designed things as the work of individual, artist-like designers (like Mr. Sagmeister), the opposite measurement that you describe doesn't quite account for the entire picture, either. Which is why design is so fascinating and frankly, maddening to describe.

The whole point of this book is to raise hope and optimism, isntead of dwelling on problems. Let's not argue about what's experimental or bread and butter. It's great that Stefan inspires students with conceptually brilliant work - the mundane side of things will eventually show its head.

Keep the attitude positive, and spirits high. We need more of this and less complaining.

Roy,

It would be a real shame to cut off this line of conversation so with all due respect, I hope people ignore you on this. Hope and optimism without recognition of problems is worthless drivel (as is despair and pessimism without consideration of solutions.)

We all find such discussions frustrating as they swerve from what seems to be “the point” to something else but this something else isn’t merely kvetching or low grade iconoclasm.

This is, in many ways, another view of the recent Design Observer discussion of The Graphic Glass Ceiling. That discussion and this one could easily be dismissed by pointing out that the very notion of a “famous” graphic designer is pathetic. The interesting part of both discussions from my perspective is that they touch on what we have collectively chosen to value. (Or what we have chosen to value collectively. Or both.)

So we can say that reality television isn’t about reality and that people who degrade themselves on the air so that their fifteen minutes comes a little earlier than it might have otherwise are pathetic and move on. That misses the important point that millions of us choose to watch them. (That mainly apropos of the DO glass ceiling discussion.) By dismissing the discussion we miss the chance to learn something about ourselves (apropos “the glass ceiling” and this thread.)

The same is true in saying that it is good that someone is inspiring young designers and stopping things there. Inspiring them to what? And what does it mean if we say that others should value our work then we show that we value things less central to what most of us think of as our work? Thanks to Lorraine for fielding what could be too easily dismissed as cynical grumbling and revealing an important issue.

This is slightly off topic and part of a conversation from another site but the glass ceiling conversation was long in the tooth by the time I found time to post so I didn’t comment there. Since that conversation about the dearth of female speakers at graphic design events prominently featured Lorraine Wild and Paula Sher, I wanted to publicly say what I believe I have mentioned to each of them privately: Most conferences have a talk where I find myself thinking “this is why I spent the money and time to be here.” Although several people have been central to many conferences, only two have made me have that particular thought at more than one conference. Lorraine and Paula are the two. Thanks again.

…you are being very polemical here, as if it's an "either/or" situation, when I would maintain that it is a "both/and" situation.

lorraine, I didn't think I was stating it as either or. I'd just like to see the pendulum swing in the other direction. All I'd like to see is a genuinely inspiring, realistic portrayal of the field of graphic design by the media, instead of it constantly playing into certain designers' shallow quest for celebrity status.

It's great that Stefan inspires students with conceptually brilliant work - the mundane side of things will eventually show its head.

You might want to think about where you got the idea that the majority of graphic design needs to be mundane – because it wasn't from anything Massimo Vignelli or Paul Rand ever said or wrote. This may be your idea of the right way to inspire students, but it isn't mine.

Keep the attitude positive…

I do have a positive attitude. I love being able to do my small part in creating the world's visual environment. But having to either believe in myths to stay "positive", or reject them and be "negative" are two sides of the same coin.

Why Mr Sagmeister is important to me
by Jeff Gill, age (thirty-) three

Mr Sagmeister has helped me not to look at at everyday work as bread-and-butter work. When I look at his work I am inspired to bring a certain spirit into my everyday work. For me it is not about having groovy clients with no money or a girlfriend who is a fashion designer. It is about choosing to look at the work I have with a spirit of -- what's the term? experimentation/a project people can look up to/high concept.

Two personal examples:

1. What could be more 'bread-and-butter' than the trade press? I designed a series of trade ads for an industrial tissue company that were highly effective and were, I was reliably told, the talk of the industry because of the way they looked.
I was inspired to create those ads by looking at things like Sagemeister's 'arty little projects', not by looking at the phone book.

2. A speciality food client asked me to design their trade show stand for the IFE in London. It was fabulous and involved many giant ornate picture frames painted red. Wonderful fun and very successful. What followed it was 2 years of flyers, trade ads and bits for the website inspired by that stand. Those things could be classed as very bread-and-butter, but they retained the fabulousness of the original concept. I'm pretty sure that there would have been no fabulouness if I had been dwelling on the 99.9% -- the work that most designers do.

The end.

-

Gunnar is that a useful answer to your question, 'Inspiring them to what?'

I wasn't so much trying to knock the work that Stefan does (not to insinuate that I'm on a first name basis with him, it's just that I read that he prefers to be refered to as "Stefan." – kind of like "Elvis," I guess.) as I was trying to say that he's deliberately trying to create a false impression of what he does for a living in order to gain publicity. I find that tiresome.

At the very least, you have to admit that his "hip irreveranat designer" schtick is really played out.

Indeed much of the design shown in annuals is not closely indicative of the work being done by the rest of the industry –- it isn't because the talent or effort isn't there. The realities of being a service entity will not necessarily yield a patron-to-artist relationship, which a lucky few seem to have obtained. This limitation won't make me hate on Stefan nor will you find me worshiping him at an altar.

Obviously it is much easier and more profitable to display works which highlight such freedom, but I'd like to see more in-depth case studies involving the difficulties of getting even an "average" design approved for print!

> Indeed much of the design shown in annuals is not closely indicative of the work being done by the rest of the industry –- it isn't because the talent or effort isn't there.

Actually: The design shown in annuals is indicative of the work being done by the rest of the industry and it is because the talent or effort isn't there.

Point 1: 99% of all annuals divide the selections by typical categories like packaging, direct mail, stationery, logos, brochures, posters, annual reports, etc. This, I would say, is very indicative and representative of what the rest of the design industry is doing, right?

Point 2: All these annuals are based on the premise that there was a client that needed something done for their audience and a designer or design firm created that something in one way or another. This, also, is indicative and representative of the way the industry works, right? (And, to stay on topic, not very different from the Worldchanging book or much of Sagmeister's work)

Point 3: Some designers or design firms have the opportunity to work with better, smarter, sweeter-smelling clients that have a better understanding about their audience that recognize the importance of letting the designer or design firm do their best job possible, leading to a more engaging something. Some designers and design firms take better advantage than others in this situation.

Point 4: The work that makes it into an annual is, arguably, the best in its category as determined by an X group of people who consider that all the ingredients from my point 3 came perfectly together and deserve to be highlighted. What makes most of these projects stand out is talent and effort. There is no question about it.

So, if annuals are "not closely indicative of the work being done by the rest of the industry", it is not the fault of annuals, but the fault of a large and fragmented industry doing subpar work. Like anything else (sports, pizza joints, music) there is better, there is worse and there is a giant median puddle in between.

At the very least, you have to admit that his "hip irreveranat designer" schtick is really played out.

Or you'll come to Wales and beat me up?

I'd like to see more in-depth case studies involving the difficulties of getting even an "average" design approved for print!

Really? Why? I've gotten average design approved for print plenty of times. Don't we all know what that looks like

This isn't about Mr Sagmeister, really -- I'm just thoroughly puzzled. Why are you (pi, Mr Lin) getting excited about average design or even really good, but dull design (whatever that is). We're surrounded by the stuff!

Perhaps your lives are so thrilling that you need something to take the excitement levels down a notch.

I know I'm taking a jokey, sarcastic tone here, but I really honestly don't get it. Also, why this discussion on this article? Except for the cover and the slipcase, this seems like a pretty normal book.

Point 1: When I speak of work not being indicative, I’m referencing conceptual and aesthetic freedom as opposed to variety and category. Most of us probably don’t have as much freedom to do what Stefan does. If we did, this discussion about the artist/designer would be moot.

Point 2, 3: I don’t disagree with you. Annuals publish examples of great work, which can only occur if all the right factors are present as to provide the best environment for creativity to blossom. To assume any work which does not reach this realm to be merely the result of inferior qualities, may hold true for some, but cannot account for situations where designers are talented but placed in a limiting environment which at best yields a very appropriate result but lacks the panache to make it into CA.

Point 4: No disagreement here except for the last part; read the above.

I agree the industry is fragmented and there is quite a bit of subpar work being done. But to blame this entirely on subpar designers is overly simplistic and definitely very easy to do if you have the luxury of working for better clients.

If design is truly about the process of interaction between the client and designer, it appears we’ve been focusing too much on vanity.

Jeff,
I think this discussion is here because I mentioned Stefan Sagmeister. One trick to get someone going: say something nice about a well-known designer and acknowledge their talent.

Pi Skyy,
In response to your concerns about what Stefan does for a living, I believe your conclusions are grossly out of alignment with what the case is likely to be. I cannot speak for Stefan, but having spent 4 months in a weekly course with him and subsequent coffee chats, I'd like to point out several things which have been overlooked in this thread. In this case I'm using examples specifically related to Stefan, but other similar conditions often exist for the designers we so easily criticize for their fame, success, or lack or portfolio examples that align with our own less-than-exciting projects.

Please note, I don't intend to imply that everything is as it seems in the design profession or that all designers everywhere are always capable do doing innovative work that fully retains their personal voice while addressing the project's/client's needs and titillating the design community. What I do intend to show is that under some conditions, it is quite reasonable for a designer to create this level of work as a significant part of their practice. Is Stefan (or any designer for that matter) showing us every project they've done? No. Well, actually in Made You Look he did just that, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Here are some things I've learned directly and indirectly from Stefan:

• Stefan, though he isn't keen on talks about "strategy" and "business," is no doubt a smart business man and makes sound financial decisions
• Keep overhead extremely low. Stefan has, to my knowledge, never had more than 1 full time designer and 1 or 2 interns at any given time. It's easier to accept only the "best" projects, even if low-paying, when you don't have as much soaking up the cheddar. Add to that Stefan's ability to likely receive higher than average fees and already the formula is structure is starting to become clear. Also, his current designer Mattias Ernstburger is painfully talented. It must help to have an extremely proficient co-hort like him.
• More of the previous: Stefan's studio space is connected but separate from his residence. I'm sure this helps keep cost down as well.
• Stefan shares and presents many projects which he is compensated for. Several come to mind off-hand: SVA Subway posters, all of the music packaging work he used to do, the True Majority identity and campaign elements (certainly paid for by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's), an Adobe piece, the identity for Seed Media Group and the redesign of their SEED Magazine, the Zumtobel annual report, and many of his "things i've learned in my life" pieces are commissioned works functioning more like artists commissions. As I understand it, these are not done pro-bono in most cases. The only pro-bono examples that come to mind are the AIGA posters, a few of the many pieces we've come to know his studio for. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but most designers show their best work in their book, to clients, and if/when they're lucky enough to share it with an audience.
• Speakers fees. Some events pay them, others don't. When Stefan gets compensated for these, it's yet another check mark on the "better than a crappy project" list.
• Stefan isn't going out of his way to deceive anyone or create a false sense of reality. His working methods are every bit as valid as someone who has graduated from school and started an entry-level position. Both try to make the best design possible under the circumstances and look for was to improve the circumstances. I'm confident good career design can benefit everyone.
  
• He's had some good luck, is extremely talented, and knows how to take advantage of what comes his way.
• Stefan may have created a rock-n-roll perception of himself (what pi skyy refers to as "hip irreveranat designer". This is certainly reflected in most everything we see about him. I've never experienced him doing that personally. I think there was a time he did, and now the design world's latched onto it. If you see the way his work has matured in the last 10 years, you'll see that this is a pretty myopic view of a thoughtful and engaged man. If anything, he's more in the school of intellectual jet-setter than image-maintaining rock-star.
  
• Stefan's brother (I think, can't remember the relation for sure) is the owner/president/founder/somethingrather of a fashion retail chain in Europe. I'm sure if worse came to worse, there's a support structure to support risk-taking. I, for one, am happy for people with this luxury, not envious.
• In Made You Look, Stefan discloses how much he billed for every project in the book. He also describes how he worked for Leo Burnett in Hong Kong at the height of money flowing through the design industry in that market. See "smart businessman" comments above. I wouldn't be surprised if the money he earned there helped lay the groundwork for a career of more creative freedom.
• Prior to being one of his students, I'd seen Stefan speak to both professional and student audiences. Perhaps, pi_skyy, we saw him talk at very different point in his career.

It seems to me that there are several ways that designers have found to create the situation where they can take the risks involved in finding clients or convincing clients of the "all-star" work we seem to collectively:

1. Own real estate
2. Create recurring revenue from intellectual property
3. Start a business using your design skills as one of the distinguishing factors. Sell it off.
4. Keep overhead extremely low.

I hope we can agree that not every successful designer, or rather well-known designer, is somehow living in a fantasy world. Some may have a more intensely designed industry persona than others, but from my experience most people are more often-than-not genuine, strive to do great work, and enjoy sharing it with other people. One thing I know for sure, Stefan is not an empty, over-hyped phenomenon. He's a caring man, with a huge heart, and a damn amazing skill for using design to make people pay attention to things.

Frank,

cannot account for situations where designers are talented but placed in a limiting environment which at best yields a very appropriate result but lacks the panache to make it into CA.

1) People have different opportunities but they also make different choices.

2) Important design skills include (1) doing good work under pressure that might make less skilled designers do less-good work and (2) the ability to manage a job in such a way as to allow good work to emerge.

Highly conceptual work, in most instances, is about EGO.

Bread and butter work is always about the CLIENT.

Bread and butter work is always about the CLIENT.

Just as importantly (even more so when it comes to my own outlook as a designer), it's about the real world that we live in. The real contribution that designers make to our society and culture is the creation of the things we see and use every day. To me, that's very exciting, not mundane.

If I thought my only way to optimism was to put my entire creative focus on the occasional no-profit project (because everything else I did had no more value than a phone book), I would find that to be very depressing.