Here’s one of the rare instances where I actually talk about my profession – graphic design. What I’d like to put forth is my take on the state of graphic design and the importance of understanding more fully the kind of design you may be purchasing or producing.
I am a formally trained studio artist with a degree specialty in graphic design. My education centered around creativity expressed from purpose (or mission). The purpose could be many things: expressing ideas, challenging beliefs, communicating emotion, initiating dialog, etc.
Of course we learned the vocational aspects of ceramics, sculpture, painting, drawing and such. But the result was never about the artifact. It wasn’t even about the technique of the artifact apart from its appropriateness.
I learned that meaningful creativity (communication) is about the “Why”. Why is it produced this way? Why were those elements chosen? Why has this work been composed?
Success meant that the thing you produced answered these questions, or caused meaningful reflection on the part of the viewer. Your creation had SUBSTANCE!
What I’ve been seeing is an increasing proliferation within graphic design of people who don’t seek or offer the “why” skills, but who seek and offer the “how” skills.
“That’s really cool. How’d you do that?” used to be a common question. Now the tools of our industry are so commonly available, and style-awareness is so saturated into our culture, that most people understand HOW something was done. And can produce/reproduce almost anything they need.
I believe that just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.
I believe that if consumers and producers of graphic design asked more meaningful questions and gave more consideration to the “why’s” of their work, there would be a much greater value realized from graphic design – it would be more profession than vocation.
It would have more substance, value.
good thoughts, spike. agreed. we’re trying to instill that in our students at kcai as much as we can, but it’s hard to overcome a young designer’s desire to make cool looking stuff, even if they are aware of the origins of their choice of “stylistic application”.
i recently talked with my seniors about the difference between “selecting an appropriate style” (borrowing from the bauhaus, or post-modern ’80s or whatever) and generating a meaningful form based on the given content, regardless of how it may end up looking. to me the difference is embedded in an honest attempt to visualize the values or perspective embedded in the content. that can, and should range from references to the written content, to the client’s values, to the designer’s convictions about how the form should respond to those first two things.
the “why” is extremely important, but it’s also very hard to make evident to viewers/readers. a lifelong pursuit in my opinion, but a lot of fun to try.
It’s really cool to hear about this being discussed between you and your students. One interesting point which I think you elude to, which I didn’t really address is the “reverse-engineering” that is a part of graphic design. And it goes beyond the client’s values/message and the designers execution of them which you state.
I think that with most visual arts, the art springs from it’s creator’s own expression. The audience is unknown and builds based on their appreciation for the piece(s). For the graphic designer – especially one involved with marketing products, goods and services – the audience is usually known. It’s the designers task to identify their visual vocabulary and response triggers and “reverse-engineer” a piece which will cause them to act in a desired way.
So I guess, as you mention, that the “why” has a better chance of becoming evident to the viewer in as much as the designer considers their sensibilities first.