I guess the bean counters figure that, if Americans flock to buy cars with cookie-cutter designs, clothes and general merchandise devoid of style or quality, and tasteless, nutrition-free food, then why would they care about the design quality of their periodicals, which are typically consumed and discarded as quickly as a Big Mac through one’s digestive tract?
The fact is, as designers, we are making deliberate, educated decisions regarding presentation that focus primarily on telling stories visually (not just picking a pretty font or dropping the right-sized image into the appropriate container). The craft of visual storytelling should be to provide our readers with a high-performance vehicle for accessing information, an elegant and ingenious mechanism for organizing this information, and a savory experience while digesting the news of the day.
We aren't selling french fries and rubber duckies here folks. We are on the front line of storytelling — a publication’s design is the first thing that engages the reader with sensory information, and it impresses upon them the hierarchy, weight, and general newsworthiness of information. Design is pivotal to our mission of providing a sacred service to the public, which is the cornerstone of the democratic process. We strive for excellence in the presentation of every story and page — though we may not always meet that lofty benchmark, especially in the era of shrinking budgets, fewer resources, and reductions in staffing. But our readers at least deserve our commitment to “aim for the superb†in writing, editing, photography, and design, especially considering the importance of the service we, as journalists, are providing.
If someday young boys drool over photos of a Toyota Camry in the pages of Car and Driver (as I did in the early 80s over the Lamborghini Countach LP500S), Wal-Mart exclusively provides the wardrobes for those on the Red Carpet on Oscar night, and Georges Perrier serves his Hanger Steak in Big Mac Secret Sauce instead of his signature Sauce Bordelaise, I'll be forced to reconsider the merits of the "just add water" concept.
I maintain that there can be no template for excellence. A template's purpose is to make things consistent. By definition, to be excellent, one must stand out. So, I choose not to "just add water" to this idea, but instead, would prefer to water it with a fluid of a different variety.
“Excellence in any department can be attained only by the labor of a lifetime; it is not to be purchased at a lesser price.†—Samuel Johnson
]]>Black and company are suggesting to their target audience that this "complicated" thing called design will be done by their A-list Ready Media designers so that they can concentrate on what is really important--"the Content". Sorry, design is content. Content is design. They are suggesting a clothesline from which to hang content.
In the beginning there is the idea, then the creation or fulfillment of the idea. There is a reason that the idea is placed at the beginning. Then everything else follows suite. Every decision reinforces the creation. It’s as old and as simple as the old saw "form follows function". Black suggests that a list of ready-mades that worked for another creation might be shoehorned onto the users unique creation.
Black and his boys might raise the level of newsletter and corporate communications design being cranked out in Microsoft Word templates from in-house PR departments, mail room personal, secretaries, and that guy down the hall who took that art correspondence course, but in the long run this is nothing more than a money making venture from a bunch of editorial designers who are not getting the big jobs anymore.
I don't knock these guys for trying to make a living, but just be honest about what is being sold and why.
Corporate heads may soon be thinking of how they can dispense with writers and editors. After all we have all heard the expression, "This thing practically writes itself."
]]>Design outrage.
The message is out. We should be paying attention but how can we? Everything we know is being challenged. Graphic designers devalued. We need to seek out our value and hope it allows us to do what we love and continue to love what we do.
I do believe that the visual world will ultimately continue to improve as it always has. So I need to also believe that there is an appropriate place for these quick solutions. They are in answer to the business sentiment that we cannot deny is out there everyday.
]]>You can build a website from templates using Wordpress (or less sophisticated tools). Our invoices are templated. Microsoft Word offers templates for every document imaginable. We can buy well-cut and considered type for $30 a face. I'm old enough to remember the outrage when cheap downloadable type was available—it was going to be the end of design as we knew it—and in a way, it was. It made design better... I got to spend more time thinking ans less time specing type and waiting for galleys. In fact, a pretty talented designer who posted a comment just a few statements above developed a set of templates for HP that served as both an improvement of the template form and a useful aid in getting across the context of design at the street-level. No harm, no foul...
Templates are tools in response to a demand. Our responsibility to our profession is to help increase the level of discernment on the street-level. We are design thinkers (as opposed to text box shufflers or style sheet applicators). This is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the value of what we do by contrast with the work done without the insights we have as design thinkers.
A favorite statement of mine from Virilio's Pure War [ Semiotext(e) ] : Every technology produces, provokes, programs a specific accident. The invention of the airplane is the invention of the plane crash.
I don't think this is as cynical as it appears initially. It highlights a part of invention that is simply inevitable. A user-friendly open source community is a great invention. Creative folks craved it and love it. Unfortunately, open source, by definition, isn't just for creatives. It's for everyone.
Sure I can see that more access to better "organized" publishing content in the world using whatever tools necessary to create forward movements that are overall better organized with a lower time-to-market rate. That's a tremendous benefit. However, what gets me excited is when design thinkers invest less energy in designing vehicles that only marginally benefit from their thought leadership, but focus more intensely on the game shifting publications that call for cowboys and pioneers. That's what keeps us from becoming commodities. Doing work for clients who only expect (and hence will only pay for) mediocrity brings all of us down. Forward them the link to the templates and polish the relationships with those that know the difference. And get in front of business people in the forums where they convene and respectfully share the difference between thought and template.
]]>The truth is that technology used efficiently can take away a lot of tedious task work, giving designers more time to develop a creative solution. It can also save money and resources, sometimes. But, most importantly, no amount of technology is a substitute for an experienced designer.
]]>But don't assume, Jeremy LaCroix, that "you my friend don't want those jobs." While the graphic design community ogles the year-end annuals from Print magazine (design judged by designers, not by actual market results), the reality for many designers is that such work is their bread and butter, allowing them to take on pro-bono or lower paying but more creatively interesting work. You're are right, Jeremy, that trade newsletters and such aren't really that much fun and won't make us famous designers (if that's your thing), but it's still legit work for some of designers.
This "low-end" market is one that Paula Scher and Pentagram probably won't have to worry about much as their clientele probably (hopefully) understands what they're buying and why (i.e. custom design work from a noted design studio).
Graphic designers are only just realizing what the music recording industry has already learned: technology changes the game whether we (designers/craftspeople/technicians) like the results or not. Many of the major analog recording studios have withered and disappeared as digital recording technology became increasingly capable. Recording engineers will complain about the loss of fidelity in compressed, downloaded audio heard via ear bud-style headphones, but the general public wants convenience, not quality. Sell that analog gear and learn Pro Tools or die. There's always some room for a couple of Steve Albini analog-purist types, but the rest had to change and hit the ground running.
Yes, this will only make custom work stand out all the more, but don't assume, Paula, that "This always shakes out, no matter where it comes from. Trust me. I've watched this cycle for forty years." Maybe in your corner, hopefully for the rest of your lifetime. But as the global economy changes, so too does the game. Coding capabilities will only grow - far beyond anything we can currently imagine. Remember, 40 years ago, there were a lot more magazines in print than today; many have gone belly up. 40 years ago we didn't have social media, crowd sourcing, and I-pads. Jump ahead beyond the scope of this conversation and consider for a moment where nanotechnology might be in a couple of 40 year cycles...(don't worry, Paula, we'll both be dead by then...or maybe not!).
(I imagine the letterpress printer complained bitterly when the offset press muscled in.)
More than ever, we have to educate our current and potential clients about what their B2B purchases will get them (cookie cutter vs. custom). And we may have to work harder and learn new skills to better serve them (and win/keep their business). If you're really all that, then go prove it.
]]>Technology is a double-edged sword. I am thrilled that I don’t have to do some of the manual stuff I had to do in school to make a presentation. Pantone paper anyone? On the other hand, I am saddened by what is happening. It almost seems as if our “design thinking†is not appreciated, encouraged or shared in the same way it used to be.
When I was at Ontario College of Art in the early 80’s, the Communication and Design floor was a hustling, bustling place where our desks were in an open concept foyer. In late October, brilliant works of student art were showcased. It was a chance to admire the individual design thinkers, illustrators, photographers and experimental artists at the college.
In early November 2008, I went to visit OCA(D), now a “university.†As I walked up the steps to the C&D Department, I was excited to see the students’ work showcased along the walls just like in the 80’s. When I got there, nothing was up on the walls. The open foyer that once was home to many desks with artists in lively conversation sharing ideas and stories was a pretty bleak place and not a sole was around.
I remembered when Dr. Fleck was pushing for OCA to become a university. There was a huge uproar from experimental artists, designers, illustrators, photographers and some teachers. They even went so far as to make buttons saying “Fleck Off†which was hilarious at the time but what good did it do? They got what they wanted. Some teachers up and quit in protest through the years when they found out that practical classes were going to be replaced by more “theory†classes.
I have a university degree too and trust me, it took me 4 years of OCA to unwind and find my design thinking voice. Years of freelancing actually helped too.
Technology has effects beyond design. It has leveled hierarchies and has scrubbed off our identities to some degree. It’s up to us to navigate through the shifting language. This conversation sure helps me not feel alone about what I think is happening in the graphic design profession. Some great designers have left the industry and I can’t say that I blame them.
I read in an Applied Arts article about an illustration teacher who was concerned that his students were having a difficult time expressing themselves emotionally in their art. I wonder if technology and its effects have something to do with that.