From Voice ~ Topics: definitions, professional development
Myths of the Self-Taught Designer: The Second Conversation between Ego and the Devil
Ego: The empirical questions drive me crazy.
Devil: The biographical details of any given designer can be deployed to destroy any definition. If I claim to be an amateur, you disagree because I get paid. If I claim you’re not self-taught, you respond that you have to teach yourself every day or else you’d go out of business.
Ego: The empirical variety of graphic designers is why we’re coming up with new takes on old categories in the first place. But it’s precisely this empirical messiness that can be made to subvert the attempt.
Devil: There are over 200,000 practicing graphic designers, a whopping third of whom are self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They work in print, television, film, digital media, the web. They work for everyone from advertisers to their Uncle Charley’s car wash. I want to talk personality, but we end up talking pie charts.
Ego: Or self-promotion. The more we defend our own views, the more we appear to be merely preaching what we practice. I claim that designers possess quality X only because I possess quality X. This is a brand of solipsism. The world is the self.
Devil: The vocational technician, the entry-level grad, the art-school transfer, the pro-turned-academic, the pragmatic opportunist, the accidental designer: they all justify the terms of their existence by citing the facts of their autobiographies.
Ego: And so all definitions be damned.
Devil: Good word choice.
Ego: So what’s at stake?
Devil: That’s the question exactly. What is at stake, and for whom?
Ego: Design schools have their existence at stake. Education is the province of educators. Degrees matter greatly to those who grant degrees. Credentials matter most to those who credential. We may impart a cynical motive to these institutions, but we must also grant them their transformative role in society. Their institutionalized belief in the improvable individual moves mountains as it moves minds.
Devil: Admitted. I may be self-taught, which requires that I talk to myself in the corner of an empty classroom, but I’m not crazy enough to deny the value of the theory of education. Onward.
Ego: Graphic designers are not regulated by the government. We don’t need licenses. The only laws governing our actions are laws that would govern any employee, freelancer, citizen, etc. We’ve already discussed the economic incentives for credentialing.
Devil: Credentials serve a need for all sorts of workers, as proxy symbols of economic worth.
Ego: So what is at stake for the employer is the means to distinguish among candidates. These means may consist of a given candidate’s education, experience, a skill set, a portfolio.
Devil: A perspective not to be sneezed at. The employer’s, that is.
Ego: Not least because the employer might also be a graphic designer who, after years of study and hard work, moved up the ladder or started the studio that bears his or her initials.
Devil: And those candidates lacking credentials suffer a handicap in the eyes of the potential employer. The self-taught, for example, might, in self-defense, cite the example of a famous designer who happened to be self-taught. But the fact that some famous designer is self-taught doesn’t make your claim to it any more impressive to the employer frowning at your resume.
Ego: Militias are self-taught. So are squeegee guys and my nephew. Big deal.
Devil: Exactly. Okay, so credentials, for better or worse, function for employers as economic symbols. They also function as symbols of social status.
Ego: Social status derives from economic status. Economic signifiers, like education, experience and employment, become social signifiers.
Devil: Like at a party when someone asks, “So, what’s your economic signifier,” you can say, “I’m a graphic designer, which, if I’m lucky, signifies about 50 K a year. Who the hell are you?”
Ego: Not a sound networking strategy, I’m afraid. For a designer, parties are not parties. They’re work. What is at stake for potential clients, including those you insult at parties, is similar to what is at stake for potential employers, except that employers need only see potential in a portfolio whereas clients want to see fully realized work for past clients. Credentials, like awards, might reassure clients, but the work itself trumps the symbols.
Devil: I’d say a threshold degree of competence in the work is all that’s required before what really matters kicks into play: networking, relationships, cronyism, nepotism, and not just between the designer and client but among designers within the same firm. You have to be capable, but like my boss says, the wise old bastard beats the dumb young genius every time. Or something like that.
Ego: So, to sum up, anyone with the intent to design can claim to be a graphic designer in our messy age of design pluralism. You don’t need the degree, the tools, the status, the employer, or even a client. You certainly don’t need to be good or even competent. You just need the intent. So what is at stake, and for whom, in defining the identity of the designer? Credentials are one way to define identity, and credentials matter to some. They signify to potential employers; signify less to potential clients; and always make our mothers proud. But what is at stake for the individual designer? I think that’s where we need to go next.
Devil: I agree. Design pluralism recognizes the diversity of individuals working in some measure in a field we’ve agreed to call graphic design, itself a broad category, its membrane permeable enough to absorb the practitioners of the year’s latest digital arts. Together, this pluralism and the attendant technological advances that impact the practice of graphic design disturb the discipline and unsettle the individual. In a steady profession and stable economy—
Ego: Both concepts being theoretical—
Devil: Many are content to let their jobs define them. Who am I? I am my job. But graphic design is not a steady profession, and the economy is not stable. Uncertainty is the order of the day. Undeterred, people may cling to a mere skill set as an indicator of who they are, defining themselves in ever more narrow and conditional terms. In a moral panic, a designer might crave the next seminar in web design as if it were a personality upgrade, the next slogan from the best-selling business pundit as if it were a reprieve from a death sentence. Why? Because today’s skill set is tomorrow’s software template. And today’s job is tomorrow’s downsized nod to the stockholders.
Ego: So this is why self-definition is so urgent and infuriating. The economic is personal. Who you are today may not even be who you are tomorrow.
Devil: I’m an expert in Pagemaker. I mean, Quark. Oops, InDesign. Flash. No, wait, I’m a problem-solver! A branding consultant! A, a. . . .
Ego: In this environment, you are not saved by what you know.
Devil: What you know is only what you knew. And that’s why it feels, to me, like there is no such thing as art or design, jobs or retirement. There is only the work that you do and the you who is doing it. What is at stake in all this is the individual designer’s self-definition.
Ego: And let me guess. What we are dismantling here is the overarching myth of the self-taught, which is that the label of being self-taught no longer functions as a meaningful symbol of the designer’s identity, whether as a romantic symbol or a derogatory one. Regarding yourself as self-taught, as a self-motivated learner, as you said before, is more and more coming to be an essential component of that self-definition, no matter what kind of graphic designer you are.
Devil: Did I say that?
[To be continued. . . .]
Source for statistics: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2004-05 Edition, Designers.
-
The most meaningful question is, “Self taught to do WHAT?”
Two articles and a bushel of responses and we are all assuming that we are all thinking about the same thing. Is everyone writing about how to learn how to be a graphic designer in the 1950s?
What is truly shocking and sad is that neither of these “Devil + Ego” articles nor any of the responses to the first article discussed Graphic Design as a practice for anything but making visual form. Not once has anyone in this forum described designing as an activity for framing unarticulated needs, identifying problems and facilitating solutions in collaborative, multidisciplinary situations. If these activities were included in our assumptions about what constitutes “graphic design” we might have a deeper debate about what skills are necessary to do this work. How does one best learn these skills for designing?
As the chairperson of a large public university graphic design program, I'm the first to acknowledge that no one needs a four-year degree, or any formal training, to use type, make logos and create websites. Everyday, ten-year old children create graphic designs using sophisticated software. Sometimes there is little difference in the products made by “professionals” and “amateurs.” If we are focused on making simple things, it really doesn't take a tremendous amount of expert skill or knowledge. However, professional designers at the top of their practice are rarely concerned with making simple things.
In our program, undergraduates learn how to become design researchers and problem solvers who use visual and verbal communication skills to shape how people understand. We are focused on preparing leaders who can proactively manage processes for change and innovation to improve the experiences of businesses, institutions, organizations, communities and individuals. We advocate designing as a collaborative process for identifying root problems and facilitating meaningful solutions to complex issues. We seek to harness the power of design to clarify, humanize and energize the issues that are central to life in a pluralistic society.
Once, all graphic designers practiced a kind of commercial graphic art. From the turn of the twentieth century until the 1950s most graphic designers were “self-taught.” FORM was the primary concern for designers. Their task was to give form and shape and style to commercial messages. If you were “talented” you could do the job. In the 1960s and 1970s designers began to deal with CONTENT in more significant ways. Firms like Unimark, Doblin Group, Landor, and Siegel & Gale pioneered an emerging professional practice of communication design. In response, university programs in the 1970s began to develop programs called Visual Communication. Since the mid-1990s, designers have been increasingly concerned with the CONTEXT of communication design. Now, graphic designers must develop sophisticated understandings that account for the social, cultural, cognitive and physical human factors of audiences. The field of experience design is often described as the concern for form, content and context of designed experiences over time. Sophisticated designers today work collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams, often hand in hand with “clients” and “audiences” to help solve complex problems.
Clement Mok was correct in his assessment that, “Although design is one of the most profoundly powerful disciplines in our modern information culture, its identity as a profession is in a state of incoherent disarray verging on crisis? There has clearly been a steady decline in the design profession for over 30 years, and the source of that decline is the profession's intractable stasis. We are unchanged professionals in a changing professional climate: clutching at old idols while failing to create new offerings, failing to reinvent and reinvigorate the practice when needed, failing to inculcate a professional culture that is accessible and fair.” Time For Change, originally published in Communication Arts, May/June 2003, http://www.commarts.com/ca/coldesign/clem_185.html
Any discussion about the relative merits of designing from a position of being “educated” versus being “self-taught” is just a distraction and denial of the realities of contemporary practice. While we squabble, there are sophisticated, calculating professionals in other fields who are fast at work understanding the problem solving dimensions of design. Soon, graphic designers will only be needed to do the busy work. -
The interesting thing about thisdiscussions of self-taught v. institutionally educated is that it does not occur in most other professions. That's because the fact is until recently it was very possible, indeed quite common, to be self-taught or self-educated and succeed. Now, with all the new buzz-disciplines, as well as the need to collaborate, research, and strategize, design - or visual communications or strategic visual dynamics, or whatever it will be called in five years - demands more skill and greater knowledge, and all the manuals, instinct, or osmosis in the world is not enough.
Once an amateur could become a professional by getting a few jobs into a competition or two. Now being an amateur means doing work that might look pro but lack the nuance it takes to truly be pro. -
While I agree wholeheartedly with Steven’s assertions in support of higher education in design, the entire discussion still smells like a canard. At this moment in time, the nature of training isn’t the burning issue. The graphic design profession is on fire. As Garry VanPatter states, “Although design has been slow to recognize, slow to acknowledge the implications, other professions are already adapting to the new terrain. At the leading edge of the marketplace, the reality is that other professionals are moving in to fill the void as problem solving leaders. A new challenge environment, a new design context universe is emerging and the implications for the future of design cannot likely be overstated. Why would that matter and who cares? Lets put it this way: Without significant change in trajectory, there is no guarantee that it will be designers leading complex problem solving, leading design in the 21st century. It is because of this paradigm shift, already well underway in the marketplace, that we consider the traditional model of design leadership to be a burning platform today.” http://www.nextd.org/01/index.html
Right now, it is too delusional for us to accept that all graphic designers even belong to the same profession.
Steven presents that it is interesting to explore the “self-taught v. institutionally educated” topic because this condition “does not occur in most other professions.” Too often, despite credible evidence to the contrary, we designers think that we are very special. We love to be the exception to the rule. We are not. To accept this, it might be helpful to look at another profession.
It is quite easy to see the parallels between graphic designers and those who define as a “businessperson.” All business people could choose to indulge in the same dialogue about the relative merits of formal education versus learning the ropes on the job. But most would choose not to explore the diversity of experience and practice through the lens of how they were trained. Rather they would explore WHAT they do and HOW they do it.
Until very recently, professional education in the business world was not even an option to most people. Until the 1960s, truly professional MBA programs did not address the fundamentals of business management nor serve significant numbers of students.
“Two damning reports appeared in 1959, condemning American graduate management education as little more than vocational colleges filled with second-rate students taught by second-rate professors who did not understand their fields, did little research and were out of touch with business.
Business schools responded rapidly, raising both their admissions and teaching standards and establishing the now well-known American emphasis on academic research. The overall effect was the creation of the classic American MBA model: a first year of required core courses to provide a grounding in the basics of management and a second year of electives to allow specialization or deeper study.” http://www.economist.com/globalExecutive/education/mba/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2135907
Yet, still most people actually working in the business world do not have professional degrees. Many have never even been to college. (This might account for the vast numbers of do-it-yourself book titles available that deal with business and marketing topics.)
About 68 million people, 58 percent of all private sector employees, were employed by small businesses in 2000 in the US.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/24/184814.shtml
Small businesses in the US:
--Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers.
--Employ more than half of all private sector employees
--Pay 44.5 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
--Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.
--Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
--Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html
We accept that there is a body of knowledge for business management and the practice areas of business. But rarely in this context do we try to compare the skills, knowledge or experiences of a businessperson running a local pizza parlor with a businessperson running a global professional services consultancy. Both might be capable of achieving all of their professional and personal aspirations. Both can contribute to our economy in significant ways. Yet we do not claim that they are the same. Nor do we wonder about the RELATIVE merits of how they were trained. Did each receive a formal education or learn through the school of hard knocks? Who cares? And we probably don’t assume that these folks attend the same business conferences.
Yet that is exactly what we are doing as designers.
Just read the replies to these articles. When we talk about “talent” as a common denominator and of winning graphic design awards and using software applications we are assuming that we are all practicing in the same contexts with the same goals. We assume that we are all talking about the same graphic design.
For the few hundred thousand practicing designers, it is less relevant to argue about our (lack of) education. It will be more elucidating to examine the differences in our knowledge, skills and practices than our similarities. Doing so may expose some practitioners to the shifts that have already occurred. Those designers that are willing to explore new definitions of design can rediscover their own potential for relevance. -
Christopher makes an extremely compelling case. And he's right to look at the business world, where not only is self-taught often the norm, but self-help "education" is a big business in itself. "Make One Million in Weeks."
But designers (and commercial artists in general) are indeed unique in that the majority of those who enter are not business people, never wanted to be business people, or are escaping the business world. The driving force is the creative one. "I WANT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF ART - and be paid for it." That tends to be the fundamental impetus. Then the real-politik kicks in. How to make that money? Hmmm. Business.
Art and design schools focus mostly on form. Research is a new buzz topic, and so is entrepreneurism. Liberal arts are also emerging. But Christopher is correct that our students are not all learning the same profession. Still, in a way that's what makes design design - its a patchwork of all different motives and methods.
Good? Bad? After all these years I'm not certain. -
In regards to the discussion following the first article; any good worker whether they are a designer or not and whether they obtain a degree or not, should have passion, intelligence, and imagination. These are qualities any employer will value, and any human should strive to cultivate.
Now regarding this second discussion:
Mr Heller wrote, "?our students are not all learning the same profession. Still that's what makes design design — its a patchwork of all different motives and methods. Good? Bad? After all these years I'm not certain."
Yes! The patchwork is good. The patchwork design profession is true to the humanity of our audience, our clients and ourselves.
True designers employ an organically evolving intelligence to rapidly identify needs, assess available resources, and then imaginatively leverage the resources into tools and methods that respond to the needs.
If a design-hopeful learns best in a classroom, then that is where they will learn how to grow with tools and develop methods. If they are not wise (mature) enough to recognize they learn best in the classroom, they will grow up to have designer egos; full of fear driven desire to eclipse everyone.
If a design-hopeful learns best by personal exploration, then they can develop their craft through experience. If they are too foolish (immature) to realize they are learning as best suits their nature, they will grow up to be designer devils; parading their self-determination for fear of not finding professional acceptance.
But if a design-hopeful looks at the world around them with intelligence & imagination and recognizes that they have a passion to meet a need, and understands how best they learn (even if it is a mixture of classroom and exploration), then they will wisely pick a path toward cultivating the intelligence and imagination that will enable them to become true Designers.
The true Designer will recognize the ephemeral nature of technology and will learn, seek out, and create new tools and methods as they need them. They cultivate a sense of the organic nature of culture and history and will grow in their capacity to identify relevant needs.
The design profession is organic and ever changing not just because culture and history are organic, but because we as designers are organic and growing. -
I just read something on another blog run by Colleen Taugher at Washington State University.
Her entry makes perfectly clear why we should re-focus this conversation to address WHAT are we designing and WHAT skills are necessary to do this work. She wrote,
“There has been more than a little concern in the design community lately about what the profession will look like in the near future. Many have come to accept that in our increasingly flat world, projects such as logo and icon design will be parceled out to big shops in India or other parts of the developing world. This is already happening and the trend has highlighted a disturbing disconnect in some university design departments where faculty continue to assign portfolios filled with corporate letter heads, logos and posters. Savvy students understand that these will not be useful skills and the reality makes them uneasy. Many professionals, who are uneasy as well, have reassured themselves and the community by saying that while a lot of work is going overseas, all of the big ideas and thought leadership will still come from Europe and the US. The best design schools have followed this cue and restructured their curriculums to develop leadership skills, complex problem solving, interdisciplinary project management etc.”
quoted from http://cbdd.typepad.com/colleen /
entry titled “Who owns design leadership?” April 18, 2005 -
This has been a fruitful and expansive discussion. I've enjoy exploring the topic. From personal experience, each individual has a unique perspective and experience depending on the intensity of their passion; which seems to be the norm for creative endeavors. Beyond the educational definitions, scope of responsibility or value-added services; we've got a public relations problem as a profession partially stemming from lack of interest/exposure for the public. I have found two things to be generally true: 1) civilians (and that includes those in business) don't know/don't value/don't care what we do as long as we make them look good, and 2) rank us just below secretarial services on organizational charts. This is even true of some Art Colleges: one website staff listing put the graphic designer at the bottom of the list, just above the maintenance man. I had one corporate vp refuse to give me a raise because, "we just don't value your services." I guess he felt it necessary to insult me as well as not pay me. Fortunately, the CEO felt differently. Most are ignorant of the level of services available: production artist, art director, creative director, illustrator, animator, et. al. because all can be blanketed (and diminished easily) under one title of graphic designer. This discussion has just skimmed the surface. All of the above job descriptions are viewed as fair game to graphic designers whether they have the skills or not; especially the self-trained who must work harder to get their foot in the door and then rise to the demands of the job. If we are looking for a gauge to categorize skill levels since degrees don't do it, the tried and true is the portfolio (unless the unscrupulous use other peoples' samples). I was shocked to meet designers who were not artists; but in fact, fell into the field because they demonstrated a knack for detail. But I firmly disagree that we are susceptible to offshore outsourcing and have posted an article to that effect on my homepage, siting creatives as the single resource immune to offshore outsourcing and why.
Thank you for this discussion.
Susan Kirkland
author of
Start and Run a Creative Services Business
View my accumulated work and excerpts from the
book (click on the book icon) at my site
www.sdkirkland.com -
I feel that amateur "designers" completely ruin the reputation and field of graphic design. When some one asks me what I do, I say, I'm a graphic designer...but sometimes without pride. Why? Because of all those "graphic designers" out there creating the worst work on the face of the planet. Work that WE designers need to go fix behind them. It's horrid.
It takes away from the greatness of design and its purpose.
Why don't we give some random person some stethescopes and a prescription pad and let them diagnose people for health probems shall we?! I mean why not! We have TONS of medical books that can help us diagnose them, not to mention our limitless resource of the internet!!
It would be SO great to see some one developing a system where designers can get real licenses to actually PRACTICE. It would give real designers some more authority and also spare people from having to look at face cringing, heart wrenching, nauseating "graphic design" work out there.
I think this site says it all: www.baddesignkills.com -
Commenting on Susan's comment.
Graphic designers might be ranked low and not appreciated but I do think there is a growing number of companies and people who realize the importance of design. Design informs and communicates in a very powerful way. Presentation is everything, design adds value and I don't see outsourcing happening with design work (esp if it is valued) for a while. Design comes from concepts and analysis of the organization and this cannot be effectively done if outsourced... -
I think the one thing that defines a self taught
designer or an educated designer is their ability to
produce the vision with skill, clarity, and precision.
We are visual creatures. Design is an art form that
isn't easily taught or obtained. Just because the
doctor has been given the tools and the knowledge
doesn't mean he has the skills and talent or
completely understands the aesthetics of his
profession.
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people see beauty in many different ways.
The designer is not trying to define beauty but to
present their version of beauty.
Too many operations of design have been crammed under the graphic design title. The need for organization, a defining job title to the appropriate work that is being done, is badly needed.
Clients and employers are contributors to the mayhem. Choosing the bottom line over the quality of work. The real question would be does money dictate art or does art dictate money? -
Has anyone considered that placement/"talent"agencies are part of the problem? (Or part of the solution?)
This other huge industry, which seems to have grown even faster than the field of graphic design, is interjecting itself between those that need, and those that do-any form of design. Designers now seem to be a commodity to be bought, rented, traded.
Compensation for designers is measured like pork bellies on the stock market.
Since Commarts seems to be "joined at the hip" with a huge agency- I wonder if this will even be posted as a question to consider. Nevertheless...
Your thoughts? -
I'm am a somewhat self-taught designer. Having a degree in industrial design gives me a strong a base in art and design history, and there is also a strong connection between industrial and graphic design history.
I happened upon books on graphic design theory, and discovered there was a method to the creativity of print design. I was hooked. I loved the process and the problem solving nature.
I have been steadily in search of getting my skills up to par.
I haven't yet found out what par is in graphic design, but good enough is far below what I expect from myself.
A few things stand out very strongly to me:
1. Most serious design agencies do a lot more than design:
Branding, market studies, company evaluations, print
and advertising planning, and a wealth of other more
"hard sciences" that take place before any design is
considered.
2. Most senior designers have an extensive knowledge of
business, marketing, direct mail, IT, and many other
"hard topics".
3. Many design firms and corporate studios have a need for
"production artists". Sometimes they need production
artists with a creative eye, but most job responsibilities
will not require serious, creative problem solving skills.
4. There are a wealth of skills that students will need in
order to be competitive and useful to potential employers.
School do no teach these skills. Also, experienced
designers seem to know about these skills but have few
chances to imparting these skills to young designers or
educators. There is a large "learn by error" mentality in
graphic design. Why not learn basics in school and then
"improve by error".
5. Creative positions are populated by experienced
professionals. No wonder that you have a huge pools of
"production bots" going about in the profession. Those
are the only positions some can find, and eventually they
become good at it( and little else )
6. There is no formal or standard body of information on
design education, theory, or methodology. How can you
claim that someone is professional if there is no standard
knowledgebase expected of people in the proffession.
7. If you want less "production bots" and more serious
designers, you have to give creative people a place to
hone their skills and become more experienced and
knowledgeable about their trade. Those at the top have
reach out and teach those starting out. Or it can continue
that beginning designers have to find a "lucky break" or
create a portfolio with pro-bono work in order to find a
creative position.
8. Many design positions specifically don't want people who
show a lot of creativity. The assumption is that they will
get bored very quickly and leave.
9. If more knowledge is shared from those designers that
have a wealth of experience, students and self taught
designers will have a better understanding of the skills
they need in order to do high quality effective design.
10.Most bad design eminates from a lack of knowledge
rather than a lack of effort or expectation. People want to
be creative, they want to work, and they take on a jobs
and do their darned best. I'm definitely guilty of this. It'
pains me to see my own design that I know isn't up to
par. I'll study and research to find as many theories and
best practices possible, but in the abscence of any
foundry of information or expectation, I do my best and
learn from my mistakes and successes.
11.There is a demand for design. There also seems to be a
shortage of designers. Why can't studios and senior
designers take it upon themselves to obtain this extra
business then train and supervise entry level designers
using these smaller projects.
12.In summary. There is no standard, practical skillset that
defines a designer. There is no clear, accessible and
established path for younger designers to apprentice
and learn the best practices expected of a good
designer. In the abscence of a standard set of
expectations and structure to grow( and make a living),
design has become a bit of a wild frontier. This leads to
companies hiring the best hired hand that walks into
town and knows how to handle a mouse.
In a design world with few standards, questionable education, and constantly emerging and changing technology, those charged with protecting the quality of the industry are experienced Senior designers, Art directors, etc.. They have to challenge eductational institutions, outreach to students, and make pathways for new designer to learn more and grow.
Otherwise get used to a lot of bad design. Get used to people calling themselves "designers" that don't know a lick about design. At some point the bar will be brought down so low that the public will become used to and acquinted with bad design.
In the spirit of competition, why spend loads of money on a serious branding campaign when your competitor's branding sucks. Just pays some one that can do yours a little better for a lot less than half the price or a serious branding effort (who needs market studies or design research- they costs too much).
As the bar lowers, so does the public's expectation of design. New designers will take on projects from clients looking for the cheapest option. They will make pretty logos with little other considerations. the bar lowers again. the world ends.. It's a terrible fate.
Of course this is hyperbole.. But good design translates into good communication, translating into good business. Everyone at every level needs to realizes this; the president, the vp of marketing, the director of print, and most importantly the designer hired by this company.
fini. -
I'm a self-taught/mentored designer, and now work for a web technologies company. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked: "So, where did you go to school?" I used to feel a little sheepish about responding to this assumption, but a mentor finally pointed out that there is so much more that goes into the work that I/we do than could ever be taught in school—so it's testament to the work and how I conduct myself that folks would even make that assumption. When I hire designers these days, whether or not they have a degree is less of a consideration than how well developed their process is, how they solve problems—and a real biggie: work ethic. I'm not looking for production bots, but I've passed on some incredibly talented, degreed designers because of ego—not every moment at a design position is spent ruminating on how to come up with that award-winning design. The reality is that sometimes there are less 'fun' projects or clients. I hire folks who not only do great work (degree or not) seem willing to roll up their sleeves, teach, are willing to learn and who can interact well with clients and represent our company (and the clients') professionally. The work has to be solid, but designers who really push themselves and can put their egos aside and get the job done beautifully and on time are the ones I want to work with and—with or without degrees—are the ones who will keep this profession great.
-
lol, it made me smile to see this whole degree vs. self debate going on here.
Personally I dont think it matters if you are self taught or educated.
I am self taught, yet have a graduate diploma, I have worked for numerous companies as well as running my own design studio with some v. nice international clients.
I think what comes down to it, is you are a good designer or a bad designer.
The question/debate should be have you got a good eye or not. I have seen, worked with and interviewed many designers with degrees to their name that are, in my opinion, terrible designers.
But i guess since design is an art, and all art is subjective...
© 2008 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments