From Voice ~ Topics: education, professional development
The D.I.Y. Debate
This year, students and faculty at Maryland Institute College of Art produced the book D.I.Y: Design It Yourself, edited by Ellen Lupton. The book argues that graphic design is a common language that should be accessible to everyone in society. Design critic Steven Heller disagrees. Lupton, who is director of the graphic design masters of fine art program at the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA), and Heller confront each other’s views in this (friendly) battle.
Steven Heller: In the mid-1980s, Apple launched a television advertisement that showed an image of hands cutting type and pasting it on a board. This demonstration was probably the first time “graphic design” was demonstrated to the American public on national television. Then, as memory serves, a quick cut to a state-of-the-art Macintosh screen showed a layout (probably for a newsletter) in progress. The voiceover went something like, “This is a graphic designer ... And now you don't need one anymore.” After getting our five seconds in the spotlight, we were summarily smacked down into the ooze from which we had emerged.
We certainly learned that—even after a national commercial blitz—graphic designers are a hardy lot, and even the best computer layout programs will not wipe out the species. But I'm still wary about placing our art and craft in the hands of amateurs. I'm sure Shakespeare would be miffed to learn that a room full of monkeys could really pound out Romeo and Juliet. Out damn spot.
By making our work so easy to do, we are devaluing our profession. I like democracy as much as the next person, but because of new technologies, the definition of “amateur” in fields like graphic design, photography, film and music, among others, is being redefined. With everything so democratic, we can lose the elite status that gives us credibility.
Ellen Lupton: Desktop publishing didn’t wipe out graphic design; in fact, the field got bigger, in part because the general public had gained a better understanding of design by working with tools similar to those we were using. People became more educated about design by playing around (and working) with fonts and computers.
Perhaps our credibility shouldn’t come from design’s elite status, but rather from its universal relevance to daily life. Not everyone is a design “professional,” a person dedicated to solving complex problems and carrying out large, capital-intensive projects. But everyone can design elements of their own life, from their personal business cards or letterheads to their own flyers and wedding invitations.
Verbal literacy is good for literature—Shakespeare means very little to people who can’t read or write. Likewise, visual literacy is good for design: when people experience the power of typography and images first-hand, they can better understand design that is produced at the highest level.
SH: I cherish literacy, too, but I recoil when I think of mediocre designers “doing it themselves.” People should not think they are Designers because they can fiddle with type on a computer template. If people start thinking that graphic design is as easy as One, Two, Three, it will diminish designers’ authority and clients’ respect. (I admit certain paranoia here, but it stems from a reasonable place.)
The age of the feral designer is over. Our instincts must be channeled, molded and formed by rigorous educational practices. I worry that D.I.Y. is a license to kill—and to kill the designer. Please save us from well-meaning amateurs!
EL: We are in a new phase of culture now, where people have direct access to powerful tools—not just design tools, but also to video, animation, music, podcasting and blogging. People are actively engaged with media production across the board, whether we like it or not. By encouraging the public to use design tools intelligently, we will ultimately increase the general understanding of professional work, as well as raise the level of design across society. My students’ book is one small contribution to a much bigger movement.
Figures
Fig. 1 Cover, D.I.Y.: Design It Yourself. Designers: Mike Weikert, Nancy Froehlich and Kristen Spilman. Photography: Nancy Froehlich
Fig. 2 Hand-made envelope from recycled paper. Design: Spence Holman
Fig. 3 Exploded Sharpie. Illustration: Bernard Canniffe
Fig. 4 Contact paper wall graphic. Design: Kim Bost. Photography: Nancy Froehlich
Fig. 5 De-branded T-shirt, painted. Design: Christopher Jackson. Photography: Nancy Froehlich
-
As I watch my students staring blankly at their computer screens, I realize a very important fact: Their attempts to "will" good designs to pour forth from this box, or wait out the brainstorm that this magical software will surely bring, speaks volumes to Steven Heller's concerns.
But here's the real truth: The do-it-yourselfer will never be a real threat to our authority as professional designers. Once the buzzwords that the casual designer has picked up in their first tutorial run thin, the DIYer will still be left void of experience and intrinsic knowledge; and that is what makes true professionals a most valuable commodity.
Dominic J. Russo
Adjunct Graphic Design
Notre Dame College -
Guess what -- DIYers aren't competing with professional designers. We're just trying to get stuff done -- to reach publics and make points, to narrowcast (at home and work) and broadcast (to people who might share our vision of what's hip, cool, fair, or just ).
We don't want to go into business as designers -- we just want to go into business (or politics, or education). And we've learned that good design is not just about looking good; it's about articulating our messages with more clarity and structure.
We don't compete with professional designers -- we just learn from you. -
Good graphic design is a skill and craft that is learned in the course of years and not just by reading one book. Talented, creative people will always be favored over "mediocre designers" in the job market, design competitions or the media.
D.I.Y. is unique from other design books, because it actively involves its readers. Isn't the best way to learn by doing? -
I agree that DIYers are not competing with professional designers. They are not the ones who think that graphic design is about cutting & pasting or that their 13 year-old daughter can make a web site just as well as a professional. There is a large group of people who do not understand the industry of graphic design. These people include my parents who understand art, product design and architecture but not graphic design. Why is that? I'm not sure. Graphic design is everywhere but people do not realize that everything is designed. Publications, web sites, blogs and magazines that encourage DIY-thinking are only going to help folks understand the industry. While I hate that anybody can call themselves a web designer, I don't think excluding the amateur (or untrained designer) is the answer. I think DIY should be a part of a larger effort to educate the public on graphic design.
-
I work in place where designers, editors, marketers, and others work together. We all have our experises, and we all are familiar with each other's expertise. But I am often critiqued and second guessed by the others in my firm who, I hate say it, think anyone can design by moving things around. So they interfere with my work in ways that I would never interfere with their's. I'm not saying that DIY is the same thing. But I believe that we should aspire to a level of professionalism that separates us from the amateur. Design is certainly something that can be taught and learned - and we all start as amateurs - but make sure the teaching is rigorous and in the end the designer is highly trained rather and not a dabbler.
-
i know plenty of professional graphic designers, myself included, who produce crap from time to time. i know a few who produce crap almost exclusively.
if anything, the do-it-yourselfers are beating us with our own sticks. if that weren't the case, there would be no cause for debate. it seems clear that audiences exist for the variety of expression out there, professionally designed or not.
inspired design, it seems, comes consistently through those for whom no relationship exists between what they do and their sense of self-worth. so, unless one is dreadfully disappointed with what they have become, i can't understand the fears expressed in this article. for a lot of people i suspect this debate is completely beyond the pale. -
I do not see why graphic designers should feel threatened unless, at some level, it is because we are insecure? The more designers (amateur or not), and the more design (effective or not) the better. Unsure what the 'real truth' and 'intrinsic knowledge' is all about? It's only graphic design and lives are not lost because Helvetica is used instead of Baskerville-well, come to think of it, may be they are. The idea of design education always leading to talented, creative designers and non-educated designers being "mediocre" is flawed on many points. 1. Black, Carson et al 2. A plethora of mediocre “educated” designers and 3. It's not the point of the book. The reason why graphic design is not understood or valued could be, in part, because we don't like sharing our toys and think we have some special magic that is only for our eyes only. It smells the same as designing for designers and dressing for designers. Elitist graphic design-no thank you, and I'll take the DIY approach any day.
-
There's is, undeniably, an unsettling feeling I get from the thought of making a book for non-designers about designing. Let me clarify, not about design (the discipline) and designing (the thought process), but design as a craft. Now certainly, D.I.Y (the book, not the movement) suggests giving content a chance over style and that it won't make anyone a professional, but it does so briefly and also suggests that these self-initiated exercises could be the seed of a professional interest. And really, they could be just that.
I'd love to dislike that, I really would, because I'd also love to think that professional designers can maintain some value in their current state, but really that state is in flux.
I don't feel personally threatened or at risk from DIYs. Perhaps it is the opposite of self-worth being the down-fall: I'm confident in my abilities and am capable to design myself a position in a world that includes many non-professional and dilettante designers.
When it comes to D.I.Y.'s angle, I'm really pretty indifferent. I don't think it will find its way into the hands of many people that are not already doing many of the things in the book. If this is the case, and it acts as a publication to support and encourage hobbyists, then it's not that much different from my reading of non-academic or professional math and science books. -
I assume we are having this discussion because one of our "elite" designer educators has published a book directed at a population who enjoy "do it yourself" or "how to design" books.
But quiet frankly, what all the beef about? There have been "how-to books" out on design before (what about all those "graphic Design cookbooks") in the marketplace for eons, and how about those "Dummies" books? How many of us have at least one or more of these types of books on our bookshelf? -
Once a working professional in the industry you will see. POOR design is everywhere and if we just sit around and let it happen we're almost allowing it to happen. I attended the conference in Boston and met with the students from the University of Maryland and I think their ideas are great, but almost as though they should be kept in an educational-graphic design atmosphere. The last thing I want is to have a firm, desperate for design help on their brochure, to "do it themselves" in order to save money and then realize their result is mediocre, yet just keep going along with it like it works. It saddens me to think that this is OK. Isn't this why some of us even became designers? To rid the world of POOR design in the first place?
-
Those opposed to DIY books on design act as though they reveal how to saw a lady in half and put her together again. It’s no secret that the lady is whole for the duration of the trick. Say Bob is interested in the art of illusion wants to try his own trick. If Bob wants to do a good job, he might consult a “pro” or open a book to get some pointers first. This doesn’t mean that Bob stops going to magic shows or buys a rabbit and calls himself Houdini. Bob is learning, enjoying himself and has probably, after trying a few tricks, gained a new respect for designers, er um magicians.
The DIY movement is not about revealing trade secrets. It will not add to pre-existing bad design; If there were no book on magic available to our pal Bob, he’d have tried some tricks anyway. The DIY movement is, as Lupton’s book shows, about providing information and inspiration to people with an instinct to do things on their own. -
Some of the comments here imply an "us/them" dichotomy: WE are professionals and WE make good design, while THEY are amateurs mucking about with our tools and our languages.
But we are DIY, too. We, as people who have committed our working lives and our educations to the field of design, are also implicated within a global movement that is liberating many forms of information to vast new publics.
In the 1980s, we became DIY typesetters, eliminating a specialized trade. Some people might argue that typography has suffered as a consequence, but we all know there's no going back. No designer would willingly give up the ability to work directly with typography on screen and page.
CKD mentions Web design. Although I consider myself to be a "professional" graphic designer, I am definitely a DIY Web designer. I've learned a little, enough to make my own Web sites and make a few for my friends and family. This knowledge is practical in my own life (like other DIY knowledge), but it also gives me a far greater understanding of high-level Web design than I would have if I were merely a passive user. The same goes for video, animation, and the many other languages that graphic designers now have access to.
The power of DIY (and its power to educate) belongs to everyone—even to us. -
I second Ellen.
And as someone here said, we all start as amateurs and do-it-ourselves, and evolve from there, if we so choose.
Liz Resnick makes a good point. The design profession has always encouraged d.i.y., through how-to books, manuals, and magazines. We learn many skills by designing it ourselves. Creating a book on d.i.y is d.i.y.ing.
Ellen's book raises the bar of what to expect from d.i.y., my only caution is that d.i.y. is not an end, but a begining of building a viable art, craft, and skill. -
I agree with Ellen and many of the comments posted after this article. DIY Design I feel is epitomized by ReadyMade Magazine (although with they evangelize re-use). What DIY does is really put the spotlight on design and designers. Even though ReadyMade, MICA and others offer DIY designs, what really matters is the concept itself. Although these sources provide the starting point for others to continue, the ideas come from designers and their ideas end up highlighting our craft. Just because someone can make something like someone else did, doesn't make them a designer (more like a craftsmen). Once someone actually tackles a DIY design project, they realize that there is much more to the work than just implementing it. I know a number of non-designers inspired by my work, that attempted to do something similar. In fact, all they were doing was mimicing my work and not concepting themselves. What's missing from many DIY design books etc. is the process/concepting, which is what makes design such a unique and challenging profession. Without this its simply just making things pretty.
-
I attended Ellen's lecture in Philadelphia and am grateful for her efforts in bringing this movement to light.
I also agree with Ellen's comments here. I believe, like all arts, Graphic Design exists on a continuum. If you insist on drawing a line with everything above as good (“professional”) and everything below as mediocre (“amateur”), then you are either a professional or amateur depending on who draws the line. Professional or amateur status determines whether or not you are paid for your work. As an Olympic athlete, Sasha Cohen is an amateur. But, I dare anyone to call her skating mediocre.
I’m glad Ellen brought up Web Design. As a Graphic Designer (professional, BTW), I had been working in a software company for the last 5 years. In my experience, good design practices in typography, layout, color, and use of graphics are not even on the radar screens of most Software Engineers. Present such concepts and you are likely to be dismissed as promoting a “religious argument.” Why? I’m convinced it’s because the value of these concepts is still not understood. Graphic Designers have long been notorious for keeping “trade secrets” to themselves. So much so that Graphic Designers were describing in a major UI conference I attended last year as those folks who never tell you anything about how they do their work. Web Design is rapidly changing, with Engineers on one side and Usability Professionals on the other claiming more and more of the design work. If we are to have a slice of the Web Design pie, I think we need to shed our secret guild persona or risk becoming the alchemists of the visual design world. DIY is accomplishing this by bringing concepts and techniques to light, thus exposing others to the value of what we do. Thanks, Ellen. -
does anyone find it sort of funny ironic that this book was produced by artists with/receiving formal training?
-
What I appreciate about this discourse is that it makes room for all of the grey areas. My formal training began in design, then my interests led through to painting, drawing, installation, then back again to design. In "crossing-over" and back again, I realized that the sum of our experiences, coupled with our formal education, and the ability to think critically in our specialization is what is most important in what we do. It makes us think like artists and designers.
Elissa's comment about sawing the woman in half is a wonderful allusion to what scares us most about being artists and designers: that someone will discover the false bottom and expose our craft to be a hoax.
Anyone can DIY; pushing ten elements around the page long enough may yield something even decent. But in the end, a DIY-er might take 10 hours to do what we accomplish in a 5 minute thumbnail. That's what keeps us in business. Why?
The best of what we do is about the idea, then following through with the craft of it. Everything else is window dressing. -
What makes a true professional valued and respected is their willingness to share their knowledge and passion. If I want to better myself, shouldn't an expert nuture and encourage that desire, rather than insecurely husbanding their skills?
Is the solution to bad design to forbid "amateur" design, or to teach everyone to be just a little bit better? -
I strive to be a great designer, which means smart, skillful, original. I don't want to see OK design, I don't want to do OK design. What worries me about the d.i.y thing is that its not about pushing boundaries, its about working within them at an OK standard.
-
D.i.Y is not a threat. It is going to make a messy client more messy who is already half educated with his/her half knowledge in Photoshop, illustrator, InDesign/Quark and all that web applications. You may soon here. You can do this in photoshop...etc. Tweek this type in illustrator. we are already in a world of client designers. They may need education in design process/ideation etc.Anyway goodluck to all and myself!
-
I disagree with the idea that one needs to keep anything a "secret" in order to preserve a profession/movement/field. This elitist and classist way of thinking is counterproductive to the advancement of design and throughout history the results of applying this mentality has been detrimental, not just for design, but for other fields as well (look at politics, education and music).
Designers who are concerned with holding on to this knowledge (read: tools, technology, software, structures, etc...) are inadvertently saying "I am talented not because of what I can do or think, but of what I know and have access to." If you are a good designer, then you have nothing to worry about; if you are not, then start panicking.
Literature, politics, design, music, art, poetry, etc?can only be advanced when it is open to the greater population for their input. Opening up the doors to “amateur designers” will have one of these two effects:
1. Producing a lot of designers who create haphazard work which will be recognized as such.
2. Opening up the door to the one, two, three or 20 designer who could be the next Milton Glaser.
The key here is opportunity. There are a million and one playwrights, a thousand more musicians and perhaps even more “designers”. The craft, talent and appreciation of the likes of William Shakespeare, Bruce Mau or Bob Marley have not diminished now that the tools and technologies of these fields/traits are available to the wider public.
This might actually be a blessing in disguise as it might force designers to break away from the run-of-the-mill design that everyone seems to be producing nowadays to experiment and ultimately advance the art form.
Our work is not easy to do – learning how to play the guitar will not make you the next Jimi Hendrix?but being given a guitar might give you the opportunity to become a great musician.
A toast to all present and future D.I.Y. designers! -
Sure, I could cut my hair myself because I have access to a pair of scissors, but I think most of society would laugh at the results. And I don't hear professional hairstylists compaining about it.
-
What if only classically trained musicians were permitted to play in public? Would the market for good music be larger or smaller? Would interest in and understanding of music be as wide and deep? Would established musicians be as challenged to innovate or as appreciated?
To my way of thinking, the explosion of interest in graphic design far outweighs any loss of professional exclusivity. Smart clients continue to pay willingly for intelligent marketing and the talents of people who can help them cast a vision.
As the author of several DIY books, I don’t see such efforts as the dismantling of the profession--I see them as sharing what we know with those who want to know. -
Defending Design?
Perhaps DIY is design and not Design. It seems the paranoia sets in when our profession termed "Design" becomes dilluted along with our authority. A concern validated when confronted with the cleint's face of bewilderment when handed a proposal. Yikes! If they think they can do it themselves, then let them. Encourage them? I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.
The consequences of a non-trained Doctor, Lawyer, or even Politian might endager the lives of others around them. So the question: Did bad Design ever kill anyone? I hope not. Yikes again! Good Design however, has recently proven its ability (aside from selling soap, cell phones, and other commercial goods) to actually save lives. A trend that will hopefully only continue. Is it really detrimental to our profession to seek higher ground in effort to legitimize and call attention to our cababilities?
I may be overly aspirational, nevertheless my thoughts are to leave amatuar design to the hobbiests. Trained Designers should be less concerned with letterheads, t-shirts, and DIY'ers, and more concerned with making a positive contribution to society. (Be that another book on design, ahhem.. or a school of thought concerned with the latter). -
"Guess what -- DIYers aren't competing with professional designers."
unless you count the ciient i just lost because now that they're taking a dreamweaver class, they don't need me any more. this person can't successfully put an attachment on an email but believes she can do a better job. in the past year, i've had clients beg to pay me to teach them photoshop and dreamweaver so that they can "just do these little fixes themselves." only to put it in front of me a month later to "fix" their "little fixes."
i'm all for encouraging people to embrace their creativity, but if someone thinks they're going to be a graphic designer after reading ellen's student's take on business cards, they've got another thing coming (like calling me). i've gotten fairly frustrated and jaded on hiring clients that have no knowledge of how i do what i do; i find that clients that get the process a little and trust me to do the actual design are the ones worth my time. like i might go to the doctor with a symptom and suggestions to what it might mean; i understand the process a little bit and can put forth an idea, a possible solution. that doesn't mean i'm going to ask for my own stethoscope and offer to pay for them to teach me how to take my own blood pressure. -
This reminds me of the debate on certification of graphic designers. Some are for it, some against. Those who are for it recognize that it takes more than "being paid for your work" to be a professional designer.
While I don't think the DIY'ers and amateurs will be taking any of my clients away (not the ones I want to keep anyway), commerce still needs to be educated about the differences between hiring a pro to do the job creatively, and having someone who has a computer throw something together. A pro knows how to get to the underlying problem that needs to be solved, and how to best communicate a message the audience will respond to. Amatuers and DIY'ers dont have that deeper understanding of visual communication. In the end they often waste more time and money, than if they hired a pro to begin with.
Human creativity shows no bounds, and I feel that everyone has an ability to express themselves. But when it come to business, there is a difference between getting it done, and getting it done well.
It's an issue regarding our profession, and how we are viewed by commerce. If WE start telling them to do it themselves, how can we also ask them to hire us? -
[I checked my horoscope before I posted this] ;-)
An overview of the opinions of the 'governing' elite of graphic design:
> "What this world needs is a good 5-year design education."
> graphic designers should be required to earn a certification that qualifies them to practice.
> "If people start thinking that graphic design is as easy as One, Two, Three, it will diminish designers' authority and clients' respect"
I can recall these discussions occuring as far back as 1994... along with 'print is dead'.
Maybe the next discussion forum should be focused on whether or not the general design population feels as though our elite 'governing' body is out of touch with the opinions of the industry.
Think back to the last time a graphic designer you know has left a bad taste in your mouth and I feel safe assuming that it was due to such elitist opinions regarding what they do and egos to match. -
The medical analogy recurs in this debate (both here and at Design Observer). The doctor is the professional designer, and the patient is the client or DIYer, who has become a public health risk by asking too many questions and trying to medicate herself.
It's the right analogy. The medical profession is also on the defensive, as consumers become more informed, more discriminating, and a bit pushy. In medicine, factors include the digital knowledge boom, the rise of design-driven "social marketing" campaigns by public health agencies; and the explosion in pharmaceutical advertising aimed at the users, not the pushers.
I agree that a little PhotoShop is a dangerous thing. Like doctors and patients, designers and non-designers should be working together to fashion better wellness programs for the rapidly mutating information biosphere.
Julia Lupton, Professor of English and DIY designer -
I am generally too slammed with work to contribute, but here goes...
I think the greatest threat to designers is the design community itself. I believe that many schools and colleges do a poor job of relaying the full spectrum of the design industry and perpetuate design elitism. We study the 'masters' only to find a job setting classified ads for the local newspaper and making minimum wage.
There are many levels of design and all are legitimate professions. What really matters is the big picture and results. What is the target and purpose of the piece?
If a small business can layout their own newsletter using a word template and maintain a connection to their customers for little or no cost, that is a wonderful thing. The homegrown look may even give it more of a personal appeal. A highly polished piece might look too corporate and turn off the local connection.
On the other side, I think designers often make choices that are for designs sake and do not take in to account the importance of concise content and good old readability.
One example (stepping onto soap box) of this is the 'age of technology' trend to format phone numbers with periods instead of dashes or only spaces. This format is always harder to read.
And what is really so bad about putting parenthesis around the area code? They do a nice job of separating the area code from the rest of the number. If the number is within your area it is easy to focus on just the seven digits you need to dial locally.
Another example of this I have seen is separating the month, day, and year of a date with periods. What was so bad about the hyphen or forward slash? How did the period become the elite character to use? These are functional characters that work. Why not leave them alone?
In this age of information overload there will only be growing opportunities for DIY's and skilled designers. In the end, whomever achieves the greatest, desired results will have plenty of work to do. -
Walter beat me to the punch (I agree with you, Walter!).
I recently rejoined AIGA after an absence of many years. I had let my membership lapse after attending an AIGA lecture where the featured designer proudly displayed a three column design, intended to be read line for line, across the entire page, jumping the gutters! (In other words, a single column that looked like 3) After hearing the applause, I was concerned that much the membership might be out of touch with reality. How is design that can't be read good design?
If we only design to be lauded by other designers, we can easily "go off the deep end," from the point of view of our clients. DIY keeps us grounded. If a DIY solution solves the design problem more *effectively*, we need to ask why. -
Don't worry about the abstract notion of 'general' perceptions (i.e.; 'Designers are less necessary now with DIY tools') which are supposedly 'out there' in the public mind. Rather, focus on your own practice of *creating the distinction* of superior design outwardly from within your own, authentic circle of influence, and you become, via ripples, part of the force of (re)affirming the distinction across wider circles as well. They key is personal conscience, authenticity, and good works.
-
As a current undergraduate student of graphic design I proudly consider myself a DIYer with a life long plan. DIY fosters experimentation and the reason this discussioin has caused so much uproar is probably because it is starting to force us out of a comfort zone. Look at the history of graphic design, it is full of its own revolutions. This is simply the brink of the next phase.
For those that are worried, I must bring attention to the fact that not everyone wants to be a DESIGNER. When an IT guy in our college got embarrassed about his squiggly line during an educational demonstration I couldn't hide my smile. There is a psychological block for many people and I think Lupton's book may be able to assuage some of these feelings of embarrassment and fear, bringing them closer to understanding the importance of good gestalt. In some sense, we're all back in 5th grade: that is to say there are always going to be those one or two kids you run to for Student Council posters.
Lastly, I can't draw hands. Can you? -
Rather than thinking “we're going to lose business because everybody knows how to design-it-themselves”, but we should think about the state-of-mind it puts to other people (graphic designers as well). Unlike other How-to books, graphic design is one of the special case. With the advancement of technology, not only is graphic design very accessible, but it is also very easy to produce (shape, line, and type, are only one click away). This situation already makes people think that graphic design is easy. Imagine what thoughts are in people mind with both adobe illustrator and DIY book on both hands. It devalues graphic design.
Quote Ellen Lupton:
“We are in a new phase of culture now, where people have direct access to powerful tools-not just design tools, but also to video, animation, music, podcasting and blogging. People are actively engaged with media production across the board, whether we like it or not. By encouraging the public to use design tools intelligently, we will ultimately increase the general understanding of professional work, as well as raise the level of design across society.”
Agree, but design tools such as Aftereffects and Photoshop are meant for production and implementation, not for conceptualization. Monkeys can use photoshop, but can they produce good design?
Graphic design is about process, research, conceptualization, problem solving, exploration and experimentation. DIY does not educate public about graphic design, it only provides templates to public use. And from what I've read in the comments, seems like designers already thought that using DIY is an approach to solve their problems rather than creative exploration and problem solving.
Quote Ellen Lupton:
“Desktop publishing didn't wipe out graphic design; in fact, the field got bigger, in part because the general public had gained a better understanding of design by working with tools similar to those we were using. People became more educated about design by playing around (and working) with fonts and computers.”
Indeed, desktop publishing makes the field bigger, proven by how many bad “designers” pop-up out of nowhere nowadays. People do not get more educated about design just by “playing around” with fonts & computer. Just because they know how to put type on a photograph, does not mean they know about typography.
Graphic designer are notorious for keeping “trade secrets” to themselves? Hardly.
Designing Brand Identity, A Type Primer, Stop Stealing Sheep, Marks of Excellence, Grid System in Graphic Design (Josef Müller-Brockmann), Communication Arts magazine, HOW, and so on, are only small parts of publications of books about graphic design. So, how does that being secretive? If anything else, with internet nowadays, graphic design is overexposed (not in a good way). -
I'd like to think this field is deep enough that our influences aren't restricted only to what other designers have done. The aesthetics and methods from "the street" are so numerous that I'm surprised this topic comes up again and again in professional life. As a designer who specializes in interactive media, I welcome and respect the contributions made by the programmers, hackers and "users" whose expectations have provided the broad conceptual arena I work to challenge or support. To use a narrow example, I'm entirely willing to look at any banal Powerpoint presentation I've ever been subjected to as a tribal fetish not unlike cave painting.
I'm not certain where this disdain (fear?) of DIY design is coming from. Professional standards are one thing, working methods another and visual language is something else entirely. Is the underlying issue here actually one of seeing a "pie" split into ever smaller pieces? Perhaps its just my nature, but I don't buy into zero-sum arguments of scarcity.
If design is in fact a dialog, how can we reasonably exclude anyone from that conversation? -
Quote Darwin M:
“[examples] are only small parts of publications of books about graphic design. So, how does that being secretive? If anything else, with internet nowadays, graphic design is overexposed (not in a good way)”
Please understand that my “notorious about trade secrets” comment is not directed at any one Designer. It’s more of a general perception of the community. The very fact that “elite status” is being discussed here suggests that an “us and them” frame of mind exists.
Yes, our profession has books and publications that address Graphic Design. But, I submit to you, that does not necessarily make the value of what Graphic Designers do visible to the public. To me, evidence of visibility needs to be more than going into Borders and seeing these books in the Commercial Art section (ever notice how often Graphic Design is missing as a category?) or finding them in a search on Amazon.com. If DYIers have desktop publishing and graphics programs at their disposal, would it be likely that they would search out books for the basic axioms of Graphic Design? I think it’s more likely they will dive right in and only search for the books if they have trouble with their design.
Books on fine French cuisine have been around for many years. Yet, I think it fair to say that most American families did not venture into French cooking until Julia Child presented her TV show. Julia Child essentially showed DIY French cooks the necessary basics and concepts. Classically trained French chefs did not suddenly find themselves out of work. Nor, did French Restaurants loose business because of Ms. Child. It seems to me, the opposite happened. French cooking was demystified and more appreciated by the general public. When Julia Child recently passed away, she was praised for her work from world class chefs. Would we be so kind to the Graphic Design equivalent of Julia? I don’t think so.
To me, evidence of visibility of what we do (more importantly, the value of what we do) resides in *how* we a seen by others, or even *if* we are seen by others. Look at the forum article, right here on this site: “AIGA's New Positioning: Focusing on the Future” and comments that follow. When asked about our profession, we should occasionally try using the “Tom Dolan test” of only saying “Designer,” just to see how many people respond with “Fashion?” or “Interior?”
What I remember from Ellen’s lecture was DYI was intended to be a movement, as much as a series of books. I think what this means (Ellen, please correct me otherwise) is that it is intended to move beyond the book shelves and magazine racks. -
Quote Jim Griesemer:
“To me, evidence of visibility of what we do (more importantly, the value of what we do) resides in *how* we a seen by others, or even *if* we are seen by others. ”
Thank you for your suggestions to the article. I have read it and I thought that it is very interesting. Correct me if I am wrong, your comment seems to be directed to the issue the exposure of value and identity of graphic design to the general public, yes?
I think that there will always be a misconception of what we do as graphic designers to general public at some level. Visual communication has changed so dramatically in the past few decades. Now, we do not deal only with prints, but we also work with web communication, motion graphic, multimedia and interactivity, exhibits, etc. This is one of the great thing about graphic design, it is ever changing. I think that it is almost impossible to succinctly explain to people what graphic designers do. When I was asked of my major, the first thing people relate to is advertisement. They are not wrong, but they’re not complete. In other instance, people immediately assume that all graphic designers have great illustration skill, master of photoshop, and flash expert.
My concern about how the general public has falsely view graphic designers and I think that DIY books (I refer not to a particular one, but to most graphic DIY books), in some respect, contribute to that misconception.
If the books tried to teach audience how to make beautiful vector illustration of Pokey the Pinguin on a book cover, then mission is accomplished. But generally, DYI books fail is to explain the painful journey to get to the idea of using Pokey on the book cover: “Process”. WHAT is the book about ? WHY do we use Pokey? etc.
Recently, I browsed the internet and look at professional design firms, big or small, freelancers, and students. Across the board, the majority of the design works look similar. There is no distinction and personality, they only look good. But does beautiful always means good? Designers are constantly compete with each others to make “cool” and “hip” designs, instead of design that works, useful, communicates the message and tells a story. My suspicion is that, nowadays, a lot of graphic designers probably could not even name all the basic principles and elements of design.
Graphic designers are “problem solvers”, not artists, illustrators, “web guru”, etc. And that is what the general public are not aware of. With books like DIY, most people, would think that graphic design is as easy as snapping your fingers together.
And you’re absolutely correct: “If DYIers have desktop publishing and graphics programs at their disposal, would it be likely that they would search out books for the basic axioms of Graphic Design? I think it’s more likely they will dive right in and only search for the books if they have trouble with their design. ” With the presence of DIY books, who would go to look for Grid System in Graphic Design? When you have easy way out, why would you not take it?
I think that it is great if we can educate the public about graphic designers, and I think we should. However, I don’t think that DYI books are the correct solution for that.
On a side note: I think that your comparison of French cuisine is not very fair to relate to graphic design. Like I said earlier, graphic design is one of the special case. It is difficult to take any subject and compare it with graphic design. I will try to give an analogy of one the problems that seperates (any) design field with most fields.
Let’s say that a person goes to a Chinese food restaurant and order fried rice. If he does not like the food, he would probably call the chef and say “I think that the fried rice is too dry”. It is so unlikely for the person to say “I think you need 1/4 part table spoon of soy sauce, add a little bit of salt, and cook with medium-low temperature for another 4 minutes”, which is exactly the case that is happening to graphic design these days. I have experience a few of clients (I only have a few) that gives me feed back like “I think that you need to move the text 3 inches to the left to fill in the white space in order to create balance, change the type size to 22.3765 points instead of 21, oh yeah, also change that to cream color like this sample postcard here.” (Do they even know what they’re talking about?). And it is hard to try to educate them because:
1. They think that they know as much as you do
2. They pay you, and if you’re poor, then you do what they say. -
Maybe a fairer analogy is this:
These days, any jane or joe can run down to the home center and get the materials they need to fix their plumbing and electrical outlets, build a deck, or add a dormer on their attic bedroom. They can pick a color for their living room, paint it, maybe add a faux finish.
What they can't do is design a house to spec and code. They're not architects, and they're not taking the architects' jobs away.
Frank Gehry isn't running any campaigns against Bob Vila; Bob Ross and Thomas Kinkade haven't turned the collectors away from the MoMA; season's ticket holders to the Met aren't tearing them up to hear me sing in the shower; and the real jobs will still come to the designers with the credits and portfolios.
One more D.I.Y. book on the shelves isn't going to hurt anyone. And maybe the amateurs will learn something. We were all there, once. We just decided to keep pushing it. -
I think the premise of this movement is very intriguing, but possibly dangerous. Like some designers, I have the unique position of being the one designer surrounded by software developers and management. It’s sometimes horrific to see a few of the things software developers come up with?in fact, it’s especially painful seeing these things cooked up Microsoft Powerpoint, because they don’t have the luxury of knowing, understanding, or even having a license for InDesign, Illustrator, etc.
This being said, I do agree with one thing though, brought up by a number of the responders above?the amateur is nowhere near competing with the trained design professional. BUT, that doesn’t mean that the amateur doesn’t THINK he is.
What am I getting at here? Well, large companies?.your McDonalds, Target, Pepsi, etc. will always know the value of creative professionals, and hire/contract them accordingly. Smaller businesses run by “Joe anybody” may take design into their own hands, and produce lord-knows-what?
When this has happened, our profession has been devalued. Yes, this would have been done on a smaller scale, in the eyes of smaller companies, but it’s devaluation nonetheless.
I think many of us can vouch for this, but sometimes these people do need a real designer to “save them from themselves” visually, even if they don’t know it. I don’t want to sound arrogant or condescending, but I think it’s the truth.
But, this all is certainly not going to stop me from buying a copy of the DIY book =) -
JO:
How do you propose we save them from themselves?
Should we put on suits and sunglasses and perform a hostile (design) makeover?
Do we go door to door and try to convince Al's Towing or Donna's Coffee Shop that the sign their cousin, kid, or they themselves painted is rubbish and that we will save them? That'll just earn us a face full of knuckles.
How about Designer's Eye for the IT Guy? I will grant you that something needs to be done about the "IT designer" syndrome. Perhaps we integrate design courses into IT curriculums. We're already introducing IT into design curriculums, so it's not too far a stretch.
But, honestly, your job as the designer amongst the IT is to balance them out, right?
To perform some "public service" by keeping people that didn't graduate from the academy from D.I.Y., well... maybe they don't come to designers because a) they can't afford it; b) they're "frugal"; c) they just don't care.
In the end, neither should we. -
I suppose if they are frugal, or don’t have the money for good design?we could always have them referred to a design student. I’m sure they would love good pro-bono work for their classes/portfolio =)
But for a real serious solution?well, that’s a tough nut to crack?
Education is what is needed, and that is what we have been getting at all along right? Perhaps more along the lines of what issues designers deal with?.to the point where they say?”hmm I could do this project, but maybe I should seek out someone experienced for a superior-quality job?” Or “wow?design really interests me as a career field. I think I am going to seek out a good program to learn more.”
But just letting people go, will result in people saying: “Pfffft?.designer, why the heck would I need one of them” as they slap 20 typefaces onto their sign?.
Perhaps social engineering is the answer, with a cross-media assault. I think we can all identify at one time or another, receiving blank stare after we told someone we met that we are a “designer”. Followed with a reply by them: “Fashion designer? Interior Designer?”
Other forms of design seem to have 10,000 different outlets in the mainstream media. Heck, interior designers have an entire TV Network (HGTV). Maybe with more TV spots, shows, or maybe even a TV network, slowly we could gain some kind of individuality in the media.
After watching someone work on a house on HGTV, I bet they would be even more encouraged to hire a general contractor for their needs. Maybe more exposure could do that.
Hehe...designers eye for the IT guy...now THAT I would love to see... -
On a larger perspective, perhaps the US educational system should be urged to reconsider the absence or phasing out of the arts in the curriculums of K-12. Art classes are ample opportunity to encourage children and young adults to be creative, while allowing them to see that art and design are inseparable from their everyday lives.
Kids are walking around in trainers and watching MTV, not realising that designers and illustrators are shaping everything they see and use, from the box to the content. Why? It's a cultural failure... museums cater to the social elite, whereas the magic box reaches millions, and children are encouraged from an early age to join sports, but discouraged from joining band. We disproportionately award certain professions that require no personal or intellectual investment from us. If people are dumb about design (amongst other things), it is because they have been educated to be dumb about it.
Such an overhaul in the social system needs to start from both ends, the parents and the "suits", to encourage that middle ground where science, sports and the arts are equally valued by all classes.
That is the toughest nut to crack, indeed.
But change in attitudes can be adopted on the local level by artists, designers, dancers and musicians that go to their school boards and propose that they be allowed into the classrooms of children and young adults, to expose them to the arts. If classrooms were visited several times a month by arts professionals, young people wouldn't think twice about following such career paths. I'm certain that educators would welcome that. -
With all due respect, I’m going to be blunt. (Note: the “You” here is the generic “You” and not directed at any one responder)
Each Graphic Design DIYer is a professional in another area. And we professional Graphic Designers are DIYers in fields that we are now moving into. The Web came into being in the field of Engineering, not Graphic Design. If you insist on taking the stance that DIYers devalue our profession of Graphic Design, then Engineers can claim that we Graphic Designers devalue their profession of Web Design and Development.
When you design for the Web, do you set a fixed width for the page? Do you enforce font faces and sizes? Do you design heads and navigation that are text, created as graphics (non-HTML)? If you use graphics for heads and navigation, do you not bother to add the text as an “alt” and “title” attributes? Do you translate PMS colors directly in RGB values on the site? If you do any of this, you are designing for printed pieces, not for the Web.
Common computer screen width resolutions can vary as much as 100% of the minimum. Sites need to be “fluid” and expand with the screen. Otherwise, users will feel you are unnecessarily hiding information from them. The only “safe” fonts are Times New Roman and Arial. In most cases, you’ll have to set up font “fall backs” (i.e. Use Helvetica?if they don’t have that, use Arial?if they don’t that?etc.). This means you’d better expect text to re-break from user to user. Because usability and accessibility are fast becoming a Web requirement, fonts need to be defined in percentages or ems, *not* point sizes. All graphics will have to have “alternate text” for screen readers to access, especially if the graphics are used for navigation. Usability will dictate that navigation be placed where user expect to find it. PMS colors, that can appear rich on the printed page, will often look terrible on the screen. On laptops, they can often look like puke (Don’t ignore laptops! They’re becoming more common). These are things that Engineers and Usability Professionals already know and practice.
Before you propose “Designer Eye for the IT G___” (girls should be included), you had better be certain that the “Fab 5 Graphic Designers” understand their medium as well as the Fab 5 on Bravo do. In many ways, we’re back to square one here, folks. Design elements we have long thought of as under our control (finished size, fonts, even layout) no longer are. The grid is mutable and typography is variable. Unless you are just coming out of a school where this is taught, then you, as a professional Graphic Designer, are a DYI Web Designer. Does this mean that Graphic Designers devalue Web Design? Absolutely not! We are needed to bring experience from Graphic Design to the Web. But, we will not (I repeat, *will not*) be respected with an attitude of “DYIers devalue our profession and need to be saved from themselves.” Communication mediums are changing and converging faster than any one can keep up with. No one profession holds absolute sway over design. We will have to work *with* Usability Professionals and Engineers on a design project. This means bringing humility to the collaboration and recognizing that we are all DIYers to some part of the project.
Design work has to stand on its own merit. If it follows that the work of a classically trained, professional Graphic Designer is inherently better than a DYIer, then the professional has nothing to fear. If DYIers are getting the work, don’t necessarily assume it’s because “a) they can't afford it; b) they're frugal; c) they just don't care.” Last time I looked at salary stats, Usability Professionals and Engineers made more than Graphic Designers. Is it possible the DIYer is fulfilling a need the professional Graphic Designer is not? With New Media, we are all continually in school now, and to some extent, all DYIers. In the end, the client will want a design that succeeds at effective communication, regardless of whether or not it is recognized as good by other Graphic Designers. -
How would it be if Graphic Design found a place on a channel like HGTV? This kind of exposure has done a lot to demystify interior design, architectural and landscape design, even the fashion channels has let us in on that creative process. Unfortunately, due to scale and its predominately 2-dimensional nature, graphic design does not really lend itself easily to this medium. One watches these shows for a dramatic reveal, a satisfying solution to the problem. But still it might be an educational experience for a "civilian" to be invited into the boardroom to hear what the client requires and back to the design firm for how this is achieved. A few years ago Milton Glazer did a cable show on graphic design, it was fine, but according to him it was not saved on tape. Imagine the possibilities; "Graphic Designing to Sell", Extreme Logo Makeovers", "Type Doctor", "Graphic Design on a Dime" etc. As for the DIY discussion... the proverbial horse is out of the barn. As long as almost everyone has one of these magic boxes on their desk, they have access to the same tools that designers do. Some of these self-taught individuals have real talent and original minds, other are strictly copyists. Are they a real threat to the best design professionals? No. Will they take business away from the mediocre ones? Probably. Do good clients know the difference? Let's pray that they do!
-
For the past month I've been working on a mass-market paperback. Last week I started billing for part of the project. My fees so far have been more than reasonable for this type of work, in fact I like the content of the book, and want the information to get out, so I cut them a bit of a deal.
Dealing with the editor, I was under the impression I was dealing with a professional outfit. I was upfront about what my fees would be and, fortunately, have a contract and should get my money eventually.
However, in the last few days, I've received a couple emails regarding my fees from one individual in the company and his comments are a direct result to what's happening to our profession.
Here are just a few jewel quotes from our recent emails:
"I could have laid out the book in a couple of hours with PageMaker."
"I have laid out books before. It takes practically nothing."
This is what we are up against. -
I just picked up Ellen's Book yesterday and found it delightful and in no way a threat to the profession. D.I.Y. is nothing new, and Ellen and contributing authors have merely contextualized it within the broad access our culture now has to both computers and design programs. And going back to the original Apple commercial, iWork and iWeb are two more of Apple's efforts to put design into the layperson's hands. I do not beleive it is at the expense of design and designer's however.
The book is fantastic - it speaks vilumes to my son. the non-profit that wants to hire me but can't afford to and many, many similar people.
D.I.Y. does not in anyway interest my clients who have no inclination for design and need skilled professionals to compete in today's market. In the same way thise power knitters advertised on 70s TV did not undermine the apparel industry, D.I.Y. will be no threat to the profession.
To the same extent that a Target Commercial aired during the Torino games featuring Yves Behar, Michael Graves, et al., I would even conjecture that D.I.Y. creates design awareness that in the long run benefits the industry.
Thanks Ellen, great book - on target and on time, as we all like to say. -
I am surprised by the brevity of this interview. Can't anything more be said between Heller and Lupton? Or did their differing opinions merely cut this exchange short?
No matter, ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing our own version of the Arts & Crafts movement. I have been wondering where the DIY ideals should be situated amongst design education (or should it?). At the outset, exposing students to some of these immediate tips and tricks present in the book teaches students basic craft skills, and the willingness to get things done themselves without techniques or technologies getting in the way. And incorporating said projects and principles into the K-12 classroom is a wonderful idea; perhaps this is the best place, rather than in a University setting. However, I must agree with Heller's statement that the DIY-movement could cheapen the work designers do for clients, making it look too easy. Then again, maybe we'll see even more designers jumping on the bandwagon, just like desktop publishing did for us.
Lastly, I connect the DIY aesthetic with those interested in "culture-jamming" or "mass-marketing" their work with no frills and little overhead. It's hard to get over the connection between this book and some of what I've seen Adbusters folks do, and the rest of the vigilante artists and designers I met in Seattle: the emphasis was on the message and concept, and less on the quality/craft of the final product. I'm not implying that the work in DIY is cheap or of low craft, but the path to getting the work out there is quick, and this immediacy can come in handy when applied to the right problem.
"The solution to the problem is in the problem itself."
-Lou Danziger -
I do not see why designers feel threatened by the DIYers. Just because more amateurs have the tools to design, is not going to make them graphic designers. We all know there is so much more to graphic design than knowing how to use layout and imaging programs. It requires problem solving skills that are developed through years of education and producing designs. A DIYer is not going to pick up a how-to book and a laptop and consistently, if ever, create good design. There will always be a division between the amateur and the professional designer.
-
Just a note that this is not a new discussion. At the Aspen Conference (Italian Design), Bruno Monguzzi and Massimo Vignelli had an intellectually animated exchange of words about this very issue. It happened spontaneously between scheduled sessions at the conference. It had resulted from the increasing ubiquity of the computer. Ultimately, DYI was then and is now a political issue.
-
Here's an idea:
We could collect all of the horrible DIY and amateur design and create an exhibition to demonstrate to the public how the disgusting, pathetic, laughable work of these unworthy people is destroying our society. Call it Degenerative Design.
Then we could lock up, exile, or just publicly humiliate these so-called "designers" so that they will never unleash their impure design into our field of vision ever again.
The rest of us will finally be free to flourish in a society that truly values the professional designer. We can live in peace knowing there are no more DIYers threatening to take what is rightfully ours. -
I believe clients would not want something crap when they are about to present and selling there product.
-
it's one thing to judge ourselves, our work, and our colleagues('), as horrendous, average, or exceptional. But when push comes to shove, the clients have athe final say when it comes to passing judgment. In the end, they are the ones who will pick their service providers. And invariably, some will make uneducated decisions - the cheaper alternative, the family-member, the smooth talker. However, I have found, in my experience, that these are often the worst kinds of clients - those who don't even really understand what it is that we do, how we can actually contribute to their corporate image/vision/message. They are the ones who will penny-pinch, complain about fees, nitpick about your roughs, and send work back 500 times to change a comma. Certainly, those people need and deserve to be educated, and there is no doubt that in servicing them, we are doing a little bit of that (in moments like these, I think - thank you Target, Martha Stewart for having done so much for the democratization of design). But what I truly love, is the client who gets it, who has a vision that can include my work, and knows that he needs it. Those guys do know the difference btwn the DIYer and the rest of us, and, rest assured, they are quite unlikely to go for the former, especially, as someone so wisely stated, when hundreds of thousands of dollars are one the line.
From an academic standpoint, I certainly see many of students fascinated by design - they seem to think that by picking it as a major, they are somehow more noble than the advertising students. But most of them just are not cut out for it, bc they confuse design with designer - glamour, fame, name-in-lights kind of designer - and more often than not, they lack the passion, interest, curiosity, and stamina to get involved. Those prime candidates for DIY just can't stomach the real thing.
So I do think that we are relatively "safe" from frauds. We do need to get excited about debate, innovation, and sharing knowledge - which begets knowledge.
Clemence
456 Studio
Brasilia, Brazil -
The ability to consistently get hired to produce and deliver great design is what differentiates the professional from the amateur. Nothing more and nothing less. I can still remember a time when my piers were designers who in the day were nothing more than D.I.Y'ers who had the drive and passion to turn it into a living.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
© 2008 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments