Ms. Paula Scher

Member Since April 1982
Member Type Design Leader
AIGA Chapter New York
Title Partner
Company Pentagram Design
Email moc.margatnep@rehcs
  • paula scher commented on the article "What we heard: your voice on AIGA's future"

    To Joe Isaak: I am not to my knowledge a lapsed member. I have been an AIGA member since 1978. I was on the board when we created chapters. Pentagram is a very big supporter of and donor to AIGA. I am also currently serving on the AIGANY board as emeritus.

  • Paula Scher commented on the article "What we heard: your voice on AIGA's future"

    While the board has the fiduciary responsibility for AIGA financial recommendations and decisions, I support Christina Jackson's recommendation as a member that AIGA bring in an independent auditor to review past, present, and future management structure and expenditures. It seems like a very sane thing to do.

  • Paula Scher commented on the article "A Commitment to Design’s Future"

    In reply to Nathan When designers are appropriately empowered and operating in an ethical manner, then all design should be for the public good. (unless you believe that people who make products and services that aren't inherently harmful, don't have the right to market, package, and sell them). That is our charge, and when we have the appropriate influence, we are also improving the product as well as the packaging messaging and even the distribution. But as a community we have failed miserably at this. We have failed because we are not properly empowered.  So we have given up, and redefined what "public good" means.

  • Paula scher commented on the article "A Commitment to Design’s Future"

    I am part of the "old guard" that you refer to.  I am a partner at Pentagram and my clients are all the very corporations that you list in your article.  I, and my partners work in every discipline, as Pentagram has been a multidisciplinary organization since it was founded in 1972. I think you should refer to our website and see the breadth of our clients and the depth of our work. I am also a New York City Commissioner and for the past three years have held a seat on the NYC Public Design Commission where my expertise is in environmental graphics. There I take an active role in reviewing all New York City projects that are funded with public money to ensure that they are both functional and aesthetically pleasing, (yes beauty, imagine that, is part of the criteria in planning buildings, neighborhoods, public spaces, schools libraries, transportation systems, museums and parks in cities). I think you may consider these things functional and worthy of conversation. Fortunately, we have a mayor who considers aesthetics an important part of our quality of life. I would hope you might even agree with his point of view. I did not attend the Pivot conference in Arizona. But, every designer who I know and respect who did attend the Pivot conference in Arizona, told me that conference was painfully boring and uninspiring. You might accuse the audience of being shallow and not up to today's multidisciplinary rigor, but it is totally possible that the speakers were not enlightening, and that there was nothing interesting to look at except, apparently Jonathan Hoefler who discussed drawing the letter "a", and that indicates rather insensitive conference planning when one considers that the audience was made of up people who enjoy being inspired by interesting visuals. That doesn't make them "old school' or shallow, or even especially print based, it just means that they are inspired by interesting visuals because they are charged with making them, and they love it.  They want to be delighted by those things that may surprise them. They want to relate and identify with the speakers. Afterall, they are purchasing conference tickets, airfare, hotels rooms etc.for the soul purpose of being engaged and uplifted by the conference.  Boring them is mean.  If we keep boring them, they will stop coming. I was at the Seattle conference, which infuriated me because I saw a lot of green architecture that was clunky and poorly articulated. It shouldn't be shown at a conference. The fact that it was green doesn't make it well designed or interesting in the context of a design conference, it only makes it code. Code is the base, not the ultimate goal. It's important that we create sustainable products and environments, but not poorly designed ones. I would agree that a piece of green architecture holds more value than one that is wasteful, but and hideous piece of architecture or design, green or not, is a visual pollutant.  Designers are visual environmentalists in all  media.  Please respect their charge.  All design is for the public good. Aesthetics do matter in daily life.  And yes, I like looking at "cool" graphics.  They may give me a good idea about how to design a school.

  • paula scher commented on the article "What we heard: your voice on AIGA's future"

    To Joe Isaak: I am not to my knowledge a lapsed member. I have been an AIGA member since 1978. I was on the board when we created chapters. Pentagram is a very big supporter of and donor to AIGA. I am also currently serving on the AIGANY board as emeritus.

  • Paula Scher commented on the article "What we heard: your voice on AIGA's future"

    While the board has the fiduciary responsibility for AIGA financial recommendations and decisions, I support Christina Jackson's recommendation as a member that AIGA bring in an independent auditor to review past, present, and future management structure and expenditures. It seems like a very sane thing to do.

  • Paula Scher commented on the article "A Commitment to Design’s Future"

    In reply to Nathan When designers are appropriately empowered and operating in an ethical manner, then all design should be for the public good. (unless you believe that people who make products and services that aren't inherently harmful, don't have the right to market, package, and sell them). That is our charge, and when we have the appropriate influence, we are also improving the product as well as the packaging messaging and even the distribution. But as a community we have failed miserably at this. We have failed because we are not properly empowered.  So we have given up, and redefined what "public good" means.

  • Paula scher commented on the article "A Commitment to Design’s Future"

    I am part of the "old guard" that you refer to.  I am a partner at Pentagram and my clients are all the very corporations that you list in your article.  I, and my partners work in every discipline, as Pentagram has been a multidisciplinary organization since it was founded in 1972. I think you should refer to our website and see the breadth of our clients and the depth of our work. I am also a New York City Commissioner and for the past three years have held a seat on the NYC Public Design Commission where my expertise is in environmental graphics. There I take an active role in reviewing all New York City projects that are funded with public money to ensure that they are both functional and aesthetically pleasing, (yes beauty, imagine that, is part of the criteria in planning buildings, neighborhoods, public spaces, schools libraries, transportation systems, museums and parks in cities). I think you may consider these things functional and worthy of conversation. Fortunately, we have a mayor who considers aesthetics an important part of our quality of life. I would hope you might even agree with his point of view. I did not attend the Pivot conference in Arizona. But, every designer who I know and respect who did attend the Pivot conference in Arizona, told me that conference was painfully boring and uninspiring. You might accuse the audience of being shallow and not up to today's multidisciplinary rigor, but it is totally possible that the speakers were not enlightening, and that there was nothing interesting to look at except, apparently Jonathan Hoefler who discussed drawing the letter "a", and that indicates rather insensitive conference planning when one considers that the audience was made of up people who enjoy being inspired by interesting visuals. That doesn't make them "old school' or shallow, or even especially print based, it just means that they are inspired by interesting visuals because they are charged with making them, and they love it.  They want to be delighted by those things that may surprise them. They want to relate and identify with the speakers. Afterall, they are purchasing conference tickets, airfare, hotels rooms etc.for the soul purpose of being engaged and uplifted by the conference.  Boring them is mean.  If we keep boring them, they will stop coming. I was at the Seattle conference, which infuriated me because I saw a lot of green architecture that was clunky and poorly articulated. It shouldn't be shown at a conference. The fact that it was green doesn't make it well designed or interesting in the context of a design conference, it only makes it code. Code is the base, not the ultimate goal. It's important that we create sustainable products and environments, but not poorly designed ones. I would agree that a piece of green architecture holds more value than one that is wasteful, but and hideous piece of architecture or design, green or not, is a visual pollutant.  Designers are visual environmentalists in all  media.  Please respect their charge.  All design is for the public good. Aesthetics do matter in daily life.  And yes, I like looking at "cool" graphics.  They may give me a good idea about how to design a school.

No articles were found.