Ms. Anne C. Kerns
Print designer and consultant with a love of color
|Member Since||June 2001|
|Member Type||Design Leader|
|AIGA Chapter||Washington DC|
|Company||Anne Likes Red, Inc.|
Art direction/Creative direction
Anne likes red... and other colors, too! In 2006 my favorite childhood book become the inspiration for my business name. Focusing on work that sends meaningful messages, I help clients find ways to solve their communications challenges: publications and reports, brochures and collateral, identity, book covers, direct mail, and more. Whether developing materials for businesses or nonprofits, the clients' goals are always the priority. That, and well-kerned type.
Anne updated a project on Behance.
Anne Kerns commented on the article "Racism in branding"
Because it's a short article, not a comprehensive thesis. Read the entirety of the first sentence and you will find your answer. The article does not minimize other instances of racism, it simply highlights the racism in Native American mascots and team names.
Anne updated a project on Behance.
Anne Kerns commented on the article "Where is Design in the K12 Curriculum? (And Why Isn’t it Taught in Art Education Programs?)"
An excellent article indeed! Unfortunately, it seems some of the in-depth design education for HS youth comes from the nonprofit community, with limited budgets and therefore limited reach. Two such examples (that I know of) are youthdesign in Boston (http://youthdesign.org/about.html) which is a mentoring program, and Critical Exposure in DC (http://criticalexposure.org) which teaches youth to use the power of photography and their own voices to become effective advocates for school reform and social change. These are great programs, started and led by committed people. The sad part is that it's not available to all kids. The good news is that instead of wringing our hands, we can get involved, volunteer, or donate money.
Anne Kerns commented on the article "AIGA urges the Obama 2012 campaign to reconsider its jobs poster contest"
Just want to add my thanks to Ric, his letter, and support for the sentiments therein. @155359060f701e91fd0b7f320e131085:disqus , when you've been in the business for 20 years, you will realize that the "exposure" you mention never happens; that design is indeed a profession populated with professionals; and that we defend it to the betterment of all who wish to practice their calling in a way that actually makes a living. Besides that, the irony of the contest is a killer.
Anne C. Kerns commented on the article "http://staging.aiga.org/interior.aspx?pageid=3080&id=2837"
Hi, I just bought this e-book and I'm looking forward to reading it. But two comments on the following e-points: "An economical book—costing nothing to print and publish. An environmental book—no paper, no waste." It may be economical, but it still cost something to publish. I'm sure there were salaries of editors and the publisher in there at the very least. There was a list of credits, I'm sure they didn't all donate their services. And while there may be no paper waste, electronic storage and delivery so still require electricity, which may one day come solely from more environmentally-friendly sources, but these days still come from fossil fuels. Just saying!
Anne C. Kerns commented on the article "http://staging.aiga.org/interior.aspx?pageid=3082&id=2768"
Thank you, Ric, for this much-needed update, and the firm stance against spec work. I think one of the biggest and growing problems is the exploding population of self trained amateur designers--anyone who has Photoshop can fancy him/herself a graphic artist or graphic designer, and promote him/herself as such. In and of itself, the democratization of our profession is not a bad thing, except when instances of their ineptitude give us actual professionals a bad name. I have seen examples of this. The average new or infrequent design buyer likely does not know how to evaluate a practitioner and his/her design business practices. They will simply try to garner what they think of as the best value (cheapest) design for the project with which they were entrusted. This can cause severe problems especially in the world of print design, where making sure the design can print correctly is the most important part of the job. You just would not believe the ignorance out there. And the misinformation just gets twittered and blogged about all over the place. (This article is a case in point: <a href="http://www.fuelyourcreativity.com/3-deadly-sins-of-print-design" target="_blank">http://www.fuelyourcreativity.com/3-deadly-sins-of-print-design</a>/ especially if you read all the comments.) Clients learn the hard way when they get burned, but sometimes that just turns them off altogether. So, what is the best defense against spec work and its associated ills? From a practitioner perspective, it's "just say no." But from a bigger picture I believe it is to elevate professional design and educate the design-buying public. This is where AIGA as a national organization can come in. Because surely, even as individual designers may participate in educating individual clients, greater strides can be made by a large, national, prominent organization. Here's one idea: encourage, empower, and facilitate chapters to give one program a year to their area's client base (instead of the members). Focus on professional design, professional designers, demystifying the process. Maybe solicit questions from that base. Make it a roundtable. Maybe have client/designer pairs so the audience literally sees both sides of a successful partnership. Charge no admission. Invite the business, nonprofit, and government communities. Do it in association with the chamber of commerce, or an association of associations, etc. Because knowledge is power. For all of us.
Anne C. Kerns commented on the article "http://www.aiga.org/interior.aspx?pageid=3080&id=2611"
I am so happy to see this article here. It's about time this issue was given some serious (public) attention by AIGA. I understand that Ric Grefe has been involved and supports the creative rights of designers, but there seems to be precious little concern by individual members (that is my perception based on lack of activity on various discussion lists). Our rights (as Americans and now as creators) keep being erroded and we can't seem to be bothered to do anything about it. This bill is chock full of ambiguous language such as "reasonably sufficient," "reasonable under the circumstances," "good faith," "reasonable compensation," and "diligent effort," just to name a few. As pointed out by the Graphic Artists Guild, one partial resolution to the issue of orphan works would be to limit the judicial remedies only for non-commercial uses. As it stands now, it's an invitation for for-profit corporate interests to infringe with impunity. There is a PDF from GAG here that gives a good overview: http://www.gag.org/activities/advocacy_materials/Advo_GuildNews2008_OW2008_v2.pdf . And the comments section of the New York Times OpEd referenced above had some good analogies regarding people thinking they are entitled to use someone else's creation just because they want to. I strongly encourage people to educate themselves and then make their opinions known to their lawmakers. Because if the letter I received back from one of my senators is any indication, they don't have a clue about the potential for this to backfire. Or else they don't care about individual creators. Companies such as Google and Corbis (among others), who participated in a technology briefing to Congressional staff, organized by the Copyright office, stand to make a bundle if creators have to pay to register every single work in some as-yet-undefined digital database. To learn about the bills & background information, via Graphic Artists Guild: http://www.gag.org/activities/advocacy.php To learn about it via ASMP: http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php To read what the Register of Copyrights says: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html To take action against the bills: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ or otherwise contact the Congress (find your Senators and Rep): http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Anne C. Kerns commented on the article "http://staging.aiga.org/interior.aspx?pageid=3080&id=2797"
I am surprised that more designers aren't simpatico with the intellectual property rights issue. I agree with Tracy, and the simple truth is that if J&J had not filed suit to protect their intellectual property now (after trying to work it out with ARC), they would be forfeiting future claims to the red cross symbol, which they have used for over 100 years, in a specific area of the marketplace (cotton and gauze surgical dressings and First Aid Kits). Although I am not an IP attorney, it seems clear that J&J is in the legal right and ARC is trying to spin an unwarranted sympathy reaction from an uneducated public. The comments also seem to indicate a confusion over the legal issues of copyright registration, trademark use, and trademark registration. "Johnson & Johnson First Aid" (with a red cross symbol) is a brand, that has been in use in the marketplace, by Johnson & Johnson (the company with its own logo/wordmark), since 1885, according to their website. http://www.jnjfirstaid.com/ The ® symbol indicates that it is a registered trademark. "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others." It was registered and accepted with the US Patent and Trademark Office, for: "cotton for personal use" and "sterile cotton for medical use" (at the very least, per my rudimentary TESS search at http://www.uspto.gov ) and THAT is what the American Red Cross is violating. They simply don't have the right to license their trademark symbol to other companies that sell gauze & bandages. Period. True, there are certain designs that cannot be copyright protected, but that doesn't mean they can't be trademarks, registered or not. Nonprofits can make "income," it's called revenue. And in the fiscal year ending June 2005, The American Red Cross reported almost $3.9 Billion in revenue and their CEO made over $400,000 in salary alone (which was only 0.01% of expenses). Just because an organization has "nonprofit" status doesn't mean it's not "big business," regardless of the good they do or the efficiency with which they do it. According to http://www.charitynavigator.org the ARC does seem to be pretty efficient. I don't know fully how J&J rates as a corporate citizen, but let's not trash them for being a "for profit" company, especially without referencing sources. After all, that's what businesses do. Even design businesses.