Forgot your username or password?
At the end of their first conversation, on
break in the hallway, Ego and the Devil argue over operative
definitions. Does a paycheck make a professional of an amateur? Does a
seminar make the self-taught taught? For every duo of opposing
definitions (self-taught versus educated; amateur versus professional;
self-employed versus employed), the two find exceptions that break the
rule. They become mired in concocting definitions based on the reality
of what is a pluralistic discipline. Graphic designers range from the
teenager with a birthday computer to the retired legend with an
eponymous academic endowment. Trying to engage this reality, definitions
bow and break under endlessly branching conditions or float weightless
as inflated generalities. Ego and the Devil decide to return to their
seats onstage and try again.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
When most designers look at how to approach social issues, they tend to think about creating a meme, a poster, or T-shirt design. Spurred on by the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, Antionette Carroll wanted to do more.
Section: Inspiration -
Diversity and Inclusion, social issues
This film will allow designers of my generation and after, to learn about how it all worked before computers, and it will serve to honor the folks who made that transition from hand to digital, for their experience and skills that most designers and illustrators will never know again.
Good design has the ability to define a great product, service or cause. AIGA member Sara N.A. Suttle shares some thoughts on why skimping on design is never, ever a good idea.
Section: Why Design
Eye Candy: B-FIT Assemblage by Fact Non Fact
Posted by Monica Khemsurov
5 days ago from
Seeds of the Cities
Kickstart Graphic Means
March 27, 2015
How to Give and Receive a Good Design Critique
The Saint Johns Bible Website