Hi there!

Myself and my partner, both cranbrook architecture alum (2007, 2008) are looking for people to share studio space with in Brooklyn. The spaces we’re looking at are in the Sunset Park neighborhood. We’d love to share with some fellow cranbrook grads if possible!

If you’re interested please email me for more info: hawktrainer at gmail dot com

SCAD-Savannah seeks qualified candidates for the position of senior graphic designer. The senior graphic designer reports to the senior creative director and is a leader within the creative department. This creative and strategic thinker designs solutions for communications challenges including publications, ads, Web sites, signage and more. The senior designer must be able to work in a fast-paced environment and able to work alone or in teams as needed. Successful candidates must possess a bachelor’s degree or equivalent degree in advertising, design or other applicable field; five or more years of experience in design; and a dynamic portfolio that demonstrates range.

Most of us are probably familiar with in-house design office speak. Whether you’ve worked at an architecture, product design, interactive or graphic design firm or an advertising agency, you have learned over time the true meaning of that plethora of friendly sounding expressions that nudge you into compliance. This ongoing list is meant to humorously unmask those design office euphemisms, by putting into words what a creative normally only feels but never articulates.

#1. Thanks for rolling with the punches! [Thanks for letting us abuse you and taking it bending over!]

#2. You gotta rock ‘n roll on this... [We know we’re not giving you enough time, but if you don’t get it done anyway, we blame you]

#3. Thanks! [All the above will piss you off but the exclamation mark means that I do not want to hear your response, just do it.]

#4. It’s so creative! [Yeah… this is not happening, but before we crush it and make it lame, we’ll pretend we love it.]

#5. Does that make sense? [I’ll pretend that my infuriating instructions are smart and logical and if you disagree, it doesn’t mean that I’m wrong, but that you’re stupid]

#6. Great work, but can we see a few more options? [What do you mean design is not like choosing a meal from a menu?]

#7. It’s approved with these small fixes! [This is where entire projects get redesigned, while it is implied that that is because you did it wrong, and they just have to fix your mistakes, but don’t worry, they’re not mad at you.]

#8. It’s not what we expected. or, it’s not what we had in mind. [We were completely incapable to put into words or a brief what we needed, and are now surprised to learn that you creatives don’t have that magic client-gut-feeling-reader we thought you had. Therefore, your work is bad.

#9. We love it but, can we just see that in blue? [No comment]

#10. We don’t think our audience will understand this... [Ofcourse we have no idea what our audience thinks, plus “Audience” is not one person whom you can ask for their opinion, so we can freely abuse this vagueness to dismiss your carefully developed concepts.

#11. It is what it is. [We know it is painful and unreasonable that we make you do this, but we’ll just pretend that it is an act of god and we just can’t help it… [Cue sad face.]]

Not that long ago, it seemed as though whenever a new brand overhaul was introduced to the public, people squirmed a little, some complained, but overall there was a sense that “The experts must know what they’re doing”, and the public almost always just grew used to it.

Recently this trend reached a crescendo, when public outrage over the Tropicana re-branding (by the Arnell Group) directly led PepsiCo to trash the muti-million dollar redesign and revert to the old logo and carton. (See “In Brief: Tropicana Hits Command-Z “ on UnderConsideration’s excellent “Brand New” website. (It’s like juicy gossip for brand fanatics! Pun intended.)

Where do you stand on the increased involvement that everybody—young and old—seems to feel with their brands and has turned many non designers into preservationist brand activists?

Also see: ”Tropicana Fiasco From Arnell is Gift That Keeps Giving” on businessweek.com

and Redesigning Famous Logos - Right or Wrong?

The Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), in New York City, invites applications for faculty positions in the Communication Design department. Appointments will begin in fall 2009. Emphasis on areas such as web design, interface design, motion graphics, and other associated disciplines.

more information

hello everyone --
i know i live in a foreign country now, but i had no idea cranbrookdesign.com existed.  glad to know it is here. check out my handbags at http://www.rosedeniz.com][url=http://www.rosedeniz.com]http://www.rosedeniz.com[/url] and come visit turkey! 

////rose

Hi,

Does anyone happen to know of a source for quality A4-sized paper in the US? I’ve looked around on the web but haven’t really found anything other than basic copy papers. Ideally I’d like to find something like French Papers, but in euro sizes.

thanks in advance,
JN

SIMON DAVIES: During the orientation session at Post St. Joost in Breda, the Netherlands, my soon to be professor, Simon Davies mentioned to me in passing;

the antiquated notion of (graphic) design as problem solving should be buried and replaced with an understanding of design as a process of problem revealing.

I identified strongly with Simon’s words as I’ve never really thought of myself as a very good problem solver, but would still like to consider myself a competent designer. No doubt graphic design does solve some problems. But in the grand scheme of problems, differentiating products in the market and making a text legible seem pretty trivial, and certainly not important enough to base the identity of a profession on. This shouldn’t be seen to discount the important place of good (moral?) craft work within society, but the extension of the designer’s role as official “problem-solver” is based in an ideal of modernism, with design acting in the service of (the captains of) industry. Whose problems have we really been solving all these years?

As a socially engaged designer, a constant rebuttal to my idealism, is that graphic design can do nothing to solve the problems of poverty, hunger, environmental destruction or war. The argument continues, who are we to pretend we know the solution to these problems, we’re artists, not (political) scientists? Therefore, we should stick to what we know, get on with doing good work, and solve the problems we’ve been trained to solve (justified or ranged-left? definitely ranged-left...). Yet the second half of Simon’s statement offers an alternative to this simplistic argument. Without getting into the “designer as author” debate, the common understanding of graphic design is one where the designer works with predetermined content. The very same processes of organisation, clarification and differentiation that have been linked with solving, can more naturally be seen as revealing that which already exists in the content. Identifying what to reveal and how to reveal it (and whom to reveal it to), is the starting point for design as a rhetorical practice, from which an argument can be formed (argument as solution? believe me because I’m good..) or from which questions can be asked (do you believe me because I’m pretty?). Seen in this light, the question of whom we are serving becomes all the more pertinent.

The line between solving and revealing is blurry, yet a reversal of perspective could open up real spaces for questioning and dialogue. When asked what I know about solving the problems of global warming, I ask what do I really know about the effects of selling ....... (insert product here). But this isn’t simply the issue of selling versus telling, it is a basic questioning of our acceptance of our role/ability to tell. Maybe we should focus on our ability to show…

HUGUES BOEKRAAD: Three months later, I had made the decision to leave the Netherlands, broken-hearted and broken-spirited. On a misty December evening, Hugues, my theory professor, asked me why I was leaving. In a moment of clarity, I responded that I was leaving because I recognised my own weakness. he nodded and replied that it was good that I could recognise my own weakness:

I’ve never had to deal with that, I’m strong of body, strong of mind, I’m smarter than most people I know. Yet, I’ve had friends who were far weaker, far stupider than me, who managed to achieve more because they accepted their own weakness. Remember Kevin, in your struggle against capitalism, if you can recognise how truly weak you are, how small you are, how impotent you are, then you’ll be able to do great things.

Beyond the surealism of that moment, with Hugues relating my struggle to capitalism (while I was pining over lost love), the idea of recognising my own weakness has stayed with me ever since. I’ve asked myself what he meant with this contradictory statement, and in different instances come up with different answers.

At first, it meant learning patience, learning how to delay dreams and temper ambitions. To accept pain and let wounds heal. Another obvious and practical answer (which I therefore doubt is what he meant), is to not be afraid to ask for help, constantly. To know how to swallow your pride and be genuinely open to support and collaboration. Together we stand…

Less optimistically, I’ve also learned how recognising weakness means making very real compromises with reality. That in order to stay alive, you have to sell some things, and you better sell it well, and sell it cheap. The machinery of capitalism is vast, and I am small.

These reflections might seem like tired platitudes, but sometimes it takes a big man telling you just how small you are in order to face up to them.

GRAHAM WOOD: I wrote Graham asking for help. I’ve always admired his design/art/writing practice, both as part of Tomato and individually. I’d never met him before, yet in asking for help, I was unusually frank, explaining in great personal detail why I needed it. He replied:

i don’t know what the (or at least my own) drive to transform? or hope? or actually communicate really comes from--i don’t think i’ll ever really know and i know i don’t want to know anymore because it gets more and more irrelevant as time passes. i know what you mean about crying to bon jovi--so called ‘crap’ hollywood movies get me that way very very often… the most recent was the ‘last samurai’ but you know what they say about cliches and truth… i think i’m always starting again--not in a ‘you’re only as good as your last work’ way, but because you just never know--what something will be, where it will lead… whether it will be worth it… i think i lost my ability to expect anything (well, miracles and disasters at least) a long long time ago and because of that i’ve found life to be… life. we can’t all be saints but you can hold a door open every so often--just realising that we’re on a planet along with other people can sometimes be a bit of a shock.

by the way (not advice, just an aside)--marry the next girl you want to go out with. it sorts all the shit out--for a while, if not a lifetime (if you’re… lucky)--and you can get on with the things that really matter. a quote i always think of is “i’ve seen too many men driven insane by their distractions.”

ABE BURMEISTER: I recently sent Abe a link to a project produced at Design Inquiry, On Secession and Reclamation. He was unimpressed and when I asked him why, he answered:

I know it’s well intended, but that is one of the most misguided sites I’ve seen in a while. Pushing deep division when what’s needed is working unity, and one of their main charges against Bush is that he promotes disunity! I spent the election out in Ohio working to swing things. When I came back there was a lot of talk about “they”, “them”, and the sky falling. It killed me a little, because when I left people were mainly concerned with what to do for halloween.  And more to the point, if you think of people as “they and them” then you’re not going to get much popular support are you? For all the American left talks about being for the people they sure don’t talk to too many people. I didn’t meet any “theys”? out in Ohio, just real people with real concerns.

Over the last few years, I’ve had quite a few brief email exchanges with Abe around issues of social change. He’s explained to me, in unambiguous terms, why he’s moved away from the concept of resistance to one of transformation and construction. In his words, “not only does resistance promote conflict, it also implies a resignation to failure.”

Though I agree with him in principle, I know I’m still very seduced by the rhetoric of resistance. And though I can understand it as rhetoric, I believe that in these times, there’s a genuine necessity for making (dissident/resistant) rhetorical arguments. I’m scared shitless of what would happen if we stopped speaking of revolution.

Yet it’s also been a long time since I’ve worked on the ground, and Abe’s words do just that, grounding me, making me realise the practicality and importance of the choices we make. Moreover, his ability to move ‘beyond’ a position of resistance empowers me to believe that my own anger can become more constructive and progressive, given a commitment of my time and will.

STUART EWEN: Three years ago I wrote a thesis on graphic design and the politics of visual culture that was largely structured around arguments made in Stuart Ewen’s book All Consuming Images. Last month, much to my delight, I recevied an email from him out of the blue:

Kevin: I just found your site. It’s needed now more than ever. Best, Stuart Ewen.

As I write this, I realise that there’s very little to say about these three little sentences. They are neither meaningful nor thought provoking to anyone but me (how did he find my website? why does he think it’s needed?). Their inclusion here is simply a projection of my bolstered ego.

We all need a little encouragement sometimes…

I was wondering if anyone can suggest a good application to use for compressing video for web without loosing a lot of quality. thanks.

This story made the local news here in upstate NY and involves my children’s school. Brittonkill school district (Troy, NY) has used a clip art tiger for their mascot for years on all sorts of surfaces from athletic clothing and school signage to yearbook covers (all things printed). A group of Brittonkill high school kids were doing research on hate crimes and found a www site maintained by the Anti-Defamation League about hate groups and their logos. They were shocked to find their Brittonkill tiger as the central element of the logo for the National Association for the Advancement of White People, a racist group once led by former Ku Klux Klan member and one-time Louisiana state representative David Duke. 

As it applies to design, and the role of the graphic designer…

Where do you stand on branding? Is it dead? Do you wish it were? Is it soft science, or is it viable? Are the consumers/audiences of today too global and/or too saavy for brand loyalty to exist? Is brand strategy / market research something that you feel prepared (and/or qualified) to do with your MFA? Or would you like an MBA with that? Is the business of branding, and the entire universe (sociology, marketing, psychology, etc.) that goes with it something that should be taught (at more than an introductory level) in design schools?

Have you read this?

Sorry to open a can of worms like this, but I am interested in a wide range of opinions (and expertise) here. Perhaps this will lead to several sub-threads…

This has been on my mind a lot lately. “This” refering to the fact that having had the educational opportunities that I have had, how do I seperate out my own experiences from my expectations in teaching? The default response is that one can’t, that Cranbrook says we should embrace those experiences as part of our individual personhood and use that content to frame our work. But part of that individual experience was shaped by the group experience of my peers. At Manitoba, Rice, Princeton, Cranbrook and Reading, I was among classmates that wanted to be there and were enthusiastic about the material that they were being exposed to.

Of course these are different times. But this point is suspect. It is still possible to have students that are enthusiastic and hard working irrespective of whether they are attending an Ivy League school or a public institution. So what makes the difference? Why are some individuals self-starters while other students feel that once they have paid the tuition bill, they are entitled to the degree? And can a work ethic and an atmosphere of enthusiasm be instilled by an institution of is that something that the students already arrive with [or not]? Strong or leading institutions already attract students who have a very strong level of enthusiasm and who already have a desire to work through projects to a high degree of output. So perhaps the title of this thread should have been, “Why do we think students can be taught?”

A true study of design inevitably requires the student to realize and come to terms with the connections between (a) design and rationality and (b) rationality and communication.

The most important first lesson for a designer, the one lesson which initiates him or her as a designer, is this: Every design decision is in principle justifiable. In other words, design is reasonable. The designer has reasons for his or her choice of a typeface, graphic style, means of reproduction, etc. A piece is considered to be highly designed or well-designed when, if asked, the designer is able to argue convincingly for all of his or her design decisions.

This first lesson is the key to all subsequent education. As a designer matures, his or her sense of reason matures and with that comes better and better design. This maturation process is the product of communication. So that there is no confusion, set aside for a moment the idea that it is our job to “design communications”. I am talking about communication as the source of intersubjective human reason, and about this collective reason as the fuel for what can be called design in the broadest sense.

In the beginning, it is enough for the design student to be able to subjectively justify his or her choices. Gradually, though, the student is introduced to other people’s reasons-- through critiques, books, conversations with teachers, etc. The student will naturally be influenced by those reasons which he or she finds to be most persuasive. In addition, she may influence others with her reasons. In the process, more and more people (in theory) come to a state of agreement about what is true, appropriate, and sincere in a variety of situations. Where there is still disagreement, participants enage in theoretical work to uncover the situation behind the disagreement, hopefully to find some agreement on an abstract level. In one way or another, there is a collective endeavor to examine and refine the reasons for design decisions. This is design education. The best design, in the end, is the design that works for all of us.

I will assume that the above adequately articulates a fairly simple but rarely understood connection between design, rationality, and communication. I would suggest that this connection be taught explicitly in the design curriculum. Teaching students to see design as a quest for reasons and to see the best reasons as communicatively developed: (1) may help them to solidify their ultimate motivation. The first question that might be asked: Why should we be concerned with being reasonable? It isn’t enough to say “because design is inherently about reason”, even though it is. Why choose to be a “designer”, to accept the task of bringing reason to the world, in the first place? Is it the right thing to do? Why? (2) It may also help them to find a distinct place for themselves in a discourse on design, whether that be a stylistic discourse, a discourse on the social role of design, etc. (3) In addition, students might begin to see the relevance of history as a source of reason. They can look to history to find reasons for what they do, whether they are influenced by traditions or events or whether they find that they must rebel against certain things. Finally, (4) it can certainly help them to understand that critical theory is foundational to the true study and practice of design.

To the last, I would add a few points for those academics who wish to help revitalize the intellectual life of design. Postmodern theorists may have criticized some limited forms of rationality, but they have not debunked or destroyed the ideal of human rationality itself. Rather, they have participated in the process of disclosing some of the problems with our current too-simplistic notions of rationality, presenting, in many cases, quite rational arguments.

The Neomodern design academic, who is not yet ready to throw his hands up in the air, would find the work of Juergen Habermas (to start with, the first section on rationality in the Theory of Communicative Action) to be extremely rewarding. A close reading will reveal many possibilities for theorizing design as a still potentially rational and progressive enterprise, even in all its complexity.

I’m almost done reading Emigre No. 67 “Graphic design vs. style, globalism, criticism, science, authenticity and humanism”. One of my coworkers gets them and she passed it on to me. All of the articles are excellent and informative in their own ways. Randy Nakamura’s article “The Grand Unified Theory of Nothing” and Kenneth FitzGerald’s article “Buzz Kill” were excellent reads for me.

A New York Times review of the Carnegie International show contends that: these days a lot of serious art is made by artists who work like professional illustrators, graphic designers, prop makers and producers of television commercials and music videos. While not in this show, Heather McGill, Sculpture Artist in Residence, certainly fits the mold and mentality of many of the artists shown. Through extensive use of industrial process and application, particularly automative, her work not only exemplifies the designer-art relationship it also refers to it. In a series of her work, which I saw as a first year, she fabricated a large air bladder from a pair of Nike sneakers.

In an ongoing project for a client, my colleagues and myself, have been looking at Mark Lomabardi and Julie Mehretu as inspiration (former) and example of contemporary global visualization (latter). In the case of Mark Lombardi, it was the elegant ideation of complex relations within economic and political structures. (This too finds voice in the work of Josh On, of Future Farmers, in his They Rule.) Our resulting work bears little likeness to either of the two artists, but their work serves as both conceptual and visual stimulation for omnivorous designers. Often the connection between Art and Design is one of incidental contact or influence, though more often it is quite a bit more than that. The notion of applied-art is a designation which allows Design to engage in the realm of Art without succumbing to it fully. In recent years the reinvestment of the hand, a backlash response to the democratization of computer-based work, has pushed designers further towards the realm of Art—most notably Elliott Earls. The whole of German publisher Die Gestalten Verlag oeuvre capitalizes on this growing desire and exposure for art-design and design-art. It is a greater degree of autonomy offered from the client-driven practice, and it often serves the secondary purpose of career building. Matt Owens’ [2d 95] Brooklyn Gallery, The Riviera, is one that traffics in both Art and Design, making no distinctions. Designers are visually inclined individuals, so it should come as no surprise when the impulse to create is in need of expression beyond the traditional venues of commercial design. What is interesting, or worth asking, is the viability of the said enterprise or the manner in which it begins to influence the dominant practice.

Most individuals and institutions exert a stricture and legalistic interpretation of what constitutes design or graphic design or even art, yet make little concession for how these notions have evolved; Elliott Earls is not one of them. The expansive model of design strategy employed by Elliott Earls is built upon the questioning, re-calibrating, and intensification that has been underway at Cranbrook for the past 30 years. The polymorphic qualities of design discourse is championed under Elliotts tenure, engaging in headlong excursions into the derivation of personal artifacts and adopting many strategies culled from the Fine Arts. The agenda then, is oppositional, it’s personal, and above all tries to be relevant.

Commercial design has left little else but a client-based model of interaction, though there seems to be growing space for a type of patronage enjoyed by the Fine Arts as well as Architecture. Magali Safartti Larson has written quite well about the intricacies and implications of the patronage relationship within the field of Architecture. Though the degree of complexity on an average graphic design project does not seem to come near that of an architectural construction, many individuals and studios are often called upon to stylize a project (enter the star system). Sophisticated clients are well aware of the cache tied to many designers and firms, and often seek them out as patrons. A notable example of this is Mattel’s reaching out to Paul Frank to work with their flagship product, Barbie. Soon we might seen Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry helming projects for Coca-Cola.

Branding too has come to the foreground as the marriage of strategic thinking and visual formulation. The implications embedded in a brand are of high enough stakes as to require a sizable commitment on the part of both client and designer, and as such approach a level of visibility and investment heretofore relegated to the domain of Architecture. Many brands reach out to designers, or rather firms, whereby a form of patronage is engaged upon. The autonomy offered is not unlimited, perhaps in due proportion to the scale at which one works, leading to construction of, as Larson says, an inherently contradictory identity. Embodying a similar contradiction is Adbusters with their un-branded products.

The complexity of contemporary design practice is multiplied exponentially by the opportunities and avenues afforded. Does the pure autonomy of the Arts offer that much more than the domain of Design can provide? The ambiguity between Art and Design is not new, though with increased interest in both camps in the other—as well as a piqued public interest these issues are once again relevant. Does autonomy conferred upon an artist differ from that of a designer? Can a new system of patronage be operating, or has it always been, whereby designers are now called upon to color within the lines, as it were, and perhaps even slightly outside of them? While the New York Times review ends with the following: Designer art is ironic and strategic. It is not the product of a searching soul but of a critically articulate mind; I wonder if the same can be said of designers who want to be artists. 

I finally launched Mr. T and Me.

http://www.mrtandme.com

let me know what you fools think!

I just got back from AIGA’s FutureHistory conference for graphic design educators. I had a great time seeing old friends and getting to know new ones… Conferences like these aren’t so much about the content of the event as much as a place to meet like-minded people. These kinds of events are important (especially for educators) because I think the academic environment is sometimes too isolated and it’s easy to get into a rut.

The conference was a great opportunity to find people who are on the same wavelength… I saw some interesting trends percolating among some of the educators in attendance. They are interested in writing and process, concept and context…. I think these things got pushed aside somewhat during the economic boom of the 90’s, in favor of a dumbed-down version of design education that spit out graduates who knew the latest software but didn’t have experience generating fresh and meaningful ideas.

I participated in a panel discussion, where Wendy Walters (English professor at RISD) spoke about teaching art/design students how to write and critique, I spoke about emphasizing process, and Sean Donahue (instructor at Art Center, and former NC State Designer-In-Residence) spoke about finding new contexts for design.

There were other interesting presentations, as well…
In a very general nutshell:

Linda Yaven led a group from CCA to speak about documentation in the classroom. Using digital photography to document the collaborative nature of the studio helps the student and teacher step outside their processes to gain a different (more objective?) perspective about a project’s successes and failures.

Will Temple gave a presentation that proposed a new way of looking at design history. Instead of a generic survey course filled with detached images, he wants us to put the place back in the design by studying the cultural, economic, political, and philosophical contexts in which the design was created.

There were other good presentations, as well…
Hopefully other people will post things they responded to…

I wonder if we’re on the cusp of a much-needed upgrade in thinking about design education, or did I just happen to go to the best presentations at the conference? I think there may be a divide in the educational community, between those who want to promote intellectual rigor and creative practice in the academy, and those who just want to maintain a factory-style paradigm. I have taught in four different design programs, and I’ve seen both approaches in practice. I wonder what other people have found in their experiences? What do others see as current trends in design education?

ps: Tom, it was so great to meet you and your wife! You should tell us about the Habermas lecture you attended in Indiana.

Did anyone see the Frontline special featuring Daniel Libeskind’s struggle to protect his vision of the skyscraper for Ground Zero? It’s a pretty frustrating tale of his struggle with David Childs and the disappointing “compromise” that resulted from the situation. It’s also an interesting look at the politics behind architecture.

If you haven’t seen it here is some information about the program: Frontline" Sacred Ground

I’m wondering what others thought about the program. I believe it will be replayed on PBS on September 11 at 3:00 PM Eastern time.

i wanted to reply to David Cabianca’s post entitled Cranbrook’s Impact Today, and specifically to the following:

My experience (in New York) has been that Art Directors would see Cranbrook on my resume and NOT want me to come in for an interview. And when I did come in, I was quite literally told that Cranbrook designers are prima donnas who can’t work with teams, or that my work had no content

i feel as if i hear this sentiment all too often, which is a bit scary, depending on how one looks at it. i cant speak from my own experince in nyc, because i have never tried to get a job there...but after hearing the above sentiment over and over and over i must admit, its a bit discouraging. i will inevitiably end up in nyc one of these days and i’d hate to think that my “pedigree” is working against me.

my question is (and this is an impossible one, i know) are cranbrook (2d) grads employable?

i’ll speak for myself here: when i went to cranbrook, i didn’t go there because it was going to get me a job (but i didn’t want it to hurt my chances, either). i went to cranbrook because it was the best cultural fit (well, at least it seemed to be). during my 2 years i learned to admit, both to myself, and to the public, that i dont like to work in teams.
(this isn’t *entirely* true...it just depends who’s on the team with me.)

i wonder, does the educational model / philosophy at cranbrook instill something in us that renders us too independent for the typical workplace? are we, in fact, dark horses left to create our own path?

i have had many conversations with elliott about this very thing. rather than put words in his mouth, i’ll invite him to respond on his own…

aside from the potential “dark horse” syndrome, are cranbrook grads actually qualified for jobs? lets just say there are some ppl out there who *did* go to cranbrook to build their resume—do they have the technical skills necessary to obtain employment? take a look at the jobs list on this site...do you have the necessary requirements?

because cranbrook fosters risk taking, and the individual’s creative journey, there is a wide variety of skill sets that come out of the program. while i was there, some of my classmates did nothing but posters, some did music, some painted murals, i made textiles and clothing. where does that leave us once we’re all outside of the ivory tower? in his visit to the department in 2001, rick poynor asked the critical question: how do we continue doing our own work in the real world? how to we make it fit into the commercial world? once we graduate, do we all stop what we are doing and go look for “graphic design jobs?” if so, then why didn’t we spend the last 2 years mastering “graphic design?”

i see his question more as a call to arms. i think the trick is to be saavy enough to find ways to position oneself, and one’s work in the real world and (as elliot said to me), to have the steel testicles to stick with it when the going gets tough. is this easy?, no. but for many of us, it is the cross we bear, and there is no other option.

so, perhaps our lack of ability to work in teams, and/or our prima donna attitudes are really a manifestation of our inability to compromise (?)

does anyone out there know of any (good) boston design studios? thanks!

Neomodernism

John says: “I don’t think anyone has adopted a typographic language that suits this moment in time. So instead many have returned to a comforting return to modernist tendencies. Neo modernism is merely nostalgia...”

Kevin, who is more familiar with my thinking, said that I might jump on this topic because I use the term “Neomodernism” often and in a quite different way. Far from nostalgia, the term Neomodernism is intended to invoke Juergen Habermas’ conception of modernity as an “incomplete project”--that is, a defense of the ideals of the Enlightenment--reason and social progress--with the realization that some modification may be necessary. I intend to elaborate on my use of the term in this post. But first, I would like to note that John is not alone in his “semantic reaction” (Korzybski, Science and Sanity) to the term, as evidenced by several uses of the term in recent writings. A couple of examples should suffice:

From my blog:
”It’s interesting to look back now at the term “neo-modernist.” The term has always sounded negative, something the critics use to criticize, as opposed to a label anyone would ever give to themselves.”- Ellen Lupton

And from Emigre 66:
“If we designers did what we learned at school-- to look for inspiration in people, arts, architecture, technology, dialogue, philosophy, the world at large, as opposed to reverting to design magazines and hard-covered, case-bound testimonials--we would become original once again. Our design would stop being Design (neo-modernism) and begin to represent and interact with the world around us.”- Ben Hagon

All of the critics of this so-called “Neomodernism” seem to be reacting to what Experimental Jetset has called (in Emigre 65) a “distastefully postmodern” retro-use of the modernist style, generally referring to the merely-trendy use of grid-structures, Helvetica (or similarly “objective” sans-serif fonts), “international” symbols, and abstraction. Experimental Jetset hopes to absolve itself of this criticism by actually believing in the efficacy of emphasizing the objectivity of designworks. The Neomodernist theoretical work of EJ does much to justify the practical work--they could not be accused of mere style-mongering. The same might be said of Erik Spiekermann or Massimo Vignelli.

Jessica Helfand and William Drentell have voiced concerns similar to those of EJ, in my view, in their criticism of the (postmodern) appropriations of the Periodic Table of the Elements. Here we see graphic designers co-opting the feel of objectivity and order to cater to the latent modernist sensibilities of a postmodern audience. The result is work that appears to be modern, but is in fact a kind of historicism--championing (or worse, simply remixing with no particular reverence) the accomplishments of the past while having given up on the possibility of achieving anything new.

The original Modernist movement, on the other hand, believed that it had a role beyond “representing” the world around us. (Experimental Jetset ,in Emigre 65, has convincingly critiqued design work that simply “reflects” society, which seems to be the postmodern tendency.) If I may include Mueller-Brockman as one of these modernists, he writes in Grid Systems in Graphic Design (my emphases):

“The use of the grid as an ordering system is the expression of a certain mental attitude inasmuch as it shows that the designer concieves his work in terms that are constructive and oriented toward the future.

“...Design which is objective, committed to the common weal, well composed and refined constititutes the basis of democratic behavior...Work done systematically and in accordance with strict formal principles makes those demands for directness, intelligibility and the integration of all factors which are also vital in sociopolitical life.

“Working with the grid system means submitting to laws of universal validity.

“The use of the grid system implies
the will to systematize, to clarify
the will to penetrate to the essentials, to concentrate
the will to cultivate objectivity instead of subjectivity
the will to rationalize the creative and technical production processes…
...the will to adopt a positive, forward-looking attitude
the recognition of the importance of education and the effect of work devised in a construction and creative spirit.
Every visual creative work is a manifestation of the character of the designer. It is a reflection of his knowledge, his ability, and his mentality.”

Mueller-Brockman’s manifesto reiterates many of the tendencies of the Modernist movement:

1. Work should be “constructive and oriented toward the future”.

Construction might be opposed to “deconstruction”, a typically postmodernist tactic, but in the realm of critique, deconstruction can be quite constructive. That is a subject for another article, but needless to say, deconstruction alone doesn’t make for much more than critique, important as critique is. Alternatively, for the purposes of this essay, we might oppose “constructive” with “non-constructive”--the mindless use of style, perhaps. “Oriented toward the future” invokes the time consciousness which Habermas speaks of in “Modernity--an Incomplete Project”. “..An abstract opposition between tradition and the present”, directed, more specifically, toward “a false normativity in history”. 

2. objective, committed to the common weal

“Committed to the common weal” emphasizes the social function of design work. I have said that as designers, the kind of rationality we promote through our work will affect the kind of rationality that society generally lives by. This phrase, coupled with the word “objective”, implies a similar attitude.

3. constititutes the basis of democratic behavior

Democracy is the most rational form of government, perhaps.

4. submitting to laws of universal validity

5. cultivate objectivity instead of subjectivity

This, to me, calls to mind the work of Max Horkheimer, and although I am unsure of whether Mueller-Brockmann was familiar with the Frankfurt School, it seems certain that he was in tune with the Zeitgeist. Although Horkheimer was unable to provide a convincing argument for “objective” rationality as the solution to subjective rationality, his critique of a philosophy constrained by subjectivity--a philosophy which neglected to justify ends beyond those of the individual consciousness--remains a concern of Habermas, who provides a critique of the “philosophy of consciousness” in his Theory of Communicative Action.

6. rationalize the creative and technical production processes

In this context, “rationalize...the technical production processes” seems to advocate a form of autonomy whereby the “inner logic” of production is advanced by experts regardless of outside concerns. The production of graphic communications should become a “science”. Rationalizing the creative processes seems to me a much more problematic issue, which I won’t address here.

This exposition of true Modernist ideology is meant to introduce the concerns of Neomodernism (as I set forth in an older essay).

Introduction to Neomodernism

------------------------------------------

The above resulted in a concise manifesto, which reads:

The Neomodernist believes in progress.
The Neomodernist believes that stopping
to talk and think is very practical and progressive.

The Neomodernist believes in rationality.
The Neomodernist believes that design should act
with a rationality that grows out of communication.

The Neomodernist believes in communication.
The Neomodernist believes that good design
is the product of communication.

The Neomodernist communicates in order to make design possible.

----------------------------------------------------

And I have repeatedly stated that:

I believe that design (rational planning and making) comes out of free communication, not the other way around. (I’m not interested in “designing” communications for calculated effect) The more we talk to each other, the more meaningful our lives will be, and the more it is possible to “design” our world.

I have been blogging for about 7 months now, and throughout this time i have been working with as much feedback as possible to develop the theory of Neomoderism. Below I will provide links and commentary to some of the most productive of my blog entries:

Final Words contains a summary of the issues disclosed by my blog. At the time, facing fincancial pressures, I was unsure whether to continue, but I decided to tough it out.

On Designing Communicationsk in conversation with Gary Davis.

Designing Communications--Social Contract, Habermas, and Kant, a discussion with Alan Murdock and Gary Davis inspired by Ali Madad.

We Don’t Need No Education

Thoughts on the Begging Bowl

Feedback on Design as Rationality, my first conversations with Gary Davis, continued into another posting linked at the end.

Citings of Habermas in Design Discourse, simply explains Robin Kinross’s Habermasian objection to postmodernism.

Three Ways of Creativity, talks a bit about the Three World model as used by Hans Joas.

Acting and Creative Action, Gary Davis and Alan Murdock chime in on dramaturgy, liminality, and design.

Autonomous Design--More Thoughts, my response to Blauvelt’s comments.

Democratization of the University, using Habermas’s “Toward a Rational Society”, talking to Gunnar Swanson about the relationship between theory and practice.

A collection of incomplete thoughts

Thoughts on Visual Language

Design and Ethical Consciousness, inspired by a Papanek writing, conversation with Graham Wood of Tomato.

Creative Blocks

The Balance of Theory and Practice

The Negation of All Absolutes, the mind-altering argument for “emptiness” (relativity).

Habermas and Aesthetics, a criticism, perhaps flawed.

Reason and Rationalization--A Distinction Brings up the temporal distinction which became problematic on my DesignObserver posts on Theory with a small T.

Complexity a few thoughts on theory-speak and reading.

On Maya’s suggestion, I’ve decided to post a topic here in order to advance my MA Thesis project at the London College of Printing. But first, as a newcomer here, perhaps a little background is in order.

My name is Kevin Lo, and as stated above, I’m currently completing my MA in typo/graphic design at the London College of Printing under the tutorship of Ian Noble, Russell Bestley, Paul McNeil and Tony Credland. I completed a BFA and Graduate Certificate Degree at Concordia University in Montréal where I participated in the organisation of the declarations symposium which addressed the intersections between graphic design and social activism. This is my main field of research and practice.

My thesis project entails an investigation into the world of radical self-publishing, looking at the samizdat tradition of avant-garde periodicals and contemporary ‘zine culture. More specifically I am looking at engaging with the role that (D)ialogue can play in both the generation of content and in the design of the publication. How can graphic design represent the dialogic process and how can it invite it? I intend to be on a constant production schedule for the next four months, making and collecting responses which will then be incorporated into the next issue. The hope is that the final issue will contain a rich, layered narrative that evidences the exchanges that happened throughout the process.
My proposal can be read here (pdf).

I’ve just completed the first issue, entitled “dissonance” which is a rather loose collection of stuff. Some previous writing/conversations I had kicking around, and responses to a call for “rebel calls” and a rather generic question of “what’s wrong?” I’m not extremely happy with the outcome, but I needed to start the process. I’d like to now build on this issue and am hoping to enlist some of the participants here to help out. What I’m looking for is responses of any kind(textual, visual, poetic, even moving image/sound) to the material presented in the first issue.

Project site
Issue(s) + Documents

I’d also like to take advantage of this forum to engage in an open dialogue with others. One of the main challenges of this project is the balancing act I’m performing as facilitator/designer/editor – in trying to maintain a model of dialogue, I am reluctant to force too much of a direction on the discussions I am having, prefering to have an organic process shape them. Yet at the same time this lack of focus seems to be preventing many people from engaging with the project. I’m not sure how to resolve this, as I don’t want to say that this is firmly about “graphic design + social activism”, or this is about “experimental typography” or this is about “personal stories”, etc. I know that the project needs more focus, but I’m hoping that will come through other people’s contributions and responses.

Maybe you can help?

In the “Is this anything?” post, David Cabianca said:

Someone said to me, “You sleep with dogs, you get fleas,” indicating why a lot of notable designers, theorists and historians won’t post on web blogs. I would like Cranbrookdesign to change that. I think that the fact Ellen Lupton and Scott Santoro have posted, and Lorraine Wild has signed on as a member, are signs that this blog is different.

It is true that many intelligent people refuse to write on blogs. It is somehow beneath them, or they see it as non-productive. But Cabianca’s comment makes me think:

What would be the advantages of maintaining an elitist position in regard to when and where one makes conversation? For one, you wouldn’t have to dumb your words down, or participate in what you see as a trite conversation. You can expect others to “come up” instead of lowering yourself to their level. But how likely is that? If they get the guts to come up, won’t they just ruin the quality of these conversations? Do we really want SpeakUp-ers to start participating here? Since I was invited to talk on this blog, I haven’t sensed any real exclusivity here. And anyone can post a topic! Speak Up is more edited than that!

So what is it that makes these conversations more intelligent than ones on other blogs? Obscure references? Elite education? Is this blog more intelligent just because it claims to be?

With all due respect, conversations on this blog seem to fizzle out or splinter into oblivion just as quickly as those on any blog. We happen to have a few really smart people here, but they could do what they do here anywhere, even on SpeakUp. And more people would witness it.

So what is it (and this is a very sincere question) that makes “intelligent” conversation intelligent? What, for example, would I have to do in order to be accepted into the highest levels of discourse? What is rigor? What is “proper” and why is “proper” better?

What is the real benefit of imposing rules on our discussion? What would be a good way to ensure the quality of this discourse without being needlessly and counterproductively exclusive?

What does this site do to raise the level of discussion? It couldn’t really have helped to invite me-- I call myself the TheorySavage because I don’t know the rules. And the rules that I know, I generally don’t like. I don’t know how to write “properly”, and I when I try, I feel like I’m working against my point. Without being convinced of the value, purpose, and nature of rigor through methodological argument, I am very much against working to seem rigorous for the sake of exclusivity.

The discourse that has developed, for example in Design Issues, has developed, it seems, among people who have become convinced of the value of rigor through other areas of study (philosophy, sociology, history, etc.)--or else they have somehow taken it all for granted. I and other designers without extensive education will have to be convinced that rigorous thought is a real phenomenon and a good thing and that it will somehow benefit everyone. Since I’m not clear on the reasons to believe these things (and I have tried to be), it is not surprising that other people don’t immediately appreciate a system of rules that seems only to exclude and insulate discussions. A broad, open discussion of discursive methodology would certainly help a young field out. We need to work to either legitimate or correct our current path.

The last written statement, Sun and Steel, by the controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima sets to outline the two guiding contradictions that formed his life: One was the determination to press ahead loyally with the corrosive function of words, and to make that my life’s work. The other was the desire to encounter reality in some field where words should play no part at all.

The Miseducation of a Designer set to trace the contour of the malaise in current educational environment that are in need of reform. Discussions concerning the reconstitution of the design education have been an ongoing one, enjoying their greatest focus and attention in the mid 1990’s. The reductive argument of design schools being purely vocational is myopic; equally so are the calls for an anti-vocational academy. While we ought to cultivate minds and not just careers, do we want to cultivate minds with no hands? Do you like some practice in your theory? 

“Words,” says Mishima, “are a medium that reduces the world to an abstraction...and in their power to corrode reality inevitably lurks the danger that the words will be corroded, too.” Theory and practice; in reflecting on the absence of the former in favor of the latter, and the dichotomy with which it was discussed in The Miseducation of a Designer, it gave me pause.

There are necessary and important skills inherent to the practice of graphic design, which indeed are craft-y. And there are more general concerns which would inform and shape someone who is responsible for purposive cultural, social, and technological manipulations.  Michel de Certeau’s The Practice of Everday Life examines the “trajectories, tactics, and rhetoric’s” in daily relationship with artifacts. That seems to be a meaningful pursuit within design education—and more importantly in practice; achieving some consonance within your chosen avenue of production.

Within Architecture there is the comfortably distancing notion of paper architecture, that is unbuilt or theoretical works. In design, and graphic design more specifically, there is no sense of what can be termed paper design. If design is a metadiscourse and crossroads of other discourses why are there no visions played through design? Or is it implicit in our notion of design that it is a commercial object leaving little room for secondary issues. Do you like some theory in your practice?

Design is a virus from inner space. One lump or two.

Call me a negative cynic, but what impact does Cranbrook have in the profession of graphic design today, if any? A lot of references are made to the Golden Age of the McCoy era, but even this is somewhat misplaced. The period that is taken to symbolically represent Cranbrook is actually rather narrow in scope. And is usually associated with a small number of personalities that are well resepected practioners and educators. But there were a lot of people that the McCoys taught prior to that that don’t fall under the umbrella of what is taken to mean “Cranbrook Design.”

My experience (in New York) has been that Art Directors would see Cranbrook on my resume and NOT want me to come in for an interview. And when I did come in, I was quite literally told that Cranbrook designers are prima donnas who can’t work with teams, or that my work had no content.

Visual practice aside, what about an educational impact? Is there a significant impact that Cranbrook alumnae are making in education (I am referencing Fella, Wild, Keedy, Venezky, Earls, Makela, Haycock… et al.)? My experience here too, has been that Cranbrook scares off a lot of university programs because they see art and not “service” (ie., corporate identities, lecture series posters, book jackets, et al.). Perhaps the CalArts faculty could only have achieved what they have because they had a critical mass of people who shared similar experiences. And oddly enough, the students taught by them don’t seem to have a problem practicing (I am being ironic here. I don’t think many faculty seem to make this connection.)

I wrote in the miseducation of a designer about my experience at NC State and specifically about the value of the studio in my education. And, yeah, I do think it’s better in many ways. But, given the lack of space and resources most schools face, I think there might be an expanded way to think about the space of the studio for students. Much as this site is becoming a studio for me.
My senior year at NC State, 1992, we collaborated on a project with Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication ( I think it’s in Kent, not sure though-Jonathan? ). Our instructors were Teal Trigs at Ravensbourne and Joani Spadaro at NC State. The project was called output. Joani and some students of her’s at Herron (where Maya and I ended up) created this journal as a way to give form to students’ voices. The project originated at Herron, went to Cranbrook, Austin, and NC State. There may be others, and I’m not sure of the order. At any rate, most of the outputs were very insular. They were discussed and designed by students at one school in particular. Ours was a collaboration by fax + post. Some of the discussions were naive and many were based on cultural judgements and prejudices, but many were really thoughtful ranging from the role of the computer to theory to education to our shared history. We talked a lot, and fought a lot, but seemed to come to some kind of understanding. In the end, we each designed one side of a poster. The poster was printed in the UK (it took seven floppies to get our freehand files there– and no hard copy). Horrors. It was printed on velum so you can see both sides at once. There is a quite nice black and white version of it in emigre ( i forget which ) as part of Steven Heller’s The Cult of the Ugly. There were lots of problems conceptually with how it ended up looking that I could get into if anyone is interested later.
This project taught me more about DESIGN than any other class. The process was really slow. We really had to be open ended in the begining and edit through the process to come up with a way to frame our conversations (which were all over the place). We had to really think about what the design object should be and how it would function. Poster, book, plates, etc. And, we had to figure out what it was we wanted to say, or if we had anything to say at all.  Then, we had to design it in collaboration with our entire studio. ( It ended predictably ). It’s nice to re-visit from time to time (its really fragile now) to see where we were then and how many of our questions (especially those centered around the computer + the role of the designer) have been resolved or re-questioned or become moot.
At any rate, I wonder why there isn’t more of this type of collaboration between schools around the world given the state of technology. Or, maybe there is and I just don’t know about it. If so, I would love to hear about it. The project is also published in URGENT IMAGES: THE GRAPHIC LANGUAGE OF THE FAX (sorry I don’t have all the particulars, just a xerox of the page) and the write up begins with a quote I think from Teal and Joani, “ In an increasingly technological world, communication networks have been readlily created, bringing together individuals once separated by geographical location...” 1992 was not a long time ago. Things have really changed.
Could there be a space where students from all over could come together to learn from each other in much the same way? I would assume some guidance from instructors, but how much, I’m not sure. We had guidance, but it was our baby. We ulimately made all the decisions. I wonder, too for the sake of focus, should collaborations between institutions be set up formally? How does this tie in with online learning which I know nothing about? I sure write a lot for someone who doesn’t fancy himself very verbal.

Apologies if this is an inappropriate use of this forum.

I am considering submitting a research proposal in October to my university for a 1-year project along the lines of exploring the development of graphic design students’ (and potentially our discipline’s?) understanding of theory through practical work. The research would straddle pedagogy and critical theory.

The project is still in its formative phase but follows on from small scale action research I undertook this year and which I have mentioned in passing a few times on this forum.

After having read some of the comments around here I would welcome any expressions of interest in collaboration if colleagues feel this is an area they would like to explore with a view to international dissemination.

There would need to be a formal agreement at institutional level (including funding arrangements) but I am happy to discuss proposals of collaboration with anyone who is interested. It might be a useful project for new researchers, but I am happy to work with old hands as well (I am fairly green myself).

Any expressions of interest welcome to me at artistry@mac.com.

I started this fresh as a WHY instead of a HOW because I’m not sure anyone is ever asked.
When I graduated Cranbrook and got my teaching job, my father said, “Congratulations on your new job. Why do you think you know anything about teaching? What makes you qualified?”
Dumbfounded I was.
How dare he. I had a terminal degree in Graphic Design, that’s what qualified me.
“Have you taken courses on teaching methods or theories?”, he asked.
Dumbfounded I was again.
Design was different. We didn’t need to know things about teaching, we just went into the studio and gave projects, and crit them, and that was it. We knew how to teach because we had been taught. Right?
OK, I wasn’t that naive, but close, I have to admit.
I was thrown into a school with a hands-off approach to new faculty with no experiece other than being taught. I thought that would be enough.

So…
What does qualify us to teach design? Some would say the degree does, some would say practice and experience does, some would say a grasp of theory and history does.
If it is so important for us as designers to understand our cultural and critical theories and histories, to understand our best professional practices, isn’t it just as important for us to know and understand the latest in educational theories and histories, and best practices in order to truly be effective educators?

Apparently, I’m getting addicted to this…
I’ve been thinking about standardization in design. This may go to universal access in some ways as well.
Oddly, or not so oddly, the ATM checkout at the supermarket got me started. Why are these things all different ? Gas pumps, too. And, while we are at it, election ballots (although politics and state’s rights come into play here), too.
Why do we have to re-learn how to use these objects that have become such an inseparable part of our lives ?
Could they, should they, be all the same regardless of where we are in the county/world ?
I’m not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, although I’m leaning towards standardizing many of these things ?
Whose job is it to decide how we interface/use these things ?
Is there something bad about having the “start” button in the same place on every gas pump ? And, if the keyboard is turned upside down, how am I supposed to remember the pattern for my PIN ?
What might be some of the barriers to standardizing ? (State’s rights for one in the issue of election ballots)
What might be some of the problems/solutions or negative/positive ramifications ?

Design education is the elephant in the room; a well worn cliche that comfortably serves as a symbol of the worn out institution of design education. The politics and bureaucracy within educational institution are rife with Kafkaesque overtones. How has your education (in design) failed you or helped you. Teachers are in a unique position to affect change within ‘the system’ though even that is a formidable task; illusory at best. Rather than dealing with the daunting structures within your school, do you opt for the next best thing: slipping in as much extra-functional/curricular goodness into your classes?  Some of this was touched on in the How should history be taught? and Why do we critique? threads, where in an attempt to redress the imbalance of making without (critical) thinking both David and Maya include Derrida, Heidegger, et al into their class room exercises. This is a strategy working on the micro level, affecting the small number of students within the class.

A macro strategy would be a revised curriculum or approach to design education. But this begs the question of where the breakdown (if it can be called that) occurred. I am almost exclusively talking about American Design Education, though it may have areas of overlap with many other countries and programs. Gui Bonsiepe a long time critic, writer/theoretician, and practitioner of design has over the course of many years formulated and posed many questions regarding the salient qualities of design which can be translated into a pedagogical approach. His Interface, an approach to design is a wonderful collection of his essays, lectures, and papers on the whole of design (graphic+industrial). One of his essays, regarding Italo Calvino’s Six Memos for the Next Millenium, relates the Calvino lecture to design as ‘shared values of design for the next millenium’.

Moving forward, what are you observations (and/or concerns) regarding current approaches to design education (primarily undergraduate). Should design be its own department, part of architecture and industrial design; do designers need the traditional foundational year that is taken by all incoming art school freshmen; history and theory are gaping holes in the discourse, and so inevitably in schools; does the simple dichotomy of modernist (where do you trace it) and postmodernist design approaches not reduce the values of each. What are the symptoms, pathology, and proposals for the future of design?

From a Concerned Citizen at Cranbrook
by Joshua Ray Stephens

Graphic design is suffering from a dearth of critical thought and a lack of interest in furthering a dialogue through writing and analysis. Maybe this should not be blamed on graphic designers, but on the sorry state of affairs in academia and on the intellectual cognoscenti upon whom graphic designers rely as their source of ideas.

But is graphic design, and more importantly, intellectual culture in general, really afflicted by a lack of new or fresh ideas? Or is it just a lack of a convenient handle or moniker? Without a catchy title like Modernism or Post-modernism or Deconstruction or Phenomenology, how can a broad swath of disparate ideas be disseminated, assimilated, and ultimately destroyed by a mass audience?

What we need is a name. A solution. An answer. No - better yet - a question. Of course. The question. The answer is the question. So what is the question? Who knows? Where are we headed? Why? Please feel free to dispense with this line of reasoning. I have the long-awaited response to Post-modernism. This is what we have been breathlessly waiting for. All of you gutless faux-intellectuals decrying the death of theory, all of you polished professionals proselytizing a new manifesto for growth or social and environmental morality and “responsibility,” all of you polished professionals hypocritically hypothesizing style as so much bad wind, rest easy. The new New Wave is here: Antidisestablishmentarianism. That’s right. We heard of it in high school English and passed it off as an anomaly, but there it is. A punk neo-con. A hardcore dogma.

For the complete essay, originally published in Emigre #65, click here

As I work on more projects where I direct art creation and concept, I find myself dealing with something I detested as a junior designer - client wishy-washiness and the redo. You spend countless hours working on a design, meeting with the client and art director, navigating the needs, the colors, the illustrations, the images and once you feel like you are reaching solid ground, a plateau in the design - the client or art director drops by and completely changes their mind inciting the redo. We have no doubt all experienced something like this.

Over time I have learned to roll with the punches, to understand this as part of the process and not to fight it but to accept it as the way a design is revealed. Sure, there are ways to be proactive and avoid the redo, but its always a factor in the designs I have known. Now that I lead projects, I see our artists wrestling with the same issues. Their hard work, beautiful and complete wiped out in a 30 minute critique or discussion for whatever reason.

So I’m curious about two things. How do you deal with this as a designer and how do you deal with this as an art director? I’d love to hear some stories or examples.