Graphic design unquestionably exists as an industrial process in contemporary society and business. However the activities and functions of the “designer” in this field today are unrecognisable from the perspective of a professional who started their career some 25 years ago. This has been a given since the introduction of the desktop computer system in the mid - eighties.
Since that time we have seen a constant evolution in software development, arguably to a point where the design industry is the testing ground [guinea pig?] for the software industry, at least in terms of image creation, manipulation and reproduction [both print and screen based]. We have weathered the much documented splitting or tiering of the industry, the so-called “democratisation” of the design process through DTP and other forms of desktop media. This has in turn resulted in much carping and negativity from those who see a dimishing of the value of the traditional graphic designer.
It can seem like the whole visual communications industry is software driven, such is the ubiquity of the Adobe suite of programs [I won’t include Macromedia here because of the recent acquision by Adobe]. I and others have pointed out the apparent diminishing creative returns from uniform acceptance of a limited range of design and production tools, so there is little point labouring the point here.
There are certain issues arising from this situation as a designer/educator that I am prompted to explore - even if only to “get it off my chest”, and perhaps clarify things for myself as much as anyone else…
Each passing year, I notice increasingly, a great preoccupation and concern amongst students of design regarding software. They seem to feel that it is imperative to acquire a “complete” knowledge of every program in order to be able to function in the workplace. There is some justification for this view given the emphasis placed on this in the design job advertising I observe. It would be easy to get the impression that all studios and agencies require is someone to run the computer systems - oh, and if you’re “creative”, so much the better.
I always ask my students when they express their concerns to me about any apparent lack of software training in software, “Do you wish to be a designer - or a computer operator?” Sure, the software is a tool that you undoubtedly need to come to grips with, but I argue the ideation skills, conceptual development skills, presentation ability, communication and teamwork competencies are of at least equal, or greater importance. In addition to this, I know from personal experience [some 20 years of it], that the need to learn software has become a constant - it never goes away. Sometimes it can feel like you are on a treadmill. The best students get this, and respond accordingly by looking past the computer toward the overriding need for designers to understand the bigger picture. Coming to grips with software is for me the most boring part of the job. I love what computers do - I just don’t want to sit in front of one all my life 
As the multidisciplinary focus of industry gathers momentum it will be even more important for “graphic” designers to develop an more sophisticated view of their role. My observation about my own experience and practice is that the boundaries are less defined. As such, the term “graphic designer” doesn’t fit so well any more. This may have more to do with my own circumstances than real trends, but I doubt it. I see others adopting titles such as “information architect” to describe their work role.
So, that’s my rant…I’ll conclude with a quote from KesselsKramer [Netherlands], when asked ‘What is graphic gesign?’
“Graphic design is dead. It has been killed by computers with super-high speed chps, gigabyte overload and things called firewires. Don’t worry. What matters today not to execute, to kern, or to crop. the idea is the high-chieftain, the lord of the manor. A “graphic designer” might want to make a film. Send a letter. Or even make a laser sculpture in the shape of a handbag. So be it! Now the real fun begins…”
Fiell C, Fiell P, 2005, Graphic Design for the 21st Century, Tashen, Koln
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/design/new/facts/02979.htm
Well said.
3 comments so far
Initial thoughts regarding the lack of response to this post suggested to me that this was not a topic of much interest or even relevance to the designers who read this blog. That may be the case. However I was somewhat reassured at least to see the latest issue of IDN [International Designer’s Network], a stylish and influential publication out of Hong Kong, devote almost a whole issue to the topic. the volume is titled “Back to Basics”
http://www.idnproshop.com/idnworld/
The New York Collective Faile http://www.shift.jp.org/094/faile/ are particularly articulate in responding to the question [p.19], ” Would you agree that the popularity of computerised design has led to a decrease in the use of earlier methodologies?
F. We still reat the computer as a tool, and of course this is important. But we think that the computer can still be process-driven and there are ways to work with it that can be loose and experimental. We guess for the students in design school now the computer has become more and more a part of their lives and they may be more comfortable working on it than a sketchbook or through more traditional methods. We don’t think this is bad really - it is just different. We think that all methods can lead to creative outocomes if you are driven and motivated to find them…Play and experimentation create new beginnings and we do believe that this is harder to find initially within the computer.”
Faile, IDN, Vol 3, June 2005, p 19
It is relatively easy to make appropriate links to the implications for innovation in design practice - not neccessarily just graphic design practice either.
Q: Do we assume that our technologies enable us to be more innovative of themselves?
There may also be a conceptual relevance in this to the discussion elsewhere on this site regarding motivation and innovation worth noting…
Norman Potter’s ‘What is a designer’ is a great text book on the topic. And I recently read Abstracting Craft, which was illuminating on the concept that even a computer (using the concept of direct manipulation) can be considered a tool for craft.
John Warnock, of Adobe, once said that the problem of making all those typefaces available on the first desktop computers, was that people invariably wanted to use all twelve of them on one page.
I find it funny to recall some 18 years ago that it seemed to be important to make a huge list of all the things I knew how to do - versus they way I knew how to think. But in the early days I easily saw the difference between being a Mac Operator (as it was called in my day, in the UK) and being a designer like perhaps Neville Brody. One was paid for what you did all day, and the other was paid for what they thought.
I think tools used in the correct way can bring about some amazing results. And often when used completely incorrectly, can bring about something remarkable.
Speak Up has some discussions on this. Sorry to not offer something more for debate here. Good rant nonetheless.
Hi Damien, thanks for the post. I guess I wasn’t after debate as such - more likely I was getting words out relating to ideas I’m playing with in my work with students and because I think it is a topical theme. Seeing my thoughts “out there” helps me clarify things in my own mind…even if they are only half formed
I like your distinction between thinking and doing, and like you, I seem to be finding it difficult to see the boundaries these days.
Possibly these things don’t matter to much in the bigger picture. As a manager of design processes however such ponderings are food for thought in the sense that the new paradigm is sometimes confusing and overwhelming - even if we choose not to admit it, and perhaps getting back to the basics of creativity, thinking, and mark making is a good thing. It can clear the way for other leaps of brilliance.
Perhaps it’s about restoring/attaining balance - now there’s a nice design principle to think about.