The area/s we discussed at this point in the meeting were:
The ego of the Graphic Designer. Is it right for the designer to call the shots? Perhaps 'the client isn't always right'?
People go to established designers for their name, their style and way of working and thinking.
Examples of this could be the Designers Republic who had a very strong visual style, you could immediately tell if they had created something. It is interesting that they went under last year and are no more!! Could this be because their style had gone out of favor? Because they were unwilling t adapt and change? Another example of this is Jonathan Barnbrook who is incredibly political, but not working quite so much these days, is this a personal choice or because again his style and way of working is very much synonymous with the late 90s/early 00s and people want something new for the 10s? Perhaps I can ask him about this if he is running the poster elective?
Brain Edmondson (SEA) made an interesting comment in the lecture last night. He said he was amazed that designers "would jump to please their client". He said he "finds it easy to convince clients he is right" and "would just walk out if they disagreed!" This is a serious ego talking, or is he just massively confident that he knows what he is doing is right for his clients, perhaps more so than they do??
Should a designer put some of their self into the work, should there be an element of subjectivity or should the answer to each brief be specific to that job.
Should the graphic designer be completely objective, just a clear medium, communicating the message in it's purest form? Or should we be adding another level to the communication, that carries something of us; our beliefs or our visual mark, stamping our identity on it!
Surely you need to be true to your audience. Have to put yourself in their headspace to understand how to communicate to them in the most effective way. Does this mean that to be completely true to yourself you can only do jobs where you identify with the target audience, in essence design for yourself? Work for the NHS if you fully agree with everything it stands for/work for BAT if you smoke or don't have an opinion on the correlation with fags and lung cancer. You read the Guardian newspaper so work as a designer for the Guardian. Obviously the Guardian only has a limited number of design positions so some of us will have to make do with the Times or heaven forbid the Daily Mail!! Is it ok for someone who reads the Guardian to work for the Daily Mail? How do they feel about their career? Would the Guardian employ them afterwards?
Is it possible to be a graphic designer without loosing your soul? In reality can we afford to be so fussy as to pick and choose our briefs?
Is the answer to divide yourself in two like Oded Ezer? or take a year off like Sagmeister? How did he fund that? I'm sure his design agency carried on running without him. I'm sure he still got involved with the projects just not to the same degree. Or did he have his whole team working with him on personal projects for the year. I shall have to read more into this! And after all he was already established as a rebel (an infant terrible for the graphic design world perhaps) so this one year off stance, rebellion to the system just further promotes brand Sagmeister!
Marina's point about the designers public persona fits neatly in here. Designers can pick and choose what they publicise about themselves. How they promote themselves. Is self promotion just as important as showcasing the work you do? And perhaps the work you choose to showcase is massively edited? Maybe they only show what they are proud of, what promotes their 'brand'. Are all those nasty little bread and butter jobs kept hidden away from the public eye? For example Paul mentioned that when he started out he did loads of work for a meat company and he and his wife were strict vegetarians. He said till this day she still doesn't know he did it, she was involuntarily living off meat money. I wonder how she'd feel about that? A bit like Mr NHS would if he found out you worked for Mr Tobacco.
This raises the question, is it ethical to lie to your clients or conceal information. If you work for their competitors or someone who holds directly opposing views? Did any design agency work for the labour party and conservative party at the same time or do pure politics filter down to everyone who works for/represents them?
The signees of the first things first manifesto 2000, what did/do they do for income? Has this changed since 2000?
A decade on, perhaps some of them have ended up designing for survival rather than choice? This is an area I need to explore.
Where did they work before they were established or did they set off straight out of design school on this path?
How can you know anything about the industry if you haven't worked in it? Surely you can only evaluate and form an strong opinion of something that you have first hand experience of.
I imagine the answer to all of the above is personal. It differs from designer to designer. There is no clear answer. I have to make my own mind up. I guess you can only be idealistic if you have regular income coming in. Once the jobs start to dry up you have to find a way to survive. After all it is survival of the fittest, perhaps the fittest are the ones who prostitute themselves and have no conscience. If it is purely about making money then that is your motivation. If you want to do some good with your talents then you may be driven by political means. If you just want to satisfy your own creativity you may have to cut your self in half (Ezer) or take a year out (Sagmeister). Or fund your creative endeavors with teaching and writing.
My main concern is how do I make an essay of this nature visually engaging? What images will be useful in illustrating my points?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment