This bit of something-or-other was originally composed as a series of tweets, but as the length of it grew I decided that I would spare my followers the pain of a 20-odd tweet storm. I think that this format ultimately makes more sense, though the intended staccato rhythm has been maintained. It is conceptually related to this post from last week.
-
Ok, I’m about to get unsatisfyingly pragmatic about something, and you know how much I hate being pragmatic.
-
I have a very general observation about (some) of the fresh(er)-out-of-school designers whose portfolios I have perused recently:
-
Lots of cool thinking, lots of brave attempts at critical theory,
-
…lots of bad typography and lack of demonstrated understanding re: basic principles of form.
-
Lots of talk of “pushing the field.”
-
I love seeing a dedication to “pushing the field,” but you can’t plant that flag if normal person clients don’t want to pay for your work.
-
I have been reading a lot of essays lately, many of them decrying the "old guard" of graphic design,
-
many of them expressing how we need more “critical practice” in design.
-
Yes, of course we do. 100% believe that. Super big no brainer. BUT
-
...it’s well and good to decry the old guard, but you're unqualified to do that if your understanding of popular cultural aesthetics is garbage.
-
I declare that it is not allowed. Once again, don’t mistake personal frustration at the taste of others for critical analysis.
-
A unique “process of inquiry” is not an excuse for ignoring your technical development as a designer. You can't reject formalism until you understand how form works.
-
We can't all design to our taste. My personal taste in graphic design is decidedly inaccessible, and weirdly, clients won’t pay me to make that stuff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Too bad, so sad.
-
Or as my daughter likes to say, "so sorry, congratulations!"
-
That doesn’t mean I don’t explore that stuff on my own, but it diverges from my client work. That’s fine and healthy.
-
Critical practice can (and should) happen, but it’s a personal/ insular pursuit that provokes growth.
-
It’s a conversation you have with your peers, (probably, unless your situation is very unusual) not your clients.
-
I can say this as a (technically) professional academic who reads critical theory on his lunch break (oh god he’s so annoying):
-
All that stuff coming out of Yale, CCA, et. al? Love it. Right up my alley. I devour it. I wanna make it. However, it’s designed into a mirror.
-
As designers we must be willing to understand that we must ride that middle line between our subculture and the Everyman,
-
…and if we drift too far into either, we’re doing no one a service.
-
Explore? Yes, do it! Be progressive! Don’t be boring! But a huge part of our job is understanding how to use the common vernacular.
-
If you can’t speak to the Everyman, if you can’t operate in the present, then you’re unequipped to communicate where you live,
-
…and if you can’t communicate where you live, then what’s the point? You’re in danger of becoming a speculative expressionist.
-
(Which sounds cool and is fine, but doesn’t really give you room to complain about the state of commercial graphic design. It becomes an academic question.)
-
Don’t design down, design across, and don’t mistake your critical inquiry into your discipline for what clients inerrantly need. Most people don’t live in the mirror.
-
And keep practicing your typography, please and thank you. Experiment within your expertise. That's secretly what I've been getting at this whole time.
-
fin.