[...]and there I thought he was pro-Modernism, what with the Modernism vs. Modernism 8.0 debate in Emigre 64.

Modernism has been Mr Keedy's favorite whipping boy for a long, long time -- most stridenly, perhaps, in his infamous essay "Zombie Modernism," which came out somewhere around Emigre twentysomething (perhaps earlier). When Mr Keedy says modernism, he's referring to a particular brand of ossified anti-style that he associates with the mid-seventies, early eighties corporate culture. In other words, a straw man.

Mr Keedy's writing can be insightful, but on some subjects he comes across as a crank.

(BTW, Armin, if you read "Modernism 8.0" again, I think you'll notice that he's damning the original modernism with faint praise. )

The thing I don't get about Keedy is that he complains an awful lot without really saying anything. Ok if all these things are wrong with design, what are YOU Jeffrey Keedy doing to improve it (other than bitching to anyone who'll listen)? It's been months since the Emigre's RANT-shut up and fix design.

Here's one from a relatively green designer:

13. Discuss design issues with the bigger picture in mind. Move forward with ideas and solutions. Rehashing is fine if new territory is there to be explored. Let's not critique our critiques. Let's identify the problem, wrap our heads around a unique or at least successful solution and move on, stopping every now and then to see how far we've come.

Keedy seems fundamentally unhappy with the human condition (based upon his 12 points). It might also be noted that we are still making many of the mistakes of history, we still re- learn/discuss many of the same points/issues in a wide variety of fields, and despite all our progress, we still have many of the same basic problems: hunger, poverty, crime, etc.

What he seems to be getting at is "less talk, more action"--the irony here being that he uses talk to throw down this gauntlet.

The new is in each moment, no?

If we could talk a little bit more about the 12 ideas rather than Keedy's personal traits that would be more beneficial I think. I agree that it is important to acknowledge the source — and what a polemic source it is — but we have covered most of the issues people have with Keedy's rants.

(Not telling anybody what or what not to talk about, just trying to veer this in the right direction).

In part I blame it on the inability of the profession as a whole to establish — with authority — a few basic rules, truths and facts.

This seems impossible to me and I wonder why we continue to try. I wonder why we would want to. The range of work and approach is so broad, our clients so varied - with success coming from every conceivable position.

We can make statements and then question them, then question the questions until we're blue in the face. Even if we did come up with some definitive answers, someone would come along, do it differently and we'd all bow down before them.

> BTW, Armin, if you read "Modernism 8.0" again, I think you'll notice that he's damning the original modernism with faint praise.

Oh, and Jose, yes you are right. My initial impression of that article was that he favored Modernism, but it is more of a which is the lesser evil? type of article.

> The range of work and approach is so broad, our clients so varied - with success coming from every conceivable position.

I don't think a few established certainties about graphic design would limit its breadth.

> Even if we did come up with some definitive answers, someone would come along, do it differently and we'd all bow down before them.

I agree, but so far there have been very few answers to blow over. Part of it is indeed the fact that it is a very young profession and we are making the "rules" as we go, but c'mon already! We've been using that excuse for quite some time now.

(Again with the moderating: let's avoid any certification discussion here, I'm sure this topic would have made Keedy's list at unlucky number thirteen).

I guess maybe I don't get so worked up about Keedy because I don't take it too personally. I read that essay in a humorous way. Because it was so funny. True in most cases, I think, but also funny. Maybe he's a crank I don't know him. But I thought the essay was like a good piece of humor.

Maybe the "big idea" here is about having to rehash the same issues over and over and over again (there's a nice trail of paper and bits that cover the "dumb ideas" ad nauseum).

I think we end up going around in circles because of the internetworked way we communicate today. Before the internet maybe you went to school, got a job with others who went to school, and everyone shared a somewhat similar background. If you switched jobs you'd be communicating with new people but those new people would probably share a lot of similar background as well.

Maybe you'd have all of these "dumb idea" conversations once or twice per workplace and then that'd be it.

In "our" environment here on the web, new folks float in and out on a regular basis. Some have absolutely no training/education, some have master's degrees, some are auto-didactic and have gaps in their education (I'm guilty there as much as anything).

It's not like people today are "dumb," it's that through the veneer of the web we have the illusion of community but have a relatively low commitment to one another. Which doesn't mean we can't have stimulating conversations or enjoy one another's thoughts just that we don't need to hire a moving truck to just leave the community. And the only thing we absolutely have in common is a knowledge of the URL of Speakup and the technological means to access it.

No barriers for entry or leaving; high turnover of participants in the conversations... same ideas (both "smart" and "dumb") get re-hashed.

gahlord

You must be willing to wade through a seemingly endless recitation of dumb ideas that have already been refuted long ago

Of course. Welcome to the human race.

> In "our" environment here on the web, new folks float in and out on a regular basis.

That is a good point Gahlord. Many people that read and participate here on Speak Up are for the first time taking part on the discussion of these dumb ideas — myself included. In the past, only those interested enough — or informed and involved enough — to equally wade through dumb ideas in Emigre, Print, Eye or the AIGA Journal were keen to these discussions. The "new generation" — again, myself included — haven't had a chance to talk about this, many of the issues to discuss remain the same but the context in which they are discussed is different. So I really don't see this rehashing as a big problem.

Long ago the human race developed writing to record speech.

Thousands of years went by until Bell decided that writing took too long, and invented the telephone so we could speak again.

Now we have telephones that allow you to write to each other!

?

That is human nature. Not really any new ideas to the pool, but a lot of old ones that are restored.

so I really don't see this rehashing as a big problem

Armin—

You might want to reread what you quoted of Lorraine’s article. If one cares about progressing beyond posturing and kvetching, paying some attention to what others have said or learned is vital. Perhaps the greatest fault with Jeff's essay is that he left out Dumb Idea #13: “I am a unique fucking genius and nothing existed before I did.”

There’s nothing wrong with rehashing. The problem is hashing without knowing that others hashed before.

Gunnar I do agree with you. I guess my comment was more in tune with the fact that talking about stuff can't be that bad. I, or anyone, would be foolish to think that we are the first species of designers ever to talk about design. So I wholeheartedly agree with Lorraine's comment and it hit home with me, as many times most of our posts would benefit highly from the proverbial footnotes. I know it's not about the footnotes per sé…

But also I don't think that we should stop talking because some other guys a few decades ago already had these conversations. Or that every comment I make would have to be fully acknowledged to something somebody else said.

For once, I agree with Armin sort of. Cosmo may publish the same 20 "new techniques to drive your partner wild" every month, but then again, there are always new people being born who need to know this stuff. So, it seems that some blogs choose only to rehash old ideas, repackaging cliches, to try to suck in the ignorant. It's too bad they don't at least make an effort to take it farther. But the strategy is simple, old-fashioned seduction, not enlightenment, and the goal is popularity and sales, not progress. This is nothing new; it's how human minds work; without concentrated effort thoughts cycle endlessly.

If we're so ignorant, then enlighten us. The ball is in the court of those who have already supposedly seen this a million times and moved beyond, because we have done our part by expressing interest in these issues.

Without their help, we are forced to reinvent the wheel, so don't complain. What we have is a generation of design teachers armed with a bunch of dumb ideas who have found themselves in a sweet little position. They seem to know that allowing students to speak would require actual work. It would be much better for the older generation if blogs went away, because suddenly we have questions and they don't have answers. The oldest, most desperate trick in the book of powerplays is to belittle the legitimate concerns of others, implying superior knowledge but holding it back, presumedly because these inferior minds couldn't fathom it.

It's time to realize that we're all in the same pathetic boat.

Keedy is obviously looking at problems that stem from within the field of design, not problems that bang on the doubles doors of our hypothetical Hollywood mansion. Meanwhile we're all bitching so much about dumb ideas that we can't hear anything but ourselves and the door goes unanswered.

I agree with a lot of what Keedy has said, but I am guilty too of some of these dumb ideas...we're designers, we're subjective, we're human, we can't avoid them all at once. Its the inherent beast that we face every day. Its only the silly nitty gritty shit thats so easy to mull about over and over again.

In order to move on I believe we need to be faced with new problems to solve. Unofortunately we work in a service based industry that is constantly solving the same problems over and over again for different companies, just with a different conceptual twist. Until we're presented with radically new problems to solve, then we will only be doing what we have always been doing. Making stuff for businesses in hopes of profits, or just making cool looking artifacts.

There’s nothing wrong with rehashing. The problem is hashing without knowing that others hashed before.

Fair enough, but Mr Keedy's patronizing tone is counterproductive. Young designers can benefit from the previous generation's experience, but they don't have to have their ideas and concerned belittled in the process.

At the same time, much of the critical work published in Emigre, Eye and Print in the eighties and nineties is available in book form (Looking Closer 1 & 2, Design Dialogues among others). Catching up is not impossible, even for recent graduates.

Young designers can benefit from the previous generation's experience, but they don't have to have their ideas and concerned belittled in the process.

Jeff was not belittling young designers. The "dumb ideas" he was talking about are part of the received wisdom. He was, if anything, belittling old designers. What he was doing was also a fairly standard bit of rhetoric—rewording the beliefs of one’s opponents in a way that makes them sound appealing but prove to be specious. If he had said “Now, it's okay honey. You’re really smart but I just want you to think about this. . .” then it would have been belittling.

Gunnar, I know what Jeff was doing -- as you said, it's a pretty standard bit of rhetoric. He's just not very good at it, particularly when it comes to his bete noirs. I mean, how many designers do you know who would actually use expressions like "Content is good, style is bad"? or "Designers should always try to do work that is experimental?" Seems to me he likes to paint his targets nice and big.

BTW, I never said that Jeff was belittling young designers, just their ideas (whether they are received or not).

Really now... honestly... to what end is all this navel gazing? Besides entertainment (definitely) or distraction (oh my heavens).

I just reread Armin's "About" piece. While truly lovely, I just don't know.

I'll have to admit, though: I never thought I was ignorant and naive about this profession until I walked through the SU door. Is that it? (He says as he picks the corn husks out of his ears.) Some folks here must really have it going on.

I think it's possible to do kick-ass, transcendental, mouth-wide-open work without considering - or even being aware of - ANY of these dumb ideas.

much of the critical work published in Emigre, Eye and Print in the eighties and nineties is available in book form (Looking Closer 1 & 2, Design Dialogues among others)

And much is left out.

First of all, everyone should read Keedy’s original article what your reading here is Armin’s “fatherly advice.” (Sorry dude, your commentary butchered his article.) If the introduction to this blog were cliff notes you’d definitely fail the test.

I do think that "moral posturing" and “self promotion” attitudes have been taken to another level in recent years. And to be honest it has taken a toll on the “legitimacy” of design criticism (writing, awards, ownership) and that is what I think is at the heart of the Keedy article. I don’t think he was “complaining” I think he is able to write in a style that hits close to home. Yes, he is using “stereotypes” to drive his point home but at least he doesn’t wimper or weakly apologize for it in the end.

Moral posturing can be somewhat entertaining, so I won’t complain a lot about that, but yes, we could do with some honesty and intelligence.

Well thank god you cant have all 3. If your honest and intelligent you have no need for moral posturing. And if your motivated by moral posturing people tend to doubt your honesty and intelligence. As far as it being a form of “entertainment”..sad day.

In part I blame it on the inability of the profession as a whole to establish — with authority — a few basic rules, truths and facts.

What?

Maybe another thing to blame is a lack of point number one: maybe there hasn’t been enough preaching to the choir as we think, otherwise something might have sunk in by now.

You cant be serious.

Butchering was the intention.

What?

Yes, I'm serious.

If every generation keeps going back to the same dumb ideas in a “new way” it then holds that there is a defficiency in design education, would it not?

I certainly feel that most design students in undergraduate programs don’t learn much outside of craft and the names of dead type designers.

Here's a thought...

In an effort to keep the 'expert' readers/discussors (is that a word?) from having to wade through the repetitive 'newbie' discussions, why not try to have the posts here pre-classified?

Have a 'Greenie' section, an 'Working Stiff' section, and a 'Brain Hurts' Section.

And allow the authors to to select their own section for the post. This would allow the newbies a place to start, and the pros and semi-pros places to go without feeling overwhelmed or bored. When a reader gets to the point that they no longer feel interested/challenged by a lower section, they can 'graduate' to a higher one... And if they get bored with the 'pro' section, well, then they can start their own blog... ;-)