Coincidentally, last night I read Milton Glaser's review of this book in Print magazine. I had this book on my wish list at Amazon.com as one of my must haves but after reading his review, I wasn't so sure anymore. He was questioning the authors credibility due to the design of the book. Now I know this shouldn't be the case but it made me think twice about buying it.

Now that I've read Adrian's interview, I definitely will buy it today and will read it cover to cover once it's in my hands.

Thanks to Speak Up for a clarifying interview.

I haven't read Milton's review of the book... Based on your comment, Diane, I find it somewhat absurd to discredit the author based on the design of the book, specially since the author didn't design the book. Anyway...

This book is really one of the best in its category and should be a must read for every single design student, as well as for anyone looking to start their own studio or freelance career. This book has even more resonance because it comes from a designer who has lived what he writes about — it's not just theory, it's been put to practice. Adrian's tone is light, funny and calming, despite the sometimes terrifying scenarios he describes. I can't recommend this book enough.

Does anyone know or can someone elaborate why Milton Glaser was "questioning the authors credibility due to the design of the book" in the Print review - this seems a bit crazy!? Did he not 'like' the design?

Anyway, a great interview and congrats to Mr Shaughnessy for an enlightening read and Bibliotheque for a well designed book.

I too am puzzled by (1) Milton discrediting the book based on its design and (2) what's wrong with its design anyhow? Where does it go wrong?

Nonetheless, I must echo Armin's comments because Adrian has put something great together. The material he discusses is valuable and the tone it's presented invites the reader instead of alienating them.

It's very gratifying to read such generous comments about my book. Thanks.

I haven't read Milton Glaser's review (Print takes an age to cross the Atlantic), but my throat dried when I heard he'd reviewed it. His book (Milton Glaser: Graphic Design) had a cataclysmic effect on me as a fledgling designer, so to receive a kicking in print from the Great Man is going to hurt.

But, while I'm willing to take criticism for my textual shortcomings, I object to the design being attacked. It's the best thing about the book. As has been noted, it was done by Bibliotheque (watch out for their new website in next few weeks.) I think their intelligent and fastidious layout made the book into a much better book than it might otherwise have been.

Having said that, not sure that the spreads in the interview show the design in best light. The curious should check it out in a bookshop and decide for themselves.

Milton Glaser wrote:

"There are numerous small illustrations scattered throughout the book, many so badly reproduced that they are barely legible. To some extent, this is the familiar problem of reproducing halftones on uncoated paper. But for a book about good design, this is a bad signal. It may also contribute to the sense that the images themselves are banal and poorly selected, although showing examples extraordinary work does not seem to be the book's purpose."

The place where I sensed what I said in my earlier statements was "But for a book about good design, this is a bad signal." Strangely enough, to the right og the article it clearly states the author, and the designers of the book.

There is so much more to this well written review (on 2 pages!) that I wish I could share with you, because it is an overall good review. I ordered it today from Amazon and I for one, can't wait to read it.

I have to add that earlier in that portion of the review he says:

"The book is attractively styled with a fresh typographic system that involves varying the width of the paragraph indentations from a narrow to a wide measure. The result is lively, although I must admit I was not able to understand at first whether the change in width was intended to suggest an editorial shift."

Once again, it was an overall good review. But at the part of the review where he says " But for a book about good design, this is a bad signal." made me question whether I wanted to buy the book or not.

After reading the review for the second time and the SU interview I realized that the above comment isn't absolutely correct. The book is not really about good design but design practices.

Nice interview :D- and the book looks very interesting. My local bookstore's supplies are Very Very Limmited, so it'll be a special order for me, but appears to be worth the effort.

I wouldn't worry too much about the derogatory comments in the press. Every book gets them, and you can't please everyone. Added to that: We're all human.

It seems to me that arts people (Designers, Artists, Musicians, etc)... sometimes forget that not only are they people (and capable of error) but that other members of their profession are just as human as they are.

Are we going to get an interview with the layout/designer of the book to go with the one on the author?

I have no opinion about the design of the book (haven’t yet seen/read), but it seems to me that a book about design should absolutely be judged on its design and/or production qualities.

Everything communicates.

Raven:

Interviewing the designers... that'd be a nice way to couple these two points of view. Anybody know what will their URL be? Adrian?

Thanks for posting what the review had to say Diane. Interestingly Milton’s comments sound more suitable alongside his other points from the review. I guess there is a �need’ for design books to be well designed … I think tho even if they aren’t its not bad — I’ve seen a few identity design books that are not always well designed but the work is, and the notes and information is usually really helpful. Anyhow I see Adrian’s book as 'removing' the emphasis on glossy reproductions of famous work and instead strongly putting forward the content. To be honest I didn’t actually pay as much attention to the work — it was nice just to be able to read, and occasionally catch a glimpse of an example of graphic design, I didn’t notice if the �work was poorly selected’ so I shall take another look.

Bibliotheque has a placeholder here.

On the book itself, I agree with Armin's sentiment; in fact, I've already put it on the reading list for my design students. I will also be reviewing it for the Boston AIGA Journal.

I do have one quibble about the design, though: the placement of the running headers (about a pica from the main text), combined with a setting that looks very similar to that of the section headings (the only difference is a thin underline), make for a somewhat jittery read. Every recto seems to take you to a new section; I had to constantly remind myself to ignore the bold blue text at the upper margin. It's a minor thing, but in such a well considered book, it felt less than resolved.

All in all, though, this is an important book, and I have to give heartfelt thanks to Adrian for putting it together.

Glaser is quite reknown for his sagging Book Reviews. One that first comes to my mind was a review, or rather, a smackdown in (1997?) AIGA's Journal (Beirut vs Glaser) over the readability/ serifs of Ocre B (sp?).

It was increbibly Monty Pythonish. Beirut gives Glaser a nice, gentlemanly shaming. You can just read the steam rising off Milton's head. Years later Glaser attempts to give Sagmeister a licking at the AIGA Voice'02 in DC over the WTC "shameful trinket design". You gotta give the guy credit for showing his balls. But sometimes they're just bitter-tasting.

I got the book for Christmas (on the strength of the title and TOC alone!) and I'm a few chapters in. Excellent. It's on a short list of books I refer to as "Damn, I Wish I Had This Book Years Ago". The design is subtle, nuanced and beautiful.

As for Uncle Milt's comments on the repro of the work, he might be right--I would have liked better, 4color repros too, but this book wouldn't have suffered, even if you removed all of them. I highly recommend it, and will probably buy it for a couple of young designers I know. :) Thanks, Adrian, for putting together such great wisdom. I'd be first in line for a follow-up volume.

By coincidence, my copy arrived yesterday and I've basically been absorbing it through my pores since last night. And loving it.

Disagree about the "banality" of the images (what does that mean, really?), but since I've only read the bits of Glaser's review cited here, I'm not in a position to judge it.

Thanks for this necessary (and beautiful) book.

Banality: 1. The condition or quality of being banal; triviality.

2. Something that is trite, obvious, or predictable; a commonplace.

(From dictionary.com).

But what does the AUHTOR of the review mean when he wrote that word, chose it? No clue.

Heck. Armin should snag him for interview too!

Yes,

Why not put Glaser under the microscope? I'd like to see Armin, Kingsley, or Gunnar have the honors. Grill 'em.

Firstly, thanks for the comments on the book.

In response to Milton.

The last thing we collectively wanted (that is us (Biblioth�que) and Adrian (the author)) was another coffee-table book on glossy paper with slick 4-col repro. We wanted the book to feel modest — even raw. The repro, the stock, the use of two colours echoed Adrian's 'warts and all' honesty.

As for the imagery — for Milton to say it is 'barely legible' is missing the point. We were quite aware of the repro limitations of a two colour job on uncoated stock. Our approach was to use the images as visual footnotes — nothing more than a reference point to the contributors. In some cases we chose to deconstruct and re-adjust the artwork. Re-working the CMYK channels of the originals and replacing them with the two Pantone colours.

The change in column width occurs when footnotes or images are positioned adjacent to the relevant text.

Hope this sheds some light.

Also: our website goes online at the end of the month.

Tim / Jon / Mason

Bibliothéque

Diane, to be fair to Milton Glaser, I'm not so sure that his review of the book questions the author's credibility. In any case, he does not criticize the book solely (or merely) on the basis of its design... Glaser also examines the content of the book: its final and discarded titles, some of the professional and ethical questions that are raised in its pages, and the interviews scattered throughout.

The current issue of Eye, number 58, besides featuring a profile of Speak Up's own Marian Bantjes, also carries a review of Shaughnessy's book, this one by Christopher Wilson.

When I first saw a mention of this book some months ago, I was eager to check it out. The title (and more specifically the word soul) led me to believe its contents would focus on the conflict -- or relationship at least -- between the business of (graphic) design and personal ethical convictions, supported by the author's experience and lessons derived from them. A small thumbnail shot of the cover helped plant that belief -- it didn't look like a glossy hardcover with fancy assembling techniques.

Some days later, flipping through the book at a store, I felt let down and quickly decided I didn't want to read a more technical how-to. While I understand the neutral stance, I feel the title is deceptive. Having just read the reviews in the latest issue of Eye, I find I'm not alone on this. The criticism in Eye doesn't stop there, citing repetition in content with quotes that don't read as if they do the book in aggregate justice.

I enjoyed the interview here and the extra insight makes me think I will pick up a copy after all. Maybe the follow-up should really be about how to not lose your soul instead of just your job.

Maybe the follow-up should really be about how to not lose your soul instead of just your job. Job, passion, or soul? How do you quantify these things? That is what matters, and that is what the book asks of the reader. Ultimately, Adrian's book centers on passion, and how a designer can mold it, carve it, and plain old keep it...

At various points in my life, design has suddenly seemed unimportant. Yet, I’ve always managed to rekindle my interest, and despite a few �bust-ups’ I’m still in love with graphic design.

I just bought the book a few days ago and have almost read it cover to cover. This is the book I've needed and been waiting for since I began my design education.

The book has clearly been designed to honour the content that Adrian has so carefully constructed. The refreshingly information-rich format, alongside a (surprisingly not mentioned yet) comfortable price, sealed the purchase. It is easy to read, easy to browse, and is helping to fill a gaping hole in my education with valuable, and impossible to find, good advice.

And Adrian, though the design is excellent, it is not the best thing about the book. Which is why I sincerely hope you write another. Thanks.

I had a butcher's on Amazon, and the book appears to be set in Helvetica, or "posh" Helvetica -- Akzidenz Grotesk.

It's disappointing (to put it mildly) that a design writer of conscience would not show solidarity with his peers (type designers) by insisting on a contemporary typeface.

Nick, criticism is easy... but what constructive suggestions can you offer? If AG or Helvetica are too “old school” for you, then suggest something.

But even then, there's nothing wrong with timeless type. Or can you prove otherwise?

Jason, I think Nick is partially referring to the fact that Berthold, the company that sells Akzidenz, has some shady business practices that screws many type designers. (My own knowledge as to particluars is limited, perhaps he can explain it better.)

There is also the belief that if designers want to continue doing new work, they should share the wealth and encourage use of new typefaces. After all, isnt is a good probability we have learned more about typefaces since the 1890's? If we're talking about the things we've learned about graphic design in its history, it makes the aesthetics and content match.

Adrian - Just got the book today and it's fabulous. In so many words its unpretentious, genuine, humorous and well, interesting.

I usually take care to catch the book in hand and check it out before I "invest" in it(you books know who you are), but this one just struck me as a must have and in the few chapters I have read it is excellent. The price was good too.

I would second this as one of the most primary books student designers should read. Too often information given to students is misguiding and unspecific. For some it will be a great reminder of things they may have learned and for other a kick in the pants.

It's a shame Milton had to patronize it for it's design. Isn't irritability something you catch as you grow older?

Plus, i got Dot Dot Dot 10 with it. Excellent reads deep into the night.

Akzidenz? What's wrong with being timeless?

Jason, in case you don't follow Typographica or Typophile too much, Nick is an "advocate" (to put it mildly) of using contemporary fonts by living designers. Which is lovely, I guess. However, to dismiss books (or a writer's efforts) based on a designer's (or a writer's allowance of a designer's) choice of typeface is short-sighted at best and resentful at worst. I'd love to see a recommendation of a contemporary, highly comparable in style, alternate to Akzidenz.

Jason (Tselentis) has informed me of an AG variant called AK12

Does anyone know who distributes it or where I can get it?

Thanks in advance

Mason (biblioth�que)

This book is really good, I'm actually half way through with reading it. The only problem I have with it is it's emphasis on the high concept type of design and "famous" designers. The corporate work that most designers do for a living (even the famous ones, who would have us think otherwise) is very satisfying to do if you're a real designer who takes pride in doing good work for your clients.

By the way, I never use new typefaces, only classic ones. I'm with Massimo Vignelli: keep a few good ones and trash the rest. Your reponsibility is to your clients and to yourself, not type designers.

Pi Skyy - I'm sorry that you think my book is just about 'high-concept' design. If I give that impression then I've failed badly. I don't believe any one area of design is better than another. My aim in writing the book was to talk about ways in which designers can avoid being crushed by systems and clients that place little value on design and designers. I would never tell a designer that they should or shouldn't do a particular type of work.

I'm also concerned that you think it is a book about 'famous designers.' Early on in the book I point out that there is far too much anodyne interviewing of famous designers in the design press. Sure, I interview Rudy Vanderlans and Neville Brody, and Stefan Sagmeister wrote a preface for me, but these are people who are remarkable for their willingness to talk about the grubbier aspects of being a designer, rather than just endlessly promoting themselves. And I also interview some much less well-known people, too.

You say that you are half way though the book. I hope when you get to the end you feel differently.

Adrian, I think I gave you the wrong idea with my comments. I think the book is great. It not only has lots of useful information, but it's a very enjoyable read too.

I just think that in the design press in general (and in schools, judging from the student work I've seen), there is way too much emphasis on designers doing this type of work. I think some young designers are getting the idea that "losing your soul" means "corporate design."

Your reponsibility is to your clients and to yourself, not type designers.

Graphic designers have a responsibility to fellow creatives, which includes photographers and illustrators as well as type designers -- and other graphic designers.

Using original imagery and contemporary fonts adds value to the design profession. If any novice anywhere with Creative Suite, Getty, and Helvetica can do a passable imitation of contemporary (or "timeless") design, graphic design becomes a commodity. Great for software megacorps, bad for people.

(So it's not about Berthold.)

Armin, sorry, but I've spent a long time acquiring an obscure and unpopular taste, with the result that I am physically unable to read text set in zombie fonts.

I just think that in the design press in general (and in schools, judging from the student work I've seen), there is way too much emphasis on designers doing this type of work.

If you're talking about designer profiles, work that receives awards, monographs, etc, I think you're absolutely right -- the emphasis is on challenging work for cultural clients.

When it comes to professional advice, though -- anything in How Magazine's"Business" column, for example -- the emphasis is usually on corporate-friendly practices. The assumption is that your main goal as a designer should be to please clients ("make it good, but don't rock the boat"). There's nothing wrong with pleasing your clients; it is unfortunate, however, if it becomes your only ambition as a designer.

What's brilliant about Andy's book is how it helps to bridge the gap between the goals of creating innovative work and achieving professional viability.

Your concern about the ubiquity of "cutting-edge" design is probably the reason why the folks at Biblioteque decided to use the images as visual footnotes — nothing more than a reference point to the contributors. That is, to put the emphasis on how you get to do that kind of work for a living, rather than on how pretty it is.

I meant "Adrian," not "Andy." Sorry about that...

Using original imagery and contemporary fonts adds value to the design profession. If any novice anywhere with Creative Suite, Getty, and Helvetica can do a passable imitation of contemporary (or "timeless") design, graphic design becomes a commodity.

I don't agree. Stock photography is mostly used when there's no budget to shoot something, so a photographer's work is being used where it otherwise wouldn't be.

While I really don't think that there's anything wrong with using contemporary fonts, I think that they actually make it easier for designers without much talent to create something with an "edgy" look. Neutral typefaces put the emphasis on the design and concept, where contemporary fonts often call too much attention to themselves.

There's nothing wrong with pleasing your clients; it is unfortunate, however, if it becomes your only ambition as a designer.

The problem I was talking about was when pleasing your client as your only ambition, and doing cutting edge work for music industry clients are seen as the only two alternatives. I've done work for clients that was, if not cutting edge, at least very trendy and contempory. I've also done work for very conservative clients that I've felt was as good or better then the less conservative stuff. It's the quality of your work that provides the satisfaction (at least for me). If designers are too focused on cutting edge work in school, they'll never really learn to do work for conservative clients that's as good as it can be.

" …to put the emphasis on how you get to do that kind of work for a living…"

Then you think that doing that type of work WAS emphasized in the book?

Then you think that doing that type of work WAS emphasized in the book?

No. Surely, no. It's about passion before paycheck, good work before selling out or selling an aesthetic.

Pi Skyy, thanks for kind words. I think there is a widespread view that corporate work is soul destroying, and of course in many instances, it is. But, so is creating 'cool' work, if all it does is slavishly and mindlessly follow the latest trend. There is as much conformity in record cover design as there is in corporate communications.

The only good work is work that has conceptual richness, stylistic confidence, and clarity of purpose - and that can be done for anyone.

While I really don't think that there's anything wrong with using contemporary fonts, I think that they actually make it easier for designers without much talent to create something with an "edgy" look. Neutral typefaces put the emphasis on the design and concept, where contemporary fonts often call too much attention to themselves.

The only good work is work that has conceptual richness, stylistic confidence, and clarity of purpose - and that can be done for anyone.

The title of the book is about losing one's soul.

Defining "Good" work without taking into account the social ramifications of one's economic choices of suppliers and tools is ethically blind. Solidarity is a similar issue to that of using environmentally-friendly materials and processes.

The idea that contemporary fonts will draw attention to themselves is absurd. The specification of Akzidenz Grotesk in a book for designers is a pointed choice that says "Hey, I'm doing the neutral thing, but hip enough not to use Arial or Helvetica".

Deliberative neutrality is a design trend like any other, a bubble that will burst sooner or later.

Tselentis put it better I did it -- the emphasis is on passion -- as in, how do you make a living doing passionate work.

BTW "Innovative" is not the same thing as "cutting edge." One advances the field, the other is often just a gesture.

The title of the book is about losing one's soul.

It's a misleading title. Adrian even says so in the introduction: the book is not about how to become a righteous designer. Nick, I do agree with you that designers should be looking at contemporary type, not just at the old stalwarts. Nevertheless, to critizise the book (or to suggest that the author is being hypocritical) because the designer chose Akzidenz is not really appropriate.

What/is/the/concept/behind/the/slashes?

Jose - I didn't say that it is a misleading title. I said that I toyed with the idea of calling it H2BAGD Without Losing Your Shirt. I still think I chose the right title, because losing your soul and losing your shirt are interlinked, although they are not the same thing. Perhaps, on reflection, the title should have been - H2BAGD Without Losing Your Self-Respect.

Mark - you'll have to ask Bibliotheque about the slashes. I never did. But I come from the school of design that says you don't have to have an explanation for everything. The aesthetic gesture is often enough.

Solidarity is a similar issue to that of using environmentally-friendly materials and processes.

Sorry Nick, I don't agree.

Using environmentally-friendly materials and processes helps keep our planet livable. That to me is an important issue. However, if a maker of environmentally friendly paper told me that I had a moral obligation to use his product, I would have a problem with that.

Typefaces aren't going to save the world. And when a typeface designer such as yourself tells me I have a moral obligation to use his product or the products of his contemporaries, and then goes on to compare the "issue" to something as important as saving the planet, I find it hard to take him very seriously. If typeface designers aren't selling enough typefaces, maybe they should re-asses their product instead of blaming their potential customers.

Also, I didn't say that neutrality in design was a good thing. If anything, neutral typefaces often allow the design to be less neutral. In the case of Mr. Shaughnessy's book (getting back to what we're supposed to be discussing here), I think it's very well designed — not self-consciously hip at all.

I didn't say that it is a misleading title.

Fair enough. "Self-respect" may have been more appropriate, but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it? I guess I was just reacting to the criticism (Milton Glaser's review, for example) that seems to take issue with the lack of moral guidance in the book. The passage about "losing your shirt" made it clear to me that the word "soul" should not be taken literaly. Guess some people didn't quite get that...

respect/passion/love/soul . . .

If typeface designers aren't selling enough typefaces, maybe they should re-asses their product instead of blaming their potential customers.

Actually, I'm doing fine, and the font market is thriving.

This is a matter of principle, not self interest. I didn't suggest that you're too cheap to buy new fonts, or too lazy to figure out how to use them, or too fossilized to comprehend what they're about, I merely suggested that a book which trumpets its conscience should walk the talk, in every respect. Even for something as lowly as type design. It's easy to trivialize the little guy, isn't it? But every designer is the little guy -- that's what makes solidarity important.

Nick, have you heard or seen the AK12 variant of AGrotesque that's entered this discussion? You seem knowledgeable about type, and thought I'd ask.

Jason, that's like asking a pacifist about ordnance.

Not sure I follow. Elaborate, please.

Later.

But for me, designers have to be able to communicate (both through their work and the way they talk about their work); they have to have cultural awareness; and they need integrity.

As a person making a career change and starting classes this semester in graphic design, it was very encouraging to discover this blog site and read this interview. As I wrote in my own blog, I don't think I have a strong talent for design, but I'm very eager to learn the skills and reach outside myself to produce quality work. But what Shaughnessy says about designers needing to have cultural awareness and and willingness to deal honestly with people, I think I qualify in both of the latter areas.

So her words help build my confidence that I might be able to pursue this career goal, though original ideas for design is something I'm far from mastering.

I definitely plan to purchase and read her book.

her? her??? you really paid a lot of attention to "her" book.
yeah i know: i read this discussion a year too late.

the book is great, by the way.

OK, so now I'm sold. I just hit 'buy now' on Amazon. I certainly can learn whatever possible on the subject seeing as I'm on my own since January.

Im reading it atm..so far so good..i love the layout, the colors and the content..very refreashing!