My main concern with design writers would be the lack of experience they have in designing. To me, the best design writers are actual graphic designers, and even though they might not have the best grammar or redaction techinques they are able to bring much more authenticity, accountability and, I don't know if this is a word: believability. I would pay more attention to an essay written by somebody who's been working in the field than an essay by somebody watching from the sidelines. It's just like in sports, the best coaches are usually the ones who were great players before the screwed up their knees.

>or is it like the mindless scrawlings of a sideshow monkey?

As funny as that sounds, there is also something interesting from people who write, as I already said, from the sidelines, because they are able to bring a certain objectivity to their writing.

On the other hand we have Rick Poynor, who I'm not sure if he was ever a graphic designer, but in my opinion is one of the best writers in design. I wonder how he is perceived in the UK?

I enjoy reading about design, I wish more designers would take on that chore. I mean, who's better to write about design than designers? Exactly — nobody.

absolutely-but it seems to me that on the whole those who design then write about it tend to get marginalised or considered as a curiosity precisely for the reasons that, as armin outlined above, make their writing interesting.

one of the main things i tend to twat on about vis a vis design writing is its general tendency to the general/abstract in a kind of allusive hard but polite but smug objective kind of way. particularly when it comes to those big questions/great task ahead type of things, i often find myself wondering exactly just what kind of work is being written about.

robin kinross and john chris jones are straight fire.

My main concern with design writers would be the lack of experience they have in designing.

I don't know if that matters or not. Art historians may or may not have been artists. And experience could be defined in any number of ways. Understanding the basic process and purpose of design is fairly easy. I don't believe Richard Hollis was a graphic designer, but he sure wrote one of the best histories of it.

design historians?

Rick Poynor was never a graphic designer, and yes he is a great writer. Although I do wish to see more graphic designers pick up the pen, I would hate it as well because writing is no easy thing and it would certainly produce many poor writers. An increased level of dialogue and exchange between the two would be welcome of course.

As to designers/writers that I hold in high regard.

Jan van Toorn is amazing both from a theoretical and practical stand point.

Max Bruinsma is a great writer and theoretician.

Andrew Blauvelt, Robin Kinross, Peter Bilak...

I think there is a lot of writing out there that I appreciate and admire, though I agre that the distance between theory and practice is often a big hurdle.

I am stating the obvious: Steve Heller. A design advocate, a steadfast believer in what we do, a critic (that I believe) tries to be objective and certainly someone that has worked his way to the top.

This is most likely a poor reflection on my own reading tendencies, but I haven't found much design writing that was terribly engaging as writing, let alone as observation and criticism.

"Design Writing Research" (Lupton and Miller) is very good for its exploratory format and for the way its design is related to its content. But I just find my interest isn't really held by the writing.

My favorite design (typography really) book is "Fournier on Typefounding" published in 1995 in a lovely little 3-volume facsimile with an English translation by Harry Carter--but it's great more for the historical than the typographical insight.

I wish design had its own Anthony Lane, who's a pleasure to read on any subject.

I wish Jonathan Hoefler would write a book.

the majority of writing in journals and books on design, particularly graphic design, seems to make a lot of assumptions and suffers from an obsession with objectivity. i haven't come across anyone yet whose work gets me in the same way film or music writing does. probably the single best piece on graphics i can remember is by ron rosenbaum on the logo for arrrgh can't remember-the brush circle/zen circle thing for a u.s. telecommuncations company (i'll have to look it up when i'm home) -it's in a collection of his work called 'the secret parts of fortune' which is great anyway (a fantastic piece on early hackers is in there too). here's also a great chapter or two on manuscripts in stephen ackroyds albion-these two pieces have something which i think is rare in a lot of the people mentioned here-character.

where is our lester bangs? nik cohn? pauline kael? or is that totally the wrong to think about this? any thoughts?

god i keep doing this-try again.

or is that totally the wrong way to think about this? any thoughts?

The late Philip Meggs springs to mind.

As for other design writers, I find that they too often make value judgements and state them as fact. Stating facts or value judgements is fine, but don't pretend that one is the other.

Like that damned Keedy. He really bothers me, but I like him. I don't really know why.

I've gotten more than a couple insights thanks to Kinross and Poyner as mentioned above. However, with that said I try not to read a lot of design books now. Generally speaking I find it slightly incestuous to just read about design... I say this after spending lots of years reading anything that had the words design attached to it. If the profession is going to move forward, ideas need to come from the outside.

Glaser is one of the best articulators of what we do. He has a way with words and images. I tend not to believe people like Peter Hall (Sagmiester Made You Look) who basically fact check and edit the writing of others. If you cant do it, dont preach to me about it!

btw: I found Glaser's Art is Work for 9 bux at the Nonimperialistic Bookstore on Carmine. (It retails at 85) A starck reminder that designers hate to read?

I just have one dumb question, is Rick's last name "Poynor" or "Poyner"? I've seen it both ways and it confuses me.

Doh, I think it's Poynor, my mistake on my previous post.

Don't we have to first assume that graphic designer actually read graphic design writing?

I don't know about you, but I usually just look at the pretty pictures and put the Tufte and Rand books on the shelf for show.

;o)

I think most of us believe in the power of design through osmosis.

I too have many fat books that I've not read through completely -- Milton's "Art is Work", Mau's "Lifestyle", Weingart's Typography. But I didn't buy those books for light reading. But just for the record -- I did read through 2 of Rand's books. Figured that's all I'd ever need to read the rest of my career.

Same as Debbie, I enjoy S.Heller's writing. And in my younger days, Meggs and Poynor. Nowadays, the occasional article in CA / Eye / Metropolis gets my limited attention time / allowance. I miss Critique.

Dare I say it? If I spent more time reading design discertations, I probably wouldn't have time to post on SpeakUp. Something's gotta give, you know?

For those missing Critique, Marty Neumeier wrote a book this year called "The Brand Gap: How to Bridge the Distance between Business Strategy and Design." It is pretty good. One of my favorite quotes: "Logos are dead. Long live icons and avatars."

Dare I say it? If I spent more time reading design discertations, I probably wouldn't have time to post on SpeakUp.

And dare I say it? You can't find better design musings than right here on speak up! :o)

cue music from the mission or something equally noble: speak up is the most inspiring design thingy i've ever seen in my whole life ever. i'm a weepy romatic at heart but actually i mean it: i think it's fucking excellent.

Yeah, I totally agree, Graham.

Populism in action! And anti-aliasing to boot!

the brush circle/zen circle thing for a u.s. telecommuncations company

This one, Graham?

I think Bringhurst's writing in The Elements of Typographic Style is worth noting.

"Typography is the craft of endowing human language with a durable visual form, and thus with an independant existence. Its heartwood is calligraphy — the dance, on a tiny stage, of the living, speaking hand — and its roots reach into living soil, though its branches may be hung each year with new machines."

yum.

Here's a vote for changing Speak Up the tag line to graham's much better: "it's fucking excellent".

;o)

woohoo!

I think it fucking rocks too.

Don't mean to veer this discussion into something else, but seriously, Speak Up wouldn't be what it is without all of ya'll. So, thanks, thanks, thanks and thanks.

Well we gotz to give propz to you too, dawg! Armin, you keep SpeakUp straight pimpin'.

Here's a question about writing style:

It seems like there are two directions you can go...

1) Really formal, academic language (such as Blauvelt, Lupton, Helfand or even our own Kevin Lo's thesis.) This type of writing communicates quite precisely, in terms that have been agreed upon to define complex ideas (like hegemony, simulacrum, etc.) However, it can take 3 or 4 tries to make it through a paragraph alive.

2) The second style is a more loose, dialog-style writing. People that come to mind would be Lorraine Wild, Shawn Wolfe, Mr. Sam Potts, and even Jeffrey Keedy. Here it's more like transcribing the way the writer would explain it in person. It allows for slang, swearing, jokes, anything goes. In general, more entertaining to read, but may be dismissed more quickly.

Any opinions on either style? I can kind of guess that most people may like Door #2 better, so is there any defense for the first option?

>Lorraine Wild, Shawn Wolfe, Mr. Sam Potts, and even Jeffrey Keedy.

Mr. Sam Potts? I don't know no Mr. Sam Potts, a Sam Potts yes, but a Mr. Sam Potts? I dunno.

>Any opinions on either style?

In some instances I favor door #1, there are times when I want to read serious essays in serious voices, some themes don't lend themselves too well for casual writing. An air of pompusness is bound to come off this style.

But overall, I favor door #2, I like to feel that a real person — with feelings and all —�wrote the piece, it brings more humanity and ability to relate to the subject at hand. Case in point, Shawn Wolfe's rant in Rant was my favorite to read because of the writing style.

Dan, I do not belong in the same sentence with any of those other folks! They're extremely accomplished writers and designers--I have a long way to go to even hope to get close to their work.

And I dunno about "Mr." but even my oldest friends call me Sampotts. Somehow my own name became a nickname.

I do agree that a less academic tone is more engaging. It seems to fit naturally with the blog forum too. And there's plenty of evidence that 10-cent words are substitutes for concise thinking (kind of the equivalent of multi-layered 3D architecturalish decoration).

There's a very good Johanna Drucker interview in Steven Heller's Design Dialogues that's a good example of style #1 that's still accessible. She makes the point that you need a certain amount of key words just to move forward and begin the actual discussion. Words like "discourse" for example. She says it takes time to adapt to this language, which is helpful to anyone like me intimidated by how smart it all sounds at first.

Just out of curiousity, what non-design writers do you like to read or look forward to reading?

Don't forget Style #3, favored by the likes of Graham, Felix, and Patrick King and characterized by some or all of the following: an affection for sentence fragments, abreviations, virgules, unconventional paragraphing, and the absence of capital letters. The Scrappy School of design writing. ;o)

As a practitioner (and tacit proponent) of Dan's Style #2, I will say that the nice thing about Style #1 is that five dollar words have generally agreed-upon definitions. You might have to look them up, but with any luck they'll preclude the time-consuming (and deadly boring) task of coming to a consensus on meaning. Case in point:

the majority of writing in journals and books on design, particularly graphic design, seems to make a lot of assumptions and suffers from an obsession with objectivity.

By objectivity do you mean that not enough writers will admit to editorializing?

In defense of my own writing, it was a purely academic project, but I gotta agree that even I have a hard time wading through door #1. As far as my interest in reading, its quite broad, but I would definitely find reading #2 (and #3) more enjoyable.

However its not always about enjoyment and I think(as armin stated earlier) that there is a necessity for academic writing. I've learned a lot from the writers in category #1, through reading and re-reading, but it has to be something your passionate about I suppose.

And I have to agree with Paul about Bringhurst, his passionate writing on typography taught me to really, really care about type.

rebecca-my virgules are private. i've tried salves ointments and lotions and even forms of strapping (similar to what i've got on my goitre) but they never dry up. what's a virgule?

By objectivity do you mean that not enough writers will admit to editorializing?

today i'm feeling stupid so i'm not sure what you mean but i meant this kind of detached aloof 'great task ahead' (a phrase i think (not sure) poynor once wrote) tone that tries to conflate paternalistic even-handedness with the upholding of a cause (or an -ology; not geology. or biology) and really only ever sounds like the echoes of a head up some rather cavernous arse.

from sams thing about johanna drucker: She makes the point that you need a certain amount of key words just to move forward and begin the actual discussion. Words like "discourse" for example.

"tequila" is my favourite. moves a discussion right along.

>what non-design writers do you like to read or look forward to reading?

Probably too obvious, but David Sedaris is funny as shit, and shit is funny. I've read all his books and I'm always waiting for the next one.

In spanish Gabriel Garcia Marquez kicks ass. Mario Vargas Llosa too.

That's it, off the top of my mind.

>what non-design writers do you like to read or look forward to reading?

over the last year or two w.g. sebald has been someone whose work has both moved and inspired me. particularly 'rings of saturn' and 'vertigo'-but all of his books are transcendent.

I think I might be the only person who hasn't read any David Sedaris. Heard him on the radio a bunch--I imagine you get his voice in your head when you read. But damn GGMarquez is the best. All those Latin American fellers are my favorite--VLlosa, Julio Cortazar, and Jorge Luis Borges, the great patr�n of them all. I went through a serious John LeCarre phase a while back.

Gin for me, Graham. Mmm, gin.

btw: I found Glaser's Art is Work for 9 bux at the Nonimperialistic Bookstore on Carmine. (It retails at 85) A starck reminder that designers hate to read?

They always have a good deal. I found a hardcover of Edgerton's "Stopping Time" for something like $5.

For those who like pictures with their words, Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" is the best. Sure, it's disguised as a comic book, but it's simplicity belies one of the most impressive explanations of the interplay between language and imagery. And it's one of the most witty books I've ever read. Not design per se, not by a designer or a design writer, but just about everything in it is applicable to design.

>what non-design writers do you like to read or look forward to reading?

I've been reading Al Franken's books lately. He is damn funny. I find Stephen Hawking to be quite enjoyable.

what's a virgule?

A slash.

i meant this kind of detached aloof 'great task ahead' (a phrase i think (not sure) poynor once wrote) tone that tries to conflate paternalistic even-handedness with the upholding of a cause (or an -ology; not geology. or biology) and really only ever sounds like the echoes of a head up some rather cavernous arse.

Word.

This may be of interest: Judith Williamson

>what non-design writers do you like to read or look forward to reading?

Chuck Palahniuk. I like the idea that the man who wrote Fight Club is now adapting a screenplay about women's body building.

Also Douglas Coupland. I've been toying around with seriously thinking about the similarities between Coupland and Palahniuk for a while. Any chance anyone else has noticed any?

similarities between Coupland and Palahniuk

I have a couple books from both and have thought thought the same thing. Concrete Island by J.G. Ballard is along the same path I think. Coupland makes a mean table too

Ooh, I'm coming very late to this party (over 3 years late, in fact) but I couldn't let this go by:

I don't believe Richard Hollis was a graphic designer, but he sure wrote one of the best histories of it.

Hollis was and is a fabulous graphic designer. Check out issue 59 of Eye magazine for more details. Also, if you've ever read Ways of Seeing by John Berger, then you've seen his work.