As far as style goes, pretty much everyone HAS a style, a thread of visual consistency that runs throughout all of their work, and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. What I do see as being bad is constantly denying it. Pentagram loves to use Bodoni...Samata Mason loves univers 67...many places use the same photographers and same illustrators repeatedly. I know of not one designer or firm, "famous" or not who doesn't have a sort of style to their work.

But I see what Armin is saying re: being dominated by style.

So anyway, as to the original subject of this...yes, I feel that the profession is kind of in a slump too. Nothing has really blown me away recently, I don't know why that might be, but...yeah. Hard to say why. A down economy perhaps?

For my money, Giovanni Bianco (www.giovannibianco.com) and Marc Atlan (www.marcatlan.com) have been doing some great work. Louey/Rubino...always inspiring. David Carson still has it, though I really profoundly hated that surfing book he put out recently. Thirst is fantastic. The 2002 IBM annual report by VSA Partners...outstanding.

And how could I forget? FRED WOODWARD at GQ! Look at it! Damn! Details Magazine is solid, so is Esquire, W, and Another Magazine. Nylon has been cool again too.

> The 2002 IBM annual report by VSA Partners...outstanding.

The 2002 AR is good, but the 2001 IBM annual (15 steps that changed IBM, or something like that) was one of the best piece of corporate writing I've ever seen. The online version of the report was also absolutely brilliant -- I think in many ways it's better than the printed annual. It's no longer on their site. The online 2002 AR is good, but it the 2001 broke ground. Such a shame that it's so buried on IBM's site.

My world is more on the corporate side, so the work I admire might not be bleeding edge, but nevertheless, it's:

1. Cahan -- the bastard just keeps churning out brilliant annuals. Smart, smart work.

2. Tolleson -- a little quiet lately, but the stuff is still consistently beautiful. Typographically, their work speaks to me the most.

3. Yes Louey/Rubino -- great work, but nothing earth-shattering yet.

4. Mau -- his renaissance, holistic approach to design is revolutionary. And the man himself is larger than life -- a very colorful character among a bunch of design suits with fancy glasses.

5.

" target="_blank">Templin Brink

6. VSA -- their stuff is just downright smart too. The process diagram on their site is just masterful. Wish I'd come up with that.

7. Cyclone Design -- a Seattle firm that does some of the most beautiful work I've seen in the last few years. It's more illustration than design though.

8. Sandstrom Design -- their website is the funniest, most smart-ass writing I've ever seen come from a design firm. It's really worth a look. Check out their color of the month.

others:

Vaughan Oliver

Why Not Associates

Sagmeister

Thirst

Tomato

Carbone/Smolan

Jager Paolo De Kemp (VT)

Johnson/Wolverton (OR)

>But this doesn't quite answer your question Armin. While I admire the work of the people above, I don't see any of them having a massive impact in the realm of the masters.

It's not so much as having an impact like the masters, because only time will determine who the masters — right now it's hard to tell. My main question would be more on the lines of who makes you all giddy when you see their latest work? Not so much who are your heroes, because some of the firms you mentioned — as great as they are — might not be doing their best work right now (no offense intended.)

Here are some of the ones I'm thinking about.

- Sagmeister: duh, he is amazing

- KarlssonWilker: duh, they are Sagmeister's proteges

- Honest: Just visually amazing and stimulating

- Pentagram: no matter how much Bodoni they use they are still one of the strongest design firms in the world

- Bamboo Design in Minneapolis is doing some beautiful work

I had more in my mind this morning...

Sandstrom's website is so very smart. And funny.

Tan, is this what you were looking for?

IBM 2001

http://

Yes! Thanks Eric. This is my favorite online AR to date. The tone and distillation of information is just brilliant. And the site is a good piece of web design to boot.

And Armin -- that helps a little. You're right, the firms I've named do great work, but it's nothing that would alter the way I look at design.

I'll keep thinking....

The company that has done the best job of blowing me away in the past 6-12 months is (to my great surprise) an interactive agency. They're called Second Story, and their work is gorgeous. Good typography, rich textures, lush colors...

(The site they did for the Theban Mapping Project continues to knock the wind out of me every time I browse it.)

Rudy said in the RANT thread:

I have noticed the emergence of very specific design styles, approaches, and all types of graphic mannerisms, but I have been unable to find out why these exist or to what purpose they are used. This is the slump I feel exists within graphic design today.

Armin said:

styles and trends have taken over most Graphic Design firms

I agree, this is the crux of the problem in my opinion.

My uncle, who is an architect in Switzerland, asked me an interesting question when I visited a few months ago. He wanted to know if there were categories of style in graphic design like there are "genres" in music and "doctrines" in politics. I told him yes there are, but I explained it more in a fine art sense, such as expressionism and pop art.

This got me thinking, although there have been style classifications in graphic design such as bauhaus typography, war and propaganda, futurism, the swiss "with their cuckoo clocks" as Graham so eloquently pointed out; what kind of defined style has there been recently? In other words do you say, "He's kinda clean like VSA, but collagey like so and so, and he type reminds of Carson, but has a "vector/pixel" side like Future Farmers."

Is that how we describe one another now, or is there a serious and more academic classification to contemporary designers? Is is that history takes it time in formulating and weeding out which style is the most visually exciting or will be remembered for kicking ass? Who and which style is revolutionary?

It is certainly easier to follow then lead. Like in previous periods in history, I don't think that revolutionary people sprout very often. But perhaps this is it and there is no slump. Perhaps this is the time for writing and reflection such as Speak Up and the recent RANT issue has prompted. A time to reflect and perhaps admit we are in a slump, whether it's a tiny one or gigantic, which will hopefully catapult us into the next period of great graphic design.

My two cents:

1. Bruce Mau, Stefan Sagmeister , VSA/CA/TB/TD, Victore, FABRICA, Helfand for sure. Perhaps they are creating the most visually exciting work, furthering our profession (maybe AIGA? Oops!), meeting clients needs, etc.

2. It always helps to go back to the masters: Albers, Tschichold, Brockmann, Wiengart, Tufte, Ruder, etc.

3. Looking at other creative fields such as architecture, fine art, photography, and film: Calatrava, Wright, Mies, Pawson, Ruscha, Gursky, O'Connor, Hido, etc.

4. As I mentioned before, writing. Commentary. Speak Up and Emigre, and Mau enforces this too. Reflection. If one can't define the problem then how can one fix it?

If there is a design slump, make your own world. Perhaps it is part of the process? Rock on.

I'm not sure I agree that graphic design is in a slump. To me, there are so many people doing great work all over the world right now.

Maybe it seems like a slump because there isnt a Neville Brody or David Carson doing something radically different in design, but I think it's unlikey that someone like that will come along every 10 years or so. Big changes in design usually reflect big changes in our culture—which doesn't seem to be changing much lately.

Has anyone ever seen The Glenn Miller Story ? With Jimmy Stewart - a 1954 film.

It's sappy and over the top, but it focuses on Glenn Miller's drive to create a new kind of Big Band sound. He struggles for years, cause he has this sound in his head and after years of imulating and experimenting and hocking his trombone to be able to eat, he hits it with a new combination of woodwinds and brass.

What is missing today in graphic design. A new sound, a new thinking, different approaches, different utilization of the elements and principles of design. I think perhaps the computer has muddied the waters of design thinking. Too many followers(hey I have been down that road myself). We are running out of decades to immulate.

Are any of you feeling the tension between what is acceptable/quickly producible versus what could be?

Armin - No body came to my mind in answer to your question. Yes there are a lot of good, if not great designers today - but ground breaking?

Big changes in design usually reflect big changes in our culture—which doesn't seem to be changing much lately.

What about Christianity vs. Islam, the environment, aids in Africa, etc? They may not be changes in our visual or everyday Western culture, but they are definitely issues plaguing our world now that perhaps call for some "kick ass design."

I think perhaps the computer has muddied the waters of design thinking.

I thought about this before, perhaps now is a time for technological innovation?

>Armin - No body came to my mind in answer to your question.

Exactly! The fact that we only have 10 comments so far, just goes to show you how little impact specific firms or persons are making. I'm not saying there are no good designers out there, perhaps there are way more talented designers than ever before but what is that leaving us with?

The way I see it, it's pretty much like the NBA: right now you have �ber-talented freaks of nature who can jump over the actual basket — even over 7' tall franchutes, they are great athletes yet none of them have made (or will make) the impact that people like Wilt Chamberlain (Saul Bass — sans the pimp attitude,) Magic Johnson (Milton Glaser) or Michael Jordan (Tibor of course) have made.

But enough of my basketball analogies, if i had to pick one designer that in 40-50 years people will still be talking about it would be Sagmeister. But, based on his clientele it's hard to take him seriously as a visual innovator of culture. His work is very much stuck in a small circle of viewers as opposed to the more public work that Rand, Glaser, Bass and Tibor have been part of. I think that is the main difference between these four guys and anybody else — they were able to excel in some very public, high-profile and scrutinizing projects.

Its interesting that the design firms on everyone's lists aren't talked about until discussions like this. FutureBrand, however is talked about all the time. Making Waves? I'd say we, i mean they ; ), qualify.

I think Art Chantry fits under the breaking rules/meeting needs list. Like Sagmeister though, his clients aren't necessarily on the radar. But I do think his work will inspire/excite people for years to come.

As for firms whose work I like to follow..

Digital Kitchen

Planet Propaganda

David, did I just hear you admit that you work at FutureBrand?!?

Dude. Fess up -- you won't be stalked. Give us a little insight into the UPS debacle...I mean...rebranding.

Yes, VSA IS great! Oh, wait...I work there. No bias here whatsoever...

I was reading something in Graphis about an ad agency, and they quoted a guy from Ground Zero saying that "nobody is really impressed by creative work for unknown clients." This may be true in advertising, AS WELL IT SHOULD BE in all things, but it doesn't apply to design.

Chantry and Sagmeister are two guys I've never cared about--at all. I'd even go so far as to say that they bore me because the dialogue there orbits specifically around design, or micro clients. And, not that it really really matters, but most non-designers don't get the fuss. Oddly enough, plenty of non-designers get the fuss over a guy like Carson, I know lawyers who hold onto their Ray Guns because of "the look."

Not surprisingly though, some very smart comments have been made on this thread and they're hinting at the whole notion of ground-breaking.

And this is all I have to ask--is there ROOM to be groundbreaking in the way that Carson and Brody were? It's like, everything has been done now, and anything you do WILL be categorized, classified, and commidified. Everything fits into a niche--hell, before Carson appeared, that "look" existed in punk rock posters from the 1970s. I guess he just applied it in a different way.

The last time anything "groundbreaking" really happened, I think, kinda, and I'm going out on a limb here, was in the late 90s. CORE, a St. Louis advertising agency, declared that advertising was art (which had been done before, but not like this) and created work with layers, textures, all that good stuff purists despise, for who--music and skateboards? Nope--biotech. Cool.

I think perhaps the computer has muddied the waters of design thinking.

It's often the technology that sparks major style changes and evolutions in a field. Bradbury Thompson's work for Westvaco was intwined with the growing abilities of 4color printing. In the same way, we are seeing many innovations in motion technology today, which is why film and television titling has increased in quality and quantity dramatically. More people who might become great motion designers will now have access to that technology with which to create great works.

But, technology has its dark side. As it has made our jobs easier, it has also enabled the imitators to make their copies look tighter and closer to the originals. Think how much time it would take to set a "grunge" layout in metal type and then compare to how fast it took off with the ease of Illustrator, Quark and 500 fonts on a disk (or 20 floppies...).

Chantry and Sagmeister are two guys I've never cared about--at all.

...the dialogue there orbits specifically around design, or micro clients...

Funny thing, is that, when Sagmeister got to design one of his highest profile pieces — the Bridges to Babylon album for the Rolling Stones — he didn't do such a great job. And the Stones do have some history (Warhol and Sticky Fingers) with groundbreaking album covers.

I think the people we end up placing on a pedestal as iconic and groundbreaking are those that are able to move their work into the mainstream. I love Sagmeister's stuff, but I don't think he's done that (and maybe doesn't care to).

good topic. lot of possibilities. again, a very u.s. (i suppose obviously) perspective on this so far but really there's too much going on worldwide to really even know where to begin-i just don't think it's happening (exciting work for want of a much better phrase) in the u.s. maybe. carsons impact has a lot to do with taking european design of the 60's-80's (especially dutch) and re-working elements for another context, another country. re. rand and co (up to and inc. kalman)-the world's changed, changing. these people had relatively little impact in europe because they weren't working that internationally (oooh i feel a topic coming on) except maybe music industry and publishing work, but even that was eclipsed by the local work for local people-actually, that's not entirely true or fair: dutch, swiss, japanese, scandinavian etc. design had an impact/has an impact (both as design for designers and as designers that your mum mught have heard of). there is no slump: i think in one way design is going back to it's roots, designers publishing their work and making work for clients in a far wider (internationally) reaching way than ever before. don't forget-if you've done a website, everyone who has a computer that is capable of seeing it on the planet can see it. u.s. seems far more based on working in companies than working for oneself or being freelance which, if it's the case (is it?) is one very bog reason for any perhaps slump. too many designers who don't drink could also be a reason.

another thing: the people whose work i love in other areas (arvo part, w.g. sebald, andrei tarkovsky) didn't really start making work of great significance until their mid-late 30's at least. designers seem to be a bit the opposite-except charles and ray eames who (i think) didn't even start working together until they were 37-8 ish. and, for me, they're the only people who even come close to having made any kind of cultural impact on the scale that is being hinted at-maybe maurice binder with the bond titles too-and i'm surprised they've not been mentioned (not necessarily in this topic because now i'm veering off) before. the eames. they're the ones. and today? loads of people. just probably not in the u.s.

sorry- a long one and plenty more unsaid.

big reason. not 'bog reason'. although . . .

David, did I just hear you admit that you work at FutureBrand?!? Dude. Fess up -- you won't be stalked. Give us a little insight into the UPS debacle...I mean...rebranding.

Yep, I work at FutureBrand. I'll post on the UPS thread so this doesn't become one.

I don't think Sagmeister will be remembered anywhere near as much as Brody or Carson—because to me, innovation in design means stylistic innovation.

Maybe I just don't relate to his work as much because so much of it involves more art direction than I ever get to do. I personally feel much more inspired looking at the work of Brody, Carson or Art Chantry (or Reid Miles), who could make something out of nothing. I guess I like to look at something and imagine the designer getting his own hands dirty making it.

Here's a younger designer's perspective...

Graphic design has become an enormously inclusive profession/practice/craft. It includes so many different avenues of exploration, so many people are trying their hand at it, and countless new markets have been reaching out for it. So now everyone is crying out for someone to start doing some amazing or ground breaking work.

So where is it? Whats the latest trend? Whats the latest cool style? What IS a trend? What IS style? Well I can tell you what a trend is. Someone utilizes an idea (doesn't necessarily have to be ground breaking or new) to their benefit, it becomes recognized, and the sheep follow for a bit. This idea, this succesful thing, becomes a trend.

Too often I think style gets lumped in with the idea of a trend. An example of a non style related trend that I can think of is engaging/illustrative/narrative annual reports. One of the best things to happen to corporate design. As said before, the 2001 IBM AR is a perfect example. A perfect blend of content and form.

As far as style goes...Sagmeister said it best. Style = Fart. There's all sorts of em, but when it comes down to it, it just a bunch of hot air.

Good content and good design should go hand in hand. So I simply believe you can't have ground breaking design without new or innovative content. Its like what Shawn Wolfe said...people will still eat KFC even if the packaging sucks. So unless there's loads of expendable money hanging around, packaging for our favorite dirty bird or chewing gum just doesn't really matter. Its the content that matters.

In terms of visually ground breaking work, it always seems to be at the edge of mainstream culture. Its not something that is so widely viewed or appreciated until the marketing people find a way to exploit it. The new issue of Eye magazine features some fine ocular agitators. Geoff McFetridge, Ryan McGuiness, and Mike Mills.

CONTENT IS KING.

Check out The Directors Bureau for some inspiration.

> can't have ground breaking design without new or innovative content.

I think maybe you are on to something here. I find myself at times tring to add content or meaning to a project or brand inorder to enrich the story.

>packaging for our favorite dirty bird or chewing gum just doesn't really matter.

I dont agree with that at all. I saw sagmeister speak to a group of students once, and he was pushing the same philosophy. He seemed to be saying that this type of graphic design (which accounts for what? 99.9% of all graphic design?) is not a worthwhile pursuit for graphic designers. I wanted to ask him if he felt that all this work should now be left up to amatuers to execute. How many design graduates are there every year in this country? Are they all going to do cd package design or book jacket design for a living?

Graphic designers create the visual world we live in. The more people who see and use something, the more important it becomes. Do people really feel that Sagmeister's AIGA invitations, for example, are more important than the packaging for KFC? Why do we always see these examples of his work whenever we read an article about him, instead of the work he does on a day to day basis?

This line of thinking is going to create a lot of disillusioned young designers. Instead, why not get people excited about what graphic design really is all about?

Also, Geoff McFetridge and Ryan McGuiness (as much as I love their work) are artists. I really don't even consider them to be graphic designers.

>FutureBrand, however is talked about all the time. Making Waves? I'd say we, i mean they ; ), qualify.

David, I think we all got over-excited about you opening up that I forgot to respond to this. It's easy to make waves when you are dealing with millions of dollars and even more millions of people. You guys have access to all these people, you can beat them with whatever stick you prefer. I think that indeed you are making waves but not for the better.

People will respond to the UPS logo because of the sheer impact it has in our daily lives and the amount of exposure it will have. Your work will have a hundred times more repercussion than whatever it is I'm doing here in the Midwest, at least I sleep comfortably at night knowing that I'm doing my best effort to teach, enrich and change the visual culture of a small number of people. Whereas Futurebrand has a responsibility to this huge-ass amount of people and if your implication is right, about the sheets of logos presented to UPS, you are not standing up to your responsibilities as a Graphic Designer —�much less a Branding Consultancy.

If you have the power to make waves, make sure you are using your power right.

Nothing personal David I know you said you didn't work on the project. The guy who holds the cow's leg is as guilty as the one who kills it.

In Sagmeister's defense, he did a hell of a job with the Move Our Money campaign thingy. He was able to inject his usual fart... I mean style into this complex topic. And create something unique, fetching and memorable for something that would have otherwise been a tough thing to swallow.

Sagmeister has done some really great work. I completely agree on that. I think what has prevented him from gaining greater influence is that his style is pretty unique - very big concept - and that makes it difficult to knock off. David Carson's influence expanded quickly beyond editorial into advertising and motion graphics because, in the end, most anyone could do a grungy type layout (even if it was a poor imitation).

I don't know if anyone remembers this, but Sagmeister was named to Entertainment Weekly's IT list 5 or 6 years ago. I remember being excited because I thought it was about time designers got some props. The timing coincided with his Rolling Stones album design. I still wonder whether he pulled himself back from doing more high-profile jobs in the interest of making a stronger mark with lesser players where you can often do better work.

This is from Clement Mok's website. I think it is really interesting.

Growth and size are considered dirty-words when talking about design. It's automatically assumed that size kills creative organization and that nothing good ever comes out of a large organizations. I think this is more a myth of practitioners' own making than the truth. I've part of the amazing growth spurt of two design organizations— Apple’s Creative Service and Studio Archetype. Both companies grew from 40 to 140 people and they both were vibrant energetic design environments. One can experience great personal satisfaction in a large design firm just as one can easily be miserable in a small firm doing lousy work. I've learned that size is not the enemy; it's the lack of vision that drains the life blood out of a design organization. The difference between a great or a lousy organization has to do with the rigor the core values of design are reinforced and the opportunity one has to do impactful and challenging work. More importantly, it's about having trust in the leadership to do the right thing.

re: Karlssonwilker

I saw Hjalti Karlsson and Jan Wilker give a little presentation this evening at Pentagram. They seem like incredibly nice guys and their primary methodolgy seems to be simply to have fun. They really seemed to enjoy nothing so much as just having an empty office and working side by side at one drafting table with 2 computers on it. They seemed to benefit quite nicely from Sagmeister's sabbatical,since where would his clients be most likely to go if Stefan wasn't available? And also in their favor--they never seem to be copying other trends or designers (and I'm not sure you could say their work just looks like Sagmeister's since Hjalti did major stuff there). And for a coupla farrenners, they write some great stuff. But still, heavy on the production tricks, which somehow says style over content to me.

Just in case somebody is not familiar with their work, here is their web site. I think they do some excellent work, even if they resort to some visual tricks they are still a notch above most designers.

at least I sleep comfortably at night knowing that I'm doing my best effort to teach, enrich and change the visual culture of a small number of people.

Oh, is that what you were doing at marchfirst Armin? I think its great that you're so impressed with yourself, but c'mon. You happen not to like the UPS logo. OK. Does that really mean that we are not standing up to our responsibilities as graphic designers? That's a huge leap for knowing nothing about the project.

Nothing personal David I know you said you didn't work on the project. The guy who holds the cow's leg is as guilty as the one who kills it.

Are you kidding me?

>Oh, is that what you were doing at marchfirst Armin?

No, at marchFIRST I was enjoying my great paycheck, keeping my mouth shut and learning. Oh, and getting free massages, which did make me sleep better though.

>I think its great that you're so impressed with yourself, but c'mon.

This conversion happened so long ago, I can't remember what I was trying to say, but yeah... I like me.

>You happen not to like the UPS logo. OK. Does that really mean that we are not standing up to our responsibilities as graphic designers?

I'm not the only one saying that, so I'm not making shit up. You guys had the opportunity to do something grand with the UPS logo and instead we ended up with a photoshoped shield so, visually (in my opinion,) you failed. Now, business-wise, you probably did what was best for UPS and met their needs, which is very respectable given the nature of the client. So, I'd say 50/50 irresponsable.

>That's a huge leap for knowing nothing about the project.

I'm free to make assumptions until proven otherwise.

>Are you kidding me?

That's how the saying goes, so no, I ain't kidding you. Look David, from your tone, I can sense my comments pissed you off. I'm sorry if you took personal offense and I'm glad you called me on it. But I stand by my comments.

Thanks for keeping it civilized, discussions like this are good.

> You happen not to like the UPS logo. OK. Does that really mean that we are not standing up to our responsibilities as graphic designers? That's a huge leap for knowing nothing about the project.

This is a good discussion -- and I do not want to make it seem like anyone's ganging up on you, or that you alone must answer for FB.

But the fact is that when a logo or any piece of design is created and released, it must stand to be judged on its merits and the things it communicates. Sorry, but there are no circumstancial considerations that we need to know about the logo other than what we see. That's the harsh reality of design. Good intentions mean nothing in the end. Either it's good, or it isn't.

i have to stand up for david w. here...he wasnt saying that the logo itself shouldnt be criticized, he was saying that the designers shouldnt be criticized by someone who knows nothing about the circumstances.

I think thats fair enough. Everyone has to do the best job they can with each project, design firm they're employed by, client, etc. This doesnt always result in the best work, but the designers arent always the one to blame. I couldnt say for sure that they DID have the opportunity to do more with the project than they did. Most likely they didnt.

Also, the comment about the guy holding cow's leg sounds like you think everyone who works works for futurebrand is responsible whether they worked on that project or not. I have the same reaction david w. did to that comment.

>he was saying that the designers shouldnt be criticized by someone who knows nothing about the circumstances.

I agree that I don't know what the circumstances were. Will anybody ever stand up and give us a hint of what the circumstances were? 'Cause in the meantime I can keep on going without knowing and that's cool by me. I criticized from what I have seen and heard — and none of it is good.

>Also, the comment about the guy holding cow's leg sounds like you think everyone who works works for futurebrand is responsible whether they worked on that project or not.

Whoever feels associated with the project will adhere to the comment. I'm sure the receptionist had nothing to do with it. And it's only a figure of speech, no need to take it so literal.

>Everyone has to do the best job they can with each project, design firm they're employed by, client, etc. This doesnt always result in the best work, but the designers arent always the one to blame. I couldnt say for sure that they DID have the opportunity to do more with the project than they did. Most likely they didnt.

Oh, and about that, I agree.

Ok, valid points David, and David.

The cow thing must be a Chicago saying. I sorta agree, but it's like condemning people who work for defense contractors or chemical companies.

haha..

Can you imagine the receptionist getting grilled for FBs work? That's strangely hysterical to me for some reason. But maybe it's just because I'm just really dead tired -- it's been my fourth 12+ hour day .

And I have to go teach a design class in 30 mins. Damn this profession!

does anyone know the site for the ryan mcguiness studio?

I think this decade will be remembered as the one where design evolved from only static work to mostly motion, as the web and tv get more connected we will see more and more studios jumping from static to movement and a new generation of design superstars will be born, or maybe they are already here and they have their own bible... RES magazine is the new Ray Gun. This doesn't mean that great print work will disappear, it will still be created as a complement to motion projects.

Kyle Cooper, is probably the visionary and forefather of this movement.

I bet this new young turks will be very soon inside the annals of global design:

Nando Costa: http://www.nakd.tv/

MK12:http://www.mk12.com/

Psyop:http://www.psyop.tv/

Lobo:http://www.lobo.cx/

Freestyle collective: http://www.freestylecollective.com

And more to come...

Nacho, I think that contrary to Motion design defining what graphic design is, it has grown so much that it is a discipline in itself. It has also created a bigger divide between static and non-static designers. Motion design requires a very different way of thinking than creating an annual report. I'm not saying one is better or harder than the other I'm just trying to say that print/identity design and web/motion design have become very different disciplines and to say that Graphic Design in the past decade was defined by this growth in motion design would not be very accurate.

> I bet this new young turks will be very soon inside the annals of global design:

Hm, tough call. Let me put it like this, for me one way of measuring the annals of design — right now and as an historical reference — is mostly embodied in Philip Meggs’ History of Graphic Design. I do not see a new edition of that book (a 100 years from now if you will) with any of the names you mentioned included. I see their talent but not their relevance and influence in the bigger picture of Graphic Design.

You are completely right Armin, motion design has grown into its own niche, but I'm noticing that its graphic language and even its narrative is influencing a lot of the new print work, plus, a lot of the motion designers are jumping from one medium to the other seamlessly so there is a strong connection between them.

>and to say that Graphic Design in the past decade was defined by this growth in motion design would not be very accurate.

Well if you consider technology as one of the main evolutionary factors in the creation of new design movements, like it happened for modernism and post modernism, you can pinpoint more clearly where the next big thing is going to be. Our tools, Mac's and PC's are evolving from home print shops to home film boutiques.

> I do not see a new edition of that book (a 100 years from now if you will) with any of the names you mentioned included.

Yes it is to soon to tell how influential this designers will become, but I can clearly see that the energy and excitement they are generating is as intense as the one created by previous design movements.

Nacho wrote:

Well if you consider technology as one of the main evolutionary factors in the creation of new design movements, like it happened for modernism and post modernism, you can pinpoint more clearly where the next big thing is going to be. Our tools, Mac's and PC's are evolving from home print shops to home film boutiques.

Sorry, small point of rhetorical nitpicking...

Modernism above other things was (is) a philosophical movement, not a technological artifact. While there could be various thoughts on when it began, I put my bets on the 18th century (the 'Enlightenment'). Postmodernism is a dialectical variant which critiques the Modernist project of (here's an inadequate, quick definition) 'finding the essence of things'. There is no one voice, no Platonic ideal, no origin.

One quick reason why I avoid giving technological innovation full credit for shifts in the zeitgeist is that elements of ancient Greek philosophy have corresponding ideas in both Modernist and Postmodernist theory. Like Socrates said, 'there isn't anything new under the Sun'.

Forgive the diversion, but I would like to see Graphic Design avoid the kind of rhetorical misuse common in Architectural writing. To most, I'm wasting bandwidth on critiquing punctuation. To me, it's part of the bigger question about who's making waves. How many of the names mentioned above have truly turned around people's thinking?

I contend none. To paraphrase Chuck Yeager; unless you're a Marcel Duchamp or a James Joyce, you're just doing a competent job -- and making evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) contributions to the profession.

I wonder if there's a need for a fourth edition of Meggs phenomenal book. Obviously others will attempt it, but is there a need? History is notorious for overlooking talented and inspiring people. We need to understand how and where we started, but to categorize and classify things currently as they blur/evolve seems futile.

As for the original question of slump, I don't totally buy into it. There are opportunities to do challenging and rewarding work if you want it. If you create, there's more than enough stuff outside the window to inspire.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Elliott Earls. Talk about making waves!

Elliot Earls is indeed making some of the biggest waves, unfortunately there is nobody at the beach to watch them crash. A shame really.