Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Review — The Power of Design Part II

I have never been to an AIGA conference before, and I didn’t really know what to expect. I didn’t know what I would take away from it aside from some notebooks, t-shirts and hopefully a speck of Sagmeister DNA. I never in my wildest imaginings thought that a conference could change my world view or even—!!—build a bridge back into the profession of design, which I have recently semi-abandoned. Over the weekend I found myself in a euphoria of optimism. The conference successfully destroyed the notion that in order to act and design responsibly you have to work for non-profits and sacrifice your income in the process. On the contrary I learned that we can change the way we and our clients work, that we can positively impact the physical and mental environment around us, and that we can do so while creating opportunities (and profit) for ourselves and our clients. I believe that, but I’m just a little short on the tools.

As much as I got out of this conference, I recognize that it had some deep flaws, some communication flaws that alienated many of my fellow attendees.

Overall, the conference had an important and viable message, but it suffered from a lack of challenge and a lack of real-world support to the majority of graphic designers in attendance. And Armin is right, Graphic Design was seldom, if ever, mentioned. Some attendees were alienated by this, some were overwhelmed by the repetitive nature of the environmental message, some heard an accusatory tone about themselves and the way they do business.

I think we’ve all been in the situation with someone who says, “The trouble with you is …” Well, you know what that does; it pulls a switch. I call this the “Fuck Off Switch.” What the Fuck Off Switch does is turn off our receptiveness to anything else that follows, and once it’s pulled, it’s hard to get it back into a receptive mode. I worry that some of the speakers, and the abundance of single-minded speakers may have pulled the Fuck Off Switch for many attendees of the conference.

I was very surprised by that an organization representing a profession that works in strategic communication wouldn’t know a little more about intelligent persuasion. Someone said that the moderator, John Hockenberry, liked to host the AIGA conferences because we were the most intelligent audience he gets to present to. So if they know that about us, why the need to give us the same message over and over and over? As a board executive for the GDC, I know how hard it is to organize even the simplest of events, so I don’t know how viable it would be to get the speakers to coordinate with each other so that their presentations are either building or supporting rather than repeating, but I would have preferred to see a 4-part structure that went something like this: Persuade, Question, Answer, Prove.

The Persuade section would give us the big picture: I’d have opened with Fritjof Capra, David Orr, Michael Braungart & Janine James, and Jessica Helfand & William Drentell. (I actually might have opened with Bruce Mau, just to get people into the room, even though I think his view of Designer as God was certainly not in keeping with eg. Fritjof Capra)

The Question section might take the form of some kind of debate, or series of debates (Debbie Millman vs Jessica Helfand?). I would have liked to see open questioning of how single owner-operators and small firms can begin to challenge the existing systems, and I wouldn’t have minded seeing a “failure” story. How a firm tried to make change and how that got whittled down, or how it failed and what they learned and what steps they’d take the next time.

The Answer section would give answers to some of the questions raised in the previous section, with real companies and projects, including Studio eg, Tony Golsby-Smith, Brenda Laurel, and most importantly, smaller Graphic Design firms illustrating the steps they took and are taking, and a speaker giving some kind of guideline for where to start, how to deal with clients’ questions, how to persuade, and how to deal with budgets.

The Prove section would provide proof of situations where change is happening or where the holistic model is the way they do business (Michael Volkema of Herman Miller, Dan Sturges), and at least two Graphic Design firms working in paper and on the web. Then I’d close with a superstar, just to keep people in attendance.

Also, I’d have made the breakout sessions Q&As so that I could ask Studio eg how much it cost to build a machine to strip old tires, or ask The Moderns how to evaluate the skills of a Sociologist.

As it stands, I feel a bit like the cave man who has been shown the amazing things that can be done with fire: elaborate heating systems to heat my house, gas-burning 6-range Garland stoves, super-efficient airtights, waterproof matches, pietzo-electric lighters … and I’m left kindof standing here going, “I believe it, I want it, I’ve seen it, but … what do i do with these 2 sticks again?” And meanwhile half of my clan is saying, “Fuck that, it’s too hard: come gnaw on this yummy antelope with us.”

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 1641 FILED UNDER Critique
PUBLISHED ON Oct.28.2003 BY marian bantjes
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Armin’s comment is:

Not related to the conference per se... I would like to welcome Marian as the newest Speak Up author.

Welcome.

On Oct.28.2003 at 01:06 PM
Gahlord’s comment is:

Why don't we do what she suggests above? I mean, there's a significant number of Speak Up readers. Why not do the whole Persuad/Question/Answer/Prove right here?

Persuade could be a few essays maybe. Question might be the transcript from a chat session. Answer might be another essay and so would Prove.

I think her idea is great and someone should do it.

g

On Oct.28.2003 at 02:17 PM
Tom’s comment is:

Sign me up! I'm going to Marian's conference.

Just from what I have read of everyone's reviews, and having been to a national aiga before. Seems like the people who attended expected a conference that would speak with them and help them and inspire them, provide info that would help the entire graphic design community; not propigate certain political/change the world ideals that has nothing to do with the power of design. The Power of Design is to communicate any message, but it is not the message.

On Oct.28.2003 at 02:25 PM
Kirsten’s comment is:

I agree that we do need a conference that is more hands-on and more practical, but I do have to say that at least we got introduced to some bigger issues that we do have the power to affect. I'm feeling very inspired about all of this. Don't know where the hell to start, but at least it's sparked something. Can't be spoon-fed everything. I also feel like our profession is much more real too. Thanks AIGA.

Hey, I'll make the parmesan crisps with zinfandel (1999 Caymus) poached pears for the Marian Conference.

On Oct.28.2003 at 02:39 PM
SarahB’s comment is:

Can we make it cheaper too? So so many people miss out on these things due to lack of funds!! :(

On Oct.28.2003 at 03:13 PM
jesse’s comment is:

I'm with Sarah B.

On Oct.28.2003 at 03:37 PM
gahlord’s comment is:

No i mean we should do it right here at speak up. Fuck the funds and the travel etc. Plus the contents of the conference would be available to others later regardless of geography.

Do the Marian conference right here online. Save the meet/greets for a meet-up.

g

On Oct.28.2003 at 03:45 PM
ps’s comment is:

i think what makes a big conference such as the aiga vancouver event so hard is that it simply is too big. i assume its main purpose is to show the world that aiga is quite big and the registration fees probably do fill aiga's war-chest. by the time an interesting issue comes up, time is up and the next speaker is scheduled. there is never enough room to dig a little deeper. its like trying to prepare a meal that will satisfy everyone that comes to the party. some will like it, some won't. smaller, more focused events seem to offer much more depth, give room for dialogue etc. i have to add-on that i did not attend vancouver for that reason. (once i heard about a speak easy gathering, it actually crossed my mind to use up some miles and make the trip, just for an evening of heated discussions in a bar.)

what i wonder -- i guess -- is if conferences such as aiga-vancouver really have a place in our field.

ps

On Oct.28.2003 at 03:45 PM
Marian’s comment is:

Ok, would y'all just stop talking about a "marian conference"? Yer making me blush.

I actually don't have a problem with the size of the AIGA conference. I was in awe of the number of people, and as I walked into a packed main hall I'd think "These people all do what I do! Wow." I'm not sure what a smaller attendance would achieve except a smaller pool of money to work with and less resources to bring in a variety of people.

Be careful what you wish for. Our GDC events are really small (and you're all welcome to come up to Canada for one anytime), and I wish they weren't. I can't imagine how much money this conference cost, or how many burned-out volunteers lie panting on the roadside. The more of a paying base of attendees you have the more you can offer, and the more you offer, the more paying attendees you get. Be thankful you have the AIGA to do this stuff for you.

And be thankful you have Armin, too.

On Oct.28.2003 at 04:10 PM
ps’s comment is:

"These people all do what I do!

i think thats part of the problem -- that they actually all do different things. aiga caters to everyone, trained, untrained, talented, untalented, thinking, producing, strategizing implementing people, all under one umbrella.

The more of a paying base of attendees you have the more you can offer, and the more you offer, the more paying attendees you get.

yes, and no. you need a certain level, but i think at some point its a matter of offering more "special effects" more quantity, than substance or quality.

On Oct.28.2003 at 07:12 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

I've been to a fair amount of conferences and trade shows and such. I don't think I ever expect them to change the world. They're really just a vacation...have some drinks, meet some new people, and have fun. Maybe learn a thing or two, but that's secondary. IMHO.

On Oct.29.2003 at 08:40 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> And be thankful you have Armin, too.

*blush*

On Oct.29.2003 at 08:54 AM
Lance Rutter’s comment is:

One quick truth about the money generated at the AIGA biennial national conference. The conference does produce the largest profit of any AIGA effort, when it is well attended; however, because it requires such a tremendous investment in paid administrative and volunteer time and energy, it can only be done well every other year. Hence, the AIGA's national budget is built around making some profit one year and spending that profit on other initiatives that add value to our profession in the next year. It all evens out.

And I guarantee that Ric Grefe and conference planners like Terry Irwin are infinitely more concerned with quality than quantity.

On Oct.29.2003 at 09:36 AM
Lance’s comment is:

PS, I was very interested in your comment about catering to trained and untrained, talented and untalented alike. How would you propose that AIGA address this issue in the future--not just in attracting attendees to a conference, but also in structuring its membership? Looking forward to your thoughts.

On Oct.29.2003 at 09:42 AM
ps’s comment is:

lance,

my comments did not mean to say that AIGA ais more concerned about quantity than quality. i think that happens just by nature of it being a big event. i know everyone involved puts on a tremendous effort to put on a great event. how to structure membership or conferences differently? that is a good question and i had conversations with fellow AIGA members, including ric about this during the summer. i think the more specific events such as the gain business conference, harvard school, address these issues. also the specific membership subgroups i thought was a good attempt. even though there seems not much going on in the ones that i belong to. i'm not sure if they are still going on. the part that i think needs improvement is that when looking at the AIA for example, when someone puts AIA next to their name, it qualifies them. adding AIGA next to your name does not seem to do anything. so maybe some sort of a AIGA+ could be established that would accomplish the same. i will have to give this more thought and will attempt to present you with some ideas on my end.

and by the way, the efforts that the aiga has been taking lately ("designing") i think are very good steps.

On Oct.29.2003 at 10:27 AM
Lance’s comment is:

ps, you used a key word in your comment: qualified. Architects are qualified through a process of testing and certification. Communication designers are not. AIGA is not a qualifying organization. And whether we believe, collectively, that AIGA (or some other entity) should become one or not will continue to be debated and studied. It is a very complex issue.

I will say that as of today, the AIGA "tag" next to your name does qualify you to this extent: you value your profession enough, and you care about what you are doing enough to lay out $275 every year to support an organization that works to define and express your profession's value to the world. Only a small percentage of practicing "designers" do that, and it's no small thing. Whether we can do more is a good question, and I'm glad you raised the issue here.

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:44 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> I will say that as of today, the AIGA "tag" next to your name does qualify you to this extent: you value your profession enough

To come back to this god darn commerce-driven economy we live in, how does that help anybody win or retain clients? I'm not saying that that should be the ultimate reward of being an AIGA member, but I think many people join AIGA in hopes that it will further their practice.

On Oct.29.2003 at 12:55 PM
jonsel’s comment is:

What qualifications does an architect need to put AIA next to their name? If it's as simple as a membership fee, then it really is quite useless. It would take quite a public relations effort on AIGA's part to introduce/enforce the meaning of the added initials.

On Oct.29.2003 at 02:19 PM
Sam’s comment is:

Jon, I don't know too many specifics, but it's more like passing the bar than like paying mambership dues to get licensed by the AIA. There's an exam, possibly a mandatory intern period, and I think the exam is different in different states (ie Californians need to know geology and seismology). There might even be physics involved. So you gotta be, y'know, like smart and stuff.

On Oct.29.2003 at 02:28 PM
marian’s comment is:

So you gotta be, y'know, like smart and stuff.

A friend of mine, who has 2 doctorates, one of them in Neuroscience, no less, says "You don't have to be smart to get a PhD, you just have to have perseverance." I'm sure the same is true for architects.

How on earth did this thread enter the swampy quagmire of accreditation?

On Oct.29.2003 at 02:54 PM
Bill Drenttel’s comment is:

I would like to join in this conversation, since our names has been invoked here.

Can we move beyond the accreditation swamp? (For those interested in this topic, please see the many thorough columns by Ellen Shapiro in Communication Arts where she beat this topic to death almost a decade ago.)

I'd like to return to Marian's original posting (and her very original thinking). A constructive and thoughtful dialogue about the content and structure of the next AIGA conference will be noticed by Ric Grefe and the AIGA board: many of them follow the conversations on this site. So be ambitious and write real suggestions and rationale for ways to make a better conference for graphic designers.

Personally, I like Gahlord’s challenge: "Why not do the whole Persuade / Question / Answer / Prove right here? Persuade could be a few essays maybe. Question might be the transcript from a chat session. Answer might be another essay and so would Prove."

Since Marian has put us in the Persuade category, we're willing to host at least part of the conversation. We have posted our talk at Design Observer and are willing to engage in a dialogue about our arguments. I can't say more here or Armin will slam me for creating the first advertisement on Speak Up. He wants to be able to call us "intolerably pompous" but seems not to want those not in Vancouver to actually read what we said. Many may still find our comments pompous, but at least this will be there own reasoned opinion and not the result of hearsay.

The first comment to our posting of our talk on Design Observer is by Joseph Michael Essex. He's a dear friend, but he deeply disagrees with us. He has written an homage to "process" that all you branding aficionados should read. This is thoughtful commentary, not bather.

Plus, I'd like to ask an open ended question: Why would Speak Up want to own this conversation? I would think, in the larger spirit of the site, that they would be pleased that AIGA was interested in supporting a larger dialogue, or that serious people like Michael Bierut, Rick Poynor and Jessica Helfand were willing to commit the time to do a new blog to expand and intensify the discourse within the profession. When anyone wants to own the discourse, the discussion is inherently limited.

Michael Douglas says in The American President, "these are serious times for serious people." If you want to blog, spend the time to write thoughtful things that expand our discussion.

(Of course, I wouldn't hold such a gudge if you'd been brave enough to invite us to the Speak Up party. After publishing, in Speak Up's promotional branding booklet, E.Tage Larsen's critique of our "poorly formed ideas" as "What does that get you but garbage under the rubric of intelligentsia? [sic - incorrect grammar not corrected]," you'd at least think someone would buy us a drink.)

Let's have fun and keep this about ideas and not personalities.

Bill

On Oct.29.2003 at 04:29 PM
Tan’s comment is:

> Why would Speak Up want to own this conversation? I would think, in the larger spirit of the site, that they would be pleased that AIGA was interested in supporting a larger dialogue, /... and intensify the discourse within the profession. When anyone wants to own the discourse, the discussion is inherently limited.

Welcome to SU, Bill. Thank you for adding your thoughts to the conversations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere on the Design Observer site is there mention of an affiliation with AIGA, either in language or official logo. If anyone has claim, it should be AIGA's own discussion forum, guided by a Mr. David Womack.

If Michael Beirut is your official tie-in to AIGA, then in that same spirit, SpeakUp is just as qualified to carry this current discourse. Pardon if my credentials don't quite match Michael's, but I am a current advisory board member and former chapter president of AIGA, as well as being otherwise involved nationally. In fact, there are a number of other AIGA veterans and active members who contribute to this blog daily. So I'm not quite sure why you think AIGA is being excluded from participating on this site? In fact, Michael B just posted on a thread yesterday. Can you clarify? Whatever the case, rest assured that no one is "owning" this discourse -- after all, you're the one who came knocking, are you not?

If you feel slighted by the conversation and think the readers are short-changed by Armin's review and other's assessments, then please post a pdf or transcript of your presentation. I for one, would love the opportunity to examine your points more critically given closer inspection. That would be most helpful.

> We did not give it to governors and mayors, frankly, because they have little to do with foreign policy, or with communications of public policy.

I'm not quite sure why you think governors aren't involved with issues of national security? The Office of National Security works closely with a number of state agencies as well as local municipal agencies to make sure that policies are adequately and fairly applied to all citizens. I would think that governors and mayors are the closest link to the public and most knowledgeable of local public welfare. Can you elaborate why you so easily discount these offices and their civic roles?

Thank you for your insights, and again, welcome and glad to have you here.

On Oct.29.2003 at 05:32 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Let's have some fun, shall we?

He wants to be able to call us "intolerably pompous" but seems not to want those not in Vancouver to actually read what we said.

For a moment there, I almost took it back� almost.

The first comment to our posting of our talk on Design Observer is by Joseph Michael Essex. He's a dear friend, but he deeply disagrees with us. He has written an homage to "process" that all you branding aficionados should read.

I'm glad Joseph Michael Essex posted to your site, and us branding afficionados already had an opportunity to read Joseph's epistle this past month.

This is thoughtful commentary, not bather.

There is a really insulting insinuation here Bill. And I'm sure the people who leave comments here will not appreciate it, but if this is fun for you I don't see how we can focus on ideas instead of personalities.

Plus, I'd like to ask an open ended question: Why would Speak Up want to own this conversation?

We don't own anything. It just happens that this is one of the few places where people can say whatever they want without any bias or concern for saying the "right thing" to please anybody.

or that serious people like Michael Bierut, Rick Poynor and Jessica Helfand were willing to commit the time to do a new blog to expand and intensify the discourse within the profession.

Serious people? Bill, you have to stop these little jabs. There are many ways to interpret that comment and none of them are positive.

Of course, I wouldn't hold such a gudge if you'd been brave enough to invite us to the Speak Up party.

A gudge? Grudge, right? In the larger spirit of the site the invitation was open to everybody. I don't think you are on my mailing list, so you probably didn't get a second announcement in your own box. You can sign for it if you want.

Speak Up's promotional branding booklet

Branding booklet? Dude� could you make it sound any more "unworthy." Why is branding such a threatening word for you?

You are right, this was fun.

Seriously, I did not want to get into it like this on the site and hijack Marian's thread to do so, but I can not leave these little hidden insults go by. In order for us to take you and The Design Observer (that's one more link, free of charge) seriously and respectfully you have to do the same to us.

On Oct.29.2003 at 05:35 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Interesting site Bill. I wanted to post something, but I didn't want to be the lone second poster to the site since July. Didn't want to add "bather" to such heated, intelligent, serious, thought-provoking conversations.

I'll just stick with these phlebian, under-intellectualized, plain-jane, passionate dummies if you don't mind. But thanks for the invite(s).

On Oct.29.2003 at 05:59 PM
Sam’s comment is:

It is so unworthy to set up a SpeakUp--DesignObserver opposition. It's unworthy of anyone who is interested in dialogue and online discussion, and it's useless to anyone who cares about design itself and wants to discuss it. And this whole "No Michael Beirut's on our team"--come on. It's embarrassing.

So I just have to say now that any kind of catfight, which is where this sounds like it's heading, is about as uninteresting (except to those with shit to sling if I may mix metaphors) as, well, something really boring and stupid. I nearly said I'd rather read through the whole accreditation slop again...nearly.

And for the love of Pete, who gives a fuck about typos. Cheap shots are better done with whiskey.

On Oct.29.2003 at 06:26 PM
Paul’s comment is:

Amen, Sam. It's been getting awfully clubby 'round here lately...

On Oct.29.2003 at 06:34 PM
felix’s comment is:

Personally, I prefer it when the real personalities come out of the "professional" banter. Lets get pissed.

There are points to be made on both sides, but arguing over plugs and typos- I mean come on.

Even this idiot takes the high road...

On Oct.29.2003 at 06:36 PM
Michael B.’s comment is:

Hey kids:

I'm not an official tie-in to the AIGA or anything else. I'm not even on anyone's team. Or maybe I'm on everyone's team. I think that both SU and DO have something to offer and look forward to contributing to both.

Let's look at the bright side. There was a time when there were no forums (fora? fori?) at all to discuss design like this. I can't describe how my life would have been changed if I had been exposed to this kind of stuff back when I was a design student in sleepy Cincinnati in the late 70s. Consider yourself fortunate, youngsters.

Now it's back to the Hershey bar thread for me.

On Oct.29.2003 at 06:55 PM
Sam’s comment is:

I'd consider myself fortunate to be considered a youngster. Ah fleeting youth, thy name is Hershey.

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:03 PM
Armin’s comment is:

He started it.

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:12 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Seriously, I don't oppose Design Observer in any way, in fact, I welcome the parallel. I simply did not appreciate with the way this was presented and if my reaction discouraged anyone, well� tough.

My claws are back tucked away where they belong, but they had to be exercised.

I'm bummed that Michael B had to be dragged into this in such a way� it just goes to show how much we all like you Michael.

Anyway, let's just go back to our friendly and merry ways if everybody is more comfortable with that.

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:21 PM
Bill's’s comment is:

I want to make the distinction that often gets make in letters-to-the-editor of The New York Review of Books, between textual rebuttals and issues of substance. I'm going to divide these into two separate posts. This is my textual rebuttal post.

(For you readers out there, this is the fun one, but not the important one.) [A further note: referring to The New York Review of Books obviously puts me in the enemy camp of designers who want to be intelligentsia (sic). For more about the deep anti-intellectual streak in graphic design, see our talk at AIGA Vancouver at Design Observer.]

So, here are textual clarifications / apologizes / challenges:

Tan: "Nowhere on the Design Observer site is there mention of an affiliation with AIGA." There is no affilation. There was none mentioned in my post. My challenge to this tread was to stay focused on issues of how to make a better conference, as Mariam originally suggested; my only mention to AIGA was that the staff and board are listening. Further, "If Michael Beirut is your official tie-in to AIGA..." As a former president of AIGA, I'm happy to stand on my own two feet: you do not need to drag Michael Bierut into this discussion simply because he is a part of Design Observer. Both of these responses are irresponsible in how they read my post. Read again.

Tan: "I for one, would love the opportunity to examine your points more critically given closer inspection." Our talk is posted on Design Observer. Please do join us there.

Tan: "I would think that governors and mayors are the closest link to the public and most knowledgeable of local public welfare. Can you elaborate why you so easily discount these offices and their civic roles?" Tan, this is a silly conversation. If I have a choice of sending 1000 books about the U.S. national security strategy (let's be clear: this book is about foreign policy, not about border security between Minneasota and Wisconsin) to people whom affect our foreign policy, I'm going to send them to people actually involved in foreign policy. I'm sorry to be scarcastic here here, but on my dime I'm going to send them to journalists, people in Congress, and think tanks before I send them to your Mayor. (I'd love every Mayor and Governor to receive one: if you or anyone else feels so strongly, I will sell you 1000 books at cost and pay shipping.) Why are we fighting about where I donated 1000 books in the cause of educating people about our government's foreign policy? This is a stupid argument that you will not win by asking the question, "Can you elaborate why you so easily discount these offices and their civic roles?" I didn't discount their roles: it never entered my mind to send them books.

Armin: "It just happens that this is one of the few places where people can say whatever they want without any bias or concern for saying the "right thing" to please anybody. Agreed. I'm pleased and impressed to see the dialogue here. Keep it up.

Armin: Regarding "Speak Up's promotional "branding" booklet: "Branding booklet? Dude� could you make it sound any more 'unworthy.'" Armin, have a sense of humor. This was a cheap shot: I apologize. I love your booklet (except for page 14). I think you should mail them to every Mayor and Govenor in the country.

An acknowledgement. When we published "Faux Science" in a recent issue of Emigre, we were criticized on the Speak Up site for not being brave enough to give concrete examples, to name names. Our Vancouver talk does this only because of the criticism we rightly received in Speak Up. Thank you.

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:48 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Sam, don't you have client work to do?

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:55 PM
Bill Drenttel’s comment is:

I want to make the distinction that often gets make in letters-to-the-editor of The New York Review of Books, between textual rebuttals and issues of substance. I'm going to divide these into two separate posts. This is my second — issues of substance — post.

Despite 10+ posts in the past three hours, no one has returned to the original tread in this conversation. I repeat what I said earlier today:

I'd like to return to Marian's original posting (and her very original thinking). A constructive and thoughtful dialogue about the content and structure of the next AIGA conference will be noticed by Ric Grefe and the AIGA board: many of them follow the conversations on this site. So be ambitious and write real suggestions and rationale for ways to make a better conference for graphic designers.

Personally, I like Gahlord’s challenge: "Why not do the whole Persuade / Question / Answer / Prove right here? Persuade could be a few essays maybe. Question might be the transcript from a chat session. Answer might be another essay and so would Prove."

Is this a way out of the bloody tempest I started? Certainly, it's more meaningful.

Marian, where are you?

On Oct.29.2003 at 07:55 PM
ps’s comment is:

This is my second — issues of substance — post.

.... oh please.

I'd like to return to Marian's original posting (and her very original thinking). A constructive and thoughtful dialogue about the content and structure of the next AIGA conference

-- what we were discussing was very connected to the marian's posting as membership and conference structure seem connected.

On Oct.29.2003 at 08:08 PM
Tan’s comment is:

> Why are we fighting about where I donated 1000 books in the cause of educating people about our government's foreign policy? This is a stupid argument that you will not win

Hey, wait a minute here Bill. Now who's being personal? This is not an argument about whether or not a mayor is worthy of receiving literature about national policy -- my original comment centered around the need to distribute the document to a group of designers. That's where the majority of the books went. I admire the effort -- but if sending the books to state governors and city mayors are "silly", then surely designers getting the majority of the books is even more absurd. That was my point. Thanks for letting me clarify.

> There is no affilation. There was none mentioned in my post.

You wrote: I would think, in the larger spirit of the site, that they would be pleased that AIGA was interested in supporting a larger dialogue, or that serious people like Michael Bierut, Rick Poynor and Jessica Helfand were willing to commit the time to do a new blog to expand and intensify the discourse within the profession.

sounds like association by proximity to me, but if you claim it's not, then fine.

> you do not need to drag Michael Bierut into this discussion simply because he is a part of Design Observer. Both of these responses are irresponsible in how they read my post.

excuse me Bill, but you brought him into the discussion initially (as noted above) -- therefore, respectfully, my response was neither inaccurate nor irresponsible. But it wasn't a major point of contention -- you don't have to be so accusatory about something you suggest is irrelevant.

....

again, thank you for your passionate participation on this thread Bill. Rest assured, these two reviews are only the first of several parts to come within the next week or so. There are a few other SU authors, myself included, that will be posting additional discussions of topics generated by the conference.

I sincerely hope you can continue to join us for those discussions on Speak Up.

On Oct.29.2003 at 09:55 PM
surts’s comment is:

If I have a choice of sending 1000 books about the U.S. national security strategy... I'm going to send them to people actually involved in foreign policy. I'm sorry to be scarcastic here here, but on my dime I'm going to send them to journalists, people in Congress, and think tanks before I send them to your Mayor.

I had to put down my David Byrne designed Zoetrope to post. um. like why bother with all those people? Just send it to Dan and Carl. {a side note: referring to Dan Bartlett and Carl Rove}

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:14 PM
marian’s comment is:

Marian, where are you?

Oh, man ... I leave the computer for a few hours and look what happens. Can't you people behave yourselves when I'm not looking? Do I have to get a babysitter, or what?

I am so not getting involved in this mudslinging, because, quite frankly, I don't understand it, so I'm going to go back, waaaay back to Gahlord's challenge, as Bill suggested and try to focus on that.

Ummm, I have to be honest in that my first reaction to the concept of doing the whole Persuade/Question/Answer/Prove right here on Speak Up was 'holy crap where are we going to find the time for that?' My second thought was 'It's not my decision to make, it's Armin's.' And my third thought is that the entire concept has an agenda. I believe it is a noble agenda and was worthy of the concentrated efforts for the AIGA, but this site (and correct me if I'm wrong, Armin) just doesn't seem like the right place for that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a huge undertaking, and where I would be a willing participant in such an discussion I can't for a moment imagine organizing it. For one thing, I haven't got the knowledge. For another thing if I spend any more time on the internet I'll turn into Bruce Sterling (and that would be sooo bad).

But maybe ... the Design Observer? No seriously, Armin and I haven't discussed copyright (heh heh) but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to take that concept and run with it, I'd be totally into that. If Speak Up has no agenda, maybe the world needs a blog that does.

After writing this I'm going to head on over there. I have a brain like a seive, so I'm looking forward to refreshing my memory as to what you actually said that's getting people so hot under the collar. Then maybe I can come back here and sling some mud. Or maybe I'll just go to bed.

Thanks for writing everyone, and keep it civil while I'm sleeping out here on the west coast.

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:14 PM
Marian’s comment is:

what we were discussing was very connected to the marian's posting as membership and conference structure seem connected.

Yes, they are. It just really is a quagmire. I could talk a great deal about what a professional body could or should provide to its members, but I'd be talking from a Canadian perspective (and our GDC is different from the AIGA), and I'd probably have to make half of it up and then get in a whole lotta trouble, probably with Matt Warburton, and god knows I don't need any more of that.

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:29 PM
Matt Warburton’s comment is:

Wow, and I thought we got testy on the GDC listserve!!

Thanks for posting the link to your script Bill. The presentation by you and Jessica was one of the highlights of the conference for me. I was talking about it with a colleague while taking the Graphex National Design Awards exhibit down today (how many of you got to see it?) and she made an interesting observation. While she did not agree with what Bill and Jessica said, she admired and appreciated the way it was presented and the level of sophistication and presumed intelligence of the audience. Isn't that what discourse and dialogue is all about? Being able to agree to disagree? That's certianly what I got out of this conference.

This whole stream does raise a question for me. This was my first AIGA conference. Do they always generate such a stream of heated discussion afterwards? I've only ever heard about the parties and hangovers from past conferences...

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:46 PM
Matt Warburton’s comment is:

Like you listen to anything I say Marian!!!!

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:48 PM
marian’s comment is:

Do they always generate such a stream of heated discussion afterwards?

No, but Speak Up does. ;)

On Oct.29.2003 at 11:56 PM
surts’s comment is:

Wow, and I thought we got testy on the GDC listserve!!

If you're curious and want to sign up to the listserve, a link can be found at the GDC website

On Oct.30.2003 at 07:43 AM
Armin’s comment is:

Do they always generate such a stream of heated discussion afterwards?

No, but Speak Up does. ;)

Thank you, thank you, thank you Marian. Exactly. Before Speak Up, everybody went their merry ways without any sense of responsibility towards what they said in conferences. Now, well� you see what happens. Ain't it fun?

This whole Persuade/Question/Answer/Prove thing by Marian, I thought it was what she would have enjoyed at the conference not a follow-up of the conference. So I don't really see how we can do it here or even if we should. We are certainly doing the Question/Answer part and nobody has yet Proven anything. So, in short, I think Marian's proposition is not something we need to undertake right here, right now but something for the AIGA to consider for future conferences, after all they are listening, right?

On Oct.30.2003 at 08:58 AM
eric’s comment is:

“intelligentsia (sic)”

I was tempted to let this go, but as you continue to bring this up:

�our names has been’, �Gudge’, �often gets make’, �Bill's’s’

Right back at you, Billy.

It must be a bitch not being perfect all the time. In the case of the Rant remarks: I’ll simply settle on being right and considered within that dialogue, rather than searching for the grammatically flawless sound bite. If you’re being pissy about the book review, then you’re showing up to the party a little late.

Our �Stop Being Sheep’ event at the Alibi Room was a matter of public record and word of mouth. It was merely that you didn’t attend - not our responsibility to invite you. There was an open bar until 10pm so even you and your bride could have had a drink on our dime.

Does anybody “serious” really quote a Michael Douglas line from a pop culture film contextual to real politics? Your �National Security Strategy’ publication was grossly opportunistic in the autumn of 2002.

I’m still on the fence about whether I will write up my notes on the conference. But rest assured that if I do I will likely address your talk, among others, and you can harbor your ill will in that thread or to me privately in email.

Yours in “constructive and thoughtful dialogue,”

E. Tage Larsen

On Oct.30.2003 at 09:36 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Now it's back to the Hershey bar thread for me.

Yes, PLEASE, let's all worry about the important issues, shall we? Stop fighting and get back to the candy bar thread! ;o)

I read your presentation, Bill. It was nice.

I agree that it is a bit pompous, but that's OK...you're supposed to be a bit of a button-pusher when presenting at a conference. I'd much rather have the entire audience hate me for what I said than have them not even remember/care what I said.

Your point, from what I could tell, is that Graphic Designers don't posses a diverse background in education encompassing fields of study such as foreign languages, the sciences, math, social studies, history, etc. or that perhaps we don't push ourselve to actually understand these issues when necessary to pull off a succesful design solution.

I agree. I also think that's a problem with pretty much everyone. It'd be great if we could all spend more time on the academic side of life and less on the 'we gotta make a buck today' side of things.

And, obviously, a good designer (any kind of designer) will have a passion for knowing more about the subject that they are designing around.

On Oct.30.2003 at 10:08 AM
Stv.’s comment is:

Message from Marian:

The power is out where she is, so she's taking this time to make a halloween costume out of papier-mache and will return as soon as she can.

On Oct.30.2003 at 11:16 AM
Lance Rutter’s comment is:

Yes, the national board of AIGA is listening. And while energized by the passion within the discussion thread, I am disappointed at how pissy some of you can get. You'll get pissy back at me for making that comment, but hey, I try to speak truth.

Bill and Jessica made a presentation that turned out to be a fire-starter, but I believe that came about mostly due to fear. Here's the bottom line I pulled from between the lines of their well-considered points: designers do not know enough in order to participate in global social and cultural change in the way they say they desire. If the best we can do is use intellectual artifacts (periodic table) to infer knowledge, then we have a long way to go. Pure and simple. They were not pointing their finger directly at you, they were stating a fact about the collective. We say we want to be instrumental in changing points of view, we want to participate in dialougue on enormous, meaningful issues, essentially change corporations and organizations and even governments, etc. Does anyone really think we (collective again) are knowledgable enough to do that? I don't; although, I do know a few amazing, "intellectual" designers that should be sitting at the big table. Bill and Jessica are not pompous--they are challenging the pomposity of designers who want to make value "power grabs" without having the tools to do so.

On the subject of Marian's conference concept: Persuade/Question/Answer/Prove. It's very ambitious but also intriguing. By the nature of its title, it seems inherently sequential and, therefore, could not be preplanned. Large events like the national conference usually require a tremendous amount of planning to pull off. Imagine if 1/2 or 3/4 of a conference's content were predicated on a response to the first portion of content. Fascinating... if possible. The final quarter of the proposed conference, "prove," is in itself ambitious in that it has the audacity to suggest, in advance, that proof is a predictable result of a discussion that hasn't yet taken place. Of course, it is entirely possible that I am reading the intent of this newly proposed structure incorrectly. I'll keep reading, as long as the thread stays away from the personal.

On Oct.30.2003 at 11:20 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> By the nature of its title, it seems inherently sequential and, therefore, could not be preplanned.

I think the intention would be not to preplan but to prepare a conference in which you offer positions (Persuade), encourage questions (Question) and in the end, hopefully, provide some concrete answers (Answers/Prove). I think it could be a very adequate way of presenting a conference, and very rewarding in that it not only questions but offers guidance and "proof" if you will. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be sequential, if it centers around a theme it could very well be broken up as Marian proposed.

I'm sure it would be very difficult though.

> If the best we can do is use intellectual artifacts (periodic table) to infer knowledge, then we have a long way to go. Pure and simple.

I might disagree Lance� taking the periodic table as an example, this is something people (remember people in general don't know everything either) are familiar with, if we can use that to communicate an important message, then it doesn't sound like such a poor effort. But I also agree that resorting to such trite clichés is not the best thing for the profession and, seriously, periodic tables should be the least of our worries.

I'm dying to go see Aesthetic Apparatus tonight here in Chicago, I need a break from all this heavy stuff and have a look at some good, fun, cool-for-cool's-sake posters.

On Oct.30.2003 at 11:47 AM
Tom’s comment is:

Hey this isn't fighting! This is great! This is progress - we have added passionate thinkers and dialogue. Reread this thread and find a lot of interesting ideas from everyone.

Anytime someone new joins a discussion its hard to judge the tone - so I say keep pushing the dialogue because this seems to be going somewhere new.

If the best we can do is use intellectual artifacts (periodic table) to infer knowledge, then we have a long way to go.

Ahh, the Power of Design... I agree with Armin that this notion could depend on the audience and application, however there is something here that can take us deeper into the value of design and proving it. On any project I crave more information, knowledge of the "product", more time to learn and discover. Gather and disseminate is the basis for most trademarked design processes. The more I demand and push for knowledge from my clients, the more respect for the power of design. The more respect, the more insight to the value graphic design brings to the table.

So what does this mean? What is success? Who is going that extra mile and succeeding beyond the "just making a buck"? Cahan comes to mind, but is that just good PR?

I'll be quite now and listen.

On Oct.30.2003 at 12:26 PM
eric’s comment is:

Lance:

“Yes, the national board of AIGA is listening.”

I found this a somewhat curious starting point. I’m not sure that you are answering anyone’s specific question are you? It’s funny but the first time I read it, that comment came across as a veiled threat.

The AIGA made it clear at the conference (which I attended, though I’m not member) that there was a sanctioned route for feedback via their website. This review is our channel to discuss the state of Graphic Design with our peers: all people that care about design (AIGA members and beyond.)

“You'll get pissy back at me for making that comment, but hey, I try to speak truth.”

Truth is, as they say, highly subjective. However your personal opinion is very welcome. I find too often that when somebody professes to be telling the truth that they are either trying to sell me something or trying to manipulate me. But then, that’s my bias.

You go further to introduce that those of us that attended the Helfand-Drenttel lecture are herein acting out of fear. I can not vouch for anything that Tan, Debbie and Armin might be feeling at present, however from our discussions following the talk I can attest that this wasn’t the case. Many of us have been following their thesis long before the AIGA conference when it was published last summer in Emigre’s Rant.

Against this idea of fear, I think that it’s very productive and courageous for Armin to provide a forum where people can discuss openly and honestly what they think about all aspects of our community. I’m glad that we have this opportunity to vet design in its cognitive and realized form. To that extent I would hope that the Drenttel and Helfand would support an open critique of their ideas rather than careful coddling. As Bill addressed somewhere above, the comments made in our book club informed their thesis.

On Oct.30.2003 at 01:59 PM
Marian’s comment is:

that comment came across as a veiled threat

Down, boy.

On Oct.30.2003 at 02:09 PM
debbie millman’s comment is:

>And while energized by the passion within the discussion thread, I am disappointed at how pissy some of you can get.

This has been an intense discussion, very vivid and confrontive. One rarely expects to be called out in such a public and outspoken way. But that is the beauty and allure of Speak Up (to me): it is challenging and demanding and unrelenting in the pursuit of ideas. But it is open to everyone, and there is no one accepted way of thinking, practicing design and living. And that is a grand thing.

Ultimately, if we really search our souls, I think we all need each other. Forums like this help keep us all accountable to our actions and opinions, and there should be room enough for everyone and anyone. I believe this is what Armin and the authors intend. I would hope that as a collective group we would all not agree on any one didactic, afterall, that diversity of opinion is what freedom of speech is all about. And what I personally relish about reading Speak Up everyday and contributing. I know that if I am not really honest or clear about my intentions, my actions and my beliefs, I will be challenged. And I love that. And I expect (sometimes) to be proven wrong. Which is when I grow.

I am somewhat concerned about the comment that “Bill and Jessica’s discussion turned out to be a fire-starter�mostly due to fear.” I do not believe that this is true. I do not think that the voracity in this discussion is fear-based. I simply feel that there are some big-time opinions on their presentation out there that needed to be expressed. I also did not agree with all that was articulated in their speech and it has nothing to do with being afraid. I simply have a different point-of-view of the role of brands in our culture and the responsibility of pursuing design strategically. Nevertheless, I, too, believe that knowledge is power.

As far as this getting “personal” and that being a bad thing—I think that all depends on how you look at it. So we don’t all agree. So we are challenging each other. At the end of the day, I think we all agree that design matters and that discourse is critical. Let’s just keep pursuing what we believe matters and hope that at the end of the day we can all be open to learning something new about ourselves, each other, design and the world.

On Oct.30.2003 at 02:11 PM
eric’s comment is:

yes, my apologies, Lance. Armin emailed me immediately that you were paraphrasing him. Out of context, it seemed harsh.

On Oct.30.2003 at 02:20 PM
Bill Drenttel’s comment is:

I'm intrigued by Armin's comment about Periodic Tables:

� taking the periodic table as an example, this is something people (remember people in general don't know everything either) are familiar with, if we can use that to communicate an important message, then it doesn't sound like such a poor effort. But I also agree that resorting to such trite clichés is not the best thing for the profession and, seriously, periodic tables should be the least of our worries.

I think this is dead on: it is percisely in the tension between these two poles that graphic design operates. Whether it is the appropriation of science or wood type or 1950s candy packaaging or found objects on the street, design is often most effective when it transforms that thing we know into something new. This is what keeps it from being a cliché.

I'm enjoying reading today's posts -- and I'm letting my bruises heal. In the meantime, the variety of voices here is refreshing.

Bill

On Oct.30.2003 at 03:14 PM
Marian’s comment is:

By the nature of its title, it seems inherently sequential and, therefore, could not be preplanned.

I think Armin answered this for me, in how I envisioned that structure shaping the content of a conference ... and it would have to be heavily preplanned, which I why I found the concept of [re]enacting such a mega-discussion over here on Speak Up so daunting.

It could also be ... a book. Bill?

I've just spent some time [re]reading the Helfand-Drentell presentation over at their site (you know where it is), and I've left some comments over there as well where it belongs until ERIC graces us with his much anticipated commentary here on Speak Up, in which case I'll be happy to join the dog fight.

bark!

On Oct.30.2003 at 03:33 PM
jesse’s comment is:

Very well said, Marian, over yonder at Design Observer.

I for one didn't find Bill's and Jessica's presentation to be pompous, which implies arrogant to me; instead I found it thoughtful and well-considered.

From the presentation:

The good news is that ... we were able to make a living without focusing on strategy or branding or marketing. There are other types of work out there where designers can play a role, and where acquiring a body of knowledge becomes an asset both professionally and personally.

Most of the work I do is not profit-oriented, but almost all of it involves some sense of branding and marketing. My communications group is part of a university research branch so when the institution is looking for money, it's usually in the form of persuading the legislature to maintain our line item, or else presenting our best face in hopes of winning grant awards.

I don't always have a deep understanding of the subjects I am trying to communicate, but then I don't feel I need to. That's why I work closely with the client. Personally, I enjoy that I always manage to learn something in the process, which indeed becomes an asset when doing future work.

I agree with Marian's observation that our educational systems are turning out workers, not thinkers, which is unfortunate. It's the way the world is going, though, and with academia being increasingly influenced by business, I don't see it getting any better unless some sort of stand is made.

I think a well-rounded education only enhances the process of design. I think design schools should stress academics more than they currently do (if they do at all). I wonder, though, if the reactions we're seeing to this presentation indicate that a better focus on teaching academics at art schools is unnecessary and/or unwanted.

On Oct.30.2003 at 04:15 PM
felix’s comment is:

Debbie, you almost got away (clean) without

posting the B word.

Shame on you.

8pm- time to get one of those flame-broiled do-hickies....

;)

ps- remember my post "AIGA- Sold Out"? Now, there was a fight! (This is child's play.) Ironically, the AIGA is sending me to San Diego (Y Conference) ...guess they wanna fight in person!

On Oct.30.2003 at 06:52 PM
debbie millman’s comment is:

Felix Felix Felix.

I thought that the AIGA: Sold Out discussion was our thread.

; )

On Oct.31.2003 at 07:04 AM