The main objection designers have against awards and annuals is that they are judged solely by designers and intended ultimately for designers — as vicious a cycle as any. What we end up with are collections of handsomely-looking work judged by its physical presence and, perhaps, by a quickly written explanation of what the project “is” (in quotes, as it is easy to write the explanation as we see fit, regardless of the original brief — but that may be another, more ethical, debate).
Last month I received in the mail a booklet with the winners of the 2003 Triad Awards. It sat at the bottom of the pile for a week or so, as the understated design looked like many of the mail designed by designers for designers that I get that constantly ends up in the recycling bin. Eventually I looked through it.
The Triad Awards are, as far as I have seen and heard and in my own personal opinion, the best way to judge a graphic design artifact. In this case, it is exclusive to Annual Reports, and if that wasn’t enough exclusivity (the good kind), it is for Annual Reports only from the Midwest. For the Triad Awards, as stated on the cover, the reports are evaluated on their visual presentation, as well as the clarity and depth of their written strategic and financial messages. So far it sounds like any other awards. The difference comes in who is evaluating it as such.
The Triad committee is composed of the AIGA (headed by Joseph Michael Essex), The Investment Analysts Society of Chicago and the National Investor Relations Institute. Every year, for the past thirteen, each organization is represented by selected professionals to act as judges. Of note (at least in this year’s Awards) is that of the 23 judges, only 4 are designers representing the AIGA.
Not only is the panel of judges design-light, the criteria for selection equally leans opposite of looks alone. Reports are judged on their message, approach, positioning, design, financial content and management message. Many awards and competitions like to claim they too judge based on this criteria but how can they genuinely do it when only designers are involved?
The winners are, surprisingly, still great-looking and include Annual Report-virtuosos like VSA Partners, SamataMason and Paragraphs Design. Absent in the winners are Annual Reports that rely on witty printing techniques, expensive custom photography or innovative uses of materials to wrap covers that would otherwise make it into a myriad of awards and annuals. Apparent in the winners is a sense of self-control by the design firms and priority placed on the message and content being put on paper. Not an easy task, although that is primarily our task.
Awards like these are what we must foster, support and pursue if we wish to finally establish graphic design — in one of its many guises — as a proven way of advancing, defining and interpreting communication for the benefit of commerce, culture, education and politics. More awards and annuals should look at this model and implement it to fit their objectives. A new breed of design — admitting that many designers appropriate work in one way or another from these publications — could surface if the work being clebrated is lauded by its effectiveness beyond design principles… if nothing else, it won’t let designers dismiss them as yet another beauty pageant.
I have to agree with this article. So many annual reports seem like the designers took it as an excuse to show off. Some even border on being un-readible and the message is un-decipherable. But man, do they look good.
Good design effictively communicates with its audience.
I feel the same way about the majority of the design books out there. When I open the pages it just seems like design without an attempt at communication and frankly, it's annoying. Just help me understand what I need to understand don't overload me with all the kinky design you can fit on a page.
On Apr.15.2004 at 05:50 PM