a couple key words come to mind:

+ cocky attitudes

+ immaturity

+ egos

+ design magazines all of them

+ arrogance

+ ass kissing

+ the colour black

+ a la fake

+ insincerity

+ orange and gray together

> Seriously, what practices, traditions or conceptions are outdated, misguided or offensive?

The cult of personality i.e. worshiping Paul Rand one year, Peter Saville the next, followed by Charles Anderson, ad infinitum... expressed in the repetition of random quotes (a.k.a. non sequiturs) and the theft of style.

The devaluation of language: "deliverables", "branding", "lock-up", ad nauseam...

Timidity, complacency, envy and fear: common to all people, individually represented in Michael Surtee's comment above.

Lack of interest outside the profession. I find it frustrating when people approach a situation strictly from a design perspective. Design is a gateway to greater understanding. Our services and abilities admit us to a wide range of viewpoints and methods.

...and this is one that I just learned about today:

Designers who teach in the style of Hell's Kitchen.

So we're vintage, eh?

A lack of empathy.

Empathy means putting yourself in your audience's / client's / colleague's shoes. It means understanding different perspectives, some of which may be quite foreign to your own. It means being sensitive to a client's needs and how a client understands not only what you're doing, but how you explain it to them. It means being aware of how you interact and communicate with your colleagues, your contemporaries, your community.

Empathy also is involved in how we choose work and the client's we work with. It means being aware of how a client's products or business practices might affect its customers, its community, etc.

Empathy is sensitivity in all aspects of our industry and everything it involves. We need more of it.

Neil, just wanted to say what you said is great.

There, said it! :)

IMO, one of the stronger 2004 (July) editorials, by Christopher Simmons, comes to mind. That Sound You Hear Sucking

A challenging essay which elicited great opposing arguments. A bit lengthy, but worth the read. Too late in the evening for me to paraphrase, so check it out...

Introspection of our role is always a good thing, something to distract ourselves from design-related minutia

In spite of all the intellectual "design" rhetoric that we continually spew, we've let the profession fall prey to the non-professional. Our anti-establishment attitudes have left the design profession (mostly graphic design) unregulated, unsupported, and remarkably tolerant towards the unprofessional. Because of this we are often left to fend for ourselves combatting our self-inflicted stereotype. We want people to take us seriously, but we haven’t organized ourselves sufficiently to benefit like we could. We should take a serious look at other professional services and compare. In most U.S states you can’t be an architect, you can’t cut hair, you can’t be an electrical engineer, you can’t do about anything without some kind of official license.

But to be a designer and practice design, all you have to do is put the word “designer” on your business card, and off you go “designing” and wasting clients’ money. It’s no wonder that new clients are always a little gun-shy. They’ve all been burned at least once by some unprofessional design services.

We could do a better job organizing ourselves and contributing to more collaborative efforts that will help educate businesses about the value of design. We should also find new and creative ways to combat the sudo-designers that plague our profession.

Overall, designers are an insular crowd and do a poor job developing the outside market for their services, even though every enterprise can benefit from good design. Some of you must intuitively feel this way about the state of your industry. As it stands, design services are a high time frivolity that most companies underestimate or fail to understand the value of. Designers themselves sometimes don't even know what the economic impact of their services are can be to a client company and too quickly discount the sales and marketing disciplines. They unnecessarily limit their market to existing demand instead of helping to cultivate new demand, which they can easily do through educational marketing initiatives. Designers overall need to be jostled out of their passivity. My advice: Learn the language and art of persuasion.

Designers overall need to be jostled out of their passivity. My advice: Learn the language and art of persuasion.

This rings true for artists more than designers. I've yet to meet a successful designer that can't sell themselves or a concept. That said, I agree that there is a lack of marketing when it comes to how they can create a niche or need instead of responding to the existing norms.

John Dilworth Wrote:

We should also find new and creative ways to combat the sudo-designers that plague our profession.

I hear this so often on this list, but the notion of "designer" vs "pseudo-designer" is itself fairly unclear. Who qualifies as a designer in your book, John? Is it literally only someone with a degree in Design proper? As someone who came to Design via studying Film/New Media in college, I find it ironic how quickly designers exclude anyone without proper educational credentials, and yet I cant count the number of "design school" designers I've met who dont think twice about jumping from "graphic designer" to "web designer" as though they are one and the same, and furthermore treat every hurdle they face as some sort of insult because it doesnt conform to their paper-centric origins.

As long as we hold a business card that reads designer, and we provide our clients (without a face to face encounter) a card that reads stupid client, we have a serious attitude problem. In truth it goes beyond attitude, but this is the best word that comes to mind that covers the many aspects that are influenced and impacted by the constant I’m with stupid nagging.

On the other hand, we seem to cover rather nicely a sweet polarity that could label our profession as either bipolar or manic-depressive. Constant complaining, with overwhelming passion for what we do can only lead to very confused clients and society at large as they search for understanding as to what we do everyday.

Stop complaining about how MISUNDERSTOOD designers are and how "bad" designers are ruining everything for us quality guys.

Its so damn subjective. Give it a rest.

Service your clients with great design and great design THINKING and they will know the difference. If you can't do that, then you might be part of that so called "bad" crowd and shouldn't be bitching anyway.

EMPATHY. A-fucking-men. This means designing for clients not for annuals.

And speaking of annuals. Start awarding projects for their strategic thinking and less on trends in visual design. Then take the time to have at least some kind of content explaining WTF I am looking at and why the client was better off for it. Otherwise its just PORNOGRAPHY.

I second Mr. Kingsley's "The cult of personality". Not everything Rand or Bass did was pure gold. Or any other "superstar" for that matter. They are human and fallible and even they missed the mark now and again. Give it a rest. That includes you Maven.

Concerning my comment above: the word "guys" was meant as a euphemism for all designers. I did not mean to exclude the equally kick-ass female community.

I need to stop using that word. "guys". ick

Everyone has made awesome points. I think one of the biggest problems this industry and moreso the advertising industry is the unethical work that gets awards because it's creative. I was recently in a meeting where a potential client said, "[Agency's] work won a bunch of awards for this direct mail campaign." My response was, "That's great for [agency] but how much business did you see from those awards or better yet, the campaign?" They didn't have an answer. I think as designers we tend to let ourselves sway too much to the art side of a project and often neglect the science/business aspect. I say this to many clients and colleagues, "Everyone can be creative, what sets us apart is we're creative with a focus on business results, not an art awards." That seems to make an impact.

We need to become less youth-obsessed. The design world seems increasingly fixated on the designer with a skateboard under his arm, fresh out of school, as though youth and proximity to youth culture automatically translates into design skills (or should I say "5ki11z")

I think one of things designers do wrong, is sacrifice ethics for the almighty dollar. We all need to make a living (me included, and being a graduate student doesn't help in that respect at the moment) but I refuse to work for corporations that are misleading or don't provide a safe quality product. I saw recently on the AIGA site they were promoting how wonderful the BP (British Petroleum, now Beyond Petroleum) identity is. Actually I agree, the mark is beautiful. But beautiful on an ugly company. BP has historically, like most other oil companies raped our landscapes, paid off government officials, and been outwardly deceptive. BP became Beyond Petroleum recently because they are heavily investing in the solar energy market, realizing that oil won't last forever, they wanted to have a stranglehold on the market. Again, money. So they rebranded, changed their name.. and voila! AIGA loves them! But really, they're the same group of people, looking for ways to make money off energy and our natural resources. So a design firm takes the job, does a great job, and then BP looks better in the eyes of the public despite the fact their doing the same shady deals. BP was one of the main oil companies pushing the Bushy administration to drill in ANWAR. Nice. I thougth they said they were about solar?

Anyway, point being that as designers, we pride ourselves in our process, but our process should also include a better investigation of our clients. We need to understand them and realize the impact of our work. In this case, the designer helped contribute to a lie. S/He put a facade over a company and did a great job doing it. In the end, however, the designer just helped contribute to the ills and problems of our society. That's what I think we're doing wrong.. social responsibility.

Theo wrote:

Who qualifies as a designer in your book, John?

I don't really know if there is a way to answer that, and niether do most businesses who need design services. I just feel that "real" designers could benefit from more collaborative efforts in educating businesses about design and quality design services.

Also, I totaly agree with you on the youth-obssession comment, that stereotype definitely hurts the rest of us. Although, I have to say, I've met some damn good designers that perfectly fit your description.

I think the bulk of design's problems can be summed up with: self-importance (hero-worship, lack of influence from outside sources, need to a Graphic Design degree to be taken seriously, awards, blogs, etc.)

and of course, the requisite Vandykes

Again, money. So they rebranded, changed their name.. and voila! AIGA loves them!

I would just say that AIGA's featuring a well-done rebrand is not a sign of loving the company, but just the work that was done for the company.

Now, back to Armin's question. Clearly designer's never seem to get tired of whining (myself included) about how we don't get the respect we deserve. But what I've learned, and begun to teach, is the respect is earned. And when the majority of us postiion client's as stupid, uneducated (in terms of design, of course) and just not with it, then well, we get what we sow.

If every designer could get out from beyond their computer and really work to learn the client's business, and understand the world from the client's point of view, then I think designer's would start gaining the respect they seek. And it isn't that there are designers out there who don't already do this, but most I think tend to avoid people who wear more formal business attire. Well, you know, the people making most of the decisions are those very same people. And if you don't learn their language, then you'll never gain their respect.

The 'other' thing that we do, especially through AIGA, is that our events are for the most part, for the design community. And while there's nothing wrong with that, I think we must do a better job of promoting and educating the general community about the power of design. We also need more designers to be active in AIGA to help bring its visibility up and provide it with a larger base of support to realize its mission. Imagine the opportunities to express the power of design to business, either through a direct mail or ad campaign, and then have that supported locally and nationally by a membership in AIGA carrying the weight of a similar relationship that an architect has with AIA. We as a community could really make being a member of AIGA mean more, professoinally speaking, then we do currently. (And please don't respond with all your complaints about AIGA. If you aren't trying to help the solve the problems in some way, then you can't be part of the solution—with the exception of M. Kingsley. He is someone who I consider to be a respected critic of AIGA who has done much to offer his wisdom and knowledge only to fall on to many deaf ears.)

That said, there is always power in numbers.

One last thing, while nothing is sacred I feel it is professionally irresponsible to partake in any change for the sake of change. Change should come from a truly overwhelming business need and not just the whim of the CEO. And while I can see m. kingsley rolling his eyes and thinking of the word naive, I only can say it may be a far too difficult position to uphold for any of us when the mortgage is due and there's no other work on the horizon. But if we manage to teach others well, then possibly, just possibly, the naive would become the standard protocol.

I think one of things designers do wrong, is sacrifice ethics for the almighty dollar.

That's true of all sorts of professions. It's just more ironic in Graphic Design, since the very profession is highly dependant on the consumer-driven, capitalistic marketing industries.

To John Dilworth:

To compare designers to hairdressers is both right on and way off:

You can get a thousand dollar hair cut in some pricey spa in NY or you can go to Super Cuts in Hoboken. Both hairdressers have licences. Will the do's be comparable?

Personally, I shell out about $50 on a haircut. I'm happy with the results, happy that I didn't get hacked by someone at Super Cuts and very aware that I may not have the best hair do in town.

Why can't designers work the same way? I just pissed all over the workers at Super Cuts but their doing a respectable service for people who can't afford anything more. Should my hairdresser worry that the Super Cuts of the world will harm her business or should she just do the best job she can knowing that her clients appreciate her and won't balk at the price?

Right on because we are like hairdressers: Creative individuals with varied talent. Way off because no professional licence differentiates the good from the bad...just the knowledgeable from the unknowledgeable. And I'll bet many of these "non-designers" -- as you called them -- have read everything there is on the subject.

I think designers can be self-righteous and ignorant at the same time. They cry foul at social, environmental, and corporate actions — but they don't understand enough about the science, the business, or the market to offer up true, viable, intelligent, alternative solutions to the problems.

So they shout empty rhetorics to whoever will listen—usually inexperienced, idealistic students—and cry bad ethics on work and situations that they have no comprehension or experience with. It's hypocritical and self-righteously accusatory.

I say enough talk. You really want to affect corporate change? Then quit your design job, and go to work for Altria, Wal-mart, BP, or McDonalds, whoever—and show us how much you can change from the inside. Show them your brilliant alternatives. Preach to them your ethics against the almighty dollar. Affect some real. fucking. change.

>The cult of personality

I disagree. There's absolutely nothing stupid with respecting the legacy and work of past or current design masters. Musicians recognize their past legends. So do writers, physicists, doctors, and any other profession. It's how an industry builds upon its accomplishments to grow, as well as learn to avoid past mistakes.

Man, I was gonna go off on the haircut tangent, but Jennifer beat me to it. I guess I'll just add my thoughts (though somehow it seems trite now):

Hair dressers have licenses. Some haircuts cost $10, some cost $50, some cost $1,000. Is there really any difference in quality? Not really, it depends on the stylist. I had a great stylist in KS at Regis, and the cut cost me about $25 plus tip. I have yet to visit a Regis in FL that has done a great job. Just some ok ones. (Bear with me, I'm almost finished.) I would say that going to a place that charges a thousand bucks probably increases my chances of liking my style when they're done, but at that price you're buying prestige, not quality. Many designers operate on this principle as well - maybe that is what I would change. But that would involve a major shift in culture in general, so not likely.

The cult of personality

I disagree. There's absolutely nothing stupid with respecting the legacy and work of past or current design masters. Musicians recognize their past legends. So do writers, physicists, doctors, and any other profession. It's how an industry builds upon its accomplishments to grow, as well as learn to avoid past mistakes.

Nothing wrong with learning from the past, something totally wrong about looking at certain people as infallible (in design history), or even worse, as the "rockstars" of design (currently).

Designers take themselves too seriously (myself included). It's not like we're doctors saving lives or anything.

>something totally wrong about looking at certain people as infallible

sure, I agree.

But there's also something stupid about thinking that being anti-establishment is the same thing as being creative and original.

What about the design process? From client pitch to project invoice and everything in between.

I think one of the biggest mistakes designers make is confusing style or aesthetic with design.

Now the word "style" may invoke an image of skateboarding style or Charles S. Anderson's style, and that's not really what I mean. I'm talking more about "clean, modern" style or "fresh, open" style. There is a deep rooted idea that "good design" = some nice, sans typefaces, a lot of white space, decent typography and striking images.

Design is about thinking, analyzing and leaping. Where you leap to is the result of the process. But most designers are inhibited by the bounds of "taste" ... that is, what is accepted today as "good design."

Big mistake.

Designers take themselves too seriously (myself included). It's not like we're doctors saving lives or anything.

In a broad way, I have to disagree with this. Yes, we are not saving lives, nor finding the cures or anything of the sort, but how can we expect the world to take us seriously if we don’t do so ourselves?

What about the design process? From client pitch to project invoice and everything in between.

as far as process, since this is indeed a creative development I think one problem is to be found with those who want to adopt a process, without exploring what really works for them individually. Also, I think some skip (or spend little time) on essential parts of the process such as research such as market analysis, competitors, etc.; sketching might not be for everyone but the process of your brain while sketching is invaluable and I believe many are missing out.

Working without contracts (or some form of written consent)? Big no no in my book.

If you have a systematic and polished way in which to invoice, usually you should have no problems, but often you find designers who do billing when they have some time to spend doing the numbers and printing invoices… this does not lead to prompt payment. Or to a serious understanding of your needs (if you are not consistent with them ).

>What about the design process?

Few designers really understand how to calculate a profitable billing rate, or how to properly determine estimates for projects. Most just bid blindly on what they determine the client is willing to pay. Others bid based on an amount that they think will undercut a competitor's.

Overall, as an industry, I think we also grossly undervalue our services. We could and should charge much more for what we do. But we're too insecure and critical of our own worth. Not to mention this bullshit guilt complex for wanting to make more money instead of saving trees, or preserving some quaint village in Indonesia.

In short—by in large, designers tend to be very poor businesspeople.

Tan wrote:

I say enough talk. You really want to affect corporate change? Then quit your design job, and go to work for Altria, Wal-mart, BP, or McDonalds, whoever—and show us how much you can change from the inside. Show them your brilliant alternatives. Preach to them your ethics against the almighty dollar. Affect some real. fucking. change.

But isn't this comment just as meaningless and empty as those you criticize? Sure, it sounds great in theory, but is wholly impractical. If this was how change happened, we'd all still be eating dolphin-laced tuna. You dont have to become a part of the corporate world to change it, nor could you, in most cases, even if you wanted to.

outdated, misguided or offensive

admittedly sweeping generalizations but nonetheless existing in varying degrees:

* not undersatnding the particular historical epoch we are working in and the role of the designer in that epoch, and believing we are part of an historical artistic avant-garde, when in fact none exists today. which is not to say don't innovate, but that the role has changed and innovation as part of a holistic process is significantly harder to find based on client demand for such

* fingers pointing outward for all ills associated with the profession: lack of self-analysis, self-criticism and the inability to gracefully accept criticism

* overestimating our own skills and knowledge and believing that we are all in one: Brand Strategist, CD, AD, Senior Designer and e-pro artist all in one convenient package, which leads to misrepresentation, selling our clients short, as well as the lone wolf approach -- watering down the process and product

*confusing artistic freedom and style/aesthetic with fine art to the negelect of client objectives

*feeling comfortable with disagreeing and leaving it at that, no road forward

*taking ourselves too seriously at the expense of taking the client seriously

*fear. fear of "non-professionals", those with less experience, more experience, those who can string a sentence together with more punch than we. design will and always has survived despite 'non-professional professionals.' technology has only allowed us to talk about it more, giving it an appearance of immediacy(sp?)

and I'll second Tan:

...designers can be self-righteous and ignorant at the same time. They cry foul at social, environmental, and corporate actions — but they don't understand enough about the science, the business, or the market to offer up true, viable, intelligent, alternative solutions to the problems.

sometimes myself included, sometimes not.... at worst it would be a step forward when we can at least recognize when we're caught in that mind flow, at best we can take it to the next level of viable, intelligent solutions.

Tan, while I agree with the sentiment of affecting change from inside a company, I would also offer the notion that, as exterior agents of change, an outside designer can have a greater affect on a company than someone who is locked into the corporate hierarchy. Also, business executive generally have more respect for creatives as peers when they are running their own business or leaders of a large agency than they do as employees a number of levels down in the org chart. And, from within a company, you have the additional complication of frequently having managers above you that would perceive your involvement with major decision-makers as an afront to their power and control.

This has been mentioned above, but bears mentioning again. There are way too many designers out there who only gauge themselves by the awards they win or their own personal creative agenda. This attitude manifests itself in all sorts of unhealthy ways: Designers think clients are idiots because they don't "get" their creative efforts. They post ads for "hot", "cutting-edge", or "rock-star" designers, when those terms are so utterly subjective and meaningless. (Would anyone ever hire someone who wasn't talented?) They have a prominent wall in their studios for grotesque displays of awards. They have very specific, nearly formulaic, styles and value anyone outside of it as inferior.

(It should be noted here that I make the above comments as someone who has both won a few awards over the years and as someone who values personal expression and even quirkiness. But I don't put these foremost in my methodology and attitude)

Finally, I want to emphasize M. Kingsley's statement of "Designers who teach in the style of Hell's Kitchen." THIS IS SUCH A PERVASIVE ATTITUDE! I have run into this so many times over the 20+ years I have practiced design. It just sickens and saddens me to no end! I have ardently vowed to never, ever treat badly the people that look to me for guidance and insight. They need nurturance, not destructive arrogance. It's really quite cruel, mean-spirited, and dysfunctional to smash someone's ego to pieces. And in fact, it doesn't really reflect very strong leadership skills either. Even if someone's totally incompetent at being a designer, screaming and yelling isn't going to make things better.

>Sure, it sounds great in theory, but is wholly impractical.

I think both things are meaningless. As to which is more impractical — I would suggest that it's more impractical to stand on the sidelines, criticize corporate actions without offering solutions, then patting yourself on the back for being "responsible."

There's nothing wrong w/ making a stand as a consumer. But what I protest is this ignorant notion that somehow designers have more credibility or awareness when it comes to corporate responsibility. When it fact—in most cases—designers are clueless when it comes to understanding complex issues like energy conservation or global economics. And few are prepared to do anything about it other than trash talk.

If you want to affect change—do it as a consumer. Do it by running for public office. Or do it by working for the corporations themselves.

Don't become a designer, taking work from corporate clients, and then claim shame.

>I would also offer the notion that, as exterior agents of change, an outside designer can have a greater affect on a company than someone who is locked into the corporate hierarchy.

I understand what you're trying to say here, Steven. And to a large extent, I agree with your optimism. But you're also making the assumption that the designer that's the agent of change is truly seen as a peer by that business client—which means he or she is as knowledgeable about the business as his/her corporate counterpart.

If that's the case, then great. But the key here is that the designer has gained an understanding and knowledge of that business.

Simply being a designer alone does not automatically entitle you to any more insight or outrage than the average consumer.

Sorry, this is a tired frustration of mine. But Armin did ask what I thought was stupid about our profession.

But what I protest is this ignorant notion that somehow designers have more credibility or awareness when it comes to corporate responsibility. When it fact—in most cases—designers are clueless when it comes to understanding complex issues like energy conservation or global economics. And few are prepared to do anything about it other than trash talk.

If you want to affect change—do it as a consumer. Do it by running for public office. Or do it by working for the corporations themselves.

Tan, I agree whole-heartedly with this first statement.

However, in regards to the second part, I do think that designers can affect change in corporate policies and practices by illuminating methods for enhancing not only the brand, but also the bottomline ROI through green alternatives. I offer examples mentioned in Cradle to Cradle and the recent Green Design article in CA, although some of those examples were stronger than others. Design alone can't change everything, but it can change some things. That small part is still a worthy goal.

Yes, it's a worthy goal indeed, my friend. And I applaud your hopeful call to action.

It took me a few minutes to mull this one over, but I know what the dumbest thing we do is. It is that we don't take advantage of our cachet as designers to sway business to our every whim. We have that mystical cool factor of being designers which is both bewildering and utterly fascinating to those who don't do what we do.

This board is a platform for some highly eloquent people who, rather than speaking to other designers, could be using their polished rhetoric to influence the captains of industry on every subject from environmental and social responsibilty to why design can make a difference to their bottom lines (if they would just let us in to the inner sanctum).

We are amazingly good at talking to ourselves on this and many other forums. How many of us venture out to the busines realm to peddle our thoughts?

*taking ourselves too seriously at the expense of taking the client seriously

should read:

*taking ourselves too seriously at the expense of **not** taking the client seriously

which is to say keeping ourselves in check in relationship to our, well, relationships

Duh, your comments open in a new window! That's what's wrong!

Just a slight peeve.

Also (and this happens on lots of blogs)

A topic is posted, then the insane bloggers swarm in and hate on whatever subject the post is about. Bash bash bash.

Then, someone comes in and says, "Call me stupid, but I like this post."

Then a bunch of other people come in and say that they like the post too.

Then all the haters try and "clarify" what they said so that they don't sound like they actually "hated-on" and that just leads to some ridiculous amount of comments to sift through.

I hate that. I am hating on that.

It would be good to quit the Apple-Mac cult, if we really think our work is worth beyond being able to use (or being used) by a computer.

Tan said :"I say enough talk. You really want to affect corporate change? Then quit your design job, and go to work for Altria, Wal-mart, BP, or McDonalds, whoever—and show us how much you can change from the inside. Show them your brilliant alternatives. Preach to them your ethics against the almighty dollar. Affect some real. fucking. change."

I think a better alternative to this is to quit your design job (I did last summer) and go back to school (I'm currently pursuing my MFA). Learn new methods, ideaologies and better insight into the craft. Give back to the design community by educating new designers about social responsibility of the designer in the marketplace. (Something that is considerably left untouched in current design curriculum.) If designers don't know or understand the consequences of their work, then they won't know next time how to improve their work and made educated decisions.

Designers take themselves too seriously (myself included). It's not like we're doctors saving lives or anything.

But we do save lives indirectly. The EKG machines that doctors use function effectively because it was (hopefully) designed well. If it wasn't then it would hinder their practice and could lead to a loss of life.

I /like/ orange and gray!

Rob, there's nobody more na�ve than myself. Let's just call it idealism.

Tan, respecting the past and the profession's pathfinders is one thing. Non-critical adulation — and emulation — is another. My issue is the later, not the former.

The argument that musicians, writers and physicists look to the past can go both ways. When Thelonious Monk (or as MTV personality Tabitha Soren would say: "the loneliest monk") passed away in 1982, the jazz world faced a decade-long onslaught of terrible versions of 'Round Midnight.

The sin of what I call the "theft of style" is the reduction of a work to simple aesthetics (sense perception) without consideration for the ethics (rule perception, a.k.a. the "why").* Rather than engage in a transhistorical dialogue with the model (why was this solution chosen, how was this solution arrived at, what were the surrounding circumstances, what were the technical restrictions, etc.), style thieves rifle through the archives and give us... another flush-left, upper-left-corner, medium-sized block of Helvetica over a silhouetted illustration or... handlebar mustaches (now making an appearance on the lips of NY hipsters) or... Uggs or... The Killers.**

I also want to add one more offensive practice to the master list: scrap.

More common in advertising, but also part of branding presentations, scrap is problematic.

— "Who's our demographic?"

— "I dunno, lets flip through Vogue and Black Tail to find out."

— "Don't forget Cat Fancy!"

I've actually sat in conversations where someone speaks glowingly of someone else's wonderous ability to pull scrap. This worries me.

* This is a response to Marian's point about confusing aesthetics with design.

** This is also a partial response to Armin's question of bad design practice.

In response to Marian's comment about confusing style with design:

I couldn't agree more. This is really a lesson for young designers. That design can be SO MUCH MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE. I really hope that schools continue to focus on turning out great thinkers instead of style vultures and po'shop wizzes.

Some of the most beneficial concepts or ideas I have brought to a client project had little to do with how it looked. Sure I give their collateral a clean, professional look that added a much needed aura of legitimacy and clarity to their message, but more importantly the input I had over their message content, communication strategy and production architecture proved to be more valuable and significant to the projects power and success than the visual design.

Thats where the power design really exists. Its in the creative and strategic decision making process and has little to do with fonts and colors and stock photos and trendy hand drawn drop shadows and that neat screen printed feel. Thats really the easy part.

I have one thing I would change about design:

Getting in.

I'd like to see a little more solidarity amongst designers, and with other creative workers.

Of course, my first suggestion would be to stop using Helvetica or whatever other fonts came bundled with your MS/Mac/Adobe/Quark software, and licence some stuff from living type designers, from their design firms, aka "indie" foundries. Or commission a special font for a special project.

Then there's the question of photographers and illustrators.

Don't use stock, if you can possibly avoid it. It's very self-destructive of the design profession to use stock art/photos, stock filter pre-sets, stock fonts, etc. It just makes it that much easier for the task to be off-shored or replaced by automated software. (I'll never forget that day in 2001 when my client emailed me her selection of photos for a brochure, which she'd chosen herself at Getty.)

How do we treat photographers and illustrators? More respect could be shown, especially to those who aren't big names.

I don't think that celebrity design culture, in awards shows, conferences, whatever, really gives enough respect to the rank and file. It's so elitist, and unprofessional. The judging of awards show is absurd -- celebrity judges is a non-sequitur, just because you're a successful designer doesn't make you a good judge. It would make more sense to do like Hollywood, and have the members vote.

Look at design history -- it is skewed by the "great man" approach, which ignores the work of the majority. It is a naive perspective. For instance, in our young history, modernism and its pioneers provide the main narrative thread. But that's what only a tiny minority of designers were doing.

What's wrong:

The assumption of a clean, professional look (i.e. ditto Marian)

The posts on this topic cover pretty much the same ground as posts on lots of other SU topics, except with less freshness than the first 30 times.

What's right (sorry for veering off into a note of cheerfulness):

Yesterday my July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly came in the post. The first two two-page spreads were adverts which featured ILLUSTRATION instead of photography. The first was for GE. The second was for The Hartford. My eyeballs were refreshed.

The third was the typical car zooming down a road photo. SHIFT_style? i think_NOT. Ah well. I'll just flip back to the Glossy Ibis illustration.

>Give back to the design community by educating new designers about social responsibility of the designer in the marketplace. (Something that is considerably left untouched in current design curriculum.) If designers don't know or understand the consequences of their work, then they won't know next time how to improve their work and made educated decisions.

Eric, I have absolutely no problem with your stated goal above. It's incredibly admirable, and I try to instill it in my own work as well as the work of my team, whenever possible.

What I do have a problem with is statements like this:

>BP became Beyond Petroleum recently because they are heavily investing in the solar energy market, realizing that oil won't last forever, they wanted to have a stranglehold on the market. Again, money. But really, they're the same group of people, looking for ways to make money off energy and our natural resources.

Eric, do you really know about BP, or the gas and oil industry, or alternative fuel issues, or the energy commodity business in general? Have you ever had BP as a client? Do you know anything about petroleum engineering, or at least enough to understand the issue of global production vs. global use, so that you can make a qualified assessment that BP is being deceitful? Most importantly, as a designer, how do you know enough about any of these subjects to make these types of unfavorable, prejudicial statements about this company?

And what is your solution or alternative — should energy companies just close down and lay off millions of people, not to mention cause our global economy to plummet into ruin and destitude? Maybe we should all start walking to work, cook our food by fire, and live by candlelight (b/c electricity production requires petroleum also).

I could go on, but won't.

Social responsibility should not be a weapon for designers to wield carelessly with prejudice.

Eric, do you really know about BP, or the gas and oil industry, or alternative fuel issues, or the energy commodity business in general? Have you ever had BP as a client? Do you know anything about petroleum engineering, or at least enough to understand the issue of global production vs. global use, so that you can make a qualified assessment that BP is being deceitful? Most importantly, as a designer, how do you know enough about any of these subjects to make these types of unfavorable, prejudicial statements about this company?

And what is your solution or alternative — should energy companies just close down and lay off millions of people, not to mention cause our global economy to plummet into ruin and destitude? Maybe we should all start walking to work, cook our food by fire, and live by candlelight (b/c electricity production requires petroleum also).

Tan, these are good points. Designers don't do enough research on things. However, in this case, I did my homework. I've been researching and practicing sustainable and green design for the past 2 years (its the focus of my MFA). BP isn't a blip on the radar by any means. They "pop up" a lot in research (especially in PV-photo voltaic searches and Alaska oil drilling funding). They are, in fact, the largest producer and seller of solar energy cells in the world. They have been buying up smaller companies so they have the strategic advantage. Which leads into your next question about "should energy companies just close down..." The answer is no, obviously. However, if energy companies don't ramp up their R&D, and infrastructure in renewable energy, then eventually when the fossil fuel industry dies, then the economy WILL shut down. BP is still in the battle for the short run oil supply, but I do give them credit for investing in renewable energy. It will be key for future economies... anyway... this whole thing really isn't on topic of what designers do wrong anymore.. but let's move on..

this whole thing really isn't on topic of what designers do wrong anymore.. but let's move on.

Oh, but it is, in both tangible and intangible ways. For those in the position to pitch a project, sustainability issues and the manner and motives which companies either employ sustainability or ignore it can indeed be brought into the dialogue as appropriate.

while I'm not at liberty to go into detail, a recent example would be a package design I pitched earlier this week where the package was integrated in to the product as a usable extention of it (the product). If the consumer chose to throw the package away, instead of use it as an extension, it was 100% recyclable.

while that package design may not be the design that transforms the world, it is an example of how taking the process one step further than decoration can make even the smallest difference.

so add that to my list of items that are "wrong:" when presented with the possibility, not thinking through the lifecyle of a design from concept to consumer end use and/or waste.

Tan wrote:

Eric, do you really know about BP, or the gas and oil industry, or alternative fuel issues, or the energy commodity business in general? Have you ever had BP as a client? Do you know anything about petroleum engineering, or at least enough to understand the issue of global production vs. global use, so that you can make a qualified assessment that BP is being deceitful? Most importantly, as a designer, how do you know enough about any of these subjects to make these types of unfavorable, prejudicial statements about this company?

Wow, Tan, you really place the bar extremely high for anyone wanting to be politically or socially engaged, or even discuss the issues at hand. Your statement suggests that one who labels themselves a designer is qualified to only discuss design, unless you have been directly employed as a designer to the industry being discussed.

Is it not possible to be well-informed, educated even, on subjects that fall entirely outside of ones expertise? It does not take access to classified documents (yet) to learn about BP and to compare the face they present — through their identity and advertising — to their actual business practices in the real world. Nor does it require employment by BP, or a degree in Geology.

.m

Geez, you guys are mostly so bitter, one direction or the other, that I, not even out of school yet, almost don't want to be a designer anymore! Isn't there anything redeeming about the work you do? There must be or you wouldn't stay in it! Or do you thrive on bitterness?

Geez, you guys are mostly so bitter, one direction or the other, that I, not even out of school yet, almost don't want to be a designer anymore! Isn't there anything redeeming about the work you do? There must be or you wouldn't stay in it! Or do you thrive on bitterness?

Well, to be honest, I don't think there is any other occupation that would satisfy me like design does. I feel design, in history, has been its own problem and solution. We make wonderful things, communicate important messages and sometimes don't do enough of the "responsible" thing in terms of choosing the right project. However, I don't imagine design will ever end. You and design should have a good future together.. :)

I've actually sat in conversations where someone speaks glowingly of someone else's wonderous ability to pull scrap. This worries me

hey, leave me outa this!

>Wow, Tan, you really place the bar extremely high for anyone wanting to be politically or socially engaged, or even discuss the issues at hand.

Now let's loop this back around. Originally, my protest was against designers who rashly denounce corporations under the guise of social responsibility — without any justified reasoning or first-hand knowledge or experience of the issue. It's usually followed by a plea for others to reject the almighty dollar cause see how bad these corporations are.

It's usually irresponsible rhetoric that ends up being flung, not a rational "discuss[ion of] the issues at hand" as you'd suggested.

But you're right, I don't mean to suggest that people must have a PhD in a subject before making judgement — just some intelligent knowledge of what they're talking about would suffice.

>They are, in fact, the largest producer and seller of solar energy cells in the world. They have been buying up smaller companies so they have the strategic advantage..However, if energy companies don't ramp up their R&D, and infrastructure in renewable energy, then eventually when the fossil fuel industry dies, then the economy WILL shut down.

I'm impressed, Eric. You do know a bit about the company. You should also then know that BP was one of the first oil companies to introduce ethanol into all of their consumer grades — long before they rebranded. As to solar energy — BP is one of the world's biggest funders of university and private research, not only into solar, but more importantly, how to convert solar (and wind) production into a viable method to produce industrial hydrogen fuel — the most promising alternative fuel for future transportation needs. Currently, producing industrial liquid hydrogen requires a disproportionate (higher) amount of petroleum in order to process.

BP is also reiventing the idea of a gas station, which traditionally has been a large source of groundwater petroleum pollution. Many new BP stations are now equipped with solar panels in the roof of pump stations, in order to self-fuel the station's lights. They are also being each equipped with a state-of-the-art drain pond next to their pump areas. These little ponds catch all of the surface gas and oil spills when it rains, and using genetically-engineered algae, will filter harmful toxins before it reaches underground drainage.

So in fact, I contend that BP is actually trying to fulfill its brand promise of being "Beyond Petroleum." People can decide for themselves, but I believe that knowing the full facts makes a big difference. Even in your last post, you seem to acknowledge that BP is indeed trying. If you knew this, then why did you originally condemn them as "... the same group of people, looking for ways to make money off energy and our natural resources..."? Was it because AIGA had recognized them, and denouncing that was the easiest way to show your commitment to "social responsibility"?

>Geez, you guys are mostly so bitter, one direction or the other, that I, not even out of school yet, almost don't want to be a designer anymore!

What can I say, Brittany? I'm sorry we're not entertaining enough for you. What type of happy thoughts would you like for us to discuss now?

any designer who has got trouble with style and 'design' should have a read of schoenberg's 'style and idea'.

the rest of it::

it will run out.

what happens then?

i've got my sword and my boots.

don't know if i've got the iron in my blood though.

probably soon i'll know.

Tan said: "Even in your last post, you seem to acknowledge that BP is indeed trying. If you knew this, then why did you originally condemn them as "... the same group of people, looking for ways to make money off energy and our natural resources..."? Was it because AIGA had recognized them, and denouncing that was the easiest way to show your commitment to "social responsibility"?"

My commitment to social responsibilty is evident in my work and my choice to pursue my MFA to work in the field of design education. My research relates specifically to the previous work done by William McDonough and incorporates thinking from Ed Fella as well as work by Ad Busters. I will attempt to incorporate much of this research into projects and lectures in my future curriculum. I denounced AIGA's showcase of BP because basically BP did like KFC, Shell and other companies did (with the help of designers) to change their brand. BP still pursues drilling in the Alaskan Oil Reserve despite portraying themselves as a "green" energy company. If they were a "green" energy company, why are they continuing to push for oil drilling in the Alaskan frontier. The amount of energy, pollution, loss of wildlife and damage to the environment to do this proves that they aren't as green as they claim they are. Its as if the AIGA is celebrating a beautiful wrapper on a turd.

>they aren't as green as they claim they are

Let's face it, Eric — oil drilling will deface and impact any environment that it encroaches upon, whether it's the Gulf of Mexico, the deserts of Saudi Arabia, the South American coast, or the Alaskan tundra. Oil drilling and transportation in Alaska is deplorable — but the real issue here is not BP seeking access to the resource, but the issue is the Bush administration's policy that opened the door in the first place.

In my opinion — BP's commitment to its customers and stockholders here and now doesn't negate its commitment to the future of alternative energy.

But now were reeeeeeally getting off the topic. Eric, it's been fun. Good luck w/ your MFA.

I think ego issues cause alot of the problems that plague people in creative fields, where there's more subjectivity and personality at play than in, say, accounting or what have you. When a designer approaches a job thinking about how it will reflect himself and his image, i.e. designing for annuals and not clients like someone said earlier, that's an ego issue. And regarding the personality worship -- I think celebrating good work from the past is not wrong in any way, but when it starts to focus more on the person who did the work than the work itself, then it becomes a problem.

I think humility is the magic word here, which includes empathy of course. As an experiment, try approaching work, clients and colleagues as if you didn't exist, removing yourself from the picture as it were, and see what happens.

I could go on, but won't.

C'mon Tan...it's your favorite topic!

Geez, you guys are mostly so bitter, one direction or the other, that I, not even out of school yet, almost don't want to be a designer anymore! Isn't there anything redeeming about the work you do? There must be or you wouldn't stay in it! Or do you thrive on bitterness?

brittany,

NEWS FLASH

do not fear, most of this dribble is not based in reality...we work in a great industry FULL of inspiring people to work for/learn from with great ideas and passion. unfortunatlry none of that is reflected here. It's funny the same things that were "wrong with speakup" are "wrong with design" ironic isnt it? my advice dont come here often especially if your a student. it used to be "dont hold back" produced positive results here at

speak up its always the same "comments from the sidelines."

Nancy, you do realize how vapid and elitist your "commenting from the sidelines" claim is, right? I mean, you are clearly stating that you are in this miraculous playing field which we then comment on. From the sidelines. Not to mention that the reality within which many people here live is, in your view, in fact, not reality. Nancy, let me tell you something: you are as full of shit as me and as the rest of anybody else stating a comment they strongly believe to be true. Please don't think any different of yourself. And quit making blanket statements about realities and sidelines. It's getting tired. Fast.

And please, What's Wrong with Speak Up, is a two-year old discussion. Talk about living in a warped reality. Get over it.

What's wrong with design? People, anyone, thinking that their own view is the right and ultimate one.

Darrel, I was first going to take your bait, but then Armin got baited by Mazzei, and then, well...this could be more entertaining. Heh, heh.

And another thing… If a student, lurker or regular contributor can't grasp when the purpose of a discussion is to purposedly talk about the things we consider to be a problem within our profession then we have bigger problems than this misguided, alleged bitterness.

i put myself above no one you bafoon. it's clear that unless people come here to blow smoke up your ass you cant handel it. you offer nothing in terms of any kind of design insight. your superficial in your comments and that is what is "wrong" with design. people like you armin, that know dick about much but have created a forum were every idiotic thing they say can be broadcast WAY TOO LOUD. try being quite and listening maybe you'll hear how stupid you sound.

as for the below, talk about elitist? your a poser and that must suck.

And another thing… If a student, lurker or regular contributor can't grasp when the purpose of a discussion is to purposedly talk about the things we consider to be a problem within our profession then we have bigger problems than this misguided, alleged bitterness.

Nancy and Brittany,

You opened a forum asking what was wrong with the design industry. Can I ask what you were expecting? Did you really expect people saying everything was great and everyone is awesome? Thats unrealistic, regardless of the industry.

Nancy,

Every post I've read from you on SU has been negatively connotated and harassing. As a student myself, I'm wondering if youre a part of the "inspiring people to work for/learn from with great ideas and passion" or if youre a part of the other we're comdemning in this discussion . . . . It seems you could contribute much more positive critique and inspiration with your position in the design industry.

You people crack me up.

Ms. Mazzei, Armin asks questions, about graphic design and its viability as a profession. I’ve found that his questions have raised other questions in me. I find this inspiring. If you do not, I politely ask you to not rain on my parade simply because you don’t get it.

Ms. Mazzei does this to piss people off. I’ve met more than my fair share of people like this. I used to fly off the handle at them. Now I realize that it’s not the person I was mad at, it’s the attitude. I tend to think that the best rebuttal to a loud yell is a quiet, convincing argument.

Thanks Nancy for your comments. It's a shame though that you have to resort to petty insults to make a point. See you later.

I take what I do with 90% of my time very seriously. And I’m very hard on people who are trying to become “critics.” You’ve created a forum and that’s great for you. And at the end of the day it’s your show to run as you will. You started it with the petty insults ...anyone can fire back it’s easy. As for being more “positive” overall in my comments I will take a look at that. But, don't tell me I’m full of shit and I wont call you a poser and a bafoon it’s that simple.

exactly...so if we agree on this whats' the problem?

What's wrong with design? People, anyone, thinking that their own view is the right and ultimate one.

> But, don't tell me I’m full of shit and I wont call you a poser and a bafoon it’s that simple.

Nancy, I hope that within that precious 90% of your time that you take very seriously that you read that I said, and I paraphrase: you are as full of shit as I, or anyone, am, or is. You caught that right? Meaning that you strongly believe that I am full of shit and to you it stinks so that value may hold true to you but not to anyone else. In all these discussions we are, in some way or another, trying find a convincing way of people to buy into the bullshit we are selling. None is better smelling that anyone else's.

So, I will leave it at this. I hate to keep hijacking this thread for such nonsense.

Darrel, I was first going to take your bait

Oh, didn't mean to bait you. Just having fun.

That said, I did hear today that BP has just been found lobbying congress heavily to avoid the passing of any mandatory reduction in greenhouse gasses. So, there is some dirt on their 'green' logo there. ;o)

you offer nothing in terms of any kind of design insight.

And what, exactly, are you offering?

As designers we teach and communicate the best we can. To students and to clients. That's what we do. Communicate by teaching and teach by communicating.

Armin,

Do you ever find yourself second guessing this giant entity you've helped create? It's funny how difficult communication can be even when you've spell checked it and corrected all its grammatical errors. Arg!

I do, actually, but I would be thinking about the immortality of the crab otherwise, so I would rather worry about this "thing".

Armin,

Don't you think it's rather extreme to call your detractors immortal? I mean geez Armin! GEEZ.