• Eye blog
• Eye site

Comments 5

Comments 5 | Add your own

1. October 7th, 2008 at 5:05 am | by Yoko Akama

   Dick Buchanan’s sermon of the day was how he sees that the window of opportunity was still open so long as designers’ practices was based on conversation. That was the theme of his talk ‘The Truth Begins with Two’ - that it takes two to have a meaningful conversation. Rick interpreted this as designers beginning this conversation with their clients. However, I took Dick’s metaphor of conversation as designers needing to reposition their role in facilitating the conversation with the public - including the client, designers and other stakeholders, where the designed artefacts are tools and mediums that can potentially facilitate such dialogue. It is a role that shifts the designer, who creates and produces the finished product to convey information from A to B, to a role that acknowledges the co-creation of messages by various participants through the design medium. It is a conversation because it is dialogic - not monologic, as many graphic designed outcomes can be perceived to be. By the way, this shift is not a new discussion - a great deal more has been discussed in CSCW and Participatory Design fields for a while now (should graphic designers wish to look beyond their own disciplinary boundaries).The process of design in these fields emphasises the relationship designers create with people they design for and with, which contests the dominance of mass market design and its ends-oriented values with an alternate, ethical, cultural and social modality.

   So Rick’s rather traditional way of thinking of graphic design/visual communication was surprising and disappointing to me. I was rather hoping that he would meet Dick’s critique squarely in this article, but instead, Rick seems to have dug his heels in to argue the importance of craft, typography and the ’shaping of graphic form’ - an ‘old hat’ of how graphic design is identified, argued and promoted. Was that the only way he could counter Dick’s offense that its doom and gloom for graphic designers? Is that the only ammunition Rick has? That there is so much ’stuff’ out there that reassures him that what we are doing is ‘okay’, so stop worrying unnecessarily?

   I was equally disappointed (actually, at this point of reading, perhaps I expected it) that Rick dismissed the speakers (I assume, Chris Downs from Livework and Terry Irwin) by saying that they didn’t ‘care that much about visual communication’, confirming to me that he wasn’t able to see beyond his own perspective/definition of graphic design. The two talks by Downs and Irwin, even though they were different, addressed a similar social and environmental concern of the role that designers play. They both asked designers to act and think beyond their traditional roles. Downs presented a pilot-project where Livework provided a loan system to a household so that alternative-energy renovations could be made. Repayments for these installations can then be made through the money saved on utility bills, thus alleviating the financial burden off the resident. Irwin, in her forceful speech, addressed how our ‘worldview’ should be questioned in order to re-think and do design in a different way. Some delegates took Irwin’s call to kick start off discussions, for example in the ‘Real World’ cluster, which was the group that I was in (but neither Dick or Rick visited - we were lucky). It had provided our group with an enormous challenge of how we can begin to question our own preconceived ideas of what design is, and our role within it. We only begun to scratch the surface of what this is - but its a good start.

   It is too easy to overlook the outcomes of New Views 2 - especially when Dick and Rick (two prominent, white, western middle-aged men - there seems to be a pattern here) can, because of their standing in the design circles, ‘wrap it up’ in their own interpretations and opinions about it and for others to assume that this is it. Indeed, nothing big, bold, shiny and new has come out of New Views 2 - but I question why such expectation should be placed on this event. The underlying intention for New Views 2 was to nurture conversations among a diversity of people engaged in design. It was a unique opportunity where, through each individual’s active participation, generated the content of the conversation and shared outcomes within the group. It was, as Rick says, ‘unorthodox’ in the way it contrasts with the usual conference where the window for conversations and dialogue are limited to tea/lunch breaks and the paper presentations take precedence. New Views was not a forum for pushing content onto one another, but rather, to seek connections and take on board the differences in perspectives in how we each engage in design. This in turn, created common themes and differences in each of the groups. New Views 2 had provided the ’scaffold’ for such meeting to take place - and it is now up to the individual participants and groups to take what has emerged and apply that to their own contexts, teaching, projects, writing or any collaborative initiatives.

   I heard that Rick has taken a position at the RCA as a Research Fellow. Being a researcher requires a different relationship to design than being a design critic. As a researcher discovering and exploring alternative avenues of graphic/visua/ communication/design, maybe then, he can contribute and participate in different ways to think, discuss and collaborate on what the future of graphic design might be.

2. October 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | by Rick Poynor

   Yoko, thank you for responding at such length. I have to say, though, that you haven’t addressed, still less answered, the central point in my article.

   This piece was written for readers involved in the practice of visual communication, many of them still calling themselves graphic designers. Eye describes itself as a review of graphic design. The issues I raise and the questions I ask are the first that anyone with a stake in this practice would be likely to pose.

   If intelligently devised, aesthetically engaging graphic form is ‘old hat’, as you suggest (quite mistakenly in my view), then what will replace it? Confused form? No form at all? How will that serve the many kinds of audience for visual communication that exist now?

   Perhaps you could give us one or two real-world examples, involving visual communication, so we can see for ourselves what you and your colleagues are talking about.

   However, contrary to what you say, I explicitly question graphic designers’ obsession with craft in my piece.

   You are absolutely right that the idea of ‘dialogic’ design is not new. I have just published a study of the Dutch designer and design educator Jan van Toorn, who has been advocating this since the 1970s.

   By the way, do you really think it’s OK to stereotype people and their views by age, gender and skin colour?

3. October 9th, 2008 at 6:31 am | by Yoko Akama

   Rick, thanks for your questions. The central point you addressed is indeed a concerning one for many, myself included. Though, I find myself torn between wanting to claim legitimacy of vis com with its craft etc on one hand, yet also feeling the need to explore alternative avenues of what else it can be. I try and grapple with this tension through my research, and as I wrote in my post, the areas that I am interested in is the ‘dialogic’ models and agency that design has in facilitating engagement among people. To illustrate this, past projects that I, and colleagues/postgraduates here have conducted are listed at the end of this post (sorry that this is a lazy way to respond to your request but I am also weary that I am taking up a lot of this space already). I am keen to know what you / others may make of it. I am optimistic that these discussions we may have subsequently might explore your questions of ‘what will replace it - confused / no form?’ However, just to clarify, I am not suggesting that we ‘ditch’ graphic form - quite the opposite - what I think we need to do is to ‘add more’ to our repertoire, or even re-conceive our relationship to it. This may mean that we explore alternative avenues of how we design, and in turn, question what design might mean to us. I am excited by your role at the RCA for this reason - that you will be a peer-researcher and not a critic, to join us in this discussion and knowledge discovery.

   I am sorry if I had offended you on my comment of ‘white, western, middle-aged men’ and indeed, I have been deliberately provocative. It is not ‘ok to stereotype’ and that was not the point I was making. Fueled by Drenttel’s piece on the Design Observer (www.designobserver.com/archives/entry.html?id=38804), I am increasingly weary of how the visibility of diversity can be smothered by a prominent few. To me, there is a pattern in the field of graphic design where opinions/judgments are sought from a group of people who share commonalities of race and gender. I have been exposed to this for a long time and it is not healthy for a discipline. As a participant in New Views clusters, you must have been aware of the diversity of the delegates and had actively engaged in the discussions within your group. Yet, in your review, you emphasise Buchanan’s ’sermon’ more than the other valuable interactions and discussions within the groups. My disappointment is because I had hoped that you might be able to give ‘visibility’ to the diversity of voices and opinions of people who are also as engaged and critically questioning where this discipline is going. To me, what Buchanan said was interesting, but it was not the highlight or even a ’summary’ of New Views 2. I am interested in what you and Buchanan have to say as much as the next designer who is critically engaged with their practice. This is because you are key advocates of design. There is a public platform already with eager listeners who are keen to know what you two have to say. I am pointing out that this privileged position can unintentionally ‘misrepresent’ if not considered carefully, and that there are many ways you can assist in creating/maintaining the diversity of exchanges that New Views 2 had initiated. Our practice needs this diversity and criticality of dialogue.

   Apologies for my ‘rant’.

   ——————————————-
   • Dear John: http://www.dearjohn.net.au
   ‘Dear John: Design as catalyst for action’
   http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~e48618/blog/?p=212

   • Fashion City: http://www.fashion-city.decomm.net
   ‘Reflecting on Fashion City: Learning From Collaborative Experimental Design’
   http://research.agda.com.au/index/index/volume/1

4. October 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am | by Neutrition » Blog Archive » Design is D&AD

   [...] in the design media is that “Design is Dead”. Rick Poynor recently wrote an article “It’s the end of graphic design as we know it” in Eye in which he states the [...]

5. October 31st, 2008 at 9:26 pm | by noel douglas

   I want to pick up on a few points Rick has brought up and also respond to Yoko’s comments, as I feel enough time has passed for me to assess what I thought of New Views 2.

   First up, and most importantly, I think image making is an important thing to do, let’s stop being so embarrassed about that, like Rick I think of image production in general, visual communication, to do otherwise, i.e. to think of it as only ‘graphic design’ it to set a limit on the imagination that is not there in reality.

   So let’s stop apologising, stop saying things are ‘dead’, and presuming that just because you say, produce posters for someone, doesn’t mean you can’t be involved in creative relationships with whoever commissions you, in the way Service Designers supposedly are, I say supposedly as Service Design can be just as much a tool of providing designed luxury for the rich and increasing unsustainable consumption patterns. This is because dialogical relationships are not a given, they must be worked at, that is the designer has a responsibility to society, in a time of deep crisis such as now, to politicise the work relationship where they can. Good examples of ‘traditional’ practice that does that is the work that Ne Pas Plier did with French theatre production posters, graphically drawing in the reality of the world to commissioned play designs.

   I have no problem with the conference trying to be unconventional and I welcome more ‘bottom-up’ type of debates/workshops like the cluster idea. The difficulty is that this form of working needs more preparation than a more traditional paper/debate type conference. Unfortunately as this changed happened at the last minute and many people only found out when they got there that it would be like this caused two problems.

   Firstly, I’m sure I’m not the only one who did quite a bit of work preparing a presentation and it would have been good to know we didn’t have to do that if the conference was going to change! I would have also liked to talk about my research with peers as I get little opportunity to do that.

   Secondly not being aware of what we were going into meant there was a bit of a random mix of people all not sure what it was they were really trying to do. This is not to say there wasn’t some good debate and points made, and I personally enjoyed meeting all the people in my group, but I think something that is actually a mix of the two conference approaches would work better. That is, to be explicit, a mixture of, say, short (even time-limited) image based presentations (again I agree with Rick I want to see images!) that could set up a debate with all the people in attendance being clear of the contours of their debate beforehand.

   Lastly I’d just say, we need more imagination! The world is a real mess, obviously the melt down of the World Economy has happened since we met, but we already in difficulties before, it was interesting that in the final session Dick had nothing he could say, after being questioned by me, about what we do about the hollowing out of art and design education under neo-liberal, market based ideas under the guise of the ‘Knowledge Economy’, the results of which we in the UK all know, more students, less staff, less resources, mass education without the mass investment, the end of free education, ridiculous competition between Universities and schools where there needs to be co-operation, research for the sake of it to meet targets, in short, a culture of target driven, bureaucratic procedures with students as ‘customers’ rather than knowledge, education and understanding. Similarly go look at the Design Council and the majority of thinking is about how design can increase profitabilty and not much else.

   But if free market Capitalism is collapsing, why isn’t now the time to think about design not just in relation to private companies but to the State and society too? With the problems of Climate Change needing to be addressed, designers could be engaged with architects, engineers and other workers to produce all kinds of wonderful infrastructure, housing, transport, public space projects, and why shouldn’t we lobby for that? Something like this could also be linked to design education, which in itself could link different subject areas together to bring through students truly capable of solving the very difficult problems we are undoubtedly going to face in the next few years.