Last week I attended an AIGA lecture given by Clement Mok, president of AIGA. For those who don’t know, he’s the rebel-rouser behind a movement in the design industry to garner more respect for the role of design and to take the focus off designers and onto designing. Communication Arts also ran a copy of Mok’s article this summer to maximize exposure of his message throughout the community.
He’s been giving this lecture for a year and a half and, frankly, he seemed unfocused and tired of the material. From the perspective of this audience member, it was far too abstract to do anything with. Then again, my attention span has been a bit edgy after watching a 4-hour play (Homebody/Kabul) and a 4-hour movie (Lawrence of Arabia) within a few days’ time, but I digress. The lecture’s take-away was a 12-step guide aimed to unify the collective process of design and demand respect from our colleagues in other professions. The goal is achieved, as Mok explained, when a potential product needs created and they invite a financial guy, an engineer, a manufacturing specialist, and a designer to the table. Respect of design means that designers need to get involved from the beginning. But this riling up is reduced to a 12-step guide?
I believe most of what Mr. Mok said is true, that design is often reduced to something the black turtlenecks do to a product at the end. But if this is meant to rouse the troops, I think we need a more exciting message—a lot more jumping around and less placating lectures. If the shit’s hitting the fan, why the calm repose?
One problem, it seems, is that there is no easy way to evaluate a designer’s abilities, and the way we interface with clients is inconsistent and often hypocritcal from designer to designer and from firm to firm. Even when a new designer joins the team, there’s often a sense of threat if they have too big a role and too little qualifications — since these qualifications are currently left to subjectivity in the design field.
Doctors can’t perform certain procedues unless they have the education and experience. Even mountaineers have a strict code to show one’s abilities. You quickly know where a climber stands if they can lead on a 5.9 rock route, and can quickly evaluate if they’re qualified for a particular outing. In design, you can ask a candidate to whip out their portfolio, but what was their involvement in a particular piece? What experience, in thinking, in research, in getting things done, do they have beyond the finished portfolio pieces?
We can find benchmarks in our field—if we can’t evaluate ourselves on specific criteria, how can our clients? I don’t believe our portfolios should be a our only criterion in which we’re judged. As the dot-com bubble proved, I think we need some further level of status to separate those designers who are committed to the profession, and those that have abruptly switched gears, ripped-off another’s style and thrown together a pretty portfolio to become the Art Director of a new start-up. This happened in huge numbers in Seattle in the late 1990’s.
But Clement spoke against all of this, if only briefly. Instead, he said that we need more people designing to expose the value of what we do to as many as possible. I don’t disagree with this notion, but I stand firm that the problem lies not only with how we talk about design but also about how we talk about ourselves.
But I haven’t really addressed the heart of what he said—most of his talk is in the articles, which you can read for yourself by following the links above. You can get a more interactive version of the 12-step designing process with examples at designing.aiga.org/.
Oh, and I’ve returned from Portugal.
by Jason A. Tselentis » Oct 11, 2003 11:39 PM
Changing Design; Designing Change
Seattle, 2 October 2003: Clement Mok opened his Time of Change lecture by calling our attention to design's place in the world. It's commercial place. He claimed that we live in a time of design. The society we live in is obsessed with Queer Eye for a Straight Guy, iPods, Volkswagon Beetles, Martha Stewart Living, and Nike. As generators of that visual culture we spend so much time solving the problems of others that we rarely consider our own. Mok did not relay this specifically, but it's my interpretation.
Mok was inspirational, although jet lagged somewhat. He challenged us to not rely on technology for new opportunities. Design must create its own challenges and be inclusive. We should appreciate the trades of others at the conference table. We should encourage those who are desktop publishers to be designers, as it will make our trade more valuable. Overall, it was a heart warming and empowering lecture by Mok. Still, it had a Fortune 500 flair to it with undertones of a Harvard MBA.
I heard nothing new. Yes, we are living in designed times; consumers are aware of image and form. Yes, we still have difficulty explaining what we do to non-designers. And we supposedly have not gained the respect we feel entitled to. While we work as catalysts with large or small interdisciplinary teams, we're still shunned. So what if engineers, writers, executives, and accountants don't fully grasp what we do? So what if they look down on us? When I meet such people (through small talk or at the office) and learn that they don't comprehend or respect what I do, I walk away. This is a big problem. As designers, we tend to be exclusive. We stick to our own circle of colleagues. We dress the same, in designerly black with pretentious eyeglasses perched in front of our visually sensitive eyeballs. Even though designers dress differently, let's throw fashion aside and focus on how to solve the problem of exclusivity. Or do we even need to?
Mok suggested that we invite others into our process and methods through documentation. It's a 12-step process. By sharing what we do and how much work it takes, our discipline will become even more valuable. Even more valuable? So is he saying that we'll become more pretentious? Or more exclusive? Or will we be able to command greater pay? More pay would please a lot of designers. Who doesn't miss the booming 90s?
Still, the formulaic 12-step approach Mok advocates is a tad loathsome. It would be available, online or in another public sphere. Why should my hard work be placed into a database, and later foraged by others trying to solve a similar problem? I can see it now, "You're not sure about what prototypes to build? No problem. Just go to Step 6 of the IBM 2003 Annual Report. It's case number 'AR_0603IBM.' In fact, their entire innovation model is great!" How is this any different from design rippers, who skim through award annuals to be inspired by flashy veneer? They’re looking for answers, for models of what to do, "Who cares about went into the work, let me try and do something like this."
Will an AIGA database of 12-step solutions be the Time of Change we should look forward to? The time when design is relegated to a series of operations? Design would become largely systematic with an emphasis on pragmatics, the bottom line, and worse yet, it would create form more objectively than ever. Forget about personal interests and investments in the job. Creativity? No way. This is design as business. All the "unnecessary" components will be shaved away. The 12 steps spell efficiency. Efficiency is another way of saying "Let's cut costs to drive profit."
It's unfortunate that some people will see this Time of Change as an ideal. Design can function in this way, as an operational means of driving business. Quite possibly, this would demonstrate how we think and promote designers as more active team players. More importantly, it would demonstrate to the MBAs and executives that we do think. We don't just doodle on a drawing pad or push pixels around the computer monitor.
Mok spent the most time focusing on how designers can be role players in the business landscape. It's true that corporations are investing in design. Their motivations are not only about look, but also about emphasizing value. Differentiating worth is how brands are trying to separate themselves in our post-traumatic landscape when consumers are spending cautiously. If design can be a role player in that competitive environment and revive the economy, Mok deserves a lot of credit. In accordance with design as good business, know that there are other choices. This depends on what content we are working with. But foremost, it depends on what role the designer is interested in taking on. Designers can be social agents, artists, educators, propagandists, writers, technicians, engineers, programmers, directors, advertisers, or investigators.
Design makes ideas visible. It's an amazing job to have. It's a fun job too. Let's leave it as such. Let design be fluid. Let design be intuitive. Let's work hard and introduce beautifully designed artifacts into the world. If we have the chance to invest something of a personal nature, that's great too. This adds another layer of complexity and interest, which is close to Mok's other challenge. He suggests that we find our own problems. We can be critical of our own designs, processes, and thoughts. This was a call for research. Research and work can go hand in hand. This is how to change design and this is how design will change.
by Parekh Rajul » Dec 20, 2003 3:47 PM
The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.