From Voice ~ Topics: professional issues, web design

Danger of the Desktop

When the masses are empowered with the ability to create and broadcast their own home-brewed content, is that really a good thing? What happens when “pro” media tools fall into hands of the masses? How does that affect those of us who are supposedly trained “professionals” and have dedicated our careers to producing legitimate entertainment and communication design?

As a designer and Internet veteran, these are the questions that keep me up at night. Lets face it folks, I know deep down you agree with me.

With the proliferation of intuitive, content-making applications and the ability to self-publish, an abundance of “reality media” is flooding the web and growing with each passing month. Most of it demonstrates the potential danger of desktop media tools in the hands of the “untrained” general public.

So where did this all start? As legend has it, the seed was planted in 1984 when Mr. John Warnock of Adobe whispered the word “postscript” into the ear of a certain big shot at Apple computer. Soon after, Warnock’s invention was powering Apple’s new LaserWriter printers, which allowed them to do the unthinkable: they could print out crisp, razor-sharp graphics without the tell-tale computer “jaggies” all the other systems produced.

This lead to the introduction of Aldus PageMaker, a groundbreaking Mac application that allowed the Average Joe to create reams of poorly designed (but exquisitely printed) newsletters, flyers and embarrassing print collateral that used to be produced by legitimate design studios.

The one mitigating factor is that when desktop publishing became common, the whole typesetting industry was almost immediately put out of business. And to that I say, “Good riddance!” If you’re an old timer like me, you’ll remember the tedium of hand-spec’ing type and the insanely high rip-off fees these typesetting shysters used to charge. Shame on them.

As the newfangled “desktop publishing” helped professionals cut costs, it also empowered amateurs to create design efforts that violated every rule of aesthetics we learned in art school. And so, some twenty years later the same dilemma prevails today. Only this time the danger of the desktop isn’t limited to bad print design published on a black and white laser printer. Good God, no. My friends, it’s permeated every nook and cranny of the global media landscape. Dare I suggest it; in every niche imaginable these amateur efforts have either influenced or neutered the work of the pros. And there’s no end in sight. Let’s look at the evidence:

Desktop text

The invention of the blog empowered anyone, and I mean anyone, with a computer and a web connection to become an instantly published pundit. After reading a few, you’ll realize these “web logs” are often nothing more than stream of consciousness rants with little value to the masses. In fact, I suspect most blogs are visited more by their author than the web surfing public. There have been some notable efforts that not only broke free of their homemade roots, but actually influenced the agendas of mainstream news media and the minds of the general public. Whether it is Swift Boat Veterans trumpeting John Kerry’s phony claims of heroism, exposing Dan Rather’s faked Bush documents or the biased blather of the insufferable former talk show host Rosie O’Donnell, blogs have made an indelible mark on the way modern news events are perceived.

Blogging has allowed the public to not only voice their feelings, but also to hear other unconventional opinions as well. In the past, such reporting and exchanging of “news” was exclusively in the hands of the monopolistic major networks. Now anyone can report on an issue with almost the same “credibility” as the big broadcast news. Just look at Matt Drudge (God bless him) and his popular Drudge Report website. It’s a rinky-dink operation run by one man, yet it has broken stories on par with the big boys. After Drudge scooped the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, his humble operation became required reading by the media elite within the beltway.

Desktop audio

It’s common knowledge that peer-to-peer apps have essentially killed the music business as we used to know it. Within the course of just a few short years, file sharing changed the dynamics of music commerce, as well as the notion of professional “product” for sale. In addition, with the advent of the iPod and the technique of podcasting, amateur recordings and homemade radio content are blogs for the ears. Who can say where this will lead us? One thing is for sure: Our relationship with audio entertainment has forever changed. The trend that has emerged is based on user control and instant gratification—a concept that has often been in opposition to music industry business models and profit margins.

Desktop video

I think it’s safe to categorize viral “reality video” into two distinct flavors: the first features subjects who are intentionally recorded; the second, those who are unintentionally recorded. Or, more precisely, there are amateur filmmakers who intended for the results to be released online, and those who most definitely did not. The best example of a video that was never meant to be seen is the famous “Star Wars kid” footage—a tragic home movie of an overly enthusiastic fan spastically prancing about with a stick, pretending to be a Jedi knight. The clip leaked onto the web without the kid’s consent, and the rest is history. Before long, the video was embraced by thousands of heartless bastards who used the power of desktop video production to create deeper embarrassment. The countless spoofs, re-mixes and themed edits they created were even more entertaining than the original. Maybe this phenomenon of user-involvement and community content creation is the future of storytelling? But regrettably, it doesn’t stop there. As profiled in a recent New York Times story, the notorious “Numa Numa” clip exemplifies renegade desktop video content. In this example, an overweight, big-mouthed nineteen-year-old amateur videographer named Gary Brolsma, captured himself lip-synching to an obscure Romanian pop song. This, my friends, proves my premise more than anything else. If you haven’t seen the “Numa Numa” video, please take a look. No one can watch this clip and not agree with me. Some people just shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an iChat camera.

What’s next?
As a designer, I’m open-minded enough to acknowledge the value of free expression, and I endorse the notion of unfiltered access to the masses. But at some point the design community has to put it’s collective foot down and take a stand. Enough of all this “power-to-the-people” bullshit. Frankly, in some cases, giving the masses the power to publish their unpolished content is a little like giving a cranky toddler a loaded 10 mm Glock. Sooner or later, someone’s bound to get hurt.

As the mass media continues to look and sound like an endless stream of public-access hokum, the designers of the future will be sought after to bring clarity to the chaos.


On the other hand, maybe I’m being a little harsh. Most innovation is conceived on the streets, and currently pop culture’s brightest artistic breakthroughs have been born on the desktop. If it weren’t for powerful desktop audio-editing tools, DJ Danger Mouse never would have given us his brilliant “Grey Album” and its accompanying music video that blends Jay Z’s music with a breakdancing John Lennon.

Legitimate media almost always follows the creative cues established by the “underground” media. So it’s no wonder that big news organizations are keeping a watchful eye on blogs; record labels are finally embracing peer-to-peer (P2P) business models; big-time radio stations are offering their own downloadable podcasts; and of course, television has successfully converted itself into one giant, never-ending reality series. This trend may have reached the point of creative meltdown. It was recently announced that FOX, the nation’s purveyor of good taste, plans to launch a new 24-hour cable channel devoted exclusively to round-the-clock reality shows. No doubt a series starring that pudgy Numa Numa kid can’t be far behind.

So where do the “professional” designers fit into this brave new world of homemade content? Rather than become extinct, I’d venture to say that our skills might actually become more valuable. As the mass media continues to look and sound like an endless stream of public-access hokum, the designers of the future will be sought after to bring clarity to the chaos.

With all this chatter and visual noise polluting the airways and the internet, we might be entering a new dark age of communication. It’s a form of abuse really, and we’re all victims. When everyone has a voice, then no one has a voice. The masses will just trample everything with a cacophony of screaming, self-made media rants. After a time, when the novelty of self-publication wears thin, the masses might keep their self-indulgence content out of the public domain and leave the fragile art of editing words, composing music and designing visuals to the so-called “pros.”

Or maybe not.

About the Author: David Vogler is a vice president, creative director at Modem Media. Before becoming a full-time agency man, David spent his career at MTV Networks designing entertainment content for kids and teens. David can be reached at david (at) davidvogler.com.

  1. link to this comment by Andy Polaine Fri Apr 15, 2005

    David, of course you are completely correct that a voice for all gives rise to amateurish content creation. The tyranny of software (as I have written about often) is that it allows for the impression of a finished, professional product without the discipline. It is simple, for example, for a first-year design student (or even, say, my mum) to produce and print something that looks a bit like a magazine in the shops in terms of production finish (full colour, glossy paper, etc.). This just was not the same even ten years ago and, as you point out, the same effect has crept into all media. The cues that signified "amateur" from "professional" have collapsed.

    It is important to remember, however, that us "professionals" have often brought this upon ourselves. Media networks have utilised these new technologies to make increasingly low-grade products simply because the media landscape has become so fractured. The amount of dollars available for production have remained proportionally the same, but are now spread across many areas (print, TV, internet, wireless, etc.). It also allowed many of those companies (ad agencies, TV networks) to take a DIY approach to content creation. After all, if your nephew can "do websites" then why pay a professional?

    Certainly in the new media area, designers and professionals are often forced to lower their rates and not stand up for the value of their creativity. Designers (at least here in Australia) are treated like tradesmen, except we're paid half the amount.

    I believe we undermine the value of our creativity when we give in to the myth of talent. When others think that designing, drawing, making music, writing, etc. is "easy" because of a God-given talent, rather than through hard work and practice, it gives them an excuse to dismiss the effort involved.

    Unfortunately, we all too often bask in the idea that we're talented (rather than hard working) and enjoy the glory of the lie that we just toss out these ideas effortlessly.

    When was the last time you saw a good (and expensive) dentist be called talented (apart from on Extreme Makeover)? Years of training is their mantra. We need to debunk the talent myth and work out how to demonstrate the difference between "picking up" Illustrator, and being trained as a designer.

  2. link to this comment by David Vogler Sat Apr 16, 2005

    Right on, Andy. Well said. And I agree.

  3. link to this comment by Art Sat Apr 16, 2005

    This is just another manifestation of technology capturing some aspect of humanity's capabilities and making it available to everyone. It gives us all more, better shoulders to stand upon. As machines continue to take on more of what we do, we need to just continue to create more, better stuff. It's what creative people do. Oh.. and God, while you're blessing Drudge please bless Billmon.org too. Thanks.

  4. link to this comment by Steve Mon Apr 18, 2005

    This is a funny and well done piece. Aren't we all amateurs? The line between "home made" and "professional" is getting more blurred every day.

  5. link to this comment by Stan Furlong Tue Apr 19, 2005

    You're right. There are too many amateurs producing trash that takes work from professionals. It's far too easy to get a copy of Dreamweaver and InDesign and think that since you've got a set of Snap-On tools, you must be a mechanic.

    However, the problem isn't caused only by ignorant and egotistical amateurs. Just as much of it is caused by hordes of talentless "professionals."

    The site I designed and maintain is in its fourth incarnation. The first three were by pros and all three were frame-based, poorly maintained and difficult to navigate. I got so fed up with content being several months out of date and hearing complaints from people who couldn't find the content that was there, I took a Mickey-Mouse online course in web design my local community college offered. It's taken me several years of reading and practice to unlearn the nonsense that "professional" taught me. I think I do a passable job now.

    Maybe you think the web is an exception because it's such a new medium. Incompetent pros are common in the print sector, too. A few years ago, we were having a hard time stretching our ad budget far enough to pay for the layout of our brochures. One of the PR/Ad committee members was a law student who knew another student who was only a year away from getting his BFA. He was willing to do the layout job for a hundred bucks. We jumped on the deal. Every character of text in those brochures was Comic Sans! Do you think he learned so much in one more year that he deserved to be called a pro? So, the next year, I just bought a copy of InDesign and did it myself.

    I don't know what the answer is. I have a lot of respect for designers who do a good job and wish them the best. But, I think the blurring of the line between amateur and professional comes from the top as much as it does from the bottom.

  6. link to this comment by Mark Shepherd Thu Apr 21, 2005

    Great Article -
    Perhaps you answered your own arguement - the so-called Pros representing the voice of the masses (reality TV, designers, art directors?) - do get their hands on the cranky toddler a loaded 10 mm Glock and exploit it - regurgitate this back for us to swallow again and again! I think Marshall Mcluhan warned us a while back - right? Maybe the accessability of the medium in the hands of the proletarian has actually begun to reverse the process of where designers look to for content, inspiration...it is the "real" that is more authentic, or is it? As design culture borrows more from this language - perhaps it becomes more difficult to separate these mediated experiences from what is considered authentic or thoughtful, professional design. The two begin to overlap?

    I am not sure things were any better when the voices where limited to only those few Pros - they still mined the amatuers on the street. Now it is much easier to give credit where credit is due!? Even though there is endless amounts of it to sift through.



    Interesting questions...

  7. link to this comment by Magpie Mon Apr 25, 2005

    This 'dumbing down' of production is happening across all media due to digital developments. But I'd like to ask: what makes a designer 'professional'? Is it someone with a formal degree, someone who's done it for twenty years without the degree, or some combination therein?

    I suspect anyone who earned their BFA or MFA before 1991 has been playing catchup learning digital content -- just like everyone else. When I first started designing websites, it was 1994, and there was no course in it, no DreamWeaver or other WYSIWYG apps, and certainly no CSS! You had to muddle through the best you could, using tables as a design element.

    I agree with a poster above, who said that along with dreadful amateur designs, there are dreadful professional ones, as well. There are also amateurs who do a better than fair job. I also agree that our skills are quickly becoming 'boutique' skills; the only clients who pay fair wages are the big buck ones. Everyone else can and will have their nephew do the site. For a business with little $, that makes perfect sense. However, business needs to learn that good design translates into better business. That this message has not been better disseminated speaks ill of our own communication and promotional skills as a trade.

  8. link to this comment by JoJo Tue Apr 26, 2005

    What Good Is Butter If You Haven't Got Bread?
    What Good Is Art When It Hurts Your Head?
    Might As Well Be In Bed!

  9. link to this comment by Sam Wed Apr 27, 2005

    I hope you don't take this as an insult, as it's meant in the best possible sense, but this article is a clear example of amateur journalism. A trend that's followed the rise of the internet as a publishing medium, amateur journalism is chiefly practised by people who lack formal training. This often results in rambling articles with no clear structure, unclear and contradictory arguments, and unsupported assertions. Worse still, amateur journalists appear to write simply *for the love of writing*, although a few clever ones have found ways to get paid for their work.

    What was that about amateur designers?

  10. link to this comment by Charles Tait Thu Apr 28, 2005

    Bang on, for a while now I have been guilty of accepting titles of talent at the sake of disguising the amount of hard work that went into a project.
    As the issue of authorship is being discussed currently, surely the desire to be recognised as the author of a piece will further enhance the notion of talent.
    Regarding mass desktop publishing, I was walking past Marks and Spencer (Leicester UK) the other day and was nearly bowled over by an A board stood outside covered with A4 desktop printouts advertising M&S insurance, I think Sue from accounts must have discovered Word Art. I would be disgusted to see such offerings in a local village hall never mind outside one of the UK's major highstreet players. M&S wasn't even rendered using the corporate style. However I still think that the public essentially know good design when they see it, the trouble is they don't understand that to create it takes skill and time.

  11. link to this comment by Charles Salmela Fri Apr 29, 2005

    It seems to me graphic designers are so concerned with the medium they forget about, or even seek, proper content. If desingners of the future are going to be sought out to bring clarity to the chaos they first have to understand what art is....

    In the beginning, before the word of art was even thought, there were the seers. Those who perceived the holistic energies of life and synergistic relationships with all forms. They valued, and felt, the water, sky, animals, plants, and fire. They formed symbols like the cross to express their fondness for the life cycle. Sadly these wonderful preartists were to become called Pagans and slaughtered by the new male God loving people we now call Christians etc. This was the beginning of the chaos.

    Now we are in a delema. The people of power, at all levels, and even in the universities, are bowing to the false kingships. And in the streets the sacred symbols have become the branding advertisements of apparel for the corporate sleeze. Arnold Toynbee said, "they have removed the constraints on man's greed and overthrown the traditinal balance between man and nature."

    If the chaos is to be solved it will be a reunion of heart and mind with the natural rhythms and forms. The bird still sings the same song. Why are designers so upset with their tools? They should be concerned with the true content of their forms and symbols.

  12. link to this comment by William Gillies Mon May 02, 2005

    Where is the editor? I won't suffer through the Journal's site with this kind of writing. I'm honestly baffled by this post.
    The value of design asserts itself as itself. This post adds no value to this website, instead it detracts from the sites' function as being informative and raising thoughtful insights on contemporary design issues. Good God, indeed!

  13. link to this comment by joem Tue May 03, 2005

    Forget about desktop training vs. computer prowess, ideation is (still) where it's at—big juicy ideas. Think about it. Any simian can jump on the computer and build a brochure or publish a web movie—this is the age DYI and reality TV—and we all have the means. But without an idea, desktop publishing is nothing but artifact creation. It's how you make the medium work for the idea that's really the point. Would you have known the subservient chicken was done by arguably one of the hottest agencies right now? (Look them up yourself if haven't heard already because I can't bare to say their name AGAIN). It was viral advertising at it's best. It literally exploded across the world and landed on millions of monitors almost over night. There wasn't a huge gloss to it, because the idea was "king."

    Now find your downloaded copy of the Numa Numa kid, dub your clients name in the chorus and disseminate the video across the world. Presto an instant viral idea. Be warned. The future is in the hands of those who can dream big and produce as well.

    The idea that graphic designers should fear the common person eating their lunch has other things to concern themselves with. Let this debate go. It's dead.

  14. link to this comment by steve heller Tue May 03, 2005

    remember when Apple introduced the Mac as a graphic design tool in TV commercial that used the term "graphic design?" The voice-over went something like this: "This is graphic design," "This is the new Macintosh," "Now you don't need a graphic designer." Well, we thought the world was coming to an end. All sorts of rabid desktop layouters would contaminate our gene pool. Did it happen?
    Well, yes. Did it adversely impinge on design? No. And now the Mac is our savior and friend.
    Every new technology impacts on something that was once the province of others. The Mac ultimately made craft-based typesetters and compositors virtually endangered. The web has not destroyed the integrity of art, its just expanded the parameters.
    Perhaps we should just live and let live. We're certainly going to survive.

  15. link to this comment by Robin Strelow Sun May 08, 2005

    Good enough. That's what many out there think that don't feel the need to hire an experienced graphic designer or art director. We designers and art directors with 20+ years of experience in the profession have worked hard to get where we are and sometimes the "where we are" part is the most depressing of all. After getting a BFA from a well-established university design program in the 70s, working at increasingly more responsible positions, winning national awards and making a mark in the industry, I personally find the trend insulting, at best. Lately everyone out there seems to think they can do a website, design a publication and produce insanely beautiful collateral with the finesse and expertise that a person with the life's dedication to the business can. Also "good enough" is what's good enough for companies that don't feel they need to pay for the years of dedication, experience, and perseverance, let alone the thousands that our parents (or ourselves) had to fork out for a good education to pursue a career in design. Not that everyone owes us but the fact that the fair salaries are going away is a reflection of the notion that there's no need for experience. They've got Adobe CS2! What do they need design experience for? My latest pet peeve is when the obviously unsophisticated and ignorant introduce me as a "graphic artist" or better yet an "artist"...they may as well call me a "Mac Monkey" for all the prestige those two titles hold. Is our field going by the way side as an extinct one? How will we deal with this? How can we educate the ignorant without insulting them for, well, being ignorant?

  16. link to this comment by Andrew McColyer Mon May 09, 2005

    This is one of the better pieces I've seen on this VOICE site in a while. It's really helped ignite people's passions and generated some great posts. Dave Vogler always shakes the tree. If you still don't believe that there's a danger, then watch this video:

    http://www.technounionarmy.com/video_gem2.html

    I dare you to try and sit through this. I rest my case.

  17. link to this comment by designer59a Thu May 12, 2005

    Popular culture, accessible technology and it's resulting creative output are not a threat to anyone's profession. That's silly; just because the teriyaki restaurant on the corner has a line out the door doesn't mean that the dining room with the Cordon Bleu trained chef is in danger of going out of business.

    Culture, taste, and trends are human; messy, intersecting, derivative. How hypocritical to pretend, as professionally trained designers, that we are not profoundly influenced by the visual mileu surrounding us: street art, visual ephemera, the drawings done by our young children. I might not base my next collateral piece on the "Numa Numa Dance", but hey, what about Romanian culture, anyway? What ideas are lurking there, waiting for appropriation?

    As a REAL artist, you embrace all of it and then give it back to your clients with your own unique signature. That's why they hire you, and that's why they re-hire you. And you don't need an MFA in graphic design, a black turtleneck, impossibly hip eyeglasses or a $10,000 workstation to understand that.

  18. link to this comment by gregor Fri May 20, 2005

    In the early 1980's the 1st affordable 4 track recording studio, fostex, became available. While it helped fuel the indie cassette revolution, it made no impact on the sales of the music industry.

    Apple Pages, Microsft Publisher, or other design applications made readily accessible to the "commoner" will have no impact on the design profession. In fact what may happen is those shoestring budget small non-profits, too insignificant for designer's to consider pro-bono work for, may actually have the capability of producing material a step above MS Word and clip art.

    "There are too many amateurs producing trash that takes work from professionals. It's far too easy to get a copy of Dreamweaver and InDesign and think that since you've got a set of Snap-On tools, you must be a mechanic."

    give 'em a break -- the people who hire dreamweaver or indesign amatuers ain't planning on paying professional rates and in that vein ain't planning on hiring anyone writing in this forum: and believe me, if they did hire you they would likely be the type of client you'll regret taking on.

  19. link to this comment by Jennifer Mon Nov 28, 2005

    I am currently a student studying Visual Communication. Perhaps I can offer a different perspective of someone lacking much experience. I think the availability of publishing software and the ability for anyone to create pieces of communication is a VERY good thing. I don't believe there is such thing as a professional designer other than to say it's someone who gets paid to design. Don't get me wrong, I believe in knowing what you're doing, but all anyone really needs is a great idea. Whether you're a twelve year old fiddling with the paint program on a desktop PC or someone experienced in producing great works, it is a wonderful thing that they both have a voice.
    Where do you think a lot of the current design students acquired some of their interest in design? We grew up with computers and Microsoft Word layouts. I am certainly not saying those are tools I would myself use professionally, but it was having the opportunity to experiment with them and produce my early ideas that inspired me to pursue a career in design.
    Certainly people will create bad design more easily with the availability of these programs, but problems come with every great thing.
    If someone really wants or needs professional design and can afford it, great, but the local non-profit certainly benefits from the ability to slap together a flyer begging for volunteers.
    As far as I'm concerned, the ability for anyone to publish anything is a great step forward. If you have a problem with what is produced, then find ways to educate people, or help create desktop publishing software.

  20. link to this comment by Michelle Lee Thu Oct 26, 2006

    Perhaps a beneficial aspect of the spread of the desktop publisher is that a much deeper appreciation of true, authentic design is created. When compared, the quality and integrity of professional design is much more substantial, conceptual, and aesthetically pleasing. The strong division of the two, I feel, validates the design profession.

  21. link to this comment by LSW Wed Jul 11, 2007

    Sorry for dragging up a old posting, that always irritates me, but I would like to point out a veriation.

    I am a schooled Web Designer, I learned it in one of the first schools in Germany to offer web design training, actually I was in the first class. I graduated just weeks after the dot.com crash in 2000. I was a professional web designer because I learned it in school and created some really... standard designs. It was not until 2003 that I discovered the power of CSS and accessibility issues and became a real web developer. It was then that I discovered just how poor my schooling was. Since then I know what I am doing and have built up a small reputation.

    Yet 7 years later I still meet college grads who think themselves the best web designers since Joe Clark... yet still use frames, poor code, believe XHTML is HTML and that it replaced HTML and laugh at the idea of the vision impaired actually surfing.

    It was not school that taught me what I know and opened my eyes, it was forums and blogs teaching standards and accessibility. If you check on many f the top names in accessible web design, especially in Europe, few were ever trained in web design specifically and most came from other fields like programming or art. Yet these people are far more knowledgeable than any college students I have spoken too and the accessibility movements life blood is forums and blogs where we "convert" untrained or school taught designers about moder web design. So desktop publishing has it's positives too, I know many hobby designers who embrace accessibility faster than "trained" designers.

    But alas, it also has meant that along with other media, garbage web pages run rampant and customers want $200 web sites cause a high school kid down the street with a cracked Dreamweaver and Photoshop is charging that much, so web design cannot be all that hard can it.

    Sorry for raising the dead.

    Kyle Lamson

  22. link to this comment by Leroy Campbell Wed Sep 19, 2007

    David, we as designers should not feel threatened by the advent of consumer publishing. In this knowledge-based economy, tools (for our purposes, desktop publishing tools) are only means, not the ends. Perhaps it is time for us to reevaluate what it means to be a "professional." Should not our skill or the value we deliver to our clients constitute our status? Amateur publishing (even two years after this article) still does not create value in and of itself. A designer still has the responsibility to effectively transmit meaning from one party to another. Although the tools allow many more people to participate, they do not endow education, experience, and credibility.

    Now lies ahead an opportunity to educate the masses on "true" design. I recently encountered a friend who became interested in web design, yet thought a few minutes in Dreamweaver would instantly produce quality work. As a freelance desktop publisher myself, realized that he had not been introduced to modern advances in web development. I've since begun to educate him on CSS, standards-based design, and development frameworks (my personal favorite being Rails). But this is not enough. Both client and audience must understand that design is not a commodity consisting in zeros and ones; it is a skill of the mind and eye, forged through dialog and experience.

  23. link to this comment by geoff jenkins Thu Sep 20, 2007

    I read somewhere amidst this forum that the idea was key. I agree. All of this technology is akin to a hammer or glue gun; they are all tools. However, they are sometimes placed in the hands of an untrained individual who happens to be innately intuitive, one might see very nice work. And yes, there are "professionals" who produce suspect results. Because they're much more savvy at the business end, they make a living turning out the less-than-acceptable to design purists. Yet clients seem to find it acceptable, which is a major issue to me concerning where technology has taken design. And one reason cheaper, "amateur" work is being accepted by the business community over the more expensive "learned professionals."

    I've noticed over the 30 years I've been in the field, clients have grown less and less interested in the importance of a concept--whether their communications actually speak to their audience. If it looks polished and clean, it must be good, regardless of where it came from, and most importantly, what it costs. As technology has made getting to market faster, a colleague of mine barks the mantra, "you can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick two." How many of us have been relegated to doing it "cheap and good," but putting in the time on the "good" part in order to satisfy the muse. The vast majority of clients don't care about that. The soul of what we do is till within us to the larger extent, but there are those whose soul is waning or has waned. All for the sake of satisfying the clients' bottom line. Which brings a statement I read earlier--paraphrased, "...we need to show clients that good design principles equate to better business for them."
    __________________________________________________

    Several years ago I attended my local major awards show, and there was a video of the judges discussing the work. Quite candidly, they all agreed to a person, great photography, design and illustration can't help a poor concept. An although one must agree it's still true today, you don't have to go far to find examples of this ideal. We've been putting lipstick on pigs for years...
    __________________________________________________

    During a stint at an in-house studio, where the company architects worked below us on the first floor, the brother of the president was always sending up mail that he felt pertained more to our department that his. One DM piece he sent had the headline, "You Can Be A Graphic Designer." It was for clip art. That was rather depressing. I immediately wanted to create a faux piece entitled, "You Can Be A Nuclear Physicist," but I couldn't find an equivalent.

    I remember the start of desktop publishing (Macintosh, LaserWriter, PageMaker). Later, I saw the PC wolves that wanted to eat the Mac sheep when Ventura Publisher was introduced. Desktop publishing become the new word processing, while we had to try and find ways to reestablish our elitism as "Graphic Designers."

    I remember when graphic designers used initial caps to describe themselves. When there was skill and knowledge involved with producing the art we did, and that kerning wasn't left to a software application (or accepted as such). I remember actually operating a Linotype machine, and produced hot type, the last year my university still decided to maintain the archaic thing--remember where the term "leading" came from? I remember when typography was much more a mystery than it is today, many lay-people I talk to still don't understand it--as a matter of fact many students and younger designers don't get it either. Yet, still, it's another aspect of design clients don't seem to care about. I have explained many times to a group of deer-in-the-headlights board members, who, after the explanation, expressed their incredulity and simply moved on, "It's just type, for heaven's sake." "I like the ones with the little flags on 'em."

    My rant comes down to this: Educating is not glamorous, and takes time--IF you have the time to spend with anyone these days. Educating the client is more the key. Seasoned professionals need to get more involved with the educational process on many levels. Although it seems the masses have relegated design in it's many forms to entertainment, devoid of any communicative value, disguised as "viral advertising"--which I'm still trying to come to terms with, as of the many I've seen, some I can never remember what they're advertising (which I thought was the idea in the first place), or what the takeaway is...

    Technology is a tool. Separate our angst from that, and go after educating business to see beyond the tool, and even the box built, and see what their audience is leaving with; show a correlation with the bottom line. You might find we can still be entertained as well.

  24. link to this comment by JimDeFabio Mon Oct 08, 2007

    Great piece. Dave Vogler's writing is always hilarious and touches a nerve. Technology is a tool, you guys. The intelligence behind the technology using it is what matters.

  25. link to this comment by Alex W. Tue Oct 09, 2007

    Oh no, computers are now doing what human professionals used to do! I'm so scared! Um, welcome to the real world of most professions out there, and count your blessings whenever you're not being outsourced.

    An amateur armed with CS3 still has no grasp of:
    -How to combine features for advanced effects
    -How to use the programs effectively and efficiently
    -How to make designs with function as well as form
    -How to articulate design choices & strategy
    -How to manage client relationships and expectations
    -How to manage a multipart design campaign on time and on budget

    I can't stand to hear all this bellyaching about (potential) clients not appreciating high-level aesthetic concepts and everything you learned in art school. They don't have to care unless you make an effort to communicate what value you can add! If you are threatened by amateurs then perhaps you are an amateur as well.

    Every time that an amateur gets access to a professional tool, technology also produces new, more advanced tools that only professionals can truly utilize. Anyone who is sitting on skills that are five to ten years old and not actively studying the latest and greatest tools is just begging to be put out of business. This is an evolving craft, so evolve already!

  26. link to this comment by Dorian Melton Wed Oct 10, 2007

    Creating familiarity with a product is a necessary first step to selling the product. That's the strategy behind giving out free samples.

    To use a sports analogy; if nobody had ever played baseball as a kid, professional baseball leagues with multi-millionaire players would not exist.

    Obviously, putting desktop computer user-friendly tools into the hands of any consumer with enough cash doesn't impart design skills, but being involved in any kind of design process can create awareness of, and even appreciation for those skills.

    Perhaps it is inevitable that as computer-based graphic tools find their way into even the most remote corners of the planet; the world will experience an awakening to the vital benefits of design.

  27. link to this comment by Marie R. Wed Oct 10, 2007

    As a student designer I have thought a lot about whether I am making the right career choice when so many "amateurs" are able to use the same programs that I am still being trained in today. A few of my non artistic friends have messed around with photoshop and some have created decent work, but I do believe that a person needs to be professionally trained in design. I have realized that although many people may have access to CS3 programs but they don't know the extent of what the programs have to offer. Also I believe that there is much more to designing than just making something look good. Time, effort, and skill go into making a good design and the public can see the difference between professional and amateur work.

  28. link to this comment by David Curry Mon Dec 03, 2007

    We can talk until we are blue in the face (or green or red--choose your color) about the virtues of design, process and aesthetics, but unfortunately with most of today's clients, it makes no difference. The simple fact of the matter is they do not care. In addition to the issues of the client (or their subordinates) as DIY amateur tool-users, the standards of quality have plummeted—but only for the client's output--certainly not your own. Clients will accept their own simplistic banal crap with pride and glee and a healthy dose of ego, but will still beat you up if it should be your banal crap or even your brilliance that you are purveying. They just don't know any better because they are unschooled in the language, history and process of graphic communications.

    But the one advantage the client holds over you is they own the product and have all the equity and benefit enormously from your talent and you don't. As a very early mentor of mine once said, "Don't ever expect to be thanked—you'll be lucky if you get paid."

    I do hear however the same three refrains from a variety of clients who have embarked on their solo journey through the easy-to-use and free-for-a-small-recurring-fee "Content Management Systems" and try to manage their own web sites; "I never realized it would take so much time..." and "How come I can't get it to look the way you do..." and "Can you fix this for me?" They're usually the same clients who said prior, "All you have to do is press a button and it's done—how dare you charge me $9.99 for a design concept!"

    This all may sound cynical and it is, but there is an easy way out—become your own client. Don't go into design services—go into your own product development company. Launch your own brand, design your own product line, create your own advertising, marketing communications, web site and promotions, all the things that you do well, enjoy and are terrifically good at. You'd then own your own ideas and benefit directly from their equity as you ignite the marketplace.

    All you need to please is yourself and your own high standards of quality and then face the customer, who will undoubtedly remark "why do I have to pay $9.99 for this simplistic banal crap*?" And your answer is, "Because only I have it and you want it."

    *I actually had one customer use this very phrase to describe a highly successful clip-art product line of ours that we eventually sold to Microsoft. You can draw your own conclusions.

  29. link to this comment by Jorge Guastavino Mon Dec 03, 2007

    Today, while re-organizing my working space, I ran into some vintage resource material on the shelves. One of them was the Symbols and Signs book published a long time ago by AIGA. This took me to the WEB to find out if a digital version of the symbols might exist online. Happily, it does. And also happily, I found this website. ? And then I started reading…

    David’s comments put him squarely in my professional “time bracket.” I can clearly see the demise of the Typesetter, and others (remember “Stats” houses?), and the appearance of the new digital tools.

    I felt compelled to send this lines because re-encountering the AIGA has brought me back in time. And this is not a good thing. My first impression is that of a time warp, starting with the site’s design. Has anyone looked at the seventies (or thereabouts) illustration on the home page? Could this be proof that may be the non-professional masses have a point…?

    Ok, I realize that the answer to the relevance of an organization and its promotion depend on its members, and I have been away for a long time. So I should now learn more about AIGA in the new millennium and maybe contribute later…

  30. link to this comment by Daniel J. Matranga Sat Nov 01, 2008

    Excellent article and still very relevant, despite the fact that it's been up for a few years now (and in this industry, that's quite a while).

    I am always both delighted and dismayed when new design tools are released that make it easier and easier to produce good design.

    Squarespace is one such example I've come across recently. I've spent years honing my design, layout, CSS and JavaScript skills, only to find more and more tools like this, that enable users to reproduce beautiful, standards-based webpages with not only no coding skills, but no real design skills either.

    If we make it easy enough for a chimp to design brilliant page layouts or websites, how are we supposed to make a living? At the end of the day, such companies are happy to make a buck or two from licensing these tools, but what are the effect on the industry as a whole?

    The fact that the barriers to entry into this field are becoming smaller and smaller concerns me, and the results are yet to be seen. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Add a Comment

AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work.