Glen,
I think your post will be as close to an affirmative as I will get to
my question:
>Is there anyone out there who would like to argue for designers
>ignoring others, making decisions in a vacuum, and subverting
>people's control over their lives in every manner possible?
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that
>The recent turn of the list towards this discussion - of why designers are
>so protectionist -
>for want of a better term - might have something to do with daily life as a
>designer.
Should I assume that you agree that understanding the phenomenon
should not mean promoting it?
Everyone working as a designer (at least in the way you and I are
using the word) has faced changes in the physical form of what we do
that are not based on a process of inclusion but on the arbitrary
action of individuals who have not even tried to understand the
nature of the design.
That, of course, does not argue against a design process that is
broadly inclusive. An inclusive design process allows broad
consideration. I suspect that many of the stories you hint at are,
just like the stories that I or any working design could tell,
frustrating largely because they subvert a reasonable design process
and defeat considerations made in a reasonable process.
It is not "inclusionary" for a printer to move columns of type
because it makes it easier to use the wrong equipment and software
then use different inks than specified because they had them around.
(Yes. I had that one happen recently.) Nor does it promote democratic
life for someone uninvolved in the design process to make last minute
arbitrary changes without discussion.
It is very reasonable to ask if there are design processes across
broad definitions of design that promote inclusion at the points
where various voices can shape design well. I suspect that what I and
other graphic designers have learned can be of use to interior
designer just as what industrial designers have learned has been
helpful to us. . . Conversely, asking if there are widely-applicable
points where broader involvement promotes neither coherent design nor
democratic results may be fruitful.
I suspect that we would get agreement among those who have designed
and seen through to construction that there are times when it is
useful to have a designer in charge. Your example of the frustrations
of free work for friends may be an illustration of a failure of the
design process. It is also possible that "180 degrees in the other
direction" was the right result and your presentation allowed them to
discover that. Throwing stuff away is a vital part of most design
processes. Since you are the only witness available, our ability to
explore that is limited.
>Then there is the ego issue. The work you present to a client is your soul,
>your very reason for existing, your
>personality and talent all wrapped up in a few sketches.
On the RIDE list we recently had a discussion about "breakthrough"
concepts in learning to be a designer. A couple of the ones I offered
up came down to "It's all about you and it has nothing to do with
you." That bit of Zennish wisdom is misinterpreted all the time by
designers and their clients alike.
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|