Hi

I read Don's article with interest, as I also read his previous article 'Why design education must change'.

Two personal experiences came to mind regarding his comment:

'we need to emphasize working in multidisciplinary teams. Modern design is not done in isolation'

First, from the mid-1980s I worked in graphic design practice in London for fifteen years or so. No projects were ever done in isolation. They were invariably done with car makers, bankers, venture capitalists, real estate consultants, television executives, finance directors, street furniture manufacturers, architects, planners, historians, highways engineers, photographers, illustrators, type designers, printers, web designers, optic fibre cable manufacturers ... and more. Not all together, I should add. Each specialist area brought their own subject knowledge to the project team, as I did. Design practice as I experienced it seemed to be inclusive and require an ability to understand, adopt, and adapt ideas to make artefacts, systems and services, often in combination. I saw this as engaging with 'matters of the world, of business and politics, of social forces and of modern technology' all be it on a scale perhaps different to Don.

Second, I vividly recall one client, considered a pioneer in his field, being completely enamoured in the middle of a meeting by an ability I had to pick up a pencil and simply draw something he was struggling to convey in words. I was as astounded by this as he was. Aside from the general discussion between a surveyor, architect, marketeer and graphic designer, about Chase Bank's affordability ratio*, this seemed a distinctive moment for me in differentiating a particular contribution to the design process that we were all involved in – not to mention those who would further contribute to realising the project but were not in the room.

In the various design practises I knew of at the time, this would have been a common collaborative process of working. And most of the graphic designers I knew would have received the same craft-ideas based education I had, with an ability to draw and make, as well as empathise with the specialist knowledge of others and work within a team. The outcomes often satisfied the needs of all contributors to the process and many working relationships prospered, as did my own. Clients usually had a close understanding of their audiences and this informed their input to the process of designing.

I thought of this as 'modern design', not 'craft', even though craft was an important part of the 'modern design' education I had received in the early 1980s, which further enhanced an ability to pick up a pencil and draw. I now teach 'modern design'. Craft is an important part of this, amongst ideas from numerous other disciplines from architecture to social science.

I therefore don't identify with much of what Don is saying. If design education needs to change, we may need to carefully manage the expectations of those who assume designers can 'draw' what they, as surveyors, bankers, etc, can't. Perhaps 'designers' or 'design educators' who don't draw, make, call it what you will, should colonise a different space. Maybe that's a bit contentious, even defensive.

As I write this, an afterthought is that the term graphic design seems to make a reasonable attempt to define what it does, even if it is tautological to some extent. I know its not surveying or banking.

Regards, Rob.


*defined as 'occupancy cost as a percentage of operating income'


Dr Robert Harland | Lecturer | School of the Arts | School of the Arts, English and Drama | Loughborough University
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sota/staff/robert-harland.htm<http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sota/staff/robert-harland.html>