Sometimes it's really hard to get out of one's shell. You sit in the dark, on your computer trying to craft perfection in Adobe somethingorother. You get so caught up in details that you forgot about what design is really all about.
It's about community.
When I took 4 design studio classes this summer, I only kept my sanity by discsussing projects with fellow classmates, consulting on them for ideas, and collaborating on projects. It also saved me a few self inflicted all nighters.
In this growingly competitively field, a lot of people suddenly lose track on the benefits of collaboration, and the true reason why we practice design: to reach out to people. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be selfish "art"? But that's a whole other story.
I'm so greatful for organizations like AIGA that enable networking and collaboration to happen.
Creativity can be a beautiful and personal experience, but for the most part, it's about reaching out and exploring new ideas with different people. CO-Lab-oration!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was taught graphics in Britain over half a century ago and went on to have a career in social work. I am still working on a personal project which I began in the early 80's which brings together the two sets of experience to create a tool for the therapeutic use of graphics. I find blogs such as yours interesting and encouraging as they show that although styles and technology change, the essence of good design does not and that these principles are discovered anew by each generation. I like the eclectic nature of your blog. Good luck. John B, Dorset, UK.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate the comments! This is my first "real" blog and I'm excited that it's trickling out.
Your history is interesting. You said you had training in graphics but then moved onto social work? Where did you go to school for graphics? Do you think that your design training helped to further your career now?
I get so intimidated and frustrated with the technology of design and it's constant pace, that it's really wonderful to always have those fundamental and beautiful basics of good design.
I trained for five years at a provincial art school on the South Coast of England. For the first half of my time there I was given a very wide grounding in traditional arts and crafts - Life Drawing, pottery, sculpture, use of media such as litho, etc and in the second half a wide experience of graphics - printing, lettering, design work, etc. All this was very much 'hands on' and old-fashioned to the extent that just enlarging a design involved redrawing it on a machine the size of a small car.
ReplyDeleteDue to professional and family commitments once I got into social work I was unable to do very much design or drawing for a long time, but the experience served me well and now that I'm retired I've been able to use it by returning to Life Drawing and refurbishing some of my early designs on the computer. It has also provided a firm basis for the project which I mentioned.
From what I've picked up from people at various Life groups who've also been current full time art students, this passing down of traditional manual skills and aesthetic judgements is now very much a thing of the past. One person came to Life groups to learn to draw surreptitiously because her tutor would have disapproved, and I've been told that it's now "all about ideas". (Presumably this includes conceptual art).
I'm not nostalgic - life moves on - but it does seem that these earlier experiences gave me a foundation which others (in this country at least) are not now being given. Because it was in depth it has given me the flexibility to adapt to change so that I have the confidence to learn to use various graphics programs and other IT such as the digital camera without being overwhelmed. I'm clear what I want them to do, and they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Some of that is just the length of my experience, but when you mention being intimidated and frustrated I suspect that it's because you're trying (wisely) to establish your own principles in the face of relentless and fast-moving technological developments which in themselves do not provide the answers that you're looking for.
Regarding that, I wonder whether when you speak about "form vs function", "aesthetics vs functionality", and ask which is better, you are perhaps asking the right question in the wrong way. Perhaps if you were to ask what shapes their relationship to one another it might open the way to a less all-or-nothing way of responding which opens up wider possibilities. e.g. 'Form follows function' seems a good starting point, but as we know, objects with the same function often have different forms. (e.g. cars.) These differences would seem to arise from such issues as changes in technology, aesthetics (individuality of the creator, plus building -in desirability, financial issues such as cost of materials, fashion (status - my car is obviously newer than yours), and wider cultural influences, etc.
I've written at much greater length than I intended, and it will look as though I've taken over your Blog. If you want to delete it, please do. Once again, good luck. John