Allow me to summarize the tweets about the hostage situation (not) happening over the last forty-five minutes a few blocks from where I work:
- man with gun holding wife hostage in apartment near flatiron bldg
- police ask people in flatiron building to stay away from windows
- man holding hostages in flatiron building
- man shoots landlord and barricades himself in his apartment
- man has hostages in Argo tea shop
- Teaparty is holding senate hostage
- an intern confirms nothing happening on 3rd floor of flatiron building
- shots fired
- man fought with landlord, then locked himself in his apartment
- CRAZED GUNMAN IN FLATIRON BUILDING
- gunman not in tea shop, it’s above Almond
- there never were any hostages
- thank god my hair is so straight because of my flatiron
- police taking down police tape
- police leading man away in handcuffs
- police confirmed it was not a hostage situation
- no hostage just a guy with a gun
- holy crap there is a hostage situation going on wft omg!!!!!!!!!!

…you get the point.

I’m starting to get tired of blog posts about “tips for design students” (aka “what they didn’t teach you in school”). Most design students have limited experience working in design firms, therefore it is no real feat of literature to write down a few bullet points that novices might not know.

What I think is much harder is finding a few tips for people who have been practicing for 10 years. Or 20. Heck, find me someone who can give Milton Glaser a few meaningful pointers, and that is someone I’d pay attention to.

Or alternately, what might the best use of all of our time is to flip the whole premise on its head and have design students give working professionals a few pointers about the lessons from design school that the pros have long since forgotten…

The design industry is increasingly focusing on the positive transformational power of design, especially in social and environmental ways, and through innovation methodologies. I am ecstatic to see this focus and the potential it brings.

Yet examples of these powers seem largely centered around firms, studios and individuals that have a large focus on industrial design, and/or those who have the license and infrastructure to create their own products.

But our design conferences, articles, lectures, classes, exhibits, etc don’t specify that these are largely industrial and product designers. It is implied that all designers are (or should be) creating positive change through design. This leaves many graphic designers scratching their heads; how does this apply to us?

So I ask two things. First, let us please start being more specific when we talk about “design” and who exactly we are talking about. Much of the “design” industry understands the implied (but not specified) differences, but many do not.

Second, we graphic designers should attempt to answer the question:

How may graphic designers use their talents to make a positive change in the world, in a way that is economically sustainable for themselves and viable for the studios they work for?

The answers I typically hear are “pro bono” and ecologically sensitive print and production techniques. Pro bono is not a sustainable answer. Socially and environmentally friendly sourcing, printing and studio management should be table-stakes for designers (and all industries for that matter) and therefore also do not answer this question.

The closest I have observed to anyone demonstrating a realistic answer to this question is either matching design firms with donors, grants or foundations, or the few design firms who concentrate mainly on clients they consider to be making a positive impact, but even the majority of those firms seem to be struggling at best or diversifying their clients. (See the excellent Design Observer article on another industrial design firm – Catapult Design – and their efforts. Good points and a few examples to start a discussion can be found in both the article and comments.)

I believe creating positive change through design is possible in graphic design, but I have seen very few economically sustainable examples of it. What might a business plan look like that specifically uses graphic design to create positive change?

If I’m about to embark on some pro-bono work, here are 5 things I want to see:

1) An effective organization with good leadership and a healthy income to ensure longevity (or a solid plan to achieve good income).

2) An understanding of why the project is necessary or important in helping accomplish the organization’s mission.

3) A realistic budget dedicated to project expenses (printing, web hosting, etc.).

4) A client representative who is empowered and available to make decisions concerning the project, timing and budget.

5.) (Probably the most important) An project that supports something I am passionate about, and/or that helps promote or further my own goals along with the goals of the organization that I am helping.

Additionally, whenever designers do reduced-rate, free or spec work, there is a concern that when too many designers start to give away design that really should be paid for, it becomes more difficult for others to charge a standard rate for the same services. (Basically it helps lower the perceived value for design of that type of work.) When it comes to pro-bono work, it is up to your personal judgement whether or not a client is worthy of your time, but please be conscious of this point and how your decisions help influence the perceptions and value of the industry.

The Gears of War 1 & 2 television ads are remarkable. I’m not a gamer and know little about gaming, but even to the uninterested the commercials feel epic by combining a larger-than-life story-line with intensely personal emotion. This is difficult to establish in feature films much less a :30 tv spot.

The ads capture the viewer’s attention thought the contrast between the soft, reflective music and the action-packed, well composed visuals. The music alone is a striking difference from what we typically expect from the first-person shooter gaming genre. Instead of the cliche amped-up up arena rock, techno or electronica, the Gears ads feature Gary Jules’ “Mad World” and DeVotchKa’s “How it Ends”.

The visuals are a mini narrative that quickly sets the scene, introduces the main character, then establishes the premise of the game. Except for some quick visual hints of a backstory, in both ads it is the music that sets the mood.

Gears of War 1 Ad

In the ad for Gears 1, the visuals tell show us the protagonist witnesses the scars of battle around him, but it is the music that tells us he is haunted by the evidence he sees. Though we see he is literally alone, the music illustrates how he feels emotionally alone.

Gears of War 2 Ad

In the Gears 2 ad, the visuals tell us the protagonist is tired, but the music takes it further; he is exhausted by his unfinished duty to save the world. The visuals show he is the hero, but the music shows he is the reluctant hero. Both ads use the visuals to tell us “what,” and leave the music to tell us “why.”

The primary challenge of any first person shooter game is to re-create realism. Most gaming companies are concentrating on developing their graphics, but even if photorealism, or better yet – even if a spacial simulation is achieved, it would still take the complexity of human emotion found in real life for any role playing media to make an immersive experience truly feel like a seamless extension of real life.

China has been in the news for numerous deceptions related to the Olympics. Putting any policy or governance issues aside, there is a problem with this from a country brand point of view. The power of a brand lies in its ability to connect on an emotional level. We want to build trust and relationships with brands, and therefore whether the decisions were logical or explainable has little impact; we still feel let down when they don’t deliver on their own promises.

Economically, China has certainly turned the corner from where it was 20 years ago. For most of us I think the Olympics are the opportunity to see that it has also turned the corner in it’s governance and social and environmental responsibility. China claims it has turned the corner, and the Olympic Games have been positioned as though they are the world-wide launch of the new Brand China. Unfortunately the brand could not deliver on the positioning, and therefore it put up facades to mask the truth whenever the truth was in the way.

In the Wizard of Oz, Toto pulled back the curtain revealing the wizard was nothing more than a ordinary man pulling levers. I’m not sure if Dorothy’s angry reaction came more from the wizard’s deception or the disappointment in having her own hopes and beliefs let down. Dorothy scolded the Wizard, saying “You’re a very bad man.” He replied “No my dear, I am a very good man, just a very bad wizard.” I hope this is the case with Brand China, though I fear the act of erecting a facade on the outside is the best indication of what truly is – or isn’t – on the inside.

I was recently listening to an old SVA podcast lecture by Jessica Helfand and William Drenttel. William was discussing his views that design should cause action. During the podcast, Steven Heller commented that he was recently at a New York Times meeting where the designers expressed frustration that the content teams were overtaking the design teams, and that the formal aspects of design were getting sidelined.

I don’t think this should be any surprise though. I regularly hear designers defend the formal elements of design, and show little regard or even understanding for the effectiveness of their designs. More emphasis is placed on how a brochure looks than whether or not it achieves the client’s goals. (And don’t get me started on award shows…)

Content teams tend to better understand that their contribution must meet the goals set by the client. Their objectives are inextricably linked to what they do. If the brief is to “communicate the features of a new product” the content teams do exactly that. Design though is more fuzzy. Whether process cyan or PMS 032 “better communicates the features of the new product” is difficult or expensive to quantify. And the last thing a client wants to hear is a designer pontificating on the merits of Helvetica over Fruitiger or some other such debate that they cannot connect to their bottom line.

Our clients are concerned about function. They (usually) cannot relate to formal aspects of design that have no pragmatic purpose. From this perspective, it is obvious why content teams get a seat at the table – their value is clear. Once the majority of designers can communicate and demonstrate the added value of form following function they will be invited back to the table as well.

I have been touting the merits of “design that makes change” over “design that communicates a problem” for a while. Designers seem to be taught that it is our role to only put messages out in the world, and that designing communications relieves us of the responsibility of designing solutions. Creating a poster campaign is certainly easier (and generally more fun) than developing a workable solution to a complex problem, but campaigns most often just communicate a problem in the hope that others will act. My theory has been “why not design the solution itself?” My favorite example of this is rumble strips along highways: they are a designed solution to the problem of people falling asleep at the wheel, and I would assume they end up saving drastically more lives than a clever poster or ad campaign would have.

But on further reflection I realize both communicating the problem and designing change itself are necessary. We should be striving to do both: the two serve very different purposes. Communicating the problem clearly helps educate, but does a poor job of inspiring action. On the other hand, designing systems, incentives and actions does a great job of effecting real results, but does a poor job of educating why those results are important.

So for the pressing problems of society I encourage plans of attack that communicate the nature of the problem to key audiences while also implementing designed solutions to the problem itself. I believe this two-pronged approach is an exponentially better way to effect real change than either method alone.

I was reading in the March/April Communication Arts magazine about the Design for the Other 90% movement. The subheadline reads “Which side are you on?” Much to my own surprise I find myself on a more conservative side.

I don’t think we should focus on finding design solutions for the problems of those populations that are living successfully at lower standards than we are. Allow the market and their own government regulations and incentives to naturally develop these populations into a middle class. Any charity from our part will be unsustainable and will remove incentives for them to provide their own development. My sense is that they have solutions that are far more adapted to their daily challenges than anything we can contribute. It would be like giving a car to someone who can’t afford driving lessons, gas, upkeep or a place to park the car.

Now when situations are dire, and intervention is needed, we and every other industry should provide whatever help we can. Situations like this include disease, genocide, famine, etc., though here too I would advocate that our solutions should take into consideration a path for eventual self-sustainability. (Some of the solutions in the Cooper Hewitt’s “Design for the other 90%” take this into account, though many far miss the mark.)

Currently, market forces are our most efficient way of improving humanity on a large scale. (Trust me, I’m very aware of the need to find something better.) Design solutions for “the other 90%” that are not part of local economies (resources and supplies, labor, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) simply will not be sustainable and therefore do little to help the real problems.