What a Crit...

"We don't need design anymore—the public's had enough. They're media saturated and too savvy for it. We don't need to undesign our designs. We need NO design."

Or so were the words of Michael Wolff at the Art Directors Club last night. Wolff, a journalist and columnist at Vanity Fair, made some poignant remarks actually, which were countered by a cool and composed Milton Glaser, who's work he criticized just moments before. Wolff commented on the lack of paradigm shifting work shown, and more notably that he could understand the discussion, but the language being used to talk (the political and social campaigns—mostly posters) were no longer effective. They were in his generation—in the 60's—but no longer stir up the collective consciousness.

Ok, so not all of the work was paradigm shifting. But Glaser made some very nice points to the contrary. First of all not all work has to be paradigm shifting in order to communicate effectively. When presenting people with something new and disrupting their consciousness, sometimes it can be extremely beneficial to frame that communication in terms of what they actually do know.

Wolff gave off a somewhat immature perception of design, in some respects; it seems like if he would have switched out the word "design" and said "style" in it's place, it might have made just as much sense. I think what was missing was a firm grasp of what design does and what design can do. To this audience member it sounds like another adult got caught in the game; there was no optimism in his voice. As a 24 year old about to embark on a lifelong adventure through this design battelfield, the critics will keep me in check. But I'm very happy knowing the future is in my optimistic hands, not in his cynical ones.

There is a shift occurring right now in our global consciousness towards 'design consciousness'. We don't merely look back at the past and based on history and case studies try to determine the future. More and more we are envisioning a future we'd like for ourselves and taking the necessary steps to bring those dreams into reality. And no, the revolution will not be outsourced.

I think therein lies the power of design; Glaser says design is the introduction of intent into a situation to achieve a desired result. Mr. Wolff suggested, though somewhat facetiously, that until we have something inside of us that's just crying to be shared with the world, we need to not do anything. Not do anything at all. Maybe go home and read a book, or a couple even. He's right in saying that we should be striving to change the world and essentially to come correct or not to come at all, but coming from an era of bold moves (where men were put on moons for God's sake), he needs to apply his critique to his own thinking. What our world now understands (in addition to bold moves) is the positive effect of incremental change. To change the world, we can start by change a world—ours.

I would like to say thanks though to Mr. Wolff for playing the protagonist and bringing to light some necessary dialogue. Otherwise the event might have been like too many others, just a mere "preaching to the converted" as another member of the audience called it. Sometimes, in being forced to articulate our reasoning we are forced to more clearly understand them ourselves.

For a few moments on stage during the critique, Glaser seemed to have embodied design, bringing solid rationale and value to the diaolgue. Wolff, seemed to embody advertising—quick, punchy, animated. But just like the problem with most advertising these days—he will probably be forgotten all too soon.

Comments

[Masood Ahmed]

Everyone that missed the event should definately listen to the podcast of the debate between Michael Wolff and Milton Glaser. I have to say Michael did raise some very relevant points and applaud him for standing behind his beliefs knowing it was such an unpopular opinion....

You can find another review of the event here....
http://www.core77.com/blog/events/designism_20_stepping_off_of_milton_glasers_road_to_hell_8402.asp#more

[Joseph Traylor]

I didn't see Michael Wolff and Milton Glaser's repartee, but in your description of

"Wolff commented on the lack of paradigm shifting work shown, and more notably that he could understand the discussion, but the language being used to talk (the political and social campaigns—mostly posters) were no longer effective."

I would agree with Mr. Wolff, in that in the world of political and social campaigns, posters have questionable effectiveness along with other methods of communication calling for change used in the late 1950s to early 1970s like marches and public demonstrations.

Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, was an appropriate vehicle for the message of independence in the 1776, just like the newly televised civil rights marches were appropriate for the early 1960s. Each medium had specific appeal given their time period's landscape.

So, I would agree that new methods are needed in the appeal for social change. In my mind, one of the most effective vehicles were the digital images of Abu Graib prisoner torture seen online, in magazines, and on news shows. Those raw images played a role in the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and helped start a general change in public opinion of the war. While the Forkscrew Graphic's Iraq Ipod parody posters gained exposure in the design world, but hardly changed the public's consciousness.

So a search for a new, more appropriate medium given the today's cultural and technological landscape could benefit design communication with an increased level of penetration and effectiveness.