I am thinking about trying to start posting some reviews (or maybe I can talk B into writing some) of books that I am reading for the book club we go to called club (red). Club (red) is sponsored by the AIGA and we read books that are either related to graphic design or are something that graphic designers would be interested in. B is the man responsible for starting club (red), and he even won an award for the logo design. If you are interested in joining the club, check out the site at nebraska.aiga.org. Currently we are reading Making Movies by Sidney Lumet.

I read an interesting interview with Chip Kidd today. It was good to hear him talk about design. I know I gave a pretty harch criticism of his book, "Cheese Monkeys," but in this interview, I didn't find much to disagree with him on. I am not saying I take back anything I wrote in my critique, but it is nice to see that Chip Kidd's design philosophy is probably not as whacked out as "Cheese Monkeys" lead me to believe.

Thanks to Travis Grey and Bennett Holzworth for bringing the interview to my attention.

I was thinking today as I posted a comment on the Design Observer blog that I wished Cheese Monkey's was more like "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand. So I was surprised when I came across this review on cityofsound. It said "In Winter Sorbeck, graphic design now has its Howard Roark character - for better, for worse... Actually Sorbeck is a fallen Roark, eventually too principled to be in step with the modern world, his fervent idealism expressed in hilariously cruel, impatient bullying, but always through care for the craft of design." This comment really caught me by surprise, because I thought the integrity of a character like Roark and the intense conflict of The Fountainhead really showed how shallow Cheese Monkeys really is. By now you are probably tired of me talking about Cheese Monkeys, so I will keep it short.
One more thing: In the Design Observer article, Rick Poyner and our own B suggest that Cheese Monkeys could be made into a movie. Here is a link to Rick's review of the book.

(Taken from comment on Design Observer)
The idea that art is somehow not valid anymore is just ridiculous. Art has changed considerably since the 30s, but isn't that a major part of the definition of art. Maybe we should go back to the pre-Ren era when the only things that could be created were for the church or the wealthy. The fact is that art changes and just because people don't understand everything that is going on in the art world, doesn't make it out-dated. It's influence may not be on billboards or in 30 second segments in prime-time, but it is still there. The impact of a sub-culture can sometimes be more effective than any mass media campaign. Malcolm Gladwell makes some very convincing arguments concerning this in The Tipping Point.

Second of all, if we don't like where art has gone in the last 50 years, why would we want to display our work in its grand temple, the MoMA. It seems hypocritical to criticize art and then want to be in the very institution that has helped put it where it is today.

Will this renewed vigor of the Art Museums to beef up their design collection result in yet another distraction for designers trying to advance there careers or make an impact on history? Design periodicals, which I must admit I drool over, are already a distraction for designers. Will this be yet another venue that designers put before their intended audience or client?

Art has its place and so does design. They both affect culture in different ways. Design feeds off the art world and vice versa. They have completely different goals and ideals and I think it can only be dangerous to keep comparing our separate worlds. I may be repeating what Armin wrote, but I'll say it anyway. Saying design is the new art is like saying carpentry is the new plumbing. They are different and will keep on growing and changing regardless of your predictions of the future. Lets focus on elevating design to a new level while supporting our visual cousin, the Artist.

Recently, Yale created a font exclusively for their University. It was designed by Matthew Carter who has served at Yale for twenty-five years. Carter has designed many high profile fonts including Georgia and Verdana. My initial reaction is that I like Yale better than other fonts Carter has designed (I have never been a fan of Georgia and Verdana for some reason). The Yale font is available only to faculty and students.

I read a sad sidenote that said that most students couldn't tell the difference between Times and Yale. Yes, these are students at Yale, believe it or not. I guess that is to be expected. Before I knew anything about graphic design, I remember being overwhelmed by the 50 fonts that come on the machine. Like everybody else I would play it safe and stick with the default Times. When I felt creative, I would stumble through the other fonts. I think that probably describes the average person's experience with fonts. So why can't they leave it to the professionals? I am working on an identity system for a pretty large company that has Times as the font in their logo. Suggestions to update to a font with a personality are rebuked because of a copyright or registration legal thing. I gave up on that battle and pushed for a more personal sans serif font for their body copy. "Wait a minute. Did you say we would have to pay for a font? There isn't one font out of the 50 free fonts that would work just as well?" It is utterly ridiculous to have to argue with people about the importance of a unique font selection. I have had a top member of a company hand me a sheet of paper with their company's name on it in 20 typefaces, then ask me, because I am a designer, which font would make the best logo!

I can't convince people to use a font that isn't free, and Matthew Carter is able to convince Yale to have a font built exclusively for their University. Congratulations to Yale for realizing the value of having a distinct identity system.

For those of us not fortunate to have the dream job out of college, we sometimes have to find other ways to entertain ourselves at work. Most likely that is what led a designer to put the name Tyler Durden on labels that are sold at staples. (Thanks to seanbonner for the story. For those of you who may not know, Tyler Durden is one of the main characters in Fight Club.) Every once in a while you stumble across a hidden message, and its like you get an inside joke. It might not make for great design, but it could be the only thing keeping an unfortunate designer sane.

Ogilvy arrogantly says, "As a former door-to-door salesman, I shall go to my grave believing that, given two minutes on television, I could sell any product on the face of the earth." It is precisely that arrogance that made me think I was really going to hate this book. After reading the book, however, I am willing to bet that he would only need one minute on television to sell any product on Earth. He is a fantastic salesman, and I would describe this book as a fantastic salesman doing a great job of selling his philosophy on advertising. So what is that philosophy, and where does the sales pitch end, and truth begin?

I have a hard time getting motivated about designing PowerPoint templates. It always ends up getting included in the usual items in an identity system: business card, letterhead, envelope, and PowerPoint template. I think I dislike the projects because no matter how good I make the template look, I will never be able to control the final product. I think about all the lame presentations I have had to sit through, and I imagine the slides I designed being on screen while the audience is checking their watches, and doodling on their handouts. There is a pdf written by Seth Godin called "Really Bad Powerpoint (and how to avoid it)." As usual, Seth is on target, and gives a great assessment of the situation. He puts much of the blame on Microsoft, and explains how PowerPoint could be used more effectively. If you are interested in the subject, it is an interesting 8 page read that comes free with the purchase of "Free Prize Inside."

I had an interesting talk with my boss the other day about the readability of serif vs. sans serif fonts. He confesses that he is "old-school" and prefers serifs. I find sans serifs easier to read. I am trying to hunt down some current statistics on the subject without success. I read people that say it all depends on what you are used to reading, but I can't find anybody who lists their sources. After reading Ogilvy, I am on a kick for finding statistics. Is there a source for credible statistics that counter Ogilvy's from 20 years ago?

We hope you like the updated design of our site. Thanks for your patience as we iron out the last few glitches of the change over.

If you haven’t come across this yet, check out ChangeThis.com. The goal of the site is to “Spread important ideas and change minds.” They have several high profile names writing manifestos that will be distributed via email and blogs. I haven’t formed an opinion on the site yet because I am waiting to see what happens when they start distributing their manifestos. The danger is that the site will promote an ideology, and the last thing we need is another network set up just to promote someone’s own agenda. Fortunately, ChangeThis appears to be focused on creating a new method for distributing ideas rather than pushing their beliefs on people. They believe that the good manifestos will spread, and the bad ones won’t.

All the manifesto talk made me want to write a manifesto, so I decided to rewrite The First Things First Manifesto 2000.

It is nice to see in the midst of the brutal presidential campaign that not everyone is taking a swing at the candidate they don’t endorse. The AIGA has a poster initiative where AIGA members can submit posters that encourage people to get out and vote. The design of the first batch of posters is alright, but they did do a pretty good job of not endorsing a candidate. The part that I find interesting is that at the bottom of each poster is the tag line, “Good design makes choices clear.” Does this strike anyone else as odd? I am not sure what that means. Are we supposed to vote for the candidate who has the better design? Or does it mean that without design, we couldn’t tell the difference between the candidates? Regardless of what they meant by the slogan, it does raise an important question. What role does design play in an election?

So it’s taken me an E-ternity to get it in gear and finally post some digital version of my voice in the midst of these great dialogues, but I’m pleased as punch to finally speak a few words in digital Arial onto the site.

As I’ve seemed to discover among the multiple circles of designers that I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and talking with, NPR references have seemed to be just about as frequent as Print and CA references rear their delightful little heads into conversation. I openly confess to designing to NPR on many an afternoon when I decided to let the CDs cool off for the afternoon or gave my local public-access radio station a rest (88.1 KDHX for anyone in the St. Louis listening area - just a quick shout-out on that for great local radio that still plays music for the sake of the music itself).

NPR, of late, has featured some killer design bits that shouldn’t be missed if you happened to on first broadcast. Here’s a smattering of the ones that I’ve been able to catch, and I’m sure you’ll be able to produce a few more that I overlooked as well.

I wanted to get this out in the open before I am accused of name dropping over my next couple of posts. I recently made the five hour trek to go see one of my design heroes, Michael Bierut, speak at an AIGA event in Des Moines, Iowa. There was never a doubt in my mind that it was worth the time and effort to get there. These types of events usually seem to pay off as well. Not with job offers or instant fame, but the opportunity to learn from someone who has done it longer and better than I.

Talking to different people over the last few years, I keep hearing people referring to events like this as celebrity worship. Older members of the AIGA that I have talked to mention that it is something that young people join the AIGA for. I wonder what the problem is with this.

If you have never seen the short film, Powers of Ten by Ray and Charles Eames you can watch with the world via the internet on guess what day? That’s right. 10/10. It is The Fifth International Powers of 10 Day. So get comfy in front of your computer and watch this illustration on the power and importance of scale. You can watch this monumental short film with thousands of others in celebration of scale. The ironic thing about this film is that it is only nine minutes long.

The Eameses were revolutionary furniture designers, movie makers and the list goes on. If you don’t get a chance to watch this film on the web this Sunday, I would recommend purchasing the 5 DVD set or I know from experience that Netflix carries all five. The documentary of the cataloging of their studio was well worth that months Netflix subscription.

My graphic above is a screen capture at 10, 100 and 1000%. We even wield the power of scale in the little magnifying glass of our design programs. As graphic designers we deal with scale on a daily basis. In honor of this film, I challenge everyone to think of some unique ways that designers deal with scale.

We read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell for club(red) earlier this year. It was a great book, so I was excited to see that he wrote a manifesto about talent for ChangeThis. The 22 pages contained several interesting tidbits, but overall I didn’t think it made a compelling enough argument that “Talented People Are Overrated.” It pretty much says that building an organization with as many talented people as you can find isn’t the way to make a successful business. It uses Enron as the example of a company that hired the most talented people and then collapsed. It makes for a good essay, but I think it is a stretch to call this a manifesto. I guess that’s what bothers me about the recent manifestos at ChangeThis. Gladwell and other big names like Mark Cuban aren’t really writing manifestos. They are just telling their life story or publishing the chapter that got cut from their last book. I am guessing it would be pretty hard to edit the big names papers, but come on. To get to the point, how much of a role does talent play in your success?

I’ve made a curious observation recently, and felt compelled to bring it up in this public forum. I’ve been noticing that some of the perennial design powerhouses are starting to push design back into a fascinating color palette choice: red and black.

I had been pondering doing a post about the yellow magnetic ribbons that are stuck to so many people’s cars lately. When I saw Michael Bierut’s recent post on Design Observer about this very subject, I thought I still had something unique to share about these magnetic atrocities to design. What struck me most about these ribbons is the horrible planning that went into their making. I have rarely seen anyone display these in a consistent manner. The photos that I took in a small parking lot demonstrate this point. I will make a list of what is wrong.

1. Unless you have a SUV, you probably don’t have enough metal on your car to display them vertically.

2. The text “Support Our Troops” is slanted upward, so many people tip the ribbon on its side so the text is readable. What does it mean when you tip a symbol on its side?

3. They’re magnetic. Whatever happened to the permanence of the bumper sticker? Is this a reflection of how fickle we Americans are? Is it just a matter of convenience? Do we love our cars so much that we wouldn’t want to deface it with anything, even if it is something we deeply believe in?

4. & 5. The horrible illustration of the ribbon and the font used. Both of these were pointed out in Mr. Bierut’s post.

This really makes you wonder if the end user was even a consideration in the creators mind.

Ends up that Nike really did get their logo from graphic design student Carolyn Davidson.

“Being fresh out of school with a design degree, and hungry for work, Davidson submitted her bill for $35 for the Swoosh design.” But to be fair, that’s gotta be over $50 in today’s dollars.

Normally that is where I hear the story ending, but to be fresh out of school with Nike as your client, things could be worse. Ends up Nike gave her some stock years later as a thanks as well.

Read the full story directly from Nike.

My favorite part of the story - “Knight was staring down a deadline. Shoe boxes in Mexico were waiting to be printed. He needed a logo. He needed a decision. So he grabbed her rendering of the Swoosh, telling Davidson, ‘I don’t love it, but it will grow on me.’ “

Here is an interesting interview with Michael Bierut that appeared in Fast Company. It is great to see graphic designers getting some press time outside of our own industry publications.

I came across a brief description of creativity in a new book I’ve been browsing. I found it interesting and thought some of you might resonate with it, I did:

“Creativity can be defined as the ability to conceive unexpected solutions to apparently unsolvable problems. Without magic or mysterious touches, creativity is nothing other than intelligenceóan intelligence that, in certain ways, can be developed and that, in the midst of a flood of unconnected and chaotic data, allows one to discover connections that others do not discover, see differences that other do not see, and, as a consequence, produce new and surprising integrations… Creativityóalthough requiring uncommon skillsóis based on a number of controllable processes, such as observation, attention, research, and analysis, and, to a certain extent, on the possession of thinking strategies that combine flexibility with efficiency… [creativity] has nothing to do with self-expression and an indulgent egocentrism. It requires, instead, an objective and flexible intelligence, an ability to analyze any problem from a multiplicity of viewpoints, so as to be able to understand the intentions of a client, and the possible perceptions that a wide range of sectors of the public could have of a given message.”
ñ Jorge Frascara, Communication Design: principles, methods and practice. Allworth Press, 2004.

Last week I came accross a chess program, called Thinking Machine 4 that mapped out the moves it was thinking about making. As the computer processed more and more moves, the board filled with more and more lines. As more and more moves were mapped out, patterns began to form. Paths began to appear between the squares marking the strongest moves. When a strong enough path was worn, the computer played the appropriate move. I have always thought of chess as a beautiful game, but seeing the result of making the thought process visible was really impressive. I can’t help but think that the process of graphic design is similar to chess. The comparison won’t ring true for everyone, but any serious chess player will tell you that success in chess requires something very important to designers: creativity. To steal a quote from Clint’s post last week:

“Creativity?although requiring uncommon skills?is based on a number of controllable processes, such as observation, attention, research, and analysis, and, to a certain extent, on the possession of thinking strategies that combine flexibility with efficiency.”

I hope you have some fun with this game. Thanks to Kadavy.net for bringing the game to my attention.

I read an interesting article on the Art Director’s Club of Denver’s website. You can read the entire article here, otherwise, here is a highlight:

“According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS), employment for people in design fields, including graphic design, is expected to increase 10 to 20 percent between 2002 and 2012… While the BLS did not make salary projections, it reports that median annual earnings for graphic designers were $36,680 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $28,140 and $48,820. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $21,860, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $64,160.”

Sounds like good news for graphic designers. Lets hope the forecast comes true.

O.K. I’m not big on these things, but every year Pantone and a few magazines (like Communications Arts and Graphic Design USA) come out with their annual color forecasts (colour if you’re a Brit). And this always results in me thinking “who in the heck decides these things for the whole design world?”

Is it a few secret “color experts” bent on world color domination? Is it some old ladies picking Pantone swatches out of a hat? Is it just a computer algorithm? Searching for the answer, I was happy to find that at least one designer had the wherewithal to put together his own color forecast for 2005 rather than using my current method of “this looks good.”

Adam Polselli’s 2005 Color Forecast

It seems that many of us graphic designers are concerned about how we are portrayed on the big and small screen. Jessica Helfand started several interesting discussions on Design Observer about this very topic. One of her posts was about the new Catwoman movie and the other about the design challenges on The Apprentice. While both of these seemed kind of negative, I saw a glimpse of hope for our portrayal recently.

Genevieve Gordor, who is a graphic designer among other things, is getting her own show on TLC this coming Saturday. Genevieve will get the chance to redesign an entire main street in Town Haul. Among interior design and building, will graphic design be able to give a supporting role? Will Genevieve get to design the store fronts and signage for this little town? Will the audience actually get to see a small portion of the design process, or will that part be left on the cutting room floor? Or, will the end product magically appear as if the enchanted graphic design elves came when the interior designers and builders sleep? Hopefully not. This kind of treatment can only perpetuate the idea that what we do is quick and magical. Of course “finishing touches” like this make for a more dramatic reveal. For now part of our public image rests with Genevieve and more importantly the editors and producers of Town Haul.

A couple different competitions have popped up on my radar in the last week. One is a poster contest by the AIGA and the other is a logo contest by an online radio station. One is exclusive and the other is all inclusive. From what I can tell, you have to be an AIGA member to enter the World Day of Design poster contest. Absolutely anyone can enter a submission into Radio Paradise’s logo contest.

Bad I have been listening to Radio Paradise every day at work for over a year now. It is labeled as “eclectic online rock radio” and I love it. Of course I don’t love all the music on Radio Paradise, but it is very diverse and the music selection never ceases to amaze me. I was fairly disappointed with RP’s choice to try and get their new logo through a competition. I thought with such an appreciation for creativity, they would show a little more respect for design. I wanted to start a discussion on this website, but I found something even better… An all out discussion/controversy on RP’s own forum.

When Kit Hinrichs was in Nebraska last week he gave a great presentation for the AIGA. He is a great speaker and he was very gracious and friendly to us all. When it came time for the question and answer, the old Pentagram male/female ratio question popped up again. I’m sure Kit stepped on a few toes with parts of his answer, but he was just being honest and not pulling any punches. That is not what this post is about.

What he said after he answered the main question made me curious. He said that Pentagram is reviewing a new female candidate and she will probably be approved to be a partner. Of course he gave no hint as to whom this mystery female designer would be, but wouldn’t if be fun to come up with our own short list. Which one of the great female designers out there is exchanging glances with Pentagram. She would have to add something unique to the office, run a great business and work well with others. Here is a great article in Financial Times’ Creative Business that explains how Pentagram works and what they look for in their partners. I found this excerpt especially appropriate for this discussion.

One of the things I enjoy about my job is talking to printers. I love looking at print and paper samples, and I love learning about the latest print technology. I love touring print shops, and I love press checks. I love the pampering that comes with being courted by printers. I think if I had a second career, I would want to run a huge press.

Well, since our company recently moved, we are exploring some of the local printing options, and that means I get to meet some new printers. Today I met with Steve Johnson from Colorado Printing. The website isn’t much to look at (holy animated gif, Batman!), but the quality of their printing is. Specifically, they are able to print at 450 line screen on a sheet-fed press. I was expecting him to say they were using stochastic printing, but to my surprise, he said their high line screen is created with a square dot. Very interesting.

The photo reproduction Steve showed me was so beautiful that the thought of continuing to use a 130 line screen web press doesn’t excite me, to say the least. I instantly notice halftones in most 4 color printing, and I hate it. I think it is because of my photography background, because when I see a coarse screen the voice in my head says “cheap, low quality.” Not a fun phrase to be bouncing between the ears, especially when you put so much time, effort, and money into the design and photography of a piece. In a twisted bright side to the situation, I think that most people barely notice a difference between 150 and 450 linescreen. To my dismay, that makes a high line screen a hard sell, and I am probably fighting a losing battle if I want the high quality. However, if you have the luxury of selecting a high quality printer, I suggest you give Colorado Printers a call. In addition to 450 line screen, they also have some impressive new proofing systems. And like any printer, I am sure they would love to tell you all about it.

Graphic Design USA came out in January sporting a new design. I can’t say I am overly impressed. I guess it’s called GD USA now, I don’t know. In a way the logo is more simple, but then again it is kind of redundant to say Graphic design USA twice on the cover. Anyway, the reason I am talking about it is because this is their yearly issue where they feature the designers to watch in 2005. Basically they pick about 30 designers, give a brief bio and then ask them some simple questions. I thought it would be fun to list the questions here and let everybody answer them, or criticize them, or whatever. Here’s the list:

1. Do you feel hopeful about 2005?
2. Has graphic design changed since you started?
3. What is your workday like?
4. How and where do you find inspiration?
5. What are you currently listening to, watching, or reading?
6. Who would have been your ideal presidential candidate?
7. What do you like to do in your time away from work?

So there you go. One of my first posts on Be A Design Group was about last years “People to watch” issue. If you want to compare this list to last years questions it seems that this year’s results were a little less predictable, but also a little more boring. Luckily most people avoided the presidential question, or it got edited out except for a few non-serious answers. You already know how I feel about confusing politics with design, so lets steer clear of that topic, if possible. So are any of these questions worth answering?

I know to some that it would seem that the design world has heard all it needs to about the practice of engaging in speculative work. But if the past week has taught me anything, itﾔs that we donﾔt talk nearly enough about it. The reality is that engaging in spec work continues to erode the value of what all of us do as designers, and if any of us want our profession to have even a modicum of respect in the world, weﾔll answer the call for spec work with an emphatic ﾔNo.ﾔ

The typical story plays out like this: a prospective client calls your design firm. They say theyﾔd like to talk to you about an upcoming project. They want you to develop a proposal for them, some pricing, and theyﾔd really like to see ﾔsome of your ideas.ﾔ They mention that theyﾔre talking to a few other firms as well, but they make it very clear that thereﾔs a huge payday at stake for the firm who makes the best presentation (i.e. delivers the best speculative work).

A couple of weeks ago my goal for that weekend was to see Kit Hinrichs speak at the Nebraska AIGA Member’s Party, see some good friends and hopefully get to talk to Kit a little. I was able to hear him talk, ask him questions and then have a weekend filled with other design highlights. When asked about the future of design, Kit eluded to design and graphic design becoming even more prevalent and more valuable in the coming years. If my encounter with products over that weekend are an example, then I think Mr. Hinrichs is correct.

by Stuart Alden

The Nike logo is probably one of the most recognized logos in the world, and is often cited as an example as the value an identity can have towards the brand of a company. This is why we need to charge for the ìvalueî of the logo.

Ironic that a student designed the logo for $35 in 1971.

According to the story, Carolyn Davidson was asked to create a shoe stripe that would be applied to a shoe that Phil Knight (who was teaching economics) had developed. ÝA few things to think about: He didnít pick a final polished logo - rather a ìrenderingî out of a few she presented on the first round. She didnít even provide camera ready artwork. She decided what to charge and billed him the $35.00.

Most designers will tell you this is a tragedy. Look at the billions of dollars a year Nike makes. Of course the logo should get credit for much of their success, as it is so recognizable. And besides ñ a logo is worth so much more ñ as it will become the recognizable symbol that represents that company. The foundation of the companies brand.

Visually ñ this can be true. But letís ask ourselves a few things before we rush off and say how fancy and important we are.