why designers should never be happy
January 2006
It can be difficult leading a graphic designer’s life. This isn’t just based on the demands a client might have, or the needs of personal lives…but a desire to understand “what makes a graphic designer?”
There are two basic types of graphic designers – the technical, and the artist. Sometimes this depends on the personality type, while sometimes it depends on the school they went to – some graphic design courses are much more ‘graphic’, while others will teach you the Actionscript intricacies of Flash, without teaching you what to do with it.
This means that the graphic designer can never really explain what they do to other people, especially older generations who never grew up around computers. But, dinner party conversation aside, it also means that there is a fair amount of discontent within the design industry, and designers, over this dichotomy.
Many designers seek to be artists, while others believe it to be a technical industry. In some ways this is the old divide between ‘graphic artist’ and ‘desktop publishing’, a division that has by and large been lost as software compatibility has increased, as has the demands on a wide skill set. Some of these are cost-reasons, others are misconceptions over the specialisation and role a graphic designer plays. A quick search through online employment ads shows that the old role-names are few and far between (only 5 ads for “desktop publisher”, 9 for “graphic artist” on www.mycareer.com.au in late January) while “graphic designers” are much more in demand (62 ads in the same date and location range – on www.seek.com.au this number was 110, with only 4 “desktop publisher” and 14 “graphic artist” role).
This change in preconception has also left the role of the designer with less of a guiding rudder, since the role of ‘graphic designer’ has never been one properly defined.
Further complicating the role conception is the effect a client/employer has on a designer, and the main focus of this thought process.
Are your clients purchasing your genius (the artist), or is your genius secondary to their product (the desktop publisher – the technician)? Being an industry founded largely by artists, genius often comes into conflict with the general conservatism of most clients. It is an often uncomfortable truth that when it comes to talking with money, the vast majority of clients end up balking at the idea of doing something radical, no matter how brilliant it looks. When a client ends up with a designer, it is usually open enough so that there is no defining, determining structure for the client to proceed beyond “here’s our old file, we want something new”. Few and far between are the clients who can voice what they want – the majority will know what they want, but be unable to voice it – leaving it up to you to create concepts. The lines are left open for the designer to either be as creative or restrictive as they want.
Having clients who know exactly what they want can, in the end, become a de-mystic process – the ‘magic’ process of design is lost and the graphic designer becomes a ‘desktop layout’ specialist – there to directly translate a clients thought into physical presence. Still vital to the process, but lacking the magic of design and creativity. The process of multiple, hopefully varied, concepts and drafts is beneficial to the graphic designer more than to the client. Not only financially, but intellectually – by pushing the designer’s abilities.
But, in the end the client will determine the design/review process, especially after numerous uses of the phrase “I don’t like that look”, as rounds of sometimes brilliant designs are rejected. What this means is that the designer is often cut down brutally as their designs are rejected as not coming close to the vague ideas in the head of the client.
Sometimes this process works brilliantly the other way, when a designer will create multiple concepts and one of the more radical ones will work in a way even the clients more conservative business needs can appreciate.
Whether artist or technician, this design/review process will end up mining into a designer’s confidence. It is difficult not to take such criticism personally, since there is a deal of pride in the basic process of work and the brainpower needed to create something from the ether.
Designers often end up more jaded – creating conservative, safe, work that is sure to get to a client, but feeling dissatisfied as they miss that general mysticism that is the basis of graphic design. Even the technical graphic designers miss this – the freedom to create something from the vague ether of a client’s ideas. But the hassle and criticism of the design/review can demean this search for satisfaction and perfection to an unnecessary luxury. A pity, since the search for perfecting the ‘art’ of graphic design is a wonderful process.
Of special note is David Carson, the brilliant designer/artist, whose alternative works have been inspiring. We are not always lucky enough to have clients like ray gun, where we can exploit the alternative mindset of Carson (and our own artist within) –
“the purpose of graphic design here is not to communicate with the broadest possible audience, using universally accepted conventions, but to speak to a very narrow group with a particular visual culture. Carson has achieved this by developing a visual style that is not only understood, but preferred to plain speech.”
(eye magazine, quoted from The End of Print: The Grafik Design of David Carson, 2nd edition)The key in the above quote is the word ‘here’ – the narrow audience allows the freedom of expression for the designer. For the majority of clients, this work could never be saleable, unfortunately.
Saleability is the other problem facing designers – there is a widespread lack of business understanding and background in the industry, particularly among smaller studios and individual freelancers. Is the designer a businessman…or (even worse) a salesman? Both of these are often seen as the devil by graphic designers. I was having a discussion with a cousin recently, who noted the same beliefs in his own industry – the IT industry, which is staffed by technicians who know little of client relations and customer service, and salesmen who wouldn’t know C++ from HTML from ancient Bablyonian. Many graphic designers and their client managers suffer from the same conflicts. But that is a discussion for another thoughts piece (and believe me, it will come).
Should a designer be a businessman and drop dreams of creating the perfect piece of communication? Or should we push our clients beyond their own boundaries of comfort and cost so that we can search for brilliance in every piece?
In the end, oddly, the answer is actually quite simple – nurture that perfectionism.
I know that, no matter how much work I put into a job, I am never going to be completely happy with it. It will never be “perfect” to me. This is not an effect of budgets, or client needs or compromises. It is an effect of the fact that one can always do better.
Which is good. If I delivered a job to a client that I was absolutely happy with and felt was perfect…then my next words to the client would have to be “thanks for the fun, now find another designer”. What else could I offer them afterwards except a decline in quality?
This isn’t to say that one’s work shouldn’t excel in all ways, or that one should hold back the spark of genius in the hope of exploiting it ‘next project’. It should always be of the absolutely highest standard you can do at the time. All work done by a graphic designer is ‘art’, to couch it in a more pompous tone. A graphic designer should treat every work as a challenge, and thus seek perfection. I feel that a graphic designer should never be truly happy with their work.
In truth, some of my most valued clients are the ones who have asked for, and received, the more conservative designs. While these designs may not have challenged me artistically, they are valued because of the pleasure my clients have in receiving a job well done, and as what they wanted. Or, more satisfying for myself, the ones who love a design that I came up with – something different, but still more conservatively constrained for their ideas.
This does not really answer any conflict between the technical and visual artists within us. The struggle will always remain, but the struggle between artist, technician, business (or alternatively – between graphics, layout, and sales) is a good thing.
The Darwinian nature of business and contemporary society shows that survival is dependent on adaptation to be stronger. Hence, skills must always be honed, and to hone them the graphic designer must challenge themselves through their work – even the more mundane and conservative. By seeking perfection in every project, the graphic designer can nurture each side of their nature – artistic, technical, and business. This allows for a consistent adaptation and increase in quality, to produce better work, every time, and that can only be a good thing – for our clients and for the graphic designer themselves.
When a client chooses a designer – is their genius secondary to the product or is it the primary reason for being? Both, of course, since the artist’s genius can easily shine through when working on more mundane (to them) work. However – not only does the mundane stuff pay the bills, but the ability to make the mundane look spectacularly different (yet the same) is a rare, valuable thing. And an excellent challenge to seek perfection.
Likewise, a designer with the ability to understand business, and go beyond the realm of art, or the technical aspects, is one to be valued. The approach of a business mind is often so different to that of an artist, and a designer seeking perfection should consider this challenge to relate to both.
Designers should never be completely happy with their work. A person who is too happy with their work gets complacent, and that is the last thing a designer should want. But, a designer should be happy to remain a little discontent, knowing that perfection may be just around that next corner.
It is something to seek, if the designer tries a little harder next time to make it all just that bit better.
Cheers
Chai Lim
chinc. dzine
