I read the Christopher Simmons article first and these two quotes struck me the most from what I saw:
“There is confusion between having an opinion and having a relevant opinion,” said Correa. “This results in even less productive social discourse around everything — not just design; it’s a basic misunderstanding of democracy.”
“Design as a discipline is challenged by this notion of democracy, particularly in a viral age. We have become a culture mistrustful of expertise—in particular creative expertise.”
I think that since design in the world today is so accessible and accepted that people of any background feel that they are experts. I believe they feel this way because they feel that the design is for them and connected with it therefor they are entitled to it being exactly what they want regardless of if they really have any knowledge of the principles of design what so ever. I feel that people think that anyone knows what ‘good’ design is bases on the very vague, very uninformed basis of whether the person ‘likes’ it or not or whether they think it’s ‘cool’. From an outsider view the field isn’t taken as seriously as something that requires a lot of education and practice to do well like say something in engineering — people won’t make an opinion on something such as that based on whether they ‘like’ it or not. I think it’s important that before the general public forms their opinion about design that they understand what design is and everything that goes into producing a logo.
I found it interesting in Michael Bierut’s article when he stated: “As usual, no one had expressed much passion for the good old seal until it was threatened by the arrival of the new logo. Suddenly, people were lining up to testify to its virtues.“ In an alternate way of looking at it, people should realize that maybe they needed this kick in the pants to appreciate what was already there and be excited about something else new (since the old seal wasn’t going anywhere) rather than lashing out against it in a seemingly impulsive way.
And again when he says: “But all the UC logo dissenters remind us of how different designers are from regular people. Designers tend to overvalue differentiation and originality. We are taught this in design school.” This really is so true and on point, and explains exactly what I was trying to say above about the difference between the people who design the logos and the general public who think they’re entitled to have equal say and understanding of such a thing when really they don’t have the knowledge.
Perhaps we could also ask: what was the purpose? What was the process? Whose ends were being served? How should we judge success? But we seldom look any deeper than first impressions, wallowing instead in a churning maelstrom of snap judgments. Should we be surprised when the general public jumps right in after us?
It is great that in society today people are aware of what design is and all but in the biggest regard I’m not sure if its in a positive way. What this does is only make us as designers savvy up on our persuasive skills to sell our idea to the client and then to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment