"Design Paradox"

Graphis, May/Jun 2002 by Blauvelt, Andrew

Design finds itself-in a paradox. General interest in design has risen significantly in recent years-paralleling the profession's expansion during the last decade. In fact the so-called new economy could easily be labeled the design economy, as design figures centrally within the paradigms of the network and experience economies. Despite this new role, there has been a decline in the amount of reflection on design, its relevance to society and culture at large. This is not to say that there has been less written about design. On the contrary, we have seen countless books and magazine articles. However, most coverage has been the kind of celebratory reportage that has plagued design writing for decades. Instead, we read less critical writing about how design works and why it might be useful and meaningful to people, business and society at large. For most of the public, design still remains a mystery. At best, design is associated with aspects of planning and organization, at worst its synonymous with a kind of mindless decorating. For example, contemporary product design was featured as a Time magazine cover story, yet the article was written within the well-- worn dichotomy of form versus function. The inventive and fanciful forms of the products they chose confirmed the triumph of form without considering changes in technology, manufacturing or shifting notions of product function. The closest graphic design has come to such exposure is the notorious butterfly ballot fiasco in Florida (albeit designed without the assistance of a professional). Both incidents have been used to point out the significance of design to the public. Ironically, it was the more "critical" coverage of the performance failure of the ballot that tells us more about design. Most design is far more complex than has been portrayed by either the mainstream press or within professional journals. Design's complexity has more to do with its existence in the world than in its creation. Yet what is typically published perpetuates the myths of creativity and originality-the designer as genius and celebrity-at the expense of more important issues such as use and context. This skewed representation of design obscures the vital role it plays (and could play) in the world. Even a diet heavy on both form and content will not prepare designers to engage in the broader arenas of value, use and context.

The consequence of this situation was apparent at a recent AIGA conference about design history and criticism. Most of the discussion was a continuation of issues raised in the early '90s-made more urgent by a lack of critical voices within the profession and those covering it-giving the impression that the intervening years had somehow been frozen in time. For the most part this is true. In the first halt of the '90s there was a small boom in writing and thinking about design that has yet to be duplicated. This situation was fueled in part by the contributions of practitioner-critics. By the mid-to-late '90s, the economic boom in the industry simply overwhelmed the profession with work, leaving precious little time for reflection of any kind. If we can think of an economics of design criticism, then we must acknowledge that there is a supply-and-- demand problem. We require not only more design critics, but also more readers generating sufficient demand.

In short, graphic design lacks a culture of critique. By this I mean there are fundamental gaps-in education, practice and journalism-that contribute to the sense that design does not need to develop a critical practice because the marketplace is seen as the ultimate arbiter. At the end of the day too many designers are merely happy that the client has accepted their proposal. This insular definition of design success contributes little to a shared sense of design's importance. A sustained culture of critique emerging from the profession is not impossible, but seems unlikely as long as the bottom line remains the same. After all who needs criticism if the client's check has cleared? I would contend that the profession needs the kind of criticism that explains why design is necessary and desirable to people beyond the client and designer: to businesses and the public-consumers and citizens of design. If the value of design-its professional and social legitimacy-is to be taken seriously, then we need to expand our diet of design beyond the fare that we find so comforting. Change can only happen if design is asked to make the case for its relevance to society and culture at large.