Quote this comment

Ryan Posted…

I think that's rubbish. There are definately objective qualities of design. Good design is good design no matter the era, "taste" of the designer and particularly whim. If this weren't true then you couldn't categorical say "this here is good design" and you most certainly CAN do that.

Quote this comment

vladoftransylvania Posted…

if somebody pay you for the design, it means the design is good. you are free to choice a designer. it is good, because otherwise we would become like microsoft.

Quote this comment

Tony Posted…

Ouch. I don't know if I agree with him or not. I'm certainly have to think about it. But my first reaction was not a good one. Anger, directed directly at him. But I do think that there are some good points in there.

Ryan, I think his point is that we don't (or can't) communicate what those objective qualities of design are. Also, when you point to something and say "Here is Good Design", you can find another designer that disagrees. And the lack of standards to measure or judge design doesn't help.

I don't know. A very good article. Lots to think about here.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Defining objective standards for design is like trying to catch a greased pig, as soon as you establish them, they are begging to be broken. Yet still, I can't disagree with the premise.

Quote this comment

Ryan Posted…

I agreed somewhat Tony. Here is an interesting article I stumbled on one day regarding the mystical quality "taste". It really struck a nerve with me. Cheers Taste for Makers, by Paul Graham

Quote this comment

Darrel Posted…

Good design can be measured provided you have set up some metrics to actually measure. Typically...does the end-product accomplish a set of goals?

The aesthetic part is much harder to say 'good/bad' and I think that is the problem. To many graphic designers are focused on decoration and not on design.

Quote this comment

Christopher Simmons Posted…

So, we have an interesting conflict here. On the one hand we have Ryan saying that the assertion of design being a treacherously subjective endeavor is rubbish, and that there are objective qualities of design, even going so far as to say that one can empirically identify "good design." On the other, Nate equates the definition of objective standards with pursuing a slippery swine. These two positions in themselves seem to support the latter claim. No?

To be honest, I'm split on my thinking here too. On the one hand, wouldn't it be great if there were standards that supported designers as a group and industry? I think it would go a long way towards legitimizing design as a professional practice. On the other, who wants to standardize a creative process?

The fact of the matter is that standardization, certification and other qualifying systems are hopelessly impossible to implement and enforce, and probably not appropriate for our field.

My summary question, then, still remains: what can/should designers do to advance both internal and external understanding of their industry?

In my mind the dialogue is the answer.

Quote this comment

Tom Levine Posted…

I think Christopher comes off as being pretty stuck up in the article, but at the same time, I agree with some, and only some, of his points.

It is always a struggle to try and quantify artistic endeavors, to try and standardize and categorize elements of an art-form, so that peers and neophytes alike, can sit back and decide on whether or not the work "sucks" or is brilliant.

At the same time, it is a neceesary evil. For the prospective client out shopping for a designer, how does one go about making a determination on who the best candidate is and for the best price? How much time should a client put into this analysis, and how much knowledge and expertise does the client feel he/she has, when deciding on who to hire? With standardizations, designations, and objective mesureable tools to quantify skill, the client can decide on who best fits their needs.

But back to the part that I disagree with. The truth is, that none of us are above it all....Not even Christopher, as much as he'd probably vehemently disagree with me. We all have our own "litmus test" for a great flick, a cool tune, and an excellent design. Art is art. Different cultures in different eras view art in different ways. But in the end, it always is the individual who views the art, that must decide for him/herself, how moving the art is, and how "valued" the art should be.

Of course, in terms of design, there are measureable qualities that the individual can look to. For example, what is more important: Form or function? If form is more important, then the measurements are more qualitative. If Function is more important, then the measurements can be specific to results, and quantifiable.

But, if Christopher really thinks that his clients are ignorant, and his peers are negligent...Well, it is a hard sell. It's plain wrong. Sometimes, it's dangerous to live in an ivory tower. The sound I hear sucking, is the sound of too many people kissing Mr. Simmon's butt.

Quote this comment

Christopher Simmons Posted…

That's a lot of hostility, Tom

I'm not purporting, nor proposing, to be the arbiter of what does and does not represent quality design. I certainly have my opinions, as others will have theirs �and that is the problem. Diversity of thought is a beautiful thing, as is diversity of expression. It is the very nature of creativity and the foundation of all progress. It is the wild diversity in our standards of practice, in our professional lexicon, and in our very definition of "design" that hamstrings our profession. As a group, we have yet to hit our stride when it comes to communicating to others what we do. It runs the gamut from art (as you have put it) to strategy (as other have),and occupies all points along that continuum. If we can't effectively express what it is we do and offer our clients, then on what are they basing their expectations of process and outcome?/p>

This is the ignorance I speak of. And when I say ignorant, I simply mean unknowledgeable � not stupid or intellectually lazy. It's not an insult to state that a person is unfamiliar with the intricacies of a profession in which they are not directly involved. When a startup comes to us for an identity, it is often the first time they've ever interacted with a design professional. In these instances it is our responsibility to clearly communicate articulate the scope and value of our professional services. But it's not uncommon for a new client ��even a bright, ambitious, MBA-holding client, to be evaluating us against international firms 100 times our size, as well as so-called design services such as logoworks.com. In these instances I do believe that, as a group, designers are responsible for allowing an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty to persist.

Anyone � anyone ��can say they are a professional designer. The same is not true for an architect, a lawyer, a doctor, a therapist, a realtor, a plumber, an exterminator, etc. Even professional golfers must make the cut. These are professions that have clearly defined the standards that one must achieve to be considered a competent practitioner, and have established agencies and associations to enforce these standards. In the absence of such governance, design fights an uphill battle to be viewed as a true profession.