Teaching graphic design at a private institution on the Jersey shore has its advantages. The most obvious is the relative solitude of a suburban environment conducive to focused study. A disadvantage is the feeling that we constantly live in the shadow of New York, which makes my responsibility as a design educator all the more significant. My students need jobs and I have to make sure they are good enough to acquire them.
But was my teaching up to par? Will they know enough at the end of four or five years? Will their portfolios be strong enough? The spring semester has passed, another year just ended and I am left wondering if I was able to enrich the lives of my students. Do they understand the significance and purpose of graphic design now? Have I effectively clarified the process? Did I make graphic design interesting? I ponder the ramifications of the above as I stand in the doorway of my office staring at the quaint cobblestone courtyard that identifies the Department of Art & Design. The West Long Branch air is still cool. I look up just in time to see dark clouds rolling in. Looks like rain.
“Why do you teach?” asked a colleague. “Why are you here?” My reply? Something about teaching sustaining me; that it’s one of the most difficult jobs I have ever had but that it’s worth it because I enjoy working with students and watching them grow. I meant what I said, though my reply only addressed part of the reason I teach: I teach because I believe graphic design is not simply about beautification and the proverbial “solving” of “problems.” Looking at my students’ past projects, I cannot shake the feeling that I haven’t done enough. Where there is richness of form there is also a lack of content. Good looks and absence of meaning makes design a vapid thing. Isn’t graphic design about content? Isn’t it about ideas?
Graphic design education, now more than ever, must address the broader issues facing the profession. Amidst sociopolitical upheavals of late and ever-advancing technologies (for better or worse), it is vital that undergraduate programs take an holistic approach towards teaching graphic design that will surpass purely formal concerns in the service of industry. Educators must cultivate a spirit of inquiry within their classrooms that will transform their students into highly motivated and capable designers who are incisive critics of their work. Students must be made aware of the choices they make, as well as the strategies they employ against a much larger backdrop of events and circumstances that defines the world beyond their classrooms. They must know and value their roles as empowered shapers of culture, a fact that must be communicated to them early during their academic careers.
A foremost concern of many design programs is that its graduates be well rounded and capable of providing competent, sophisticated service through the visual language of design in a professional environment. “Service” implies that designers have a responsibility well beyond their own penchants and that to design for an audience means that they are communicating messages visually to and for a particular community of people (society) whose culture (way of thinking, beliefs) they inevitably influence. However, issues of audience and culture will not be a concern to students if they are not emphasized or brought to bear upon projects and lectures within the classroom. It is difficult enough to convince initiates of the viability of design – this is especially true for those who have meandered into the field not due to any overarching belief in it efficacy but because they see it as a means of earning a living while pursuing an interest in art. Such a myopic outlook leads them either to think of design as a private activity or to think that design begins and ends with the client. An environment must be created in which students analyze their work deeply and in much broader terms. Critiques must be elevated to a point where students articulate their intentions and opinions while asking incisive questions about their work and the work of their classmates. How will a design be interpreted? What other messages might be gleaned from a design that is a byproduct of the process and invisible to its maker? Is it sexist? Racist? Misleading? Condescending? Contradictory? Critiques are not celebratory. They are investigations, a dismantling of sorts to reveal a designer’s motivations. “I like it.” “I really like it.” “It’s good.” “I really like the colors.” “How did you make that effect?” “It’s cute.” Such stomach-turning superficiality virtually guarantees graphic design as nothing more than typographic and imagistic onanism.
Despite our lackluster economy, there is no doubt that there is still a continuing increase in graphic design majors at colleges and universities. New subjects are being taught; new facilities are being built and older ones expanded in support of new areas. But the real issues of keeping students focused, transforming them into masters of design methodology, supplying them with the information to become well-versed in design history, inspiring them to take an interest in events that have shaped and are shaping their culture, teaching them to articulate their ideas, teaching them to learn to work quickly and intelligently with technology in a fast-paced and constantly changing environment still remain. Unfortunately, given the emphasis on technology, it appears as though graphic design methodology – strategies and procedures from which students learn to produce meaningful design – is losing its appeal. Educators must emphasize to their students, many of whom take for granted the position they are in to influence and educate audiences, that learning the mechanics of software (though a necessity) does not provide the content that will validate the form their graphic designs take. There is a misconception among undergraduates that technology will solve the issues for which they are accountable. Sadly, that frame of mind is also content to eliminate the pleasures of exploring ideas through sketching, research, and writing, all of which are part of the design process. And here I though design was a form of art driven by an insatiable desire to know about many things! The focus has gradually shifted from students challenging themselves formally and conceptually to learning the features of whatever software or hardware they must use to complete a project for a deadline. Want ads, which reflect the way the market perceives designers, perpetuate and reinforce this tendency; for example: “Graphic Designer – So CT area. Proficient in Quark, Photoshop & Illustrator. PT Position. Res to: PS Design Inc, 114 Peaceable Ridge, Ridgefield, CT 06877 (The New York Times, May 26, 2003).”
In order to graduate well-rounded designers with the potential to become deeply involved in the development of content (as opposed to just doing what they’re told), adjustments must be made to the way graphic design is taught regardless of the curriculum. The following suggestions should be thought of as principles to be espoused by design educators rather than as a set of rules to be followed. If design is a public service, then the following should lead us back to our audience and to the kind of graphic design that will enrich our experience and serve our clients.
Graphic design cannot be taught from an exclusively formal standpoint. Methodologies must be discussed within the context of project requirements and limitations, including such questions as: Why does a design look the way it does? What do certain elements/graphic devices mean in relation to the project? What, ultimately, is the designer trying to impart to an audience/viewer/reader? Where and what are the weaknesses and strengths of the design? How can it be improved? In addition, solutions must be realized through aggressive visual/formal experimentation guided by a body of knowledge culled from research. (My use of “experimentation” here means a rigorous approach to problem solving rather than the exploration of theory.) Metaphor and symbolism must be employed in order to captivate audiences, thereby making them part of the design process.
Software and hardware instruction must not be discussed in a way that leads students to believe graphic design precludes ideas. Doing so places far too much emphasis on the mechanics of production rather than on content. The use of technology must be tempered by conceptual and aesthetic concerns. Design as an intellectual and interdisciplinary activity must be approached in a scholarly manner wherein students view research as a point of departure and sketching and/or writing are a necessary means of exploring possible solutions. Anything less is trade school pedagogy.
Mining graphic design history for new and appropriate forms serves students best when exemplary works of a period are not merely discussed in terms of their look. Graphic design artifacts should be framed by discussions that examine the social and political conditions that fostered their development, rather than viewed as a collection of styles to be picked up or dropped as needed. It is through the study of history that students acquire a vocabulary of design that helps them clearly describe the strengths and weaknesses of their work and the work of their classmates.
The responsibility of educating students does not fall entirely upon the shoulders of teachers. Students must learn to be proactive. Somnambulism is the nemesis of graphic design education. To declare oneself a graphic design major necessitates an absolute devotion to the study and making of design. There is an alarming tendency among undergraduates to want to be led to a solution. “I don’t know what do do” and “What do you want?” are common traps. While it is all right for students to be uncertain about how to approach a problem, it is unacceptable for them to consistently come to class empty-handed. In this scenario the teacher begins to solve the student’s design problem. “When’s this due?” There is also a compelling need among students to finish assignments as quickly as possible, which limits their exploration. Indeed, given the preponderance of technology and time constraints, exploration through sketching and writing might seem like an annoyance. It’s quicker to design on the computer and yet, without a plan, this strategy rarely leads to resonant work. Where is the joy? Where is the curiosity? “You mean we have to read this?” It is rare to find students who take pleasure in reading. It is rarer still to find one who innately recognizes the connection between graphic design and language. Students long to make but don’t wish to know. Reading and sketching takes time but spinning one’s wheels can be endless.
Emigre’s “Rant” gets us thinking again about why we’re here and why we do what we do. From an educator’s perspective, to teach design is to teach not only the means and methods by which form is given to ideas. It is also about intelligently speaking to and about culture – giving back rather than taking from it, representing it, defending its virtues, and questioning what weakens or endangers it. Educators are privileged to be in a position to lead by example. I believe that there is something greater than the “market” which, unfortunately, tends to view graphic design and its practitioners as commodities. Graphic design as beautification limits the extent to which designers can become involved with the development of content. Maybe the market is afraid of what might happen if designers cross the line? Maybe it’s afraid that we might actually know a thing or two about what people like and don’t like being consumers ourselves? Is it afraid that we might see right through an insipid strategy? Whatever the reason, I/we cannot sit idly and accept that we are vapid stylist yes-women and men. If we do, graphic design becomes impotent. If we do, it means we agree that there is nothing more to graphic design – nothing more to us – than technique. If we do, we agree that there is nothing more to our work than the revenue it can generate for a client. If we’re going to “do” design, we ought to do it well and have the courage to ruffle a few feathers. Though graphic designers are rarely in a position to completely alter the way employers do business – the machine is too big and it’s roots too deeply set – just knowing that their work can shape the environment and consequently influence the way people perceive the world enables them to question dubious strategies and be rigorous in their pursuit of solutions while effecting change quietly from the inside. Viewing design education from this perspective should remind educators that they are empowered to impart to design students a set of values that will enable them to excel at what they do and be responsible citizens.
Note: This essay was originally published in Emigre 65.