The problem with theoretical analyses of what design should or shouldn't be is that they always seem to incubate in some sort of alternative universe where nobody has to please a client or pay bills. Design is visual problem-solving; if you're innovative with your concepts and you can create compelling visual interpretations (and meet your deadlines) you'll have a decent career. As Einstein said, "it's not quantum physics."
I have a book of political posters, "The Design of Dissent," edited by Milton Glaser and Mirko Ilic, which I love. It's full of great provocative ideas and edgy executions. But I would be willing to bet that more than 90% of the examples were self-published or designed gratis.
I feel like I keep hammering variations of the same theme with these posts, but this is not the fine art world. What you create will be driven by the goals of your client. If you can get "peculiar, political" things approved, then great, but I think it's a little idealistic to think that any of us will have all that much autonomy in the real (read: paying) world. And ultimately, that is why we are doing it: to make a living, not reshape society's methods of communicating.
No comments:
Post a Comment