My weekend being a GOOD Hacker

This semester so far been a nonstop race to the finish for my MFA Thesis, but I realized my thoughts were getting stale. What I needed was to clear my head and think about a different problem for a change. So, this weekend I took part in the GOOD Magazine Design Hackathon challenge.

Watching the kickoff presentation in a packed auditorium at Parsons

(Yes that’s right. I’m taking a break to work my ass even harder, lose sleep, freak out, skip breakfast, and… as it were, make new friends while goofing off and having buckets of fun.) (more…)

tagged     

Lessons from Internship, Part 1: Take it slow

What do you do when, three weeks into your internship, you are given the task of redesigning a dropdown menu for a site that’s about to be launched?

My knee-jerk reaction was to simply “jump on it.” “Jumping on it” was a term used copiously at my last job. What it meant was to dispatch the task as quickly, smoothly and decisively as possible.

So, following my usual approach, I skipped Photoshop, slapped down some CSS and HTML, and showed the results to my mentor. He was not sold.

“Um, this looks unresolved to me.”

Oh.

It does?

(more…)

Design is Not Important?

Way to start New Year off, right? =)

Actually, this is not so about me having an existential angst session about my chosen profession, as it is about some realizations that have come to pass over this recent holiday season.

The main thing is this: design is not as important as designers think it is. If you have ever tried to explain your profession or show your portfolio to relatives or non-design friends or even some potential clients, you can probably understand what I mean. (I am speaking here mostly about *graphic* design, but this could also apply to other types of design like fashion, architectural, industrial.)

(more…)

tagged     

A visit to the Cooper-Hewitt

Finally, we visited the Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Design today (after two failed attempts). And admission was free! Apparently they have invented some sort of “National Design Week” to promote itself. And design. Well, it was pretty much as I expected. Very… institutional. But still worth a visit.

The first floor was an exhibition titled “Design USA,” which was a show consisting of the winners of the National Design Awards from the past 10 years. The winners showcased were pretty predictable—many famous names like Diller Scofido + Renfro, Stefen Sagmeister, John Maeda, Adobe, Herman Miller, IDEO… I think Pentagram was mentioned a few times. I kept getting exasperated at how insular and limited and.. like, self-congratulatory the design world feels sometimes. These are names I hear over and over until it’s drilled into your head. You’d think no one else has any good ideas or knows how to innovate.

(more…)

tagged         

100 Design-Related Blog Posts With Lists of 100 Things

Building on the online design community’s shining tradition of making utterly massive lists of supposedly invaluable resources and things, I give you:

100 Design-Related Blog Posts With Lists of 100 Things

  1. Top 100 Best Fonts of All Time
  2. 100 Inspiring Character Designs
  3. 100 Great Blog Logso
  4. 100 Great Inspirational Resources for Designers
  5. 100 Extraordinary Examples of Paper Art
  6. 100 of the Best Creative and Grunge Designs About (Hm… about…)
  7. 100 Wonderful Photo Effects Photoshop Tutorials
  8. 100 of the Best Inspirational Blog Designs
  9. 100 Nice and Beautiful Blog Designs
  10. 100 Amazing Free WordPress Themes for 2009 (And here we begin quite a few from Smashing Magazine…)
    (more…)
tagged     

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte
rating: 5 of 5 stars

This was a completely worthwhile read. I was able to get through it really quickly by only briefly glancing at the many graphics. This either means I somehow didn’t notice Tufte’s resounding plea to appreciate graphics, or that it is a testament to the lucidity and elegance of many of the graphics in this book. Hopefully, the latter. =)

Edward Tufte is a huge data dork and has evidently studied the topic of data graphics deeply. The book is chock full of visual examples from diverse sources—news publications, historical treatises, scientific journals, etc. Not all are excellent; many are superlatively bad, such as the full-page chart that only manages to convey four data points. However, all charts used are well-chosen to illustrate each of his points.

He is also very opinionated and doesn’t hesitate to adopt an authoritative tone in sharing his Commandments of Good Data Graphics. Like a wise teacher however, he gives license on the last page to intelligently disobey (keyword “intelligently”) any of them. He also sounds like a 19th-century scholar—there is something irrepressibly didactic in the prose—but a fabulously dorky sense of humor makes occasional cameos, which keeps this work from being dry.

(more…)

tagged         

Milton Glaser on TED

Another great graphic designer talk from TED (they have oh so many). I like this one because Milton Glaser talks more about his process than about his higher overarching ideals. Also I enjoy his irreverant attitude.

Many times I’ve felt that same urge to humorously pontificate the “meaning” of this or that design, mostly to poke fun at designers’ tendency to take themselves too seriously. I would have if I thought I could get away with it. It must help to be an esteemed, established designer, which I am anything but. =)

tagged   

How to learn design?

In the last week or so, I blew through 2 design books – one called How to Be a Graphic Designer Without Losing Your Soul and the other called Thinking with Type. The former I borrowed from my co-worker, a fresh-out-of-college designer like me who, unlike me, has a traditional design education tucked away in her brain. The latter I had bought ages ago, but decided to re-read because said co-worker named it as one of her pivotal textbooks in school. The former summarized the business and ethical dilemmas often encountered by a working designer, the latter the basics of typography.

Reading these books was spurred, in large part, by a growing unease that I never learned design the “real” way. The merits of feeling this are up for debate (yes I am aware there are plenty of untrained, successful designers out there) but I still can’t help but feel that way.

What makes a great designer? How does she get there? What is her education like? These are things I’ve pondered a lot, ever since I’ve begun to have ample time for such ponderings (i.e. when I am at work, being an HTML and CSS monkey).

I think I’m fairly lucky to have what many people might call an unorthodox design education (but it’s actually a fairly orthodox liberal arts education in disguise). I barreled through Tufts and the Museum School in the most haphazard way possible, on the way engaging in copious amounts of theory and experimentation, and sticking my toe in everything from anthropology to metalworking to architectural drafting to programming. This has given me access to and an elementary understanding of a fairly large number of viewpoints and interpretations, and it has always taught me to question, to never take popular assumptions or trends without a grain of salt. Furthermore, it has made me insatiably crave knowledge and alternative perspectives.

So far so good. There is a downside, though (there always is). Because of this, I’m not really ever sure of how to judge my own design work, whether it is acceptable/effective/beautiful or not. The mainstream design world has some very basic rubrics against which to evaluate design. The problem is, I was never exposed to those rubrics in any definite sort of way. I’ve never had a typography teacher yell at me for kerning a word wrong or creating a horrific color combination. For people who’ve gone to the Museum School, it can even seem downright unbelievable that anyone actually teaches any creative field like that anymore. The SMFA mindset believes in the potentiality of rule-breaking, not the sanctity of rules. And because they’ve had a long long time to indoctrinate me, I have come to hold this to be true.

But sometimes you just plain need a few guidelines. As I said, I have no idea how to judge my own work. And not knowing how to judge, I can only guess how far I’ve improved by sort of comparing my work to my peers’ work, or by staring at the work for a long time until my eyes melt. Learning through guessing is friggin’ hard, and sometimes it feels downright impossible.

I have good intuition, and I am good at interpreting what people mean when they talk about design, which is how I manage to somehow remain effective at work and in personal projects. I’m also slowly becoming fantastically great at copying or expanding upon a “style” or “look” that someone else has invented. But is that all there is? Am I to spend the rest of my life being great at cosmetic pastiche? It’s true that there’s no such thing as originality because culture builds on culture. But there are varying levels of that, with cosmetic pastiche at what must be close to the very bottom. I dearly hope that I don’t spend my whole life there, on that bottom rung of the profession. I wouldn’t want to stay there, even if it makes all the clients in the world happy.

Not to be impatient, but the awareness that there are tons of designers out there like me, young and idealistic and ambitious, who nevertheless end up doing solid but unremarkable work for the rest of their lives… that gives me the chills, and fuels my anxiousness to learn faster and more effectively. I guess my goal then would be to put the best of what I got out of college to good use: I have to figure out how to learn design myself. I can perhaps begin by ending this blog entry right now and training my SMFA-wrought freewheelingness to have a little RISD-esque discipline.

With a grain of salt, of course.

tagged   

How vs. why

In my forever ongoing education as an artist/graphic designer, I made yet another realization today. I guess I’d known this for quite some time but hadn’t really articulated it. Basically, at some point in the last 5 years, I made the transition from spending the majority of my time experimenting and figuring out how to create what I have in mind, to spending the majority of my time deciding between this option and that.

Before, I would spend hours and hours trying to figure out how to shade correctly, how to create a certain effect in Photoshop, how to draw the human body, etc. Now I spend the majority of my deciding between serif vs. sans-serif, humanist vs. grotesque, red vs. slightly orange, big vs. small, photo A or photo B, javascript or actionscript, etc. etc. The question is no longer “how,” but “why” this one element or style or whatever is better than the alternative.

I think a lot of things came together to abet this transition, among them primarily the huge assortment of free Photoshop tutorials on the fabulous, crazy Internets. Now I don’t have to really learn how to do anything anymore – if I desire a certain effect, I just look up the appropriate page from my vast Delicious bookmarks collection and get the info I need right away to recreate the target look. Likewise, even though I know fairly well how to render a human figure by hand, I never really will need to, because iStockphoto.com has a ridiculously large collection of human vector figures in any imaginable pose, to be had for just a few dollars and a click. The amount of readymade resources in the design world are bafflingly huge. No wonder nowadays I find myself pondering “why” rather than “how.”

Perhaps this is just another difference between how an art-oriented mind vs. a design-oriented mind operates. Art more is about the visual expression of the unfamiliar or original. Design is about the arrangment of elements (implied: preexisting) to make something pleasing. A long time ago, I thought art and design were quite similar in process because they require many of the same visual skills, but now more and more, I’m reevaluating this belief.

However this doesn’t mean the two can’t mesh, as I would always aim for – it merely means that each discipline has a lot to learn from the process of the other. For instance, I wonder if the design process is not limiting itself by focusing too much on picking and choosing between preexisting elements. I know that there are designers out there who go all out and make/experiment with everything from scratch, but that’s not the way it is taught or practiced at a lot of firms, including the one I work at. That is something I would like to take away from the art mindset more.

Sometimes its good to be aware of what you are doing, how you are operating on a day-to-day level, what conventions you’ve fallen into and others that you’ve abandoned. Which is why I write these rambly entries, I guess. =)

tagged