Missing the Meeting Place

Graphic design is the perfect meeting place. It’s the cozy quaint spot where the Art, Communication and Marketing meet. It’s quite a magical affair... Art captivates you with her untamed passion and her free spirited playfulness. You can never quite place her, yet you can’t keep your eyes from her. Marketing is quite the opposite in character; she’s feisty and driven and plans meticulously in getting her way. The two don’t glue well together on one to one meetings; it’s Communication that sticks them together. Communication understands them both. She teaches them how to listen and how to communicate their feelings. She’s the sense in the storm; when she’s around the trio work wonders together.

The problem facing designers today, is missing the meeting place. 

The definition of good design differs according to seemingly opposing schools of viewpoints (artistic vs. marketing vs. communication). Is design aesthetic, moral, honest, effective or economic? You can see these split definitions since the acknowledgement of graphic design as discipline. Just like the predominant worldviews of people have been changing with the pass of time, the definition of what design should be have been adopted accordingly. With modernism’s (approx. 1870’s – 1960’s) root for moral propaganda, design was used as a tool for the train of thought. Amidst of capitalism, design is used as a tool for this train of thought.

“Back then (referring to 1950’s), the word “good” was linked with the notion of ethics and morality. Milton Glaser remembers how, in the early fifties, “good” referenced things that were suppose to be honest and truthful, like abstract art. In contrast, today, “good” has no moral, spiritual, or redemptive agenda; good simply means effective.  “Good” means, “that which sells”.

- Veronique Vienne’s in her article, What’s Bad about Good Design

If we stand for design as an independent discipline we cannot define it as a tool, merely adapting to the popular culture of the time. If design can function in different disciplines, aren’t these disciplines different characteristics of graphic design? Let me just clearly state that we are not promoting a post modernistic view of fragmented subjective views, because amidst of postmodernism, fragmentation kills purpose. 

We solemnly believe that design can change the world; senseless design - art for art’s sake -is the last thought we’d like to back. 

What we’d like to support is a new collective definition of graphic design.

Ironically, we live in a time where a holistic view is appreciated, rather than a singular view. Ironically designers have instinctively rejected the singular view by pursuing graphic design as profession, because 'fine arts did not seem practical enough'. Yet we tend to see graphic design by a singular view. 

Don’t have favorites, in a whole set of characteristics. You’ll just upset the latter.