The need for design can only increase

Designers make the complex clear. They are the intermediaries between information and understanding. They use form and content, yet their real value is enhancing understanding through applying context and time to an audience’s grasp of the meaning of information and messages.

If these characterizations are true, think of what this means for information design and data visualization in the coming age of “Big Data.”

According to Sam Palmisano, IBM’s outgoing CEO, in a speech last September: “It is estimated that there will be 44 times as much data and content coming over the next decade…reaching 35 zettabytes in 2020. A zettabyte is a 1 followed by 21 zeros.” [Note: that would be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes]

Computing power alone will not make this amount of information intelligible and useful.

Designing a national strategic narrative →

Continuing on the theme of the design mind and its value in crafting solutions to complex problems in fresh ways, consider the newly infamous article by “Mr. Y” on a national strategy. This approach to rethinking the core messages about national policies has two characteristics that are similar to the way designers think: re-imagining the solution, beyond the traditional form of the question, and weaving it into a thoughtful narrative.

“This narrative advocates for America to pursue her enduring interests of prosperity and security through a strategy of sustainability that is built upon the solid foundation of our national values. As Americans we needn’t seek the world’s friendship or to proselytize the virtues of our society. Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole, or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions. Our domestic and foreign policies will reflect unity of effort, coherency and constancy of purpose. We will pursue our national interests and allow others to pursue theirs, never betraying our values. We will seek converging interests and welcome interdependence. We will encourage fair competition and will not shy away from deterring bad behavior. We will accept our place in a complex and dynamic strategic ecosystem and use credible influence and strength to shape uncertainty into opportunities. We will be a pathway of promise and a beacon of hope, in an ever changing world.”

“Mr. Y” is actually two senior military officers attached to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Can diplomacy inform design and vice versa?

Early in my career, I became a certified urban designer or AICP. However, before I qualified for certification, I was actually denied accreditation during the oral interviews. I made the mistake of defining the discipline in a way that was beyond the vocational experience of review panel members by naming Henry Kissinger as an example of an extaordinary planner or designer in a complex world. To this day, I believe that diplomacy can be navigated effectively by the design mind, with its capacity for original solutions crafted as an overlay on the combination of human considerations and powerful forces of economy and politics. The problems encountered in international relations are not linear and neither is the approach a designer takes to a challenge.

So, I tend to listen to the talented people who deal with foreign policy. As we consider how to make AIGA as relevant as possible, I was struck by some observations made recently by Anne Marie Slaughter, formerly Hillary Clinton’s director of policy and planning at the State Department and now a professor of policy and international diplomacy at Princeton. She has been trying to craft guidance on how to conduct diplomacy in a world in which social media has made such a difference:

• Don’t just do something, stand there! [In other words, pause to think!]
• Connect but not too much [Leadership still needs to emerge from your own moral convictions]
• Small is beautiful: small communities are better networks [Thoughtful conversation is far more instructive than participating in a large, unfocussed exchange]
• Self organization is better [For example, the value of bottom-up activities, which may be chaotic but are often smart, as opposed to top-down direction, which is neater but often irrelevant—think Tahrir Square]

How does this help to define a new AIGA?

VUCA (huh?)

Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, always offers a thoughtful perspective on the role of the creative mind in business strategy and the need for business to adapt to the forces that buffet traditional thinking. In an article in the winter 2012 issue of Rotman Magazine, Roger cites “VUCA” as the new normal. VUCA is a military strategy term for an environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous.

Formulating corporate strategy in this environment needs a more open management perspective and culture, seeking solutions beyond traditional transactional norms, starting with your imagination, and taking the time to imagine new possibilities in terms of organizations, relationships and value propositions. It also requires that the leader not wait for perfect knowledge to act.

In many respects, it is this realization that is driving our approach to AIGA’s transformation. We have been taking note of the VUCA environment and less about what the right answer for AIGA is, except that it is different from what we have traditionally been.

To begin the reorientation, we asked what designers want from AIGA in this environment.

As we have sorted through the thousands of responses from designers on what AIGA should be during “One Day for Design,” our 24-hour Twitter dialogue, it seems that what designers want us to stand for is something like: “AIGA exists to enhance the personal and professional impact of our members on design, business, culture and society.”

When we look both back and forward for the critical role for AIGA, we realize that designers are looking for support for head, heart and hand—design as a way of thinking, design for social good, and design as spirit-lifting expression of craft and imagination.

This characterization was reinforced in Howard Gardner’s most recent book, Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed, which refines lectures he gave recently at MoMA. His thesis is that most cultures and institutions are based on establishing broadly accepted standards for truth, beauty and what is reasonably considered “good.” Yet this time-honored approach to providing guideposts in a society have been challenged by two powerful dynamics: the post-modern critique from the humanities, which argues for many voices and perspectives, and the disruptive potentials of the social media, essentially amplifying the individual voice rather than respecting the shared values.

We see this precisely. Social media skim the need for a sense of community that used to define the need for associations; and the post-modern approaches to criticism undermine the role of institutions in establishing authoritative criteria. It would seem the days of an institution that has been an imprimatur of excellence and offers a chance for the community to gather is facing dwindling days.

AIGA is transforming itself: offering the opportunities to use the weak links of community to engage in thoughtful conversations; sharing experiences that can help to understand the VUCA world; tapping the energy and perspectives of 22,000 members to share observations on noteworthy design. At the same time, AIGA does and will continue to stand for principles of professional practice aimed at earning the profession the respect of others that it deserves. Watch closely and you will see how we are trying to adapt.

What the government thinks a graphic designer does

Among our priorities is to improve the understanding within the US government of the role of designers and to see that government documents and policies embody an accurate portrayal of designers and their contribution in the 21st century. One of the more prosaic vehicles for this is the Occupational Outlook Handbook of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is often used as a source by high school guidance counselors advising young creative talent on job possibilities. For fifteen years, we have been inching this document closer and closer to reality so that last December, we thought that this year, we would have a fair representation of the challenges and expectations of designers today. BAM! The person who had been managing the editing of the handbook left or retired and the new incumbent sends me a description that starts:

“Graphic designers create visual concepts by hand or using computer software that inspire, inform, or captivate consumers. They help to make an organization recognizable by selecting color, images, or logo designs that can be used in advertising and promotion.”

As for work environment, it continues:

“Graphic designers generally work in a studio where they have access to drafting tables, computers, and the necessary software to sketch out their designs.”  

I believe there is a necessary role for government, but defining a profession may not be one of its strengths and, in fact, it can be hurting our efforts to improve an understanding of design in the K-12 environment. AIGA will be launching its own efforts to involve designers and chapters in making young people aware of design opportunities.

Why aren’t designers in political leadership?

For years, I have been looking for examples of designers who occupy elected offices and have not discovered a single AIGA member even on an elected school board. And yet we talk about designers’ capacity for developing innovative solutions to complex problems.

The reason this seems so important is that we talk about the need for designers to be respected for the contribution they can make that goes well beyond stereotypes of designers as craftspeople. Yet, to earn that respect, it seems it would be important to demonstrate the power of a design mind in addressing community problems that concern those whose respect we seek—not just the general public, but also community leaders, business leaders and professionals who live where we live.

Isaiah Berlin is said to have defined political judgment as “a capacity for integrating a vast amalgam of constantly changing, multicolored, evanescent perpetually overlapping data.” Isn’t that what designers would claim is their special gift and competitive advantage?

There is no Steve Jobs figure in American liberalism insisting that the designers keep government simple, elegant and user-friendly.

— 

David Brooks, New York Times,  January 10, 2012, “Where are the Liberals?”

Isn’t this a role for AIGA?

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

— Article 27, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948 without a single country dissenting

Adapting to new perspectives on creative property

The high visibility debate over SOPA  focused more heavily on the issues of censorship of the openness of the internet than on the creative property issues. Yet we are still trying to find the proper balance in respecting creative property in this new connected economy.

An article in the New York Times on the first day of the new year emphasized the difficulties the profession faces in protecting creative property, unless, of course, you are of the mind that the objective should be to share, rather than protect, creative property. How can there be any ambiguity in what was once a firm and clear principle in support of protecting intellectual property?

As many designers follow the trends in popular culture, should AIGA’s position be in support or against an interpretation of the copyright law that limits the adaptation of other images that populate visual culture?

The article follows last year’s case in which a federal district court judge ruled that the artist Richard Prince broke the law by taking photographs from a book about Rastafarians and using them without permission to create collages and a series of paintings based on them. Mr. Prince’s appeal is based on the liberty of “fair use” — using someone else’s material for certain purposes, especially if the result transforms the thing used — or as Judge Pierre N. Leval described in an influential 1990 law review article, if the new thing “adds value to the original” so that society as a whole is culturally enriched by it.

Much like judicial opinions, professional standards tend to evolve, perhaps slowly, in response to cultural changes. Now we are faced with an era that encourages appropriation of imagery as a cultural mirror, yet seeks to protect imagery that adds value to the original.

While this is just one example of how we may need to reconsider values of truth, beauty and what is good, it is also a new year’s reminder that our world is also VUCA — volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous — and we, as AIGA and as a community of designers, must change very, very rapidly to reassure our own relevance.

SOPA, PIPA, SCOTUS, CP, IP and all that

This week there were a number of events, both within our control and beyond it, that reveal once again the dynamics of a post-modern world, where truths are hard to come by and everything seems relative. For me, it creates conditions that are stimulating and provocative, although getting to an answer is often very hard.

In developing AIGA’s position on legislation in the House (Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA) and the Senate (Protect Intellectual Property Act or PIPA), we find ourselves confronting the collision that the trending of openness imposes on traditional principles of creative property rights. AIGA’s position [see AIGA Insight article http://www.aiga.org/What-is-AIGAs-position-on-SOPA/], consistent with members’ long time principles, is to respect creative and intellectual property rights first.

The legislation, however, took an approach toward protecting the rights of the entertainment business from online piracy that appeared to challenge the ideas of openness and content-sharing that have emerged from three decades of social experience with the internet. And so, AIGA is for the principle of protecting creative property rights and against any specific proposals to fight online piracy by preventing U.S.-based search engines from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials that would appear to threaten broadly open access to information and the exchange of ideas. How does one reconcile the two?

There can ad hoc solutions to problems like these, but in setting a position for an institution, I always try to find a policy principle that will apply in the immediate case and also signals how AIGA will act in future different cases. We aren’t there yet on this one.

In this current era, in which at the policy level an attitude of binary partisanship has descended on reasonable discussion, these two positions of restriction and openness are diametrically opposed and perhaps irreconcilable. However, this is the challenge. We must find a way to appreciate both our principles and the changing social/media/technology environment.

This isn’t unique. We are dealing with the same threats and opportunities in seeking to restrict spec-work solicitations while accepting that crowdsourcing is seen as an innovative tool for ideation and collaboration. AIGA has adapted what was once an unwavering resistance to activities that seemed to call for uncompensated creative competitions to one that realizes that the environment and social norms are changing although our principles should not (see http://www.aiga.org/position-spec-work/).

Political and judicial decisions seem to reinforce changing norms every day: this week, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion that would permit the reintroduction of copyright protection on creative property that was already in the public domain (and designers may actually be using without permission currently).

Like each of these conundrums, this post has no easy conclusion other than to reveal that we are not either parroting old principles nor riding the easy social conclusion as we continue to refine the principles that ought to govern respect and understanding of professional design. One thing we do feel is firm, however: there is a need for a voice representing the profession to articulate clearly and consistently the standards of professional practice and the principles that govern the high ground in the worthy creative professions.