The Manifesto of the New Designer
Author of this post: Ken Hanson | About Blog Authors »
I was already a pretty ambitious designer when I went to the Aspen Design Conference years ago. Mary Catherine Bateson, Margaret Mead’s daughter, spoke and I heard things that hadn’t occurred to me. She talked about designing life and how to create and build the rituals that celebrate the journey of living.
Then, I met Milton Glaser. From him I learned to take everything personally; to connect with the things I create in a real way. His definition of design has always stuck with me: Design changes the course of events for the better.
Recently, I’ve become increasingly disillusioned by how malleable and literal the term “design” has become. It’s a chameleon of a word, commonly applied to almost anything. Google it and you get 1.7 billion hits. Sign makers. Dress makers. Robot makers. Bed makers. Hair product makers. Money makers. It’s all design.
Wikipedia’s description is equally as diluted: “Design, usually considered in the context of applied arts, engineering, architecture and other creative endeavors, is used both as a noun and a verb.”
In my world, design is becoming more important, more exciting –more challenging – by the moment. So, for my firm and really, for myself, I’ve begun to develop some new language.
Inspired by the designers who first articulated these ideas for me, visionaries such as Bateson, Glaser, Paul Rand, Herbert Baer, April Greiman and more recently advanced by Clement Mok, here is my humble attempt at rethinking what we are.
Manifesto of “The New Designer”
– by Ken Hanson
(Download the Manifesto here.)
Now let me ask you: What would the tenets of *your* design manifesto be? It’s an interesting exercise. I’d love to hear your ideas. — Ken Hanson
September 25th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Well, Ken, this brings to mind that spirited exchange you and I had in your conference room several years ago! I admire your consistency and passion, but you’re preaching to the choir, here. The same message would largely fall on deaf ears in the business world at large.
It’ll be interesting to see if designers are more or less marginalized over the next decade.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hi Ken, I think it’s a great idea to articulate a vision of what designers are/should be. I’m worried though that we often are talking to ourselves. Designers seem to be great at navel gazing. I would propose that designers need to look out to the organizations that we serve, not within, for relevance. I think we could learn a lot from how they describe our discipline.
If you are looking for language to describe the new designer, I would include the following - collaborative, empathic and accountable.
Best,
Dave
October 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
We create simplicity out of complexity. That’s definetely one of the most important factors of a good design. However, it’s not easy, and that’s what makes it art!
October 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The simplicity of design is something that man has been striving for consciously or sub-consciously since the beginning of time. And we can see that the most timeless designs are simple, but functional.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ken,
I read your manifesto. It’s a strong term, manifesto. Nevertheless, I would suggest that your last point out to be the very first consideration a graphic designer should accept. Graphic designers are communicators, first and foremost. Technology, while it is transforming our industry, it remains a tool in service of communication.
Mary
November 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Interesting manifesto and interesting comments.
I often think that designers are at a kind of intersection between two different theories of creativity, and two approaches to technology, and it seems to me there are signs of this in the manifesto.
One theory of creativity which has been dominant since the Renaissance endows the individual designer with special powers (of synthesis, of generating beauty…). Another theory (Sociologist Howard Becker’s notably) sees artifacts as the result of collective action. The designer is one actor in network of people (printers, coders, bloggers, people who make coffee at Starbucks…) all crucial to the artifact ultimately being what it is. Or rather, their social interactions give birth to an artifact’s particularity.
As for approaches to technology, Heidegger suggested we usually see technology as either a means to an end or as inseparable from being human.
So (for eg.)
Do we really live in a “technology-fueled age”? What does this mean? Are we masters of our artificial world or slaves of it?
Are landscapes natural or cultural and what does this mean for “sustainable” design? When we think of sustainability, are we trying to freeze progress for our own comfort and security or are we promoting it for altruistic reasons?
If good design is a necessity, should market forces determine its value? Should it be “consumers hungry for new ideas” or the evangelists who might preach to an empty room? Is it useful to think in terms of luxury and necessity as opposed to instinct, survival and pleasure for example?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Corporate America bought the soul of graphic design a long time ago.
The more honest term is the old one - commercial art. Small “c”, small “a” - no design involved.
“I am a Whore to my greedy Pimp”.
That is the ACTUAL manifesto. Much more honest than the above pretension.
Design is a RELATIONSHIP between FORM + CONTENT.
Yes, look at your navel - it is a beautiful DESIGN.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Ken,
After reading your manifesto. What I have understood is that you wish that the term designing should only refer to the designs which you are designing. Nevertheless, I would suggest that your last point out to be the very first consideration a graphic designer should accept. Graphic designers are communicators, first and foremost.
Thanks for sharing this full of knowledge post.