Art & Design

There is a significant difference between art and design. Art is about what the artist wants to communicate, what feelings the artist him/herself wants to express. An artist breaks rules and creates his/her set of rules; whereas for design, it's much more planned, it's about finding the best way to communicate visually to the targeted audience. The creator's presence is more evident in art than design, since every artist is 'unique' in their own choice of expression through various medium, color, subject matter etc.

Although art and design are very different, I see them as inseparable elements especially in product design. In my own practices, I try merging design with my fine arts photography, and merge 'artsiness' to my design. (refer to Design Issues hardcopy)

The difference between art and advertising is that advertising should never be open to interpretation. - Stephen Freeman

Female in Design

I remember in class one day, Charles mentioned that there are the most number of females in graphic design than other design industries such as interior design, architecture, and industrial design. I think that it makes total sense. To me, graphic design projects are much smaller in scale than architecture or industrial design. It is on a flat surface, which technically requires less consideration compared to 3D product design. Projects can be accomplished just on a small laptop, which is more accessible than models of architectural projects. Sometimes, it only requires one person to be involved in smaller graphic design projects, whereas with architecture, constant communication is a must between the architect, the designer, the engineer, the client etc. Design can be a one-person home-based business (women has always been associated with staying at home in history). Many design resources and blogs online are created by females such as swissmiss, Fuel Your Creativity, 6b Design. Our required book for Beginning Typography class 'Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, & Students' is written by female designer Ellen Lupton.
Like many other industries, the graphic design industry is male-dominated. But because of the above factors, I think that the ratio of male and female graphic designers will change gradually. I mean, even in our graphic design department at school, there are much more female than male. I'm not saying that the gender ratio at school will be the same as the ratio in the real world, but who knows?

Name and reputation

My friends and I always ask each other, is it worth the high tuition fee to attend the 'most influential art school in the United States' — School of the Art Institute of Chicago (which always gets mixed up with the Art Institutes)? How is our school different from other design institutions?

From a job-seeking point of view, I think it is worth it. Recruiters in general prefer candidates who went to Ivy League school than those who attended community college, especially in Hong Kong where I come from. Most people are overly-realistic and it's all about your education, the degree you hold, your résumé, and which school you went to. Many prefer students who studied overseas and can speak fluent English. Even with parents, teachers and family friends, it is as though you have to go to a renowned school or else it's not considered a real education. SAIC is constantly ranked Top 3 in the graduate program, which helps build reputation for the school in general (which includes undergrad), which I suppose is an advantage for me.

But does attending a good school mean that you are better than others? I don't think so, and I think it really varies with individuals. Some people graduate from our school without giving a shit about anything, and just slides through the four-year degree program with the CNC grading system. But just because they went to a more well-known school, people see higher of them. It's all about the name and reputation, or is it?

Globalization

McDonalds and Coca-Cola have become emblematics of globalization. With a worldwide market, the two companies have to alter their logos to suit the local language. With Mcdonalds, the golden arches logo is simple, easy to interpret, and does not necessarily require a knowledge in the English alphabets to understand. To those who know the 26 alphabets, they can determine that the golden arches stands for M for Mcdonalds; for those who don't know English at all, it's simply two golden arches side by side. Unlike Coca-Cola however, their logo is a logotype - a logo created with the use of typography. Coca-Cola has to create logos in different languages but in similar style. What I found interesting with Coca-Cola, is that the logo of Coke in some countries are significantly similar to the original American one, but some are not. For example, the type in TAIWAN , KOREA and ETHIOPIA are not italicized, rather it's upright and geometric. I was wondering, how can people make the connection if the logo is so different.

With McDonalds, they don't have to worry too much since all they have to do is add 'i'm lovin it' in another language under the golden arches, and there's the localness of the logo, whereas Coca-Cola has to put on more effort. Personally, I think with logos, it's best to have a simple pictorial design since visual language is much more powerful and effective than verbal/textual language in this case.

Wordplay

After looking at everyone's wordplay assignment, I thought of my trip to the Apple store. I went to get my laptop fixed last weekend at the Genius Bar, and can't get the Genius Bar logo out of my head. I never did understand the use of the atomic symbol (and I still wonder how they got the copyright of it), but I thought that they were really smart at placing 'u' and 's' at the center of the image, creating a word within a word - US.

I don't know if this is intentional, but to me, having that US placed like that, it seems to be hinting that the Genius Bar is a place for US - YOU (the customer) and I (the Genius). It is a one-to-one service, and it takes both of US to solve the technical problems on Mac, iPod, Apple TV, or iPhone. The customer communicates the problem to the Genius, and the Genius finds ways to solve it. Without the customer or the Genius, this problem cannot be solved.

On a side note, from my research, I found that Apple's logo is very similar to American Atheists, and I wonder if there are any hidden meaning. And I, again, wonder about the copyright issue. I don't know much about copyrights, but the similarity is so obvious... how did Apple get away with it?

Advertising (Part II)

From Ji Lee's presentation, he came up with a conclusion that '[He] can't depend on others to make things happy.', and the solution was: 'I'll just have to do it myself.' So he worked on a personal project - the bubble project, which gained him recognition and ultimately forwarded his professional career.

The second issue raised from his presentation was the importance of self-marketing. When Chris came in, he mentioned about making good use of social networking sites such as twitter, facebook and linkedin. I agree supremely, without self-marketing, how do other people know what kind of work you do? I feel like everyone in the creatives industry has to promote themselves as an individual much more than in other industries. We as 'creatives' are identified by the body of work we create, by our portfolio. Whereas for other industries, it's mainly their résumé and the candidate's personality. And since art and design is relatively subjective, I find it even more important to publicize one's work, which may lead to unexpected chances or job opportunities.

PS - some of my own individual projects - http://lielaine.blogspot.com/search/label/Self-initiated%20project

Advertising (Part I)

I recently watched a video clip of Google Creative Lab's Creative Director, Ji Lee giving a presentation. It started off with him talking about a project that he worked on when he was in a big advertising industry, addressing the issue on creativity and inspiration. The client was General Mills, and the brief was 'to communicate that Cheerios comes in five different flavors'. He came up with this solution - 'Only their holes taste the same.'

They presented the idea to the client, and everyone loved it, saying that it's simple, clever, smart, incredible and funny. Until one of the clients said wait a minutes, you are supposed to be talking about flavor (the corporate language) not taste. This led to a 45-minutes discussion on taste vs flavor. The smart and awesome idea ended up in the trash, muddled in corporate dialogue and ego etc...

The issue raised here is the line between creativity and effectiveness. From Ji Lee's presentation, and a real marketing case from the PBS documentary Frontline: The Persuaders, I learnt that marketer's main concern is to boost sales, which makes total sense because that is what advertising is all about. Whereas the Art Director or CD's concern is to find ways to produce a new and innovative ad creatively and without being cliché. I've always wondered how and where do you find the balance between the two? Through endless meetings and negotiations? Are there really times when both sides are happy?

Pricing

I participated in the Spring Art Sale, selling photography work both in small prints and large framed prints. What I found hard most wasn't printing and framing, nor was it the way to display my pieces. It was pricing my work. I don't want to overprice my work or else nobody would buy it; and I wouldn't want to underprice my work or else it will decrease its value. It was really hard for me to determine just the range of pricing. This made me wonder how much do I price my design work? I always get family and friends saying 'Hey Elaine, design a birthday card for your grandpa!' or 'Can you make me a cool logo?' And I always end up saying yes and doing them this favor FOR FREE, as though design is a service that you don't have to pay for. (my designs turn out bad because I don't give a shit on these favors but whatever)

I then came across this Killer Jellyfish of Graphic Design Favors poster, and saw this: "As a graphic designer, fully 92% of your time will be spent on unpaid favors." Is this true? Because if it is, that is a problem. I mean, you wouldnt' expect someone not paying a family friend who is a doctor to treat your illness, would you?

Skills or concept?

Attending an art school, I always wonder where the balance between learning technical skills and learning how to develop a creative mind lies. Our school is known to be 'conceptual' rather than 'technical'. A lot of students I know tend to see the term 'conceptual' as bullshit, they prefer learning skills like how to use Adobe Creative Suite in Vis Com, Final Cut Pro in film or different types of camera in photography. But if the class is all about skills, why not just buy a thick guide book from Borders?

I think that skills and creativity are equally important. Skills are the basic requirements for one to look for jobs. From articles and interviews I looked at, many successful designers started out doing plain technical things. Things like doing layouts designed by senior designers, simpler tasks like creating brochures. But once you move up, the creative mind becomes more and more important since you are the one who makes decisions such as brand development and corporate identity. This is particularly true in theadvertising industry, you must have a solid concept to start off and then communicate that to the wider audience.

I suppose this is one reason why I am majoring in Visual Communication Design. I find a nice balance in skills and creativity in this particular department at SAIC, which I don't find in other Fine Arts departments. I once heard a professor saying that you can graduate with a BFA in painting from SAIC without knowing how to paint. That I find funny but sad and true.

Image by Victor Maury for SAIC T-shirt contest

Mao

Model: Du Juan (IMG)
Photographer: Quentin Shih (a.k.a. Shi Xiao Fan)
Stylist: Unknown

Chairman Mao is one of the most recognizable figure in the history of China, especially in the West. His face is on everything from t-shirts to coffee cups to Chinese contemporary art. I visited Beijing's 798 Art Space, and noticed that a lot of art are in some ways related to Mao or the propaganda posters from the 1950s. It has gone to a level where Mao has become so cliché that I don't appreciate much of those work by artists, even if they are conceptual enough. Yet I came across this editorial spread called Revolution from Vogue China's April 2010 issue. Quentin Shih, the photographer successfully merges concept and technique in his fashion photography which I find very amazing.

People usually see commercial art as 'fake' art, that the commercial artist is never true to him or herself because of boundaries. Yes indeed there are boundaries, but those who can break the boundaries and create quality work that not only looks good but have a strong idea I really admire.

A future in Design?

The definition of 'design' has been changing continuously. The most drastic change is when design programs become overly accessible, along with the growing popularity of social networking websites that allow customization.

With the over-accessibility of design programs to anyone, it seems that everyone can be a 'designer'. Some people take photos with their digital cameras, manipulate them on Photoshop by adjusting the colors, making it look 'cool and artsy' and call themselves a photographer. Some produce design work just because they know how to use the computer software. But does knowing these softwares make someone a designer? What makes someone a designer? Can everyone be a designer? Does design need to be taught? In addition to that, there is an increase in graphic designers loosing their jobs because companies are giving the work they do to other staff members who have a certain degree of knowledge in 'design'.

In regards to networking websites, I'd like to talk about myspace. Myspace allows users to customize slash 'design' their own page, some users utilizes it well while some don't. I remember that I used to come across so many customized pages that are so badly 'designed'... for example a page with white text and repeated headshots of a celebrity as background, or a yellow text on bright pink background.... you can hardly read the words and the color choices are just blahh... but because it is so easily customizable for users, they have the freedom of 'design' and that freedom sometimes leads to them thinking that anyone can design.

You can be a photographer without knowing how to take good pictures.

Adobe is releasing it's Creative Suite 5 in 19 days. From what I hear from friends, many of them still haven't upgraded to CS4, and some of them have just started getting used to CS4. All of a sudden, BAM, the new CS5 is coming out! According to Wikipedia, CS4 came out in October 15, 2008. It has been only been 18-24 months, and they already have a new upgraded version? Talk about speedy technology!

With Photoshop CS5, you can be a photographer without knowing how to take good pictures, because Photoshop automatically creates it for you with its Content-Aware Fill tool! Yay everyone can be a photographer now! NOT.

This Content-Aware Fill raises a question that I never really found the answer from - what is photographic truth? From internet research, I found that photo manipulation has long been used for propaganda, nowadays, anyone who purchased Photoshop are able to manipulate photos in any way they want to. How can we trust photos anymore? Photography, in comparison to other art forms presents to us more truth than anything else. Now with CS5, it seems that photography is falling into the same category as painting and drawing.

Another problem I have with the new CS5 is that it is so easy and simple to retouch a photo, that anyone can do it. What about the people who work as a 'photo retoucher'? Is a photo retoucher an occupation anymore?

IKEA Subway Display in Paris

This campaign ended yesterday in Paris. I love love love the idea of putting IKEA furnitures in the subway station. Although some people would probably see it as taking up space at the stations, I absolutely love it, I think it's very clever. This probably isn't the first interactive promotional campaign, but it is so different and so eye-catching and will most probably work. It's amazing what ad men come up with. There are so many ads everywhere nowadays, it's hard to stand out from the crowd of ads, yet IKEA did it.

Source

Business cards

Business cards of higher cost

Business cards of low / no cost

My business card

Calvin Klein X Underwear

I was watching Family Guy on Hulu, and this Calvin Klein X ad kept coming up in the commercial interruptions. I usually don't mind advertisements because I love them and I myself is interested in going into the ad industry, but this really bothered me, I'm not sure if I like it or not. The ad is probably doing it's thing because I am posting this on my blog, and ranting about it and so more people see it and know about it. But it's content is so sexual I feel like it degrades Calvin Klein in general. I've always seen CK as a high-end brand, which guys wear their underwear to show off. But then I did some Google research, and noticed that many of their ads are rather sexual.

These print ads I don't mind, but the video commercial? I really don't know how I feel about it... Although many of my friends love it....

Perception

We were talking about how different people perceive the same thing differently in class. It is viewers who make the meaning from the work we produce. To a certain extent, I feel like with the process of making art, a large part of it is to figure out a way to communicate the message clearly to all audiences without being cliché. From my experience in a photography class, we first think of a theme and idea we want to explore, figure out what we want to say about it, then think of different ways to convey this message. But when everyone perceives things differently based on their own life and past experience, isn't it the viewer who decides what they get from the work of art? Without the little information cards on the side of the work, and without the audio commentaries provided at museums, there is a large possibility for viewers to interpret differently for one work.

Take Jackson Pollock's work for example, he is a very influential painter in the art world, being a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. His 'action painting' has changed how some people view paintings, is it merely paint on canvas? Or a painting of an object or a person? To many people in the art world, Pollock is a hero, but what does his work mean to someone who doesn't have a background knowledge in art history? They might see it as just some guy splashing paint onto a canvas, it's just a mess... why is it in a gallery or a museum? I think with artists, a lot of times they don't have to take into account viewer's perception that much in contrast to advertisers or designers. Advertisers and designers purpose to produce work is to communicate visually, bringing the message across. Whereas for artists, it is more about their own interest in art.

UPS Logo

My friends and I were walking past a UPS store, I told them that the UPS logo recently changed, it used to be a box and a shield, now it's a swoosh with a gradation. My friends, who studies business and commerce at Purdue saw the old logo and was appalled at how ugly it was. I was immediately taken a back, because the UPS logo, designed by Paul Rand is one of the best and most famous corporate logos in the design world. It's simplicity in showing what UPS is all about is – a carrier/packaging company that you can trust. I'm not saying that I don't like the new logo, the new logo does show the expressiveness of it's service, and it is true that hardly anyone uses strings to tie a package. But the bow in Rand's logo is so iconic that I find it pitiful they removed it in the newer logo. I was thinking why my friends would prefer the new over the old. Perhaps it's the 2D flatness in it, perhaps there isn't the 'modern' gradation, perhaps it is too traditional. Perhaps the wider audience find 3-dimensional images more 'cool' to look at.... perhaps I'm just being too nostalgialistic.

iPads and Apple computers

Pretty much everyone I know have been criticizing how stupid and useless the idea of an iPad is. They were all complaining about the design and whatnot, saying how lame would it be to have one, and that they will never ever purchase the new Apple product. I agree with them, I don't think I will ever buy an iPad because I don't need one. However, I think that once Apple starts selling these products in April, people who first find it stupid will start purchasing it. Similar to the iPod and iPhones, people who didn't like it at first ended up buying them. Even I, who used to own just an iPod and a cell phone, ended up having an iPhone and now I can't live without it.

We talked about the iPad in my social science class (Consumer Society in World History) as well, we came up with some interesting conclusion as to why people who criticize it will end up buying one. It has something to do with conspicuous consumption. iPad is brand new, it's high-class technology, and because of that, by using the product maybe in a coffee shop, the customer not only shows that he/she has the money to purchase the good, but also that they are up to date with technology. It also shows intelligence consumption, in which the user has the leisure time to spend and learn how to function this product. Most people who use iPhones and Blackberries are businessmen or those of middle-upper class. Knowing how to function these technological devices shows intelligence and wealth.

Apple almost seems like a cult – people look forward to new Apple products, every time Steve Jobs introduces something new, people go wooo and ahhhhhh, writing reviews and talking about having the latest product first hand. I believe that Apple succeeded this way because of their distinct unique style (which many other computer companies are starting to follow), and the whole company's service. It was not just about the design of the product, but the design of the service. iPods came as a package along with iTunes and iTunes gift cards. It revolutionized music purchasing. It's like if you have a MacBook, you should have the rest of the Apple family as well... iPhone, iPod, iTouch, iPad, iWhatever...

In response to William Morris' preface to The Nature of Gothic by John Ruskin, I highly agree with what he said about 'In those days science also may be happy; yet not before the second birth of Art, accompanied by the happiness of labor'. Science itself is never enough, art must also come into play. Although science can improve lives through technology, it cannot function without art/design. For example, Amazon – consumers are able to purchase books without visiting a bookstore, they can simply go online, register, follow a few steps and have the product sent directly to their mailbox. This technology developed by computer scientists indeed made our lives a lot more convenient. However, the layouts of the webpages, the interfaces and the flow of the buying process are created by designers. The work of web designers here are crucial to make sure consumers are able to interact with the website easily. In other words, design is needed to make sense of information overload.

I recently attended a lecture give n by John Maeda in Hong Kong. He mentioned about STEAM education instead of STEM education. Many institutes around the globe, many countries invest in STEM education (Science/Technology/Engineering/Maths). But having these four element isn't enough, like what the article writes about. In order to be truly innovative, ART must be included -> STEAM. Without the Arts, everything will simply be robotic, we are no different from machines.

Being a 'designer'

Something that I found sad and interesting - when you introduce yourself as an artist or a designer, people are usually like 'Oh... hmm... ok I'm gonna talk to somebody over there'. Whereas if you say you're a lawyer, people's reaction would be 'Oh wow, hmmm i should talk to you then'.

Why are artists and designers perceived as unimportant people in society? I was introducing myself to someone at a party as a graphic design student. The initial reaction I got was 'wow you're so lazy." I instantly got confused, why did he relate laziness to graphic designers, and how did he make such assumptions. I then talked to somebody else, and this time the person asked me "Oh okay.. so what exactly do you do? I mean, what kind of job do you do in the future?"

I told him that graphic designers design posters, CD covers, book covers, signage, business c

ards, logos, we help build corporate identity, we make advertisements to attract customers etc." He seemed puzzled, as though this is not a real legit job, as though this is something that doesn't need to be learnt. Why does this happen?

I came across this 'Good typography is invisible, Bad typography is everywhere' poster on the internet. I think that the general public takes good design for granted, good design is everywhere, they merge into our lives so seamlessly that nobody really notice them. Whereas with bad design, people can immediately point out and criticize it. Is this the reason why people don't 'get' graphic design because it is everywhere?