Design (especially graphic and web) is one of those fields that seems to breed a lot of protectionism among its practitioners. For good reason. As with writing, it's a skill lots of people possess, or at least think they do. Designers grumble a lot (and I'm no exception) about crummy work, over-involved clients, low pay and what I think of as the nephew problem ("Why should I pay such a high rate for your work? My nephew has a copy of Photoshop and can do the work for a quarter that price!"). All of this because lots of people are creative, the tools of our trade are readily available, and the results of our work don't hold human lives in the balance (much).
So designers are often protective of their work and qualifications. Those degrees, portfolios and lists of former clients really matter, because they make us feel a little safer, a little more important, and a little more as if we'll actually be taken seriously. But this can often be a source of serious tension. What brings this all to mind is the comment thread currently building up on an article about F/LOSS design. The article, written by designer, educator and generally cool guy Mushon Zer-Aviv, presents the problems and precedent behind collaboration in design. But it also makes a case for that very thing. The fascinating bit, though, is in the comments. Designer after designer has weighed in, telling some variant of the stupid client story. It's a common trope in design: the client wanted to get her hands dirty, felt really invested in the design, wrote a pile of memos, wouldn't be placated and eventually, the design died a committee death. It ended up pink, with kittens, with 72pt type or some other egregious design no-no that every other designer in the room can identify with and groan about. We get it. Clients aren't designers. If they were, they wouldn't need to hire us. There's a parable about this in the world of F/LOSS, about painting the bikes shed. Because the colour of the bike shed is something that everyone feels qualified to contribute on, they do, even if their input isn't necessarily helpful.
All of this really misses the point, though. Collaboration, with good communication and with good collaborators doesn't need to result in a stupid client story. Of course, as far as the article goes, using the word "committee" in the headline was just asking for trouble. Committee connotes committee syndrome, which designers will automatically get up in arms over, no matter the actual arguments presented. It's our own protectionist nature. In a field where creativity is the going currency and a world where everyone is trying to unleash their own inner artist, of course there are clashes. Those clashes are over ego and self worth. As long as we hunger to be right, valuable and more qualified than thou, those clashes will remain bothersome and every designer will be able to cherish a cache of stupid client stories.
So designers are often protective of their work and qualifications. Those degrees, portfolios and lists of former clients really matter, because they make us feel a little safer, a little more important, and a little more as if we'll actually be taken seriously. But this can often be a source of serious tension. What brings this all to mind is the comment thread currently building up on an article about F/LOSS design. The article, written by designer, educator and generally cool guy Mushon Zer-Aviv, presents the problems and precedent behind collaboration in design. But it also makes a case for that very thing. The fascinating bit, though, is in the comments. Designer after designer has weighed in, telling some variant of the stupid client story. It's a common trope in design: the client wanted to get her hands dirty, felt really invested in the design, wrote a pile of memos, wouldn't be placated and eventually, the design died a committee death. It ended up pink, with kittens, with 72pt type or some other egregious design no-no that every other designer in the room can identify with and groan about. We get it. Clients aren't designers. If they were, they wouldn't need to hire us. There's a parable about this in the world of F/LOSS, about painting the bikes shed. Because the colour of the bike shed is something that everyone feels qualified to contribute on, they do, even if their input isn't necessarily helpful.
All of this really misses the point, though. Collaboration, with good communication and with good collaborators doesn't need to result in a stupid client story. Of course, as far as the article goes, using the word "committee" in the headline was just asking for trouble. Committee connotes committee syndrome, which designers will automatically get up in arms over, no matter the actual arguments presented. It's our own protectionist nature. In a field where creativity is the going currency and a world where everyone is trying to unleash their own inner artist, of course there are clashes. Those clashes are over ego and self worth. As long as we hunger to be right, valuable and more qualified than thou, those clashes will remain bothersome and every designer will be able to cherish a cache of stupid client stories.
Leave a comment