Web Design Forums

Narate · 19-08-2006, 08:07

Was tempted to stick it in Fuck Off but it is Graphics related so..

Im real feddup of seeing all these pap websites and designs purely based on churning out the same old visual diorhea, and now Uni's are only teaching the use of software rather then any real understand of composition and so on. Then this morning I saw an advert for an exhibition which was showcasing the newest digital artists.

Whats going on? Did I miss the email that said being a designer is only based on how well you can use software.

pgo · 19-08-2006, 12:01

Design students shouldn't even touch a computer until they've been in school for 2 years.

Maybe you should read this, though. Good article.

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...tw=wn_index_17

cocknose · 19-08-2006, 16:49

oh dear.. all of you sooo pretentious!

Narate · 19-08-2006, 18:01

What bollocks. That has nothing to do with it.

Im only saying that it is widely acknowledge that graphic design is about communication not about making snazzy effects.

cocknose · 19-08-2006, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narate

What bollocks. That has nothing to do with it.

i like how you say that... its almost like "that has nothing to do with it, but..yeah i am"

anyway... Graphic Design has a massive scope! if your work is only about communication then you should be a "graphic communicator"
How is running a spot UV plate through a booklet you designed with a reoccuring geometric pattern communication or choosing extra heavy weight uncoated paper stock to do with communication... well... maybe it is.... maybe you are trying to communicate that this booklet was incredible expensive and only people with massive wallets can afford DESIGN.

This is the digital age... and people are using new media to create there work which is design maybe not in the sense you think it is but it is. Those printers that spent shit loads of time typesetting who ended up designing there own typefaces and moving the industry on leaps and bounds, were they designers?..... or just jumped up typesetters and printers..

those dudes of the Bauhaus... bunch of architects and painters who have come up with some of the most ground breaking work in graphic design, were they graphic designers?.... did they really need a title?...

All these kids who are playing around in photoshop and dreamweaver doin stuff it maybe bad in somepeoples eyes and not communicating anything does that make them not designers or does that make them just "un-experienced"?

Narate · 19-08-2006, 21:07

You're looking far too deeply into it. Im not talking about a budget for a job as that is irrelevant as some of the smallest budgetted jobs can be the most creative. Im not saying that experimentation isnt key with the development of self education or that a title is all that is required to become some super human being.

Type setters, architects and so on all used a thought process and an understand of composition. Now the argument was that putting a mass of effects together that dont really serve any purpose that are built on bashing a few buttons together arent really worth the code their built with.

Pretty much any designer who gets to a certain level with self education or academic realises that effects are of no real use and dont really touch them, so imagine if universities stopped teaching how to make text bop around using nifty bit of actionscript in Flash and spent the time and resource with the education the basis of animation and how to use it effectively.

illvibe · 20-08-2006, 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narate

You're looking far too deeply into it. Im not talking about a budget for a job as that is irrelevant as some of the smallest budgetted jobs can be the most creative. Im not saying that experimentation isnt key with the development of self education or that a title is all that is required to become some super human being.

Type setters, architects and so on all used a thought process and an understand of composition. Now the argument was that putting a mass of effects together that dont really serve any purpose that are built on bashing a few buttons together arent really worth the code their built with.

Pretty much any designer who gets to a certain level with self education or academic realises that effects are of no real use and dont really touch them, so imagine if universities stopped teaching how to make text bop around using nifty bit of actionscript in Flash and spent the time and resource with the education the basis of animation and how to use it effectively.

I agree. The technical effects at designers' disposal have to be used as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. There's no point having some shiny embossed drop shadowed text if the typeface is out of place.

Alexanda · 21-08-2006, 06:22

I still dont know how to use illustrator or freehand or set style sheets in quark

d*d · 21-08-2006, 08:07

There should be more emphasis on design theory, but then employers moan that you get a bunch of graduates who can work a grid and have a strong sense of typographic sensibilities but can't use the software for shit, so there needs to be a balance.

The main problem is not what's being taught it's those who self teach, any muppet can set themselves up as a web designer with no artistic training, no concept of compostion space and colour - but they may be brilliant at copying other styles and very competent with the software so they just churn out watered down copies of the stuff they like

Cantona if you are working in print and you can't use style sheets, then it may not affect the final piece, but it'd save you a lot of production time if you learnt and time as they say is money.

Mik · 21-08-2006, 08:32

nah it wont he's old school.
he's got the skills.

d*d · 21-08-2006, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Fred

nah it wont he's old school.

Layout table and craft knife?

dtrenz · 21-08-2006, 10:06

maybe this isn't analagous, but as someone who produces electronic music using software primarily, i hear a similar argument that digital music made with software and computers is not real music, or is lesser music/art.

it comes down to talent.

it's true that talentless people can make images in photoshop or music in garageband, but anyone with any sense will be able to see the lack of talent in the art.

pgo · 21-08-2006, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtrenz

maybe this isn't analagous, but as someone who produces electronic music using software primarily, i hear a similar argument that digital music made with software and computers is not real music, or is lesser music/art.

I think in most cases it is lesser, but then there's people like Brian Eno.

Basically, as software makes things easier to create they lose their "specialness". For instance, someone could be an "illustrator" without ever having taken a figure drawing course - and if you gave them a stick of charcoal, they'd fall apart.

Sad, but true. There were kids in art school who said, "Why do I need to learn how to draw a pile of boxes? I'm going to the graphic design department."

That and when you start calling every Photoshop some kid posts on DeviantArt "art" then the term "art" gets closer and closer to irrelevance. When everything that is created (visual, aural, written, verbal, etc) "art" then what purpose do artists serve?

I posted that article above because all arts are as much about acknowledging the history of a craft, understanding and respecting that history, and finding your place within that history as they are about being "creative" or "expressive".

I've always thought that if students think they can just ignore their history and theory, they're full of it.

Narate · 21-08-2006, 12:30

I did Graphics because I cant draw

deadgood · 25-08-2006, 06:06

We've got easy to use software which put in the wrong hands gives birth to a shoddy piece of design and is then easy enough to spread to the masses. LIke dtrenz said, any good designer will notice a crap bit of design like an overkilled filtered Photoshop image.

Im still hoping these wannabe's will get found out sooner rather than later.

dtrenz · 25-08-2006, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgo

I think in most cases it is lesser, but then there's people like Brian Eno.

Basically, as software makes things easier to create they lose their "specialness". For instance, someone could be an "illustrator" without ever having taken a figure drawing course - and if you gave them a stick of charcoal, they'd fall apart.

so it's lesser because of the means to make it?

i think that's ridiculous.

that's like saying that james joyce's writing would have sucked had he used MS Word.

put an artist who has never used software in front of photoshop and watch how helpless they are. as helpless as someone who's only used software might be with a stick of charcoal.

they're just tools.

making the process easier doesn't make it lose it's specialness. using software doesn't make an untalented/uninspired composer into beethoven.

19-08-2006, 08:07	#1 (permalink)
Narate Royalty™ Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester (UK) Posts: 3,273	Good old moan Was tempted to stick it in Fuck Off but it is Graphics related so.. Im real feddup of seeing all these pap websites and designs purely based on churning out the same old visual diorhea, and now Uni's are only teaching the use of software rather then any real understand of composition and so on. Then this morning I saw an advert for an exhibition which was showcasing the newest digital artists. Whats going on? Did I miss the email that said being a designer is only based on how well you can use software.

21-08-2006, 06:22	#8 (permalink)
Alexanda European Champions 2008 Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 2,568	I still dont know how to use illustrator or freehand or set style sheets in quark __________________ whats facebook?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

19-08-2006, 12:01	#2 (permalink)
pgo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,340	Design students shouldn't even touch a computer until they've been in school for 2 years. Maybe you should read this, though. Good article. http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...tw=wn_index_17

19-08-2006, 16:49	#3 (permalink)
cocknose Banned™ Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 3,685	oh dear.. all of you sooo pretentious!

19-08-2006, 18:01	#4 (permalink)
Narate Royalty™ Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester (UK) Posts: 3,273	What bollocks. That has nothing to do with it. Im only saying that it is widely acknowledge that graphic design is about communication not about making snazzy effects.

19-08-2006, 21:07	#6 (permalink)
Narate Royalty™ Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester (UK) Posts: 3,273	You're looking far too deeply into it. Im not talking about a budget for a job as that is irrelevant as some of the smallest budgetted jobs can be the most creative. Im not saying that experimentation isnt key with the development of self education or that a title is all that is required to become some super human being. Type setters, architects and so on all used a thought process and an understand of composition. Now the argument was that putting a mass of effects together that dont really serve any purpose that are built on bashing a few buttons together arent really worth the code their built with. Pretty much any designer who gets to a certain level with self education or academic realises that effects are of no real use and dont really touch them, so imagine if universities stopped teaching how to make text bop around using nifty bit of actionscript in Flash and spent the time and resource with the education the basis of animation and how to use it effectively.

21-08-2006, 08:07	#9 (permalink)
d*d Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bristol Posts: 3,394	There should be more emphasis on design theory, but then employers moan that you get a bunch of graduates who can work a grid and have a strong sense of typographic sensibilities but can't use the software for shit, so there needs to be a balance. The main problem is not what's being taught it's those who self teach, any muppet can set themselves up as a web designer with no artistic training, no concept of compostion space and colour - but they may be brilliant at copying other styles and very competent with the software so they just churn out watered down copies of the stuff they like Cantona if you are working in print and you can't use style sheets, then it may not affect the final piece, but it'd save you a lot of production time if you learnt and time as they say is money.

21-08-2006, 08:32	#10 (permalink)
Mik Magazines™ Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Glasgow.. Posts: 11,758	nah it wont he's old school. he's got the skills.

21-08-2006, 10:06	#12 (permalink)
dtrenz blam blam Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: ann arbor, mi usa Posts: 528	maybe this isn't analagous, but as someone who produces electronic music using software primarily, i hear a similar argument that digital music made with software and computers is not real music, or is lesser music/art. it comes down to talent. it's true that talentless people can make images in photoshop or music in garageband, but anyone with any sense will be able to see the lack of talent in the art.

21-08-2006, 12:30	#14 (permalink)
Narate Royalty™ Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester (UK) Posts: 3,273	I did Graphics because I cant draw

25-08-2006, 06:06	#15 (permalink)
deadgood kiss ma baaad self Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 63	We've got easy to use software which put in the wrong hands gives birth to a shoddy piece of design and is then easy enough to spread to the masses. LIke dtrenz said, any good designer will notice a crap bit of design like an overkilled filtered Photoshop image. Im still hoping these wannabe's will get found out sooner rather than later.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)