WISECRACKS

4

Written on Monday,
January 2nd, 2012
at 10:10PM

There comes a point as a business owner where the trade you learned (the talents you feel you have) slowly melt into the many other ingredients necessary to, well, feed your family. My full-headed vision of design stardom (of creating lasting, inspired works, and honestly and self-centeredly, gaining design fame — however shallow that is, but it’s the truth; a truth and desire which will ultimately lead to disingenuousness and a loss of the root purpose of design — which is that of the client and the audience in spite of ourselves; but I digress) got shuffled with the feet-thumping reality of running a real business. Somewhere along the line that myopic vision expanded. This isn’t so much a lament as it is a confession. My desire for perfection, for (marginal) originality and creativity simply met an impasse with the many other things I was required to do, until I no longer knew how to do any of them with great skill. I’m almost 40 and I feel that I can do nothing great, perhaps a few things well, and many things awfully. I’m still not sure what I am. But things are changing. For several years I’ve realized I’m no longer just a graphic designer. Certainly not an artist. Certainly not a programmer — though I do it, I know my shortcomings and lack of training and skill — nor even a good businessman — I can barely manage my clients and schedule, let alone the invoices, writing proposals and generating new clients. Whenever I … Continue reading →

 

0

Written on Friday,
October 7th, 2011
at 01:50PM

Graphic design is as much a commodity as it is an elite institution. There are “famous” and heralded celebrities of the design world (David Carson, Paul Rand, Michael Beruit), who can do no design wrong; there are those highly respected, academically minded designers (Katherine McCoy, Steven Heller, Wolfgang Weingart) who challenge our concepts; and there are the “firms” of renown who automatically win the awards and the multi-million dollar contracts. But each “form” of designer has a language — that of our little design world. A vernacular (which is in itself apart of this world). A language now so void of meaning, that it must reinvent itself — back to the basics. As many irksome and overused terminologies as we have in the graphic design realm, my personal (least) favorite is the term : brand. A “brand” in our designer vernacular, might be defined as an identifiable imprint or symbol that specifies a company or product. Overall a harmless and true definition. Another, more precise definition might be that a brand is a unique, permanent, cultural icon — so much so that the imprint itself is what it represents. In other words, a brand is not only a strong visual symbol but also a strong verbal symbol; it is what it represents. Our (and by “our”, I mean designers in general) rambling and grand-standing about “creating brands” or “brand strategies” or “brand recognition” or “brand research and development” are really nothing more than logo and logotype corporate collateral. Perhaps unique, … Continue reading →

 

4

Written on Wednesday,
July 13th, 2011
at 07:09PM

Recently online streaming giant, Netflix, announced a price increase to their extremely popular streaming service (how extremely popular? How about 22% of all internet traffic in the U.S. is from Netflix) — raising their streaming only rates from $4.99 to $7.99. Netflix started off as a revolutionary DVD “rental” system relying purely on mail delivery (where you manage your queue online). At the time everyone thought it was interesting, but would never catch on or last because it’s inconvenient. Overtime they’ve proved that theory wrong (boasting 23 million subscribers and $62million quarterly profits). The fuss comes on the heels of another Netflix rate increase (wherein the company raised the prices of their DVD services by $1 and introduced the streaming only service for $7.99 in November 2010). All that Netflix has done is eliminate their $4.99 DVD service (which gave users 1 DVD, and no more than 2 in a month), kept their streaming prices and decreased 1 DVD (as many in a month as you want – which was $9.99 and will now be $7.99). What they eliminated are the “bundle” system of streaming/DVD, clearly moving toward a more profitable revenue model, as well as moving the company and it’s users into the future of entertainment content consumption (and eliminating DVD’s all together). As the demand for streaming content increases, so do the costs of not only providing the bandwidth to serve the content but also the distribution deals necessary to deliver timely, popular content. A recent deal struck with AMC to bring … Continue reading →

 

0

Written on Monday,
June 27th, 2011
at 07:37PM

It starts with a box — four sides and negative space between. A tool — a paintbrush, a chisel, a pencil (maybe your own blood if you’re into shock and harming yourself), a typewriter, a mouse. And an idea — a concept of what is needed. A piece of paper, a monitor screen, a cutting board, a viewfinder, a canvas, a block of wood. Creation starts with parameters, a loosely cobbled together framework. Whether you’re trying to write or cook or paint or design, it starts with context – or the “what”, “how” and “why” of creating.  As a designer, I feel as if my fellow colleagues are more (self) interested in the how they design and has all but lost the why they design.   It’s fairly obvious that what you create will determine the tools you use. You can’t make a salad with a pencil and you can’t cook a steak with a mouse (well, a rodent, sure, but why would you do that? Why I ask? Why?). The medium used is the expression of the creativity. For a designer in 2011 that tool — though it might start with a pencil to paper — in the end, is almost always a computer. Fifty years ago design was practiced with (what we think of now as) antiquated tools  used to facilitate the vision of the designer. While the craft of design was (and always will be) subjected to the tools, the primary focus of design was why. Why am I … Continue reading →

 

0

Written on Tuesday,
May 17th, 2011
at 06:10PM

It seems pretty obvious that people communicate in a way that they understand, but what isn’t obvious is that our communication isn’t interpreted the same from one person to the next. We all apply words in different ways based on context. Words like strong, bold, expressive, bright or elegant, while descriptive, are utterly meaningless without context. Communication brings context to words that otherwise are open to interpretation. Your duty as a designer is to eliminate any possibility of misinterpretation by exhausting all manner of definitions for any given word or phrase. It seems daunting (and yeah, it really is), but the quickest way for a project to fail is to assume that our words mean what they imply. Don’t take for granted that something that seems obvious, is actually obvious. Perhaps the word “bright” means color, but bright may also mean sunshine, light, glowing, full of life or effervescent. If bright is about color, than what colors are bright? Yellow, sky blue, red? One word contains hundreds of pathways to visual and verbal solutions. Without clearly pinpointing the intention of a word, you can never successfully create a solution. Instead of blindly walking without a map get the directions you’ll need to find the intended destination of your design. Every person comes from a certain preconceived set of verbal vernacular–usually a vernacular that applies to their specific industry or even personal perception. This verbal palette, while understandable to those inside the group, is meaningless to an outsider. Within any corporate … Continue reading →

 
 
Copyright 2007 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.
Property of Wiseacre Digital, LLC.
Facebook
Twitter