The Designer

Half a Century of Change in Image, Training, and Techniques

Rosemary Sassoon

• Verlag: Intellect Books
• Jahr: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781841502304
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Diseño
• Thema: Diseño general

Part 1

Discussion

Introduction

The idea for this book originated when I was asked to record what it was like to train and work as a designer nearly sixty years ago. It then expanded to include the views of friends and colleagues – those who work as designers, those who employ designers and those who train them. The changes in all aspects of our work and life between then and now, and our thoughts for the future, add up to a fascinating discussion.

It is difficult to separate the different subjects entirely as the contributions tend to wander across boundaries, so it is not always a straight line of thought throughout. The resulting tapestry of ideas expresses the feelings and ideas of three generations, with concepts explored from the practical to the complex, the basic to the academic.

Chapter 1

Changing attitudes, images and terminology

The image of a designer has altered markedly in the past half century or so. It is interesting to consider how changing terminology over that time has affected the public perception of designers. Inevitably, designers’ perception of themselves, their job and their place in the hierarchy of occupations has altered as well.

In the 1940s graphic design was termed commercial art, with all the connotations that it involved. The year 1946 saw a turning point in the perception of designers with the Britain Can Make It exhibition which presented design as the saviour of industry. As Sir Stafford Cripps put it – prefaced by the comment that we were busy beating swords into ploughshares at the end of the war – in the foreword of Design 46: ‘The improvement of British design is an important factor – a very important factor in our attempt to re-establish and increase our export markets’. Praise indeed, perhaps the first accolade for many years! We were recognised as vital for the economy by the President of the Board of Trade. The exhibitions officer of the Council of Industrial Design then described the exhibition: ‘As if it were a book; of which the object was to explain the meaning and importance of industrial design’. But who were these industrial designers represented in this first post-war exhibition? Book designers, textile designers, designers of kitchen equipment, fashion designers, etc., were all lumped together in one category. I wonder how many book designers or fashion designers today would think of themselves as coming under that title.

‘These are the designers for industry, from the professional man with his diverse list of clients to the young girl in the design room of a cotton mill. . . . These are the successors of Josiah Wedgwood the first, of Thomas Chippendale, of George Hepplewhite, of William Morris.’ But not quite: ‘For these men and women are designing – as Wedgwood was not and as Morris would have scorned to do – for prolific machines, automatic looms with an output of millions of yards, plastic or metal presses turning out myriads of identical parts’ wrote S C Leslie, the Director of the Council of Industrial Design. Somehow it still holds an echo of the Industrial Revolution. Designers were clever and useful in 1946 but not yet prestigious, nor anywhere near as respected as artists.

An attempt was made by Bernard Hollowood to define the term design. ‘An industrial design (or an article designed for factory reproduction) is made in response to a known or anticipated demand; and the most important of several tests of its quality must be based on how far it satisfies that demand. A design has two main functions – to serve its purpose as usefully and efficiently as possible and to provide maximum pleasure to the mind senses by its appearance and form. Some would have it that function is in itself a guarantee of aesthetic appeal, but this view, though a healthy reaction to the dismal notion that beauty and utility are incompatible, is much too narrow.’

He was more interesting on the subject of taste and fashion: ‘Your individual tastes, however different they may be, are attuned to a common denominator of contemporary style and seasonal fashion. Fashion is made to be flouted perhaps. Style breathes the spirit of an age and we cannot escape its influence if we would. . . . Functionalism, the character of the first half of the twentieth century, is an expression of our pre-occupation with ways and means. Designers create fashions: but style evolves almost in spite of them.’

Professor Darwin, in a section entitled ‘Designers in the Making’, opened with a statement that sounds incredible today: ‘In this exhibition you will see for the first time the name of the designer or group of designers put alongside that of manufacturers of the article that they both helped to make’.

Those sentiments were all expressed about the time that I entered art school. No wonder designers were not held in very high regard. From early on I was conscious that designers were considered somewhat inferior to artists, although it may never have been put into words. This view was backed up by F H K Henrion in the introduction to John Brinkley’s Design for Print, published in 1949 by the Sylvan Press.

He wrote: ‘The first point I wish to stress is the attitude of the intending designer to the profession in which he (note the ‘he’) contemplates a career. He must feel his vocation as a designer and not regard commercial art merely as a more profitable career than fine art. Neither must he imagine that it is second-best for those without the qualifications necessary for success in fine art (a most common art school delusion).’

Another unnecessary division came between designers and craftsmen. Craftsmen came next in the hierarchy after artists because they were perceived to design as well as craft their product whereas designers were an adjunct to industry. William Morris has a lot to answer for in this respect.

The elevation of artists to a position over and above craftsmen and designers may well have its origins in the social climate of a couple of centuries ago. However, its relevance today is questionable and the whole idea of separating artists and designers from early on in their training seems destructive and wasteful. After all, we all start with the same set of skills – the ability to observe and draw, and the desire to create and bring our own personal vision into being in some form or other.

John Sassoon, who looks at the subject more as an educator, puts it this way: ‘Every artist is a designer for part of the time, when he arranges his canvas or wonders whether the statue he has so grandly visualised will stand up; and every designer is an artist when he starts with a sketch of the setting for his project, illustrating the impression he is trying to create.

‘Artist and designer do not describe different kinds of people, but different activities of the vast number of people who make things and have creativity in common. Every visionary is trying to give form to the mental image; so it may perhaps be worth a moment just to glance at what we mean by visionary.

‘We all have certain faculties that we cannot define but we know we are always using. One of these is intuition, normally followed by its product, perception. They are very similar, and often overlap; and both together enable us to grasp a solution direct without reasoning it out. The Oxford English Dictionary, 1992, has a good definition for “perception”: it is “the intuitive recognition of a truth”.

‘Logic is all very well if you are trying to argue a case; but if you are asking a question about the real world, logic may not lead you to the answer. Intuition and perception are about how we turn the fragmentary knowledge received direct through our five senses into an understanding of the world. Understanding is the product of our intuition and its perceptions, whose messages are personal to each one of us, can be known only to ourselves. Knowledge, even scientific knowledge, could not reach us without the help of intuition and as intuition is not open to scientific analysis its perceptions are not accepted as scientific. So right at the very centre of the learning process we are confronted by a gap between the world we live in and our understanding of it; and that gap can only be crossed with the aid of senses whose nature is a mystery.

‘Artists and designers are among those in whom intuition and perception are especially developed, either by temperament or training. To separate the training of designers from that of artists at one level, makes very little sense, since the qualities of mind and many of their actual skills are common to both. They are common indeed to a wide range of activities, not just art and design. That said, there does come a moment when these qualities will be stimulated more vividly if they are presented in a setting to which students find they are more responsive.’

Professor Robin Darwin in 1946 had tried to subdivide and define designers into categories: ‘The designer of wallpapers or of textiles, of pottery, glass and many other things of that kind, must be more artist than technician, whereas the designer of articles which are made by highly elaborate processes or which have complicated functions to perform, must be at least as much technician as artist’.

Pat Savage trained as a sculptor at Goldsmiths and then at the Royal College. She writes: ‘In 1948, when I started training, the first two years had a wide subject base and a strong emphasis on drawing. The subjects included life drawing, history of architecture with the study of local historic buildings, print-making using lino, lettering and the drawing of alphabets, the history of costume – drawing outfits from early Greek to the present day – and studying painting, sculpture and anatomy.

‘This wide appreciation enabled the choice of the subject to be studied for the next two years to be made more accurately and whatever discipline was decided on, drawing still played a strong part in our studies. Because of the early balance of subjects I have never felt that fine art – painting and sculpture – was superior in any way to craft and design disciplines. I feel that those like myself, who maybe studied sculpture, should be able to decorate ceramics, create designs for embroidery and church furnishings, and illustrate books, all of which I have done when commissioned. Some institutions still (in 2006) have an exclusive concept when selecting for exhibitions. The Royal Academy will not accept batik and textiles, and other organisations still base selection on the concept that painting is an art but printmaking is a craft.’

Today, in the outside world, there is less distinction between the two careers. Designers have a higher public profile as the importance of design in our daily life is stressed all around us. The public perception of art may have altered somewhat at the same time with the advent of more conceptual art.

Changing perceptions in the second half of the century

Design in the middle of the twentieth century is conveniently typified by the Festival of Britain in 1951. A century after the Great Exhibition, the foreword to Design in the Festival proudly relates that the original exhibition failed in one of its important objectives: ‘It did not lead to any noticeable improvement in the standard of the industrial art’ – a somewhat questionable statement. However, reviewing the contents and reading the comments about the Design Exhibition make me question some of the grandiose claims. In the areas that most concern me, packaging and print, it is the packaging that seems to be of the highest standard that has stood the test of time, and the quality of book design that also stands out. Yet, in the section ‘Tradition or Experiment in Printing Design’ the comments are distinctly negative: ‘Graphic design in this country is instinctively conservative and deeply rooted. . . . We lack for nothing in printing skills; we lack only, perhaps, a sense of adventure in design. The medial axis still dominates our typography and mise-en-page; critics familiar with European movements in visual arts deplore the inability of British graphic designers to experiment more with asymmetry and impressionism’. This is hardly encouraging.

I agree entirely, however, with the negative comments about textiles, or fabrics as they were then called: ‘There are still far too few good contemporary fabrics or wallpapers’. This was the time when I was involved in designing textiles and can say with no exaggeration that there were both traditional and modern designs far more imaginative than those shown here. They seemed as if ‘patterns’ were imposed on the different textiles and wallpapers (other than those designed by the great Enid Marx), with little imagination or consideration to the material they were designing for. Much the same could be said of the ceramics, Although many examples involved attractive decoration designed by well-known artists, the patterns seemed imposed rather than an integral part of the product. John Sassoon adds to this sentiment: ‘Decoration creates an interpretation within the context of the object decorated. It is original in two fields: in its interpretation of the object; and in itself as a picture. Decoration is always subordinate to the object it is decorating, and should not be given a life of its own’.

Times were changing. In many fields everything was coming to life after years of austerity. As Pat Savage said, designers such as Mary Quant followed them shortly after with fresh, exuberant ideas that influenced everyone’s ideas. Dare I suggest that many of those who influenced the design world then were women?

A display of packaging from Design in the Festival. HMSO, 1951.

In 1972 a whole issue (no 4) of Icographic, which describes itself as a Quarterly Review of International Visual Communication Design, was dedicated to the subject of education. In an editorial entitled ‘The education of graphic designers’, the executive editor, Patrick Wallis Burke, echoed the contemporary views of designers. ‘Visual Communication is the latest title for the profession that is still called Graphic Design in most art schools, and Commercial Art by the majority of the lay public.

‘It is a very young profession. Many of its leading exponents had little or no formal training for the business, they simply invented the job as they went along, altering or expanding their roles as the demand for their services grew.

‘As a newcomer, Graphic Design was fitted uneasily into the traditional scheme of things. It started life by being thought of as some kind of aberrant art activity. To the artistic élite, of course, it could only be considered as a mediocre, second-rate artistic activity, since it was inevitably tainted by both technology and commerce.

‘The whole concept of the role of designers has undergone radical transformation in the intervening years. Some may think it has gone too far and that designers in some fields now consider themselves more important than the public they serve. On the other hand the need to research the needs of the user is stressed today during training and surely it is paramount in the workplace.’

As far back as 1960 Misha Black, Professor of Industrial Design at the Royal College of Art and a partner in the renowned Design Research Unit, was well placed to comment on the balance between designers’ desire to influence public taste and satisfy clients’ financial concerns. In an article entitled ‘Taste, Style and the Industrial Designer’ in Motif 4, he had this to say: ‘If what the designer wants to produce is different from what the public desires then he assumes that his taste, his appreciation of what forms properly reflect his period is more righteous, or at least more sensitive than that of the public for which he is working.... Every time a designer rages because a product made to his design has been a marketing failure, he is indicting society for not equalling in mass his own personal standards: he is adopting a position of moral self-righteousness no different from that of a sermonising total abstainer. And in fact the designer is sometimes right. If he is, in truth, more sensitive than many to the social movements which already await formal expression, he is justified in his moral stricture, in his arrogant assumption that he must persuade the public to like what he likes, hoping by infiltration eventually to change a world in which, for the first time in the history of mankind, those things made by man reflect mainly his decadence and, but rarely, his nobility’.

There is not much for the innovator and forward thinker in those words, which is surprising as Misha Black himself was a force for change and creativity. Professor Bonnie Sadler Takach, from the University of Alberta, writing in Designing Effective Communication, edited by Jorge Frascara in 2006, however, reminds us today of our basic function and responsibility as designers: ‘We may perceive that our role is serving citizens and clients with varying degrees of awareness and knowledge about what we believe are the benefits of “good” design. Arrogance surrounds the commonplace notion of the need to “educate” the public about design, as if perhaps people might not comprehend, for example, information in a public service message or interpret the message in a poster. If a product of design is not performing well, then it is not the user who is in error, but the design’.

An international conference took place in Perth, Western Australia, in 2000, entitled Re-inventing Design Education in the University. In the conference proceedings, Ken Friedman, Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design at the Department of Knowledge Management, in the Norwegian School of Management, wrote under the title ‘Design Education in the University: Professional Studies for the Knowledge Economy’: ‘Design has moved on from a focus on signs, symbols and things, characteristic of the initial formative stages of graphic and industrial design, to a focus on human action and the environmental systems within actions take place. This is characteristic of the new domains of interaction and environmental design’.

To the question ‘What must designers know?’ he replied: ‘The answer is that designers must be able to work with a far wider range of issues than any one professional can master.... In short a designer is inevitably a member of a team, and often its leader. A designer is a thinker whose job is to move from thought to action. The designer uses his mind in an appropriate and empathic way to solve problems for clients. Then, the designer works to meet customer needs, to test the outcomes and to follow through on solutions. . . . Whatever we call them, we need multi-disciplinary designers who recognise that giving a physical shape to an object is a small part of the design process.’ What a change in fifty years.

As for terminology, this is what Gunnlaugur S E Briem, the Icelandic letterform designer, has to say: ‘What is in a name? A hundred years ago we were commercial artists. Fifty years ago we were designers. Nowadays some people like to call the work information engineering. Little has changed. Th...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Part 1. Discussion
• Part 2. Wider perspectives
• Part 3. By accident or design
• Index