.png "RSS Feed"){kind=small}
.jpg)
It was 1966 and debate was raging over the name of Canada's design association. We had been founded 10 years earlier as the Society of Typographic Designers of Canada. The founding members were designers, art directors and commercial artists who focused on typography and design, rather than the "shmaltzy" ad side of the fast-growing industry and profession. Their reputation and influence had expanded rapidly, especially through the ground-breaking work of design pioneers like Allan Fleming and his corporate identity work for CN (see photo above) as well as other designers like Chris Yaneff, Burton Kramer, Stuart Ash, Fritz Gottschalk, and many many others (see GDC Fellows!). TDC members were no longer just artists and production people hidden away in the backroom studios, they were actively contributing in the boardrooms of major Canadian industry and helping to shape and mould the new corporate Canada leading up to the country's coming of age known as Expo '67.
So in 1966 the organization decided to change its name to the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada. The change made sense. The role of graphic designers had evolved from commercial artists to graphic artists and now to graphic designers. The profession was maturing and adapting to the new media that was coming to market: multi-media displays and exhibits; product design; corporate communications; branding; wayfinding; and even interactive design on the fledgling "computers" and digital interfaces such as the Diatronic typesetting machines (definitely not WYSIWYG!). The new name reflected the new role and stature of the practitioners of the profession.
It was a huge change that alienated a lot of members, but in retrospect it was the right thing to do. It would be hard to imagine how we would be perceived today if we still used solely the term "typographic designer"!
At the time, there were some other options for the name discussed, notably "communication designer" and "visual communication designer". Several educational institutions around the world and even in Canada at the time used the term and promoted their programs using it. So in the arts-based design education world, the expression became familiar—almost commonplace. But in the business education world the term graphic design took hold and never left.
In 1975 the precursor to GDC/BC was formed as the Visual Communications Society of BC (ECUAD instructor Freidrich Peter was the head, so was this his educational influence taking form?), but within a year the group had changed its name to the Vancouver Graphic Artists Guild. The pendulum was swinging both ways even back then!
Jump forward to 2010 and the debate still goes on. Is "graphic design" the best term to describe our profession? It is if we want to be accessible to the business community. Are we misunderstood? In some ways, but at least there is always a grain of understanding of the basics tenants of what graphic designers do. Are we confused with desktop publishers? Maybe in the 1990s we were but not today when even our grandparents have a printer and photo manipulation software. Are we under-utilized? Of course we are! That's always been our profession's challenge (and lament).
Proponents of the change to "communication design" say it reflects our changing role in the business world and how we deal with new technologies and that we are not just focused on print. But our role and influence has never has changed. Yes, we are dealing with more and more electronic media, but that has always been the case (see Expo '67 scenario above!).
The business community has always had to be "educated" about what we do and what our real value is. That will never change. But doesn't it make sense to start that conversation from an area of at least some understanding: by taking ownership of the term "graphic design" and expanding the definition and understanding of what the term really means? We are the branding and messaging experts after all! Would we tell our own clients to change the name of their product to something that their audience didn't understand or recognize? Of course not.
The world of our clients has changed over the past decades as well. The International Association of Business Communicators has worldwide reach. Many of our clients are themselves communication specialists with "ABC" after their names: Accredited Business Communicator. They see what they do as communication design: press releases, communications plans, marketing strategies, etc. Cel phone companies "design" communications plans for their clients. Is that what we do? Changing any profession's name would confuse its audiences.
We are graphic designers! Be proud and take ownership of the term. It's the starting point for a world of possible definitions.
 |  |  |
Back26 repliesPost a Reply
Nicely articulated Matt. I don't call myself a communication designer and if I do, I get asked "what's that?". It sounds to me more like the marketing, writing or business communication profession and as you say, there's another association for that. People know what a graphic designer is. We've spent decades educating people. Next week it'll be "social media designer". Do we change again?
When asked my opinion on this issue, I like to use the analogy of doctors (you know, the profession has been around a while). They call themselves a doctor, but they don't practice "doctoring", they practice "medicine" and it's many variations. Much the same, we are Graphic Designers and we PRACTICE Communication Design or Wayfinding Design or Social Media Design or Experience Design or UX Design or Visual Engineering etc. – whatever you want to call what you specialize in.
I strongly feel that Communication Design is one of these subsets, not a descriptor of the overall profession.
I agree with Dave.
I find I have to explain what "Communication Designer" is, which is ironic considering we are suppose to be experts at communication. The only down side of Graphic Designer is the seemingly limited view of what that encompasses (print vs web, interactive, signage etc.) but I believe that will in time that will work itself out. At times I have tried introducing my self as a "Designer", but people seem to think interior designer, not graphic.
My 2cents
Phred
I enjoyed the article Matt! Thanks for the history lesson. Nice to know that even in retrospect, "Graphic Design" seems to win out.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dave that we are designers first and foremost. What we practice will change as the world changes. The designation "Communication Design" lacks depth. We all know that these days, everyone considers themselves a communicator.
Do we need to work harder at defining who we are and what we do as designers—yes. Will a name change improve our situation? I weigh in on the NO side of this debate.
Great article! There's a saying about knowing where you've been to know where you are going. Applies perfectly.
As designers we spend a lot of time improving things. Good design makes life better. So maybe ask yourself if being a Communications Designer will make your work better than when you were a Graphic Designer?
Good article Matt. In the survey I went along with switching but, upon reflection, I think we should stay as we are. We are graphic designers and we have to explain what we do anyway so lets keep it as is. The analogy provided by David in describing a doctor and what they do says it all.
There is no doubt that some of what we do as a professional is considered graphic design and some of us may indeed be full time graphic designers but the word no longer encompasses the professional I participate, the one I see my colleagues participating in or what schools are teaching.
Graphic Design will never die, but it no longer reflects the state of our industry. 50 years from now we will be looking back at the term 'Graphic Designer' as we are now with 'Typographic Designer'. It is one that once upon a time had relevance and defined what the industry did, but is no longer the correct term to define what we do.
When I introduce myself as a Graphic Designer I have to amend the term with all the additional things that I do. (strategy, brand positioning, information architecture, user experience etc) The fact that I have to do this cements the term as ineffective.
I disagree with Dave (respectfully of course!) that Graphic Design is the umbrella term for our industry. In my experience and from conversations both formal and informal this holds no relevance to motion designers, interaction designers or even interactive designers. People THINK they know what a Graphic Designer is, but the reality is that there is a huge divide between what they think it is, and what we consider ourselves. Reclaiming the term, the merit of which I'll ignore for a second, is a tremendously difficult task. Following the lead put forward by ICOGRADA (the world body for professional communication design of which the GDC is a member) aligns our organization with similar ones in the world.
People don’t question what the term 'graphic design' is, because they think they already know. It’s not a matter of taking ownership of the term. That horse left the barn years ago and we will never control it. For example, Wikipedia does a reasonable job describing communication design, yet lists graphic design as a sub-set. Champions of the term graphic design may be somewhat dismayed that Wikipedia does not convey the full breadth of services we typically engage in today. Not that this definition can’t be amended, but I think it is a pretty clear indicator of where the popular thinking is on that matter and underscores that “taking ownership” of a term can be just as challenging as embracing a new one.
The fact that a lot of people used to ask us what graphic design is was a benefit to some extent. It provided an opportunity to engage in a dialogue and explain the breadth of our services. Now that graphic design has been democratized and our tools of the trade no longer set us apart I don’t think anyone will argue that the value of the term has been compromised in terms of describing our profession, and that there are pre-conceived notions about it. If we had such a solid lock on it, why do firms go to such lengths to name their companies anything but graphic design? Take our company for example: we brand ourselves as Ion Branding and Design. How many times is the term ‘graphic design’ used in our entire website, our primary marketing tool? Not once.
I should clarify that I am not against the term graphic design. It is a useful and descriptive term, albeit a little anachronistic, that describes the net result of much of our work. It is a comfortable word, it has a simplicity about it and has a tangible quality. However, most of my day is taken up with the complexity of modern communications: client development, writing, brand strategy, electronic media, art direction and various forms of design (graphic, environmental and multi-media). Most people who dabble in ‘graphic design’ likely do not engage in these other tasks, yet that is what helps set us apart as professionals, and is certainly what our firm does in differentiating from others. But it is not implicit in the term.
Moreover, I think that suggesting that communication design is a sub-set of graphic design is untenable. Saying it does not make it so. Clearly, one can communicate with a variety of means: sound, image, texture, light, words, etc. I don’t think anyone could honestly align ‘graphic’ with more than a few of these words. Furthermore, this argument deflects the root of what really matters: conveying the distinctive, ethical, eclectic and valuable creative resources that make up the GDC. In other words, our true identity and brand is the breadth and talent of all of the unique individuals of our membership. What has always drawn me to the organization, and what I believe draws our clients to GDC members, are our unique capabilities, experience, professionalism and creativity. Frankly, I don’t think that the terms graphic or communication design does a perfect job to reflect all of who we are and what we do. We all have varying opinions on which terms best tell our unique story, and they should all be respected. But if we are to decide what we name our profession, and perhaps by extension our organization, so we may be pulling together and getting on with the real business at hand – telling our story – we need to stop naval-gazing and digging our heels in. It’s an international market, so let’s be aware of what the rest of the world is saying, while embracing the term that best captures our unique spirit and breadth of our profession. Conversely, there is nothing wrong with staying pat if that best serves our common goal and is in step with our culture. We don’t necessarily need to be all things to all people and embrace all things communication. But we should be aware that much of the world is moving on. In fact, on the rare moments it does so, even our federal government recognizes our profession as communication design as it relates to its identity, communications management and trade. The term graphic design also percolates throughout canada.gc.ca so it is by no means cut-and-dry.
The key at this stage is to express your opinion through the GDC surveys that have gone out recently, and convey your opinion to your Chapter representatives who will ultimately vote on the matter in a few weeks. A business-oriented survey is in the works as well. All things in balance we will be able to move forward with confidence, but it is important for us all to voice our opinion either way.
It's time to nut up.
if you do something other than graphic design, why belong to the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada?
just a weird question that popped in my head.
c
I think "Customer Experience Practitioner" comes closest.
In other words, not this old chestnut again of, "Who are we . . . really?"
My clients know who I am and what I do. That's good. If I dress it up with a fancy title, they will think I am a fake and wonder if I am overcharging them. You know, mahogany vaneer over a platewood core.
I'm against B.S. in all its forms.
However, some GDC members may actually be "Brand Engineers" or "Information Architects", whatever they are. More power to them. When you set up your own association, and stop trying to re-engineer the GDC to your preferences, I'll send you a congratulatory bouquet of Forget-me-nots.
It just seems like the ethical thing to do.
R.
I think this change will be the beginning of a bigger conversation, the fact is that our profession is still transforming to a speed we can hardly grasp. In the end the main objective is to understand how an Association like ours will respond to the times, the way society and business thinks of us and what makes us better, stronger and in the end relevant.
I really liked your post Matt, i think it's interesting to be aware that the conversation we are having is a recurring dream –or maybe a recurring nightmare– but what I like the most is that it made me think that this is the time to make a decision that could potentially change the value of the GDC, its brand and all that it represents... and we are all part of it, just like the past Fellows and founders of this Association... cool times to be a proud GDC Member!
If the change comes to be, and our designation changes to Communication Design, the implications of this will move and transform many things, but the fact is that Graphic Design is the foundation of who we are and what we do... for some it has lost its fancy luster, but it is a part of what we are and what we do and that is something that a designation change should not take away.
The article states: "But our role and influence has never has changed."
And I wasn't around, but as Steve says in his amendments I too do a lot of strategy and brand positioning, some information architecture, and a wee bit of user experience.
Is this really what Graphic Designers did in 1967? Is the reason the public does not seem to understand the strategic role that many of us, certainly I, find core to my practice.
Whatever the answer, this is the nub of the question for me. Graphic Design is well known but does it's understanding reflect what I offer in the market. I say no. The next question is, is it easier to update the definition of graphic design, or rebrand. It's same question I'm facing right now for a client and his coffee business.
I think we have more opportunity to effectively define our offering by explaining why I'm not a graphic designer than telling people they're wrong, I am a graphic designer, but I can do more.
Very well articulated Matt.
I'm not sure I understand why this initiative is even on the GDC's "to do" list.
Is the proposed name change something we -- internally as a profession -- are asking for or is this something the public and clients/customers are asking for?
Either way raising awareness communicating the attributes, benefits and value proposition will be a challenge for an organisation with $0 communication budget.
If no one (neither members nor the public) is clamouring for this then I would argue against this initiative.
If we were to pick ANY task to accomplish as an organisation this is one that has a remote chance of success, few strategic benefits to the society and very few tangible benefits to an individual practitioner.
On the other hand, there are a multitude of strategic issues the the GDC needs to tackle, many of which actually stand a chance of a positive return on the investment.
Love the level this discussion is following so thank you to everyone who has commented so far. I did want to comment on something Cameron asked. As I related, graphic designers have always done strategy, planning, research and worked in multi-disciplinary mediums. Quite honestly I think the reason that the (self) awareness of that role "went away" is due to the arts-based education that most designers receive. It's not been until the past decade that many design programs have gone to a degree level, and as a result really started to focus on the business and strategic side of design.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Matt's historically contextualised analysis, as well as the commentaries that followed--very interesting and thought-provoking.
I'd like to look at a completely different industry and see what they have done over the years, without changing names--the food industry. At one time Tim Horton's offered coffee, donuts and muffins; today you could get a sandwich or a wrap from there. And, at one time, who would have thought MacDonald's would ever sell salads. Today, they do, and they have retained the name. One day, as we jet-pack between planets, if MacDonald's is still around, they'd probably be serving dry-pack meals.
Let's take another field, say engineering. I know a water engineer, a mechanical engineer, a traffic engineer and a civil engineer--all engineers. The specifics of each role is an add-on to the professional designation of "Engineer."
I graduated with a Graphic Design degree and my friend graduated with a Visual Communication degree. Today, we both call ourselves graphic designers, and it has nothing to do with the number of syllables in each name.
I know these examples are very simplistic, but I wonder if today there is enough equity in the "graphic design" nomenclature that can serve as a launching pad for the future, regardless of specialisations and changing techniques or technologies? Just a thought.
The longer I stay in this industry, the more I realize the difference between producing graphically appealing (pretty) solutions and creating strategic communication designs that produce results.
Though I use my training in Graphic Design daily and often find much of what I do professionally to be based on visual language and aesthetics, it is only one of many services I offer my clients. Being labeled a Graphic Designer feels a little like being called a draftsman, colour artist, desktop layout artist or something else that does not come even close to describing what I do. I believe this is likely true of most of my colleagues in the communication design industry and I want to know. Though it irks me when people cite Wikipedia as a source of definitions, it is interesting to note the definition of Graphic Design on that site as a subset of the field of Communication Design.
A new definition of Graphic Design was presented to the GDC National Annual Meeting in Edmonton in 2006. It’s a dandy description and I have no problem with anything except the title. I think it’s time for more discussion and debate so we can create a strategic plan of action. If you have an opinion on this matter, please add a comment or send me my an email.
OK, OK, I am a Graphic Designer.
OK, stop. Before I go on, let me make something clear. Of course I’m a Graphic Designer. The title of this diatribe was more to get your attention and provoke thought than anything else. I love graphic design, though these days I end up doing far more managing of my team than actual design myself. I deeply respect the history of our trade and wish our craft and creative skills were as respected as they once were. Heck, I’ll even admit that perhaps if we all worked together hard enough, we might be able bring back some of the former glory and understanding of the title Graphic Designer. But is that realistic considering recent trends, technological changes and today’s design landscape? Me thinks not. Not without some significant changes from within. But I will say this: I’ll gladly admit I am wrong if a strong enough argument is presented to me. Show me up. Prove to me that I am just suffering a little crisis of faith about the state of my own design career and that I’ve missed the bigger picture.
It seems to me and the dozens of colleagues that I’ve polled in the last year that the word “graphic” fails to accurately describe the design solutions that we create. Many feel that the word “graphic” refers primarily to pictures and images — not the strategies, concepts, words, sound, animation or any other immersive experiences we may choose to include in the design solutions we produce. I suggest that it is time to ask ourselves if we are holding on to outdated terminology that is in effect putting our reputations and entire industry at risk of being misunderstood and confused with desktop layout providers.
Some people argue the other perspective – quite angrily in fact – claiming that trying to educate the public is too high a hill to climb and we’d be better served to just focus on doing good work. Easy to say, not so easy to do as the marketplace gets increasingly competitive. Many get hung up on arguing over the technologies designers use these days or the difference between an artist and designer, but computers are just tools and art will always be a huge part of what we do. Finally, many claim that we’ve come too far and built up too much recognizable brand equity with advocacy associations such as The Society of Graphic Designers of Canada (of which I am a proud member and executive) and that a change now would do more damage than good. I’ll allow that is a possibility, but I don’t think that my suggestion to consider a broader view undermines what graphic design has, and always will be. I am not suggesting dropping all reference to graphic design at all, but challenging that we have on a whole become more than just designers of graphic language. Others have already acknowledged the change.
We’re falling behind.
Back in the day when webs were for spiders and nets were for tennis, it was fairly accurate to say that most of what we provided was primarily graphically focused. That is no longer the case. Our very society, culture and values are being shaped by a variety of media, each designed to communication more than just the words on the page. Literacy in this zeitgeist requires more than aesthetics and readability.
“21st century literacy is the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual and digital literacy overlap. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms.” – A Global Imperative (Adobe, April 2005)
If we take a look around at the design industry landscape we find design associations are wary to make drastic changes and put their brand equity at risk, while international design associations and education institutions have already taken the plunge, embracing new titles such as “Visual Communication Design” or just “Communication Design” – some even changing their very association names to reduce confusion and create opportunities to educate the business community and public at large about what we do as creative professionals.
The international association Icograda has recently switched from “graphic design” to “communication design” as part of their official vernacular. Evidence of this can be clearly found in official communications such as Icograda President Jacques Lange’s address to the International Forum on Cultural and Creative Industries this past December. This is a very important moment representing a paradigm shift as Icograda is the “world body for professional graphic design” and national graphic design member associations should soon follow. GDC and SGDQ are both members of Icograda.
Here is the official explanation directly from Icograda:
“A policy decision that was made by the Icograda board at our board meeting in April 2006 in Montreal. In 2006 we have been concentrating on renewing Icograda’s strategic objectives and measuring the relevance of our best practices and policies as well as identifying gaps.
In April, as part of the policy discussion on competition guidelines and best practices on soliciting design work, it became apparent that there was consensus amongst the board that the term ‘graphic design’ did not reflect either the current state of the profession or how our members described themselves. So we made time within the agenda to devote a session to the topic of defining the profession.
As designers, our members work in increasingly rich media and collaborative environments. In addition, the senior members of the profession are working increasingly in consulting capacities with less focus on ‘traditional’ design production. In many ways, it reflects the shift from thinking about design as an artifact – producing a thing – and embraces the reality of design as a process – a means of creating communications solutions.
There was unanimous support as the outcome of this policy session and subsequent follow up in a virtual environment to shift from ‘graphic design’ to ‘communication design’. In general, it has been well received by our stakeholders, especially design buyers, who understand the idea of communication design more clearly than graphic design and the value and role that it plays in their businesses.”
Icograda Vice-President Russell Kennedy recently published a terrific article on this subject, called “Blurred Borders Sharpen the Focus: Adjusting to the New Paradigm” suggesting that trying to ‘reclaim’ the term graphic design is like trying to beat the tide coming in the Bay of Fundy. From the article:
“The borders between graphic design and its associated creative disciplines have been blurring for some time. The discipline is currently in a state of flux. This is due in part to the computer revolution and the multimedia phenomenon, but mainly to a changing attitude towards design itself. Design is now referred to holistically. Multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary practise is growing.”
Even our US brothers and sisters at the AIGA have dropped use of the term “graphic” from the title and gone with only “design”, positioning themselves as “the professional association for design”. They have decided to keep the “G” (for Graphic) in their name which may cause confusion with other design fields such as interior, industrial, fashion, etc as the descriptor “designer” can be rather vague. But the reality is that they too have dropped the old term, recognizing the difference between aesthetic design versus strategic communication design. “Design is the intermediary between information and understanding,” says AIGA President Richard Grefe, “it’s not just something with an aesthetic or style.”
From the AIGA website:
“In an ongoing quest to fulfill both needs, AIGA’s board and chapter leadership recommended a shift in positioning. The organization has begun using the existing acronym along with a new tagline that better describes AIGA, its members, and their interests instead of using the full name of the organization. “AIGA, the professional association for design” was chosen for its ability to help the organization create a greater understanding of our members’ potential role, the value of their role and importance of their contributions. Retaining the brand equity of the acronym “AIGA” has been a priority, as it preserves a rich legacy of graphic design. By shifting the language away from “graphic arts” and towards “design,” AIGA can achieve greater recognition for design’s role in culture, civic society and business.”
Other respected “graphic” design associations followed suit, not only dropping the old title but also changing their association names. In 2005, the Professional Graphic Design Association (PGDA) debated the risks and benefits of repositioning and rebranding itself with a new name that was felt to be more inviting, more international, and more distinctive. Championed by President Catherine Morley, PGDA decided a change was necessary as a response to sweeping changes in the industry to focus design on clients instead of graphics, ultimately deciding on a new name: the Professional Society of Communication Design, or Proscodi.
Even international award competitions have recognized the need for change. With more than Since 1955, the Design Zentrum Nordrhein Westfalen sponsored Red Dot Award has been one of the oldest and most sought-after design competitions globally with over 5,000 entries each year. They officially adopted the term ‘communication design’ back in 2001, no longer making any reference to graphic design in any of their award categories. Likewise, the influential German-based iF Awards, considered by many as an international display window on the latest design developments and trends, has dropped using references to graphic design – also choosing to embrace the title communication design. Many other competitions have adopted this change in stride and more are surely to follow.
Errol Saldanha has perhaps put forth the most articulate argument in favour of this sweeping change to our own self-identity on his recently updated website www.beyondgraphic.org and in his article on Cat Morley’s Creative Latitude. A former professional GDC and RGD member, Mr. Saldanha has approached both graphic design associations on this matter with little results. Frustrated by the lack of movement on the issue in Ontario, he and several other professional Communication Designers formed a quickly growing professional association called the Communication Designers of Toronto, or Cdot, serving as a local forum uniting professionals, educators and students of the communication design discipline throughout the GTA.
From the Cdot website:
“Cdot emerged out of the need for graphic designers to go “beyond graphic”. Industry research via beyondgraphic.org made it clear that once again the role of the “graphic designer” was evolving — and that our professional title must evolve with it. The term communication design deliberately emphasizes readability (function) first and aesthetics (form) second. Design with a message…”
We are losing ground and I fear the longer we as a creative industry cling to this dated term the more we’ll be misunderstood. The public and business community may not immediately understand what Communication Design means, but at least we’ll have the opportunity to explain, demonstrate and earn their respect for doing something more than make things pretty.
We are Communication Designers.
Design is rapidly growing in its importance in modern society. As our friend Rick Poynor says,
“It is no exaggeration to say that designers are engaged in nothing less than the manufacture of contemporary reality. Today, we live and breathe design. Few of the experiences we value at home, at leisure, in the city or the mall are free of its alchemical touch. We have absorbed design so deeply into ourselves that we no longer recognize the myriad ways in which it prompts, cajoles, disturbs and excites us. It’s completely natural. It’s just the way things are.”
While much of what we do as visual communicators still involves aesthetic choices and artistic skills (craft), our professional practice revolves around a message-driven design discipline that involves research, learning, concept development, structuring and presentation of messages designed to facilitate better understanding within an audience. The terms “communication design” or “visual communication design” or even “information design” seem far more accurate and suitable to express the uniqueness of our trade.
“The focus of information design is on the reduction of noise in the communication channel by eliminating extraneous content, simplifying formal options, and narrowing possible interpretations. The general economy of this kind of thinking leads from the many to the few… Contrast this with a practise of graphic design that adopts a general economy of excess, one solution produces a multitude of interpretations: the tendency is additive, not reductive.” – Andrew Blauvelt, Editor @ Emigre
Of course we still use the elements of traditional graphic design such as image, type and colour to communicate, but often use important elements of modern messaging such as sound, animation, touch–or even smell in a recent case in my studio–to produce effective human experiences and targeted message via print, electronic, three-dimensional or environmental applications. We also no longer work in a narrow field of specialization, but rather work across and/or specialize in various fields such as branding, marketing, packaging, advertising and publishing – both in the traditional print space and online (interactive). To say we practice Graphic Design is to disregard much of what we do in our practice.
Change can be very good.
As I imagine the next ten years and a continuing trend of “design democratization” where anyone with Adobe Creative Suite, camera, printer and Internet access can potentially teach themselves the basics and begin selling their services as a “graphic designer,” I fear that our industry may continue to lose its influence and ultimately wither and die as we cling to a dated term that only partially describes what we do professionally. It is more crucial than ever that we demonstrate what differentiates us from the self-taught or poorly trained amateurs.
If we decide to embrace this evolution and are smart about how we spread this message, I believe we can use this as a powerful branding and PR moment for the entire professional design industry. If we all adopt this new identity that more accurately reflects who we are, we can create buzz and grab the attention of designers, educators, the media and the business community around the world. This idea upsets the staunch defenders of the craft of Graphic Design and I completely understand why, but I am not suggesting we drop using the term entirely. Some will indeed remain practitioners of primarily Graphic Design and call themselves this to be clear. But for the rest of us that have expanded our skills and responded to the changes around us and our clients’ needs, using much more than graphics in our designs, the title just doesn’t fit anymore.
Many of my respected colleagues feel this discussion is tired and irrelevant, some even penning wonderful rebuttals which argue that fretting over the words we use to describe ourselves rather than promoting our craft is tantamount to hiding our true creative skills beneath layers of business rhetoric. Perhaps, but I am not suggesting that we drop “graphic” or “arts” from how we describe what we do. On the contrary, I firmly believe that our craft skills and training in the traditional visual arts – sketchbooks, pencil crayons, felt pens and all – are a big part of what differentiates us from the pretenders. But without the understanding that we use more than just pretty things to produce successful design solutions, we’ll always be viewed as the “artsy fartsies” and the strategy, interactivity and innovative work will be left for the others while we proudly show off our lovely poster designs. Can we take back the power of the word “graphic” as an alternative to adopting new ones? Maybe. But I doubt it. Not in this zeitgeist. But if we truly desire the professional respect and increased patronage of the business community we need to evolve our own brand identity, perhaps by using a little business rhetoric.
Will claiming we’re Communication Designers, or even Visual Communication Designers, make it much clearer to those who don’t already understand? Likely not at first, and adopting a new title won’t automatically bring more respect or higher hourly rates either. But it will create an opportunity for a conversation and open the door for change. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I suggest that we need to make this change now or it may haunt us forever as part of our legacies. Respect starts with self identity, and the core of self identity is what we call ourselves. As for me, I am no longer a Graphic Designer, I am a Communication Designer, though I offer graphic design as part of my services.
I am a recent design graduate and I feel compelled to join this discussion, since it's a topic that I'm quite passionate about. Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I follow GDC activities and participate in the events because I can often find stimulating and illuminating individuals who inspire me both personally and professionally. I agree with GDC's code of ethics and professional conduct, and I think it absolutely imperative for the profession to have a cohesive voice.
However, although I had been eligible for student membership, and am now eligible for graduate membership, I still hesitate to join. Why? Because of debates like these.
Allow me to elaborate. And please allow me to be brutally honest.
I graduated from a program called Digital Design. My peers and I learned many things. From the principles of visual communication, the different aspects of print, all the way to animation, motion, and web design. Do we share the the same vocabulary of design? Absolutely. How many of us call ourselves graphic designers? Very few. I, for one, only use the term in casual conversations when it “doesn't matter,” but professionally I call myself communication designer. If someone asks “what's that?” all the better, I'd be glad to give them a succinct explanation. Communicating ideas is what I do, after all.
And in all the other facets of design where my peers specialized, from interactive media to motiongraphics, I've found that communicating ideas is the one common denominator. I've had the privilege of sharing a classroom with many brilliant young designers, and to them GDC evokes an image that is slightly behind the times. While I'm sure the inclusion of the term “graphic design” is not the cause of this conception, it does serve to alienate a big segment of young designers who are otherwise extremely talented and productive members of the community. At a time when new forms of media are being produced at break neck speed, it makes sense to use a term that is more generalized, more encompassing, more resilient to what's still to come. And it's far from a trivial discussion because if we do not have a solid idea of what our core values are, we will become one of the casualties of change. The way people consume media has fundamentally changed, and many industries (such as the publishing industry) have suffered. We have to keep up our pace.
In the end of the day “graphic design” just, as many has stated, doesn't encompass the spirit of what we do anymore, and in my opinion even endangers the strategic aspect of the profession. While I respect the craft tremendously and constantly try to better myself in it, it has become a subset of a bigger field and I'm not so certain that “reclaiming” the term is the way to go. Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? As an aspiring branding professional I don't think so, and I certainly hope not. To me there's no debate that meanings of words can and will evolve, and there's no debate that we must evolve as well.
I do have faith in the collective inspiring and intelligent minds at GDC to embrace change and to rise to the challenge. But at the same time, me and my peers are moving ahead. Please catch up to us.
“Architects” do more than engage in the “art of building”, offering complex services in planning, strategy, consulting and project management of a wide variety of sub-specialties. “Accountants” certainly do more than “counting” or “bookkeeping”, instead engaging in a deep level of business management and financial planning. “Lawyers” too stretch beyond a simple definition of the “law” and the court system, offering advice and counsel from business practice to trademarking to a wide range of specialized services.
They all have the confidence in their profession to realize that a one- or two-word moniker cannot possibly encompass either the wide range of services they offer, or the ever-changing role they play in business and society. Instead, their respective professional bodies continue to advance the general goals of the profession, while each firm takes careful time to communicate their unique and specialized offerings.
Chartered accountants have done a very good job of this. Instead of attempting to change the name from “accountants” to “business planners”, they have opted to simply broaden their definition through highly publicized campaigns, to great success.
The GDC and the design profession faces a similar challenge, but I believe we are getting lost on the way. I have often had to offer unflinching counsel to my clients who get mired in low-level, navel-gazing debates that have no real effect on their business success. Without meaning to insult proponents of the change of the GDC to “CDC” (with all apologies to the Centre for Disease Control), this debate is a distraction from larger issues that continue to haunt the GDC (low membership numbers, lack of rigorous accreditation, underrepresented motion and interaction designers, etc.).
Perhaps we will need a name change one day, but I sure hope “communication designer” is not it.
“Communication design” continues to make me cringe with visions of low-level rack brochures and press releases. You take “communications” in high school instead of “English”, because you can’t make the grade. Anyone who calls themselves a “communication specialist” is, quite honestly, not a specialist at all, but a generalist writer/marketer without focus. Unlike the job description of planner, copywriter, strategist, branding consultant, the “communications specialist” is a jack-of-all trades who will write your press release and help you put a sign up in your window
It is easy to point out the inherently limited connotations of “graphic”. But interestingly, I would challenge any present or future member of the GDC to identify what portion of their business does not result in something “graphic”. While all of us may utilize some component of sound, taste, touch or smell in what we do (ok, most of us will really only engage in sound or touch), “sight” would still win by a mile.
Our end products are, by-in-large, “graphic”. Smart, well-reasoned, strategic, disciplined, deep, miraculous, tactile, engaging, moving, interactive graphic solutions, I would hope. But graphic nonetheless. The often-cited rapid speed of technological change and new media are generally mere changes in just that: technology and media, not wholesale changes in the “role of the designer”. We have long been in the driver’s seat in audits and discovery, strategic planning, architecture, branding, design and all levels of tactical communication, and a name change will not change that.
It is true that we at Subplot continue to describe what we do as “brand design”, not because we believe the term is infallible, but for us, “brand design” is a larger term that can encompass subsets like communications, marketing, information, environmental (etc) design. But to be honest, I am comfortable with “graphic design” as I just don’t rely on the 2-word description of what I do to run and promote my business. Whatever the 2-word moniker is, I will always be compelled to follow it up with the 100-word version. And that is where I am able to give deep meaning and explanation to what I do for my clients.
What do venerable firms say they do for a living? Pentagram: “graphic” design. Paprika: “graphic”. Concrete: “graphic”. I doubt this “limiting” term is limiting their businesses or what they do for their clients. And other major firms? Landor, Wolff Olins, Hornall Anderson, Turner Duckworth, VSA Partners, Wallace Church, Interbrand, Seigel + Gale, Chermayeff & Geismar: “branding”, “brand design”, “brand consulting”, or some similar variation. Even the outspoken Eric Speakermann of Meta Design (which means “beyond design”) who is quoted as saying “you cannot not communicate”, describes Meta as a “branding” firm.
A parting thought for proponents of the change to “communication design”: bring the rigour of our profession to your argument. Scour the globe in a competitive and category audit for examples of best practices and naming trends. Pay attention to leading design association bodies and influential design firms, and don’t get distracted by the educational system. Engage a research firm to conduct informal and formal research, talking to voices inside and outside the industry, particularly the clients who buy our services to understand their perceptions of our offerings, our role, and the meanings behind familiar phrases. Take all this learning and form an airtight brand strategy for the GDC and the design profession, and sweat over its long-term objectives and the role we pay in our client’s businesses. And after all this is done – and only after – ask the honest question: is the strongest solution a name change, with all its pros and cons and brand new challenges, or do we do what we often do for our clients, and improve our tactical and brand communications?
Only with an informed and diligent process could we ever get to the bottom of this, and emerge from behind the rhetoric and navel-gazing.
Regarding the name change from MGDC to "Certified Communication Designer", as a Fellow of the GDC, I feel that this direction is totally ill-advised. I certainly do not want to be called or considered Certified… Does that also mean that we’re are all certifiable…? Maybe it should, clients would definitely understand this designation since some already view designers as ready for the “loony bin”.
Paranoia seems to have gotten the best of the minds to come up with this new name change. It sounds very sanitized, or maybe better suited for someone in janitorial services
I will always think of myself as a graphic designer and if a client does not understand the term, than I will clarify for them.
We ARE graphic designers, how we market ourselves is an individual preference and should not impact on what we call ourselves. We are what we do, whether we provide visual communication services, business communications strategies, or just plain graphic design service… but at the end of the day, we are still graphic designers.
I’m proud to consider myself a graphic designer and I strongly believe that this designation should remain within our profession.
How we clarify this designation in our businesses, is irrelevant.
Tiit Telmet, FGDC, RGD, AGI
I'm a writer. I work with graphic designers and have spent years wishing they would design typography to aid readers. Some do. But far too often the text becomes just another graphic element set in hard-to-read, sans-serif type that has pleasing graphic look and the readability of a block of cement.
Until "graphic designers" faithfully design for readers, they cannot legitimately call themselves "communications designers."
LOL, Tony! Also funny - just working on an RFP for ICBC and the purchasing agent refers to herself as a "Strategic Sourcing Analyst". Makes me think she's a tad insecure (or ICBC has just wasted a bunch of our money coming up with new department buzz-terms). It certainly reaffirms my belief that we should move on from this tiresome debate and spend the precious little resources we have on promoting the profession. Imagine what we could have already achieved with the 15,000 pixels of time and effort that precedes this comment?
It seems to me if we are to rename ourselves in the cause of better communicating what our organization is all about, we should include the concept of "visual" in some manner.
I believe that good communication requires a certain amount of succinctness. If you have to explain something then, by definition, it did not communicate well.
On that note, Im done.
My girlfriend is a graphics designer, not I but I felt I had to chime in here.
Communication Design? That's abstract to the extent of complete misinformation of Orwellian proportions. How about Truth Design? If you squint, it can be just as valid!
I have to say I'm with David on this one.
I get frustrated by the intense navel-gazing we go through as an organization – not because we shouldn't pay attention to details (we wouldn't very good designers if we didn't) but because we get hopelessly bogged down in these narcissistic debates instead of focusing these energies outward at the people and businesses we call prospects and clients (and employers).
Changing our title isn't going to fix anything; if you feel you're an under-appreciated Graphic Designer, I guarantee, when the dust clears, you'll be an under-appreciated Communication Designer.
Titles mean very little (now there's something that HAS changed a great deal since '66). If we want better recognition, our resources should be spent on promotion. The argument that we, as members, need to educate our clients on what it means to be a GDC (CDC?) member only holds so much water; just because I say it matters doesn't mean the client believes that. If I said I was a CGA, though, they'd nod appreciatively because that's an organization that has got their message out to the 'buying public'.
Now before you blast me, I'm well aware we don't have the same numbers or resources as the Certified General Accountants of Canada, but surely this points the way? Spending all our resources debating a name change smells strongly of "build it and they will come" thinking.
And on a final, lighter note, isn't CDC better known as the Centre for Disease Control?
I could not agree with Mr. Politano more. Unless GDC can educate and engage stakeholders, titles remain irrelevant.
If I'm moving internationally, I'm interested in what it's referred to in the next place, so that people understand my skill-set and the value I bring to a business process. I'm interested in portability of a designation, the way PMI has a globally understood PMP. That makes the certification very attractive.
Anyway I know this is an old discussion. I actually just came by to check in and see if I could find a working definition of "graphic design" that the GDC uses, but instead I found this...
Designing graphics sounds like a very shallow overview of what goes on in most of the GDC member's brains. There's analysis, strategy, exploration, ideating, design, application, implementation, et cetera. If all we did was design graphics or make things bold or italic, I could see why someone would assume we'd be threatened by kids with photoshop and 10000 spare hours with zero overhead. However, the process is what separates us from someone who simply decorates for pure aesthetic ends.. Not that there's anything wrong with decoration, but it's not the same thing as achieving business objectives through sophisticated strategic visual & conceptual work.
Considerably, this post is really the sweetest on this notable topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your incoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the phenomenal clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business dealings!? Please excuse my poor English as it is not my f
As a professional member since 1995, I can say I've run into the "graphic designer" wall a thousand times.
Graphic Designer is THE entry level position in our profession. Ad agencies hire jr graphic designers, promote them to Sr graphic designers, then art directors, associate creative directors, creative directors and so on.
Regarding "claiming the title as our own", I completely disagree. Think for a moment... some members of the gay community decided in the 90s that the word "gay" wasn't appropriate, and opted for "queer". Pure idiocy! Gay = Happy. Queer = Odd. You don't have to be a math professor to see the error in that "solution".
By calling ourselves Graphic Designers, we de-value our role in business, culture and most importantly, ourselves.
As a firm owner, I regularly consult on business, strategy, psychology, messaging and more. Only the final bit at the end has anything to do with graphic design.
Why am I a member of the GDC? The organization isgood - just the name sucks.
My real life title is Strategy/Creative Director and I avoid the term graphic design at every opportunity.
Login to Post a Reply
Login Now to add your comment