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.

 I recently attended the Design Currency conference in Vancouver, and two of the presentations stand out most clearly for me: Marian Bantjes’ strong defense of artistry and craft in design and Frank Chimero’s lively and compelling argument for the pursuit of a sense of delight in user interfaces (and design in general).

There has been a great deal of discussion in our community regarding ‘design thinking’ and design’s relevance and value to the business community and other buyers of design (and the conference dug into this at length as well). I have long been an advocate of a stronger business focus in design – informed in no small part by my past corporate marketing experience – and a clear separation between art and design. However, the closer our profession has aligned itself to these ideals, the more I have felt that something is missing. The Bantjes/Chimero one-two punch was the clarion call I needed to put language to this gut feeling. It’s not easy to say, but I think I got it wrong; I’m not happy simply being a tool of business.

It makes my clients (both small and large) comfortable when I explain design as a business tool; it makes something intangible feel solid, valuable and measurable. Comfortable clients, as we all know, are easier to work with. However, I now feel that this emphasis on design as a tool strips it of its magic, its mystery. And it is magic, but that’s not a bad thing. Give ten designers the same inputs and you will get ten different solutions. That’s really a wonderful thing; in Frank Chimero’s words, a “delightful” thing.

Say what you will about the value of design, but one thing is clear: no two people think exactly alike when it comes to defining the value of design itself. And if the question of defining the value of design sounds like a simple one, let me assure you - you're dead wrong. It's not just about dollars and cents. 

Design Currency 2010 discussion has been going on at designweekvancouver.ca - there is information on the events, workshops, dinners, breakfasts, speakers, and information on where to stay and eat. 

Interviews with speakers are being added every day in the Design Currency 2010 Interviews category.

Also I would be in some sort of trouble if I didn't mention that I had a go at the topic myself on the Design Currency 2010 blog. Really, it is a continuation of the conversation that I had started on the GDC blog - defining the value of design - but it's much more direct in its relation to the topic of the conference.

Finally, you really ought to treat yourself and have a look at the beautiful Design Currency 2010 video - it is below...