54 conclusion
communication design as a new discipline
graphic design has changed. the revolution in design caused firstly by the computer and secondly the internet in the early 90s, challenged graphic design and in so doing forced it to review what it actually was and what its value was. in doing so graphic design matured as a practice. no longer is graphic design about how to produce visual material for mechanical reproduction. it has become concerned with the whys and wherefores of the impulse to produce such material and the strategic application of such material to achieve desired ends.
it is about strategy, responsibility, and context, and it has started to take itself seriously.
it needed a name change. as a practice it certainly wasn’t limited to designing the “graphic”
anymore. this remains a foundation and focus of the discipline but the practice has broadened in many ways, not the least of which is the inclusion of the new media.
communication design (the new graphic design) has become non-media specific. it is concerned with strategy and tactics, working in culture, being context specific and visually sensitive. it facilitates the materialising of expression and communication. it creates change through effecting changes in the material world. it is the articulation and manifestation of intention. it involves developing a conversation between client and designer and taking that conversation out into the community. it is often a process of education for all parties involved in its process.
there is a danger in this redefinition of practice that communication design can become so broad a discipline, so unfocused and generalist that it becomes about everything in general and nothing in particular. to attempt to define it as a practice a little more narrowly:
- it is predominantly client led, or at least has an socially connected intentional field which drives it;
- it is not generally a “crafting” activity, but is a more materially disconnected “designing”
activity;
- it is about communication, it has communication objectives which can be more or less fixed or prescriptive;
- it requires a knowledge and ability to source application technologies and/or media;
- it requires the ability to research to acquire the above-mentioned knowledge, which changes continuously;
- it does not necessarily produce physical artefacts as end outcomes;
- it requires finely developed visual literacy and visualising abilities;
- it requires highly developed typographic sensitivities, the ability to make the materialised word and language as strong and as communicative as they can be;
- it is not generally about self-expression except to achieve a communicative strategy;
- its primary role is the process of mediating the conjunction and communication between the natural and artificial worlds;
- it is a process to create flow and articulation between involved parties in an intentional field, i.e. an event, a book, an exhibit, an idea, a desired change;
- it is a process intended to increase levels of meaning and connection;
- it requires a mindfulness of one’s impact and agency as a designer;
- it is the design of communication.
conclusion 55
in an attempt to provide a clear justification for current design pedagogy, many australian universities are undergoing a transition towards privileging a user-centred design practice.
target audience research and demographic profiling are becoming embedded within the design curriculum at an undergraduate level. this change is largely driven by the increasing need for designers to appear more accountable and better able to demonstrate quantifiable evidence for the efficacy of their design outcomes.
user-centred design aims to create a design practice released from the subjectivity of both the designers’ wants and clients’ perceived needs. rather it aims through the use of both qualitative and quantitative research, to bring about design outcomes that are objectively effective in achieving the desired impact within the targeted community. this is not immoral.
it is, however, amoral. individual projects may have an agenda of contributing to community, but the methodology remains a behaviourist and reductionist model for “getting the target community to do what we want it to do”. this mode of practice is not politically aligned; left, right, progressive and dictatorial agencies all utilise this model of “acting upon”.
the research presented here attempts to define an alternative option to user-centred design as the predominant model for developing a contemporary communication design practice.
as graphic designers we traditionally isolated ourselves from the community within which we practiced. through this isolation we have strived to develop a rarified environment of
“good design” within which we might incubate better and better design – more refined, more innovative, more effective.
i would argue that in isolating ourselves from the community within which we practice, we, as communication designers, act to cut ourselves off from our context, relevancy and responsibility as producers of material culture. in so doing we prevent our communication design work from having its full relevancy or respect within the community as well as within other design disciplines.
it is only through an authentic connection with context that communication design will mature as a practice. our most important work as communication designers is to act as a conduit through which the community within which we practice is articulated and reflected in the material world. our job, as designers, is not to express ourselves. our self-expression is, of course, inextricably wound up in process, in the experience of that process and in the outcome itself; however, the work is not about us.
Towards an alternative definition for a communication design practice
i have completed a series of projects that both investigate and reveal the questions of this research. as well as refining the research questions these projects illuminate the concerns and values which are the meta-narrative of the inquiry. although i am nearing the end of this particular research, the exploration and learning have only just begun. the research has provided a foundation for further inquiry. it has started to give me the language and knowledge, the familiarity with the terrain, and the pathways so that i may start to work in this critical area of design understanding and development.
this research is concerned with bringing design back into its community. its underlying aims are to increase the relevancy and appropriateness of design within communities. it proposes a design practice which engages with the people that the act of designing involves: the community of design, the audience, the users, the producers, the managers, the public
56 conclusion
space and impact of that practice on that place and space. this research wishes to promote a mindfulness of our impact, as designers, on the world around us, maintaining a sympathy with context, situating our practice in the space of intention and remaining there, accepting accountability for our agency, and the effect of our work, in the community.
Due to this connection with community, this proposed design practice necessitates some degree of compromise. it describes design as a conversation. this design conversation includes inefficiency, consensus and the messy, multi-orientated, pluralistic, super-complex process that takes place during the work of design.
the research aims towards a sustainable design practice, not limited to an ecological or economical sustainability, but an holistic view of sustainability. Diethelm (2006, p1) uses the term
“attending to...” to describe the space of focus of the design activity. this project looks at that space and proposes a design practice which is holistically connected to the task at hand.
Design has effect. it is powerful. at this moment there are far more studies and energy focused on making design “more effective”. could this be the legitimisation of a profession with a low self-opinion? i propose re-modeling the designer’s role so that it is actually connected to the community that “hosts” it.
the results of this research (the projects and the reflection upon those projects) indicate that a possible future for communication design practice is as a practice situated within the community, rather than as an external force brought to bear upon the community to effect change.
a practice situated outside its community will act by following a universal set of rules and apply to whichever situation it is in. this model of practice denies an accountability with the work produced because as an outsider the designer has no natural vested interest in the effect of the work produced. this disconnected practice also encourages the framing of the designer as an omniscient agent who “knows better” regardless of the particularities of the community within which they have effect. in saying this i am not advocating dispensing with the skill and professionalism of the designer or undermining the value of this skill and professionalism.
Designers are incredibly important in facilitating the articulation of community within public space. i am positing, however, that to work in isolation from the community disallows the connection of designer to community and creates a tension between the desire of the designer and the needs of the community.
i propose that through being situated in community a designer’s practice will become accountable and authentic both of which are necessary preconditions for an ethical practice.
i would maintain that to continue an ethical practice without a connection to the community of effect is inauthentic and unsustainable.
conversely, being situated in community allows a practice to have complex connections and references within that community. it creates support and continuity, knowledge and opportunity for reflection. this model of a communication design practice actively fosters the attributes which communication design has lost touch with in an industrialised age.
this research has developed and changed my personal design practice. it has altered the way i approach design work, and the projects that i am involved with. i now approach work in a different way. it is a subtle shift, but the emphasis has moved from creating a solution to a problem or need that a client outlines to one of becoming engaged with the client’s discourse and, through conversation, connecting to the “intentional field”. it requires a personal connection and thus an accountability of action. it is perhaps more difficult and less streamlined or time-efficient but it has the potential to lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable practice.
conclusion 57
the projects i am involved with are evolving from the more traditional design briefs which require the application of a design aesthetic to a printed or electronic communication, to the development of a practice where it is more common that a brief involves me holistically with a project’s intentions and development. in this developing practice a design project becomes a process of the development of a conversation through which design knowledge becomes attuned and focused, ultimately to be manifest in artefact or system. the material outcome is a product of the conversation. it represents a stage in an unfinished dialogue rather than a final outcome. it externalises and materialises the design conversation and thus allows the conversation to develop further. this model of practice requires a greater engagement with each individual project and disallows the application of a set of predefined rules. this makes it a less time-efficient process but ultimately, i would argue, a more sustainable and professionally and personally satisfying practice.
for me this research has greatly expanded my network of like-minded designers and community of practice groups, allowing me to both articulate and refine the learnings of the research. the findings and propositions of this research have allowed me to engage internationally as an active design research community member. this has led to the development of my practice as design educator and has expanded and developed the dialogue i maintain through that work.
i now find myself in a position to propose and trial alternative pedagogies and engage with contemporaries from the forefront of communication design discourse and research.
the research has led to the development of a range of techniques and models for practice that have the potential to help communication design facilitate and articulate community. i have given form to this range of techniques and models in a series of cards. the cards, as artefact, embody the learnings of this research. they externalise and compartmentalise the design process and focus. they have multiple interpretations and allow for reconfiguration by the user. they contain and allow access to design knowledge but they are not a fixed set of rules. they are not didactic methodologies; instead they create “taking-off points” for designers to re-consider the design dialogues within which they find themselves.
58
BiBlioGraphy
Books
barthes, r 1977, Image Music Text, fontana press, london, uK.
benjamin, W 2002, The Arcades Project, harvard university press, cambridge, usa.
bourdieu, p 1980, The Logic of Practice, stanford university press, palo alto, usa.
brew, a 2001, The Nature of Research - Inquiry into Academic Contexts, routledge, oxford, uK.
byrne, D 2003, Envisioning Emotional Epistemological Information, steidl, göttingen, germany.
carroll, J 2004, The Wreck of Western Culture - Humanism Revisited, scribe publications, melbourne, australia.
coleman, aD 1998, The Digital Evolution - Visual Communication in the Electronic Age:
Essays, Lectures and Interviews 1967-1998, nazraeli press, portland, usa.
de bono, e 1991, I am right you are wrong, penguin books, london, uK.
De certeau, m 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life. university of california press, berkeley, usa.
Douglas, m (ed.) 2004, Invention Intervention. rmit university press, melbourne, australia.
Douglas, m (ed.) 2005, Tramjatra - imagining Melbourne and Kolkata by Tramways.
yoda press, india & rmit university press, melbourne, australia.
Downton, p 2003. Design Research. rmit university press, melbourne, australia.
frank, t & Weiland, m (eds.) 1997, Commodify your Dissent - The Business of Culture in the Gilded Age: Salvo’s from The Baffler. W W norton and company, new york, usa.
gibson, W 2003. Pattern Recognition. putnam adult, new york, usa.
gruson, e & staal, g 2000. Copy Proof - A New Method in Design Education, 010 publishers, rotterdam, the netherlands.
heller, s & Vienne, V (eds.) 2003, Citizen Designer - perspectives on design responsibility, allworth press, new york, usa.
hughes, b 2000, Dust or Magic - Secrets of Successful Multimedia Design, addison Wesley, boston, usa.
laurel, b 2001, Utopian Entrepreneur, mit press, cambridge, usa.
laurel, b (ed.) 2003, Design Research - Methods and Perspectives, mit press, cambridge, usa.
lavin, m 2001, Clean New World - Culture, Politics and Graphic Design, mit press, cambridge, usa.
lupton, e & miller, Ja 1996, Design Writing Research, phaidon, london, uK.
margolin, V 1989, Design Discourse: History Theory Criticism, university of chicago press, chicago, usa.
margolin, V 2002, the Politics of the Artificial, university of chicago press, chicago, usa.
mason, J 2002, Researching Your Own Practice - The Discipline of Noticing, routledgefalmer, oxford, uK.
59
poynor, r 2003, No more Rules: Graphic Design and Post-Modernism, laurence King publishing, london. uK.
putman, rD 2000, Bowling Alone, simon and schuster, new york, usa.
saul, Jr 1992, Voltaire’s Bastards, Vintage, new york, usa.
sen, a 1996, Our Culture, Their Culture: Satyajit Ray Memorial Lecture – 22 December 1995, West bengal film centre, Kolkata, india.
thoreau, hD 1854, Walden; Or, Life in the Woods, ticknor and fields, boston, usa. (cited edition: Dover thrift editions, 1995).
toorn, J v (ed.) 1998, design beyond design, Jan van eyck academie, maastricht, the netherlands.
Wilkinson, r 2000, Mind the Gap - Hierarchies, Health and Human Evolution, Weidenfeld and nicolson, london, uK.
audio visual:
mills, m 2002, Let’s be Human Beings - Four Films.
papers and articles:
buchanan, r 2002, ‘human Dignity and human rights: thoughts on the principles of human-centred design’. Looking Closer 4, allworth press, new york, usa.
Diethelm, J 2006. ‘{Designing in an intentional field}’, viewed 20 august 2006, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~diethelm/, unpublished conference paper.
Dilnot, c 1993, ‘the gift’, Design Issues, Vol 9, no. 2, pp51-63.
forlizzi, J & lebbon, c 2002, ‘from formalism to social significance in communication Design’, Design Issues, Vol 18, no. 4, pages 3-13.
fry, t 2006, ‘Design, ethics and identity’, Design Philosophy Papers, issue 3.
gaver, W, boucher, a, pennington, s, and Walker, b 2004, ‘cultural probes and the value of uncertainty’, Interactions, Volume Xi, issue 5, pp. 53-56.
haseman, b 2006, ‘a manifesto for performative research’, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, issue “practice-led research”, no. 118, pp. 98-106.
university of Queensland.
paglia, c 2004, ‘the magic of images:- Word and picture in a media age’, Arion: A Journal of the Arts and Humanities, winter 2004, third series, vol. 11, no. 3.
poynor, r 2002, extract from ‘look inward: graphic design in australia: is australia’s global cultural impact reflected in its graphic design?’, Eye, 46, Winter.
rosenberg, t 2006, ‘Designs on critical practice?’, Reflections on Creativity conference, Dundee, scotland in april 2006, publication pending.
rosenberg, t 2000, ‘the reservoir: towards a poetic model of research in Design’. Working papers in art and design, volume 1.
tonkinwise, c 2006, ‘thingly cosmopolitanism: caring for the other by Design’, The Radical Design(ist), July, viewed http://www.iade.pt/designist/jornal/jornal.html
Willis, a 2006, ‘ontological Designing’, Design Philosophy Papers, issue 3.
60