The question, posted as an AIGA LinkedIn discussion: “Would you still be a designer if we never progressed to digital design?”
Such an odd query. It suggests that eventually designers would have tired of the profession had it remained based in hand skills. Don’t get me wrong, I love InDesign and Photoshop and the gadgets we use now—the tools that have replaced T-squares, non-repro blue pens, rubylith and those hulking Lucy machines. Truly, it’d be difficult to be a garden variety graphic designer these days without using a computer. Computers are fast and precise, and allow us to produce more rapidly.
But I was good at making things by hand, and I enjoy working by hand. So why wouldn’t I take every opportunity to work that way?
The other thing that bugs me about the question is the focus on software. Contrary to what some folks seem to believe, a person who knows InDesign does not a designer make. Graphic designers are highly trained in color theory, layout, typography and all the elements and principals of design. It’s also about the IDEAS, folks. Being able to make something in a software package is a given these days…it’s a bare minimum.
Here’s an image I created this week for a local musician, Nathan Diller. We’re running a contest tied into his video cover of “Counting Stars” by OneRepublic. We’re asking folks to visit his facebook page, like him, and then guess how many stars are in the photo. We will name a star after the person who comes closest. So go give it a try! You can find the contest here: https://www.facebook.com/nathandiller?fref=ts
Such fun putting this concept, and this image together…literally moving all the little stars around, playing with color and shape and line, and photographing the results. It felt more like play than work. And isn’t that the best we can hope for in our chosen profession?