2. For the most part, the most inspiring speakers were not the designers: Bill Strickland, community leader and humanitarian working to fight the effects of poverty in Pittsburgh; Richard Swett, architect, author, consultant and former US representative and ambassador; Bruce Lindsey of the Rural Studio architecture program of Auburn University designing and building for some of the poorest residents in Alabama... people who see needs in the world and are moving to address them.

3. Of all the designer speakers I saw, Milton Glaser's talk was the most thoughtful and passionate. This patriarch of design walked us through his thoughts and efforts to answer the question "How does design enter and impact culture?" While he had some good ideas of the designer's role in relation to civics, the design examples he shared were the sort of standard 'graphic acitivism' we always see - politically oriented buttons against President Bush and his policies, posters and postcards against racism and poverty.

His most interesting idea was a poster designed during the Republican National Convention in NYC - a call for New Yorkers to a 'silent protest.' All New Yorkers who disapproved of the President and his party's policies were to turn on all their lights for the entire night. To 'light up the sky and drive away darkness.' He did not say what the result was, so perhaps there little no reaction. But if there was, I would liked to have seen a photo...

4. Stefan Sagmeister's closing presentaion, "Design and Happiness", had the potential to address some very interesting thoughts on the role of design and the state of the human spirit, but he seemed to skirt around them. He shared designs others had created that made him happy, some qualities/circumatnces that make him happy when he designs, and some of the recent designs he has been creating.

His recent work can be seen in most design annuals and are based on truisms or proverbs that he has discovered in his live and articulated in his own way. Among them are:
Everything I do always comes back to me.
Trying to look good limits my life.
Evrybody thinks they are right.
Money does not make me happy.
Thinking life will be better in the future is stupid. I have to live now.

The designs are visually intriguing and rather unique, but Sagmeister did not talk at all about why they looked the way they did. He also did not address why he wants to create designs around these messages and share them with the world. Especially since most of them have come from projects where he could design anything he wanted - why do this?

5. Speaking with a few of my design friends after the conference has revealed a few design thoughts that are lodged in my psyche:

a. Sagmeister's observation in 1999 that designers don't seem to believe in much (religion, politics, etc.) seems as true as ever. Therefore, we designers have to latch onto other's beliefs and passions (clients) or we just create dispassionate 'things'. Until we believe something we won't be able to create something of lasting value to the world.

b. Can Design really be a benefit to those in need? Those oppressed, impoverished or disenfranchised... if so, how?

c. I feel a direct correlation can be drawn between design and film/music/literature/art: We don't need these things to survive (not like we need air, water, shelter, love).
But on some level, we have been so moved or inspired in our spirit by these things that we would have a hard time imagining life without them. I think Design is as much a means of inspiration and sorytelling as these media are; we simply need more people exploring these options. People with passion, vision and guts.

d. There is a gigantic undercurrent today (not just in design, but in the world at large) that Science is what will create solutions to the world's problems. Observation, measurement and deduction will lead to technologies that improve life. Whatever technological advancements or dilemmas or growing pains we are experiencing right now are just an inevitable part of humankind's evolution. Progress has its price, but we can learn to adapt and survive.

I have a few problems with these assumptions. First, all science tells us is how things work, not why. Second, if we are to believe what science has discovered for us, then all there is to reality is mass/matter, time and chance. Everything else - like love, hope, fear of death - is irrelevant and meaningless in this description of reality. Thirdly, it teaches us that whatever is is right - things are the way they are meant to be and we are silly and absurd to fight against any of it.

I think design has become very closely associated to technological advancements and has therefore adopted a great many of its premises. This has devalued any sort of spiritual value design work might have. Not to mention shortening the amount of time we have to think about the purpose and ramifications of our designs...

Ok, that is more than enough for now. Post a comment or two or give me a call and we can chat about any of this to your heart's content. In the meantime, I believe creation is all about understanding meaning, people and purpose, so don't give up on it - just weigh it a bit more carefully.

Interesting, Paul. What are your expectations for inspiration? A new technique, process, cause? I believe the AIGA is on course with a larger trend, shifting focus from the visual products of the profession to the skills of the profession itself. A designer does not need to make posters, brochures, logos, etc. to practice our art. Our practice of design involves applying our skills to mediums or situations. The value of design is in the problem solving/revelatory process. That's how we end up with speakers on Pittsburgh's poverty.

The awards ceremony we just returned from in Copenhagen held a similar view. Our carpet simulation was exhibited next to a plan to fight the spread of HIV in rural Africa. At first this seemed ridiculous to find ourselves yoked. Our significance is surely less important. However, the theme of the awards was "design to improve life" and indeed, we both did. And neither of us did it with the traditional mediums associated with Graphic Design. The printed piece, the web site, or any visual result is only an aide to an agenda.

I don't believe the design process has any special or magical value in and of itself. It must be applied to something. Perhaps this is what you allude to when referring to passion and belief? What's the cause? What's the effect? Why does what I do matter? That's not a new question for you.

All this said, I think it's a shame that decoration and creativity get to sit on the bench these days. Their good execution isn't the most satisfying part of our jobs, but they make it fun! Sagmeister knows this. What why he spells words out of sausage links. All the beauty in the world wrapped in an ugly package will just get tossed away. We still judge books by their covers.

Perhaps a renewed focus on the process is the result of years of focusing on the printed piece? And a reaction of the thousands of people that can make flyers in Word without adding value to the communication...

Thanks for going to the conference and for sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated.

Michael, thanks for your thoughful and interesting entry. You hit on quite a few topics, and in the interest of time + space, I will keep my response shorter:

My hope/expectation for inspiration from ANY source would be the perfect blend of medium and message. A well crafted "physical thing" built to best articulate/facilitate the purpose or content. We all know great special effects fall flat for us when the movie's plot stupid and the characters are poorly developed. The same holds true for design - and at a "design conference" I had hoped to see at least a little more of this exemplified by designers.

I agree with your assertion that AIGA (and perhaps the profession as a whole) is moving toward valuing the process of design over the actual products that are designed. But if we are going to to focus more on "how" things are designed, I believe it must logically lead to a critical analysis of "why" they are made too. I think, in short, I had hoped to hear more discussion of this at the conference.

And looking back at your description of the competition in Copenhagen, I think having presentations of those sort of "designs" is what I was wanting out of AIGA... Perhaps its coming in the not-too-distant future and I just need to be patient?

interesting how paul noted that some of the best speakers were not necessarily "designers," and an equally interesting response from michael was that his project shown in copenhagen was not necessarliy "design" either - and was enhanced by the accompanying graphics (websites, etc.). these are the things - the people, the projects - that wind up having a tangible impact on surrounding lives and are proactive stimulants for a more progressive society... michael said that he has felt that designers do not "believe in much" anymore, which is true. especially with younger/up-and-coming desingers, spiritual deconstruction is almost always a given. however, a lack of personal belief means that they are waiting for the next client with a purpose to come along, and that is their chance to do something with social responsability. the world right now is a hard place to look at sincerely, since scientific trends state the explainantion of life, current environment, and different probabilities of demise. even the increasing use of technology has done this, to an extent, codifying design language and perhaps making the world flat again, and the resulting perspectives are linear works that simply get the job done. of course, this is a generalization, and there are those whose heart and soul are in an active place. but even hearing about sagmeister's presentation in boston, how can he speak about projects involving "design and happiness" without speaking of not just breadth and width, but depth? it's a hard task.

The question of belief, of why, of motivation is interesting in these times. Culturally I think we're rather shallow these days. Our passions are personal, not social. I know a lot of people that are fanatical about Star Wars, typefaces, rock music, Target, Apple, etc. I don't know anyone that is passionate about civic good, national interests, global interests, etc. Perhaps we've all given to philanthropic organizations, but the act of writing a check is categorical in my opinion.

The November issue of Wallpaper has an interview with dutch design icon Wim Crouwel. He had some interesting statements on the "golden era" of modernism that address the question of "why?"

Mr. Crouwel said,"I sometimes wonder what's driving designers today. I can understand why young designers are enthralled by the speed of technological development and that this is their focus, but there's a lack of idealism. There are no utopian ideals, no belief that graphic design could be important in making a better world. That's what we believed until the end of the 1960s when postmodernism came along."

Ruth is correct that we designers generally seek meaning in our clients. Even I have pursued my most recent company because it has meaning for me that practicing design in the traditional sense didn't have. Making artwork wasn't enough... I guess I really am a post-modernist… or whatever we are now. It seems like modernists believed in an inherent good within design. I think the contemporary view is that it's a means to an end, and we want the end to be significant. Why?

I don't think there's a single answer... and that's very postmodern.