Can design be acquired through learning or does it require talent?
A graphic designer in my opinion needs to be a reasonably good artist and therefore must have raw talent. I have often wondered if there are good designers out there who can't draw? When I was at college a few of my fellow classmates admitted their drawings skills were somewhat limited. Surely a designer must have at least some artistic ability to see the balance on a page?
How much can be taught? If your average "non artistic" person was taken out of an office job and taught about grids and balancing elements on a page could they ever be a good designer?
To me there are two types of jobs; the type that can be learned and the type that you need talent for. Athletes, artists, performers and designers to me would all come under one category - raw talent required. While many other jobs can be learned through training. That's not to say to varying degrees of ability. A non artistic person can be taught to organize information in a logical and pleasing form but I don't honestly think they can truly create a good design, but I guess that is where the question 'What is good design?' comes in. One advantage that a non design person could have over an "artistic" designer is you would imagine they could be more focused on functionality and readability?
Computers have made it so easy to put together a document (however badly) that I have seen some samples showing the portfolio of "the designer" who is clearly not a designer. They perhaps can navigate their way through a few design programs and perhaps programming, but have no sense of design and aesthetics.
What do you think?
Graphic Design, Art, Illustration, design, artist, Apple, Mac, computer
Good questions. I would have to say that it probably comes down to your question "what is good design?" In which I would have to say that someone would have to have an "eye" for the visual, or what you could classify as inherent talent. I don't think that has to be tied to a specific outlet of that talent, if a person can draw, sculpt, paint, etc. The ability to see the composition is what would separate it for me.
The argument could be made that the computer is just another instrument of expression. Compare Albert Bierstadt with Ansel Adams, similar subject matter using different "instruments" with the same outcome: great art. Whether it be a camera or a brush the same things hold true. You could also make the argument that just because one person is a better painter than another doesn't make them the better artist…just a better painter.
I do think that training is important in the development of technique, etc.
The question about the "non artistic person" being taught to "imitate" design is probably more sponsored by economics. There are software programs that can help that person produce work that would appear "artistic" to most. What is the goal of such a piece? Does it meet that goal? It can be a difficult debate about economy vs. art when discussing a field that involves the application of "artistic expression" in a commercial application.
It is a great series of questions to think about. In the world that we live in today anyone can become a overnight success in whatever adventure they set out on. The miracles of modern technology have given individuals the opportunity to become artists, musicians, fashionistas, surgeons, mechanics, race car drivers and many other occupations (albeit on a limited basis). I think its when your fascination with one skill set takes over and you become proficient in that craft that you become a specialist in your field (career) and you really know the ins and outs of that choosen specialty.
The question I always ask myself as an artist is 'Why does the non-designer think they have an eye for design when I've been tweaking my craft for years?' But maybe that's the answer to my own question, art/design is always subjective to your audience. And art/design is always a work in progress, never quite finished. There's no such thing as a final piece or rendition.
I began my graphic design career in the pre-computer days when typesetters were an amazing breed, amber and ruby lith ruled, and you couldn't exist without acetate sheets. And then along came desktop publishing. Bosses thought that receptionists could take over the company newsletter if they bought the right software. And then the internet developed and programmers thought they were the best ones to be in charge of web pages. In no time at all the new and preferred tools of graphic designers were available to anyone with a computer and inclination.
I know how to use a hammer, but I wouldn't attempt to build a house. I admire people who can fix things and build something from seemingly alien parts. Being a homeowner has made me knowledgeable in more areas than I really want, but I can recognize my weaknesses.
The same should be said of visual artists. Even among schooled artists, compositional elements can be complex. But training doesn't have much to do with having a knack for grocking communication problems and being able to sell a solution. Graphic design is not about pretty images. A great design is nothing without an appropriate and effective message.
Over and over I hear horror stories from printers about jobs being returned or having to spend extra time because designers don't know how to output prep a project. How many designers weaned on software understand and can meaningfully manipulate tracking and kearning?
So to answer this topic's question, "Can design be acquired through learning or does it require talent?" my opinion is that design can be learned, but it requires an inherent gift to be good. We all have the ability to be creative in our own ways. I've studied and practiced the guitar for years, and I still wish I could play it worth a darn.
3 comments