You need a licence to fish!
That all said, I am drawing to a close a development on a website, that has basically been going on for nearly two years now. The initial approach was based on the above logo. The lady in question, who has now become a good friend (and should I say loyal fan) asked me to do something about her logo. I took one look at it and nearly cried. The sadness grew when the client in question told me that the logo was designed by a graphic artist. She originally asked me to just do something about the pepper character in the centre. I told her the whole thing had to be scrapped and redone. She agreed. So some weeks later I delivered the final version, which you see now on all her products. The funny part to the story and the reasoning for the theme of this blog post is that until convinced the client was willing to believe that this original design was as good as it was going to get. That if it was given to her with the bill then she would have to say 'lovely' and pay up. As I stated above, I am not saying that my alternate version is the best solution to the problem. What I think I can say, and tell me if I am wrong, is that its a good improvement to something that was literally going to be aired as a company logo. I have edited this due to comments of bias, therefore would be interesting to have some comment to which logo has what values.
This made me chuckle a few moments ago, as I did some other final work on the project, as I thought of two things. First was this continued argument I have about quality of work. Most of this resides as a student retort to the idea that a professional magically appears on leaving college and that quality of work is not something that should be strived for or practiced at. The second was that great quote from "Parenthood" the film. I add it here as a reference, though it has nothing to do with design.
"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."
I hope you can see where I am going with this. I am sure most graduates in the arts field have a sense of achievement as they enter into the real world, believe they have become part of an institutionalised profession. A career choice that is meant to place you above the rest. Warrant a little respect in the work place and command the type of attention that clients believe you know what you are talking about. The truth today is however, that that is a load of crock. As Sir Ken Robinson stated in a TED talk I watched recently; "Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job.” This is even more true of the arts. The reason being? Well, its that old nutshell of any Tom, Dick or Harry can now explore the arts. Especially design based arts. One reason is that the electronic age has allowed accessibility and opportunity into people's lives. Not saying that this is a bad thing, and not all good practitioners are graduates of higher education. However, in a world that is being saturated by unemployed this and that and the other, then would be a case to argue that some form of licensing should be incorporated.
After all, could you image the moment before you were put under for some major surgery and needing some reassurance, the doctor told you he was self-taught on weekends and does most of his work after watching YouTube tutorials. Or is a lawyer standing up in his closing statement turned and with a grin, tried to show some sign or self confidence flicking through law notes from Wikipedia. This would not (or rarely) happen as they need to prove and are licensed to perform their roles as professionals. And when you think about it there are many jobs where you need to carry some form of mark the fact that you have past a standard by which you can perform your job. And if there is a cause for argument that licence would come into defence to prove such a role. If you placed that notion onto a designer (saying that architects need a licence, and maybe others) how many would be able to stand up and be counted. What is the accrediting body that would administer them, and by what mark would you qualify?
This is a difficult position to argue, but when the crunch comes and jobs are hard to come by, its not a reassuring feeling to know a corporate identity was given as a brief to some guy's nephew because he likes drawing at the weekend and uses nice colours in Photoshop. This is not reassuring when you know you spent years training yourself, practicing, educating yourself to find that the technological aid now places a filter, plugin, action or whatever into the hands of an amateur that delivers a low standard outcome. Clients need to also be aware of demanding the best. And by that I don't mean the definition of style. It i obvious to most human eyes the difference in any given style between a good piece of work and abad piece of work. Actually, just saying that in words makes me think that people probably don't. So what can be done. What can stifle this influx of work that makes the design world cringe with despair, but has little or no govern authority over it. Mot countries have arts councils. Why could they not be the officiating panels that hand out licensing declarations on people abilities.
This all seems a little totalitarian maybe. People find joy and happiness in creating. However, people also make a living out of being creative and that is something that people really shouldn't have their toes stood on about. Owning a computer and drawing stick men isn't a good enough argument to sell oneself as a graphic artist. If it were so, hey come round, I'll transplant a liver on my dinning table for $30,000, can't be that hard. I am also saying this in light of the forth coming fourth season of Mad Men. Though a drama based around a design agency. It has a lot to say about the credibility of the industry. When Ad men were seen as gods for what they could do for a client. Mostly, this was because they were trained and good at this, as it was a profession. And drawing was a feature of that skill, because? There were no computers. Whether that is the main bone of contention is another argument, but I have said before that the last great revolution has had a lot to answer for in lowering the standards of the creative world. Just a thought, would like to hear other viewpoints.
Comments
Post a Comment