Anonymous asked: What's your opinion on the autonomous nature of a final project (a bachelor's or master's project)? Is it really graphic design? Should you try to make it graphic design? Or embrace the fact that it isn't? Should you worry about "defining an audience"? In the art world it is such a taboo issue but we're constantly asked this in our graduation year, at a very open minded dutch art school...
I think you should embrace the fact that it possibly isn’t.
We live under the assumption that graphic design is dependent on external forces like a client or a brief, but I think that is only because it’s a relatively new field. In the Middle Ages, painting was largely judged by the client, (the roman Catholic Church), the same can be said with photography, (in service of government aka Ansel Adams or in service of an official purpose like portraits; or factual outlets like journalism). It seems like a bunch of artistic media start off with an overt end goal. But, as the art form evolves it becomes valuable simply because it is. Today, painting can be good simply for existing, a good painting can simply be a good painting, a great photograph can simply be a great photograph. They’re on their own terms and judged within the merits of its own medium. Painting, photography, film, all began as a practice, an industry, but evolved to become media worth studying for their own sake. It seems as if the goal of design in this case is to go beyond a practice or industry to become purely an artistic medium. I think, and hope for a future where design is the same, that graphic design, the medium where words and images collide, will eventually be judged within its own world, and I think it’s close. With technology and culture at its current point, the combination of typography (language) and image elicit responses from viewers. The more of us who seek out this end response as simply a need of engagement rather than service to a particular purpose, the closer we are to realizing that design is meant to be something for everyone, and not just those with licenses.
Edit: I’ve had a few drinks tonight so there may be typos or just poor writing but my general sentiment stands, that different media in art begin as a craft, evolve to be in service of society with a purpose but ultimately transcend context to become a purely material activity to be enjoyed by those of all creeds, and that programs, institutions or circumstances that allow design to be unrestrained by concerns of purpose, content, client, etc are making the field much richer. So with you, here’s what I think: over the past few years you learned to combine the power of the image, the power of language and to merge the two together to elicit an effect or response. Use those skills, and nothing else matters. If your program isn’t concerned with a client, use case, purpose, then neither should you. I graduated like 5 years ago for undergrad, 3 years from grad. In the age for the Internet, I’m already old. In the politics of design, I have been exposed to the previous generation already. That may be the world you inherit but it won’t be the world you have to make it for. In 1991, Paul Rand wrote an open letter in the AIGA Journal about how Aesthetics and Sociology shouldn’t mix. He wrote a whole essay about how design and politics have no place. As great as he was, 25 years later, we know how wrong that notion is. He built a structural framework to interpret design that has since been dismantled and the same will fall on all of us. Make what you want for the world you want to live in.