I promised since I was in school with little time to write, that I would post some essays I have (had) to do for school. No, it's not cheating, as these are absolutely my thoughts and opinions... just focused. Actually, you benefit, as there is no way I would general this many essays in my spare time. MrSatan, you say you wanna be a writer? Start writing, bebe! 
First up, some comments on a graphic design book I started, and my feelings on art and artists in general.
Enjoy!
Business Practices Assignment week 1: Summary of the Introduction of Becoming a Graphic Designer, by Steven Heller and Teresa Fernandes
Because the book has two listed authors, I dont want to make assumptions about the writing process for the introduction. I do have an opinion about the substance within, however; it seemed disjoined and contradictory.
To begin with, while I understand and agree with the influence and proliferation of Macintoshes in the design field, this book immediately makes an analogy that a Macintosh is to design what an electric guitar is to rock and roll. It is a questionable analogy. Graphic Design was a robust field with a long history, before Macintoshes (or computers in general); while a strong argument could be made that rock and roll didnt exist before electric guitars. More simply, however, the main thing any graphic program (in other words, computers) did was allow anyone to create graphic art, with little training. Electric guitars may have innovated or created rock and roll, but you still need to learn how to play them (just like the acoustic ones).
That opening paragraph begins a series of fairly arrogant statements about art and graphic design. The introduction, for example, makes the statement Becoming a graphic designer does not always require advanced university degrees or years of intense academic training (mentioning one of the contributors was even a graffiti artist); then bashes a similar (though more exaggerated) Macintosh ad, by claiming graphic design must be studied, learned, and continually practiced to achieve even a basic proficiency (emphasis mine).
As my definition of art is looser than theirs (I subscribe to Scott McClouds definition: what we do not do to survive or procreate, is art), I had trouble with naming art as the difference between a graphic artist and a layperson. As for their claim that not just art, but the very instinct for creating art, needs to be nurtured; as we all know, people have been creating art without instruction since... well, since weve been people.
Further along, we learn that supposedly in the old days, design businesses could be started with low tech tools and a kitchen table, where now it takes major financial investments and equipment. This is in complete contradiction to their opening paragraph and, beside the point, false. Creating a design business may be that complicated by their definition of a design business; but since they go on in the next paragraphs to talk about desktop publishing and the breaking down of barriers between professional and amateurs, they cant even hold their own case up.
In combination with the reading I have done in a couple other books, I have to attribute the attitude of the introduction to Steven Heller. Aside from his frequent use of the word axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) in his writing, Heller has a almost deific love of graphic design; a strong wish, it seems, to elevate it past the reach of the common man.
Every business or craft has a level of professionalism and a class of participants that are above (or even far above) the skills of the others. Some even have degrees of training that distinguishes those levels (a butcher is not automatically a doctor). While admirable the desire to inspire and drive the members of your chosen field to greater achievements (whatever those are), it gets lost in the constant attempts to belittle the amateur of the craft.
A commercial art, graphic art is held much closer to financial gain or allegiances (by the authors own admittance). I feel a graphic artist is, first of all, anyone that makes a living at it. If youre sitting a round your kitchen table at your computer designing photo card frames to sell at the local faire; good for you. Youre a graphic designer. Maybe youre a graphic designer the same way a bar band doing 70s covers and a member of Jackie Brenston and His Delta Kings (the first rock band) are both musicians. But, good for you.
The tone of the introduction would label such a designer as an ignorant amateur. It would make the comparison instead between Brenston and a 2nd grader picking up his first guitar perhaps. But, in my opinion, what computers have done is to make a guitar that doesnt require your fingers to touch the strings. It executes sounds you hum into it, perhaps; or a guitar that plays notes you just think in your head.
The authors define a graphic designer as someone who needs to accept, promote and, perhaps, help change the existing standards. While noble in idea, its elitist in execution. And, by my definition (and opinion) art is far from elite.
First up, some comments on a graphic design book I started, and my feelings on art and artists in general.
Enjoy!
Business Practices Assignment week 1: Summary of the Introduction of Becoming a Graphic Designer, by Steven Heller and Teresa Fernandes
Because the book has two listed authors, I dont want to make assumptions about the writing process for the introduction. I do have an opinion about the substance within, however; it seemed disjoined and contradictory.
To begin with, while I understand and agree with the influence and proliferation of Macintoshes in the design field, this book immediately makes an analogy that a Macintosh is to design what an electric guitar is to rock and roll. It is a questionable analogy. Graphic Design was a robust field with a long history, before Macintoshes (or computers in general); while a strong argument could be made that rock and roll didnt exist before electric guitars. More simply, however, the main thing any graphic program (in other words, computers) did was allow anyone to create graphic art, with little training. Electric guitars may have innovated or created rock and roll, but you still need to learn how to play them (just like the acoustic ones).
That opening paragraph begins a series of fairly arrogant statements about art and graphic design. The introduction, for example, makes the statement Becoming a graphic designer does not always require advanced university degrees or years of intense academic training (mentioning one of the contributors was even a graffiti artist); then bashes a similar (though more exaggerated) Macintosh ad, by claiming graphic design must be studied, learned, and continually practiced to achieve even a basic proficiency (emphasis mine).
As my definition of art is looser than theirs (I subscribe to Scott McClouds definition: what we do not do to survive or procreate, is art), I had trouble with naming art as the difference between a graphic artist and a layperson. As for their claim that not just art, but the very instinct for creating art, needs to be nurtured; as we all know, people have been creating art without instruction since... well, since weve been people.
Further along, we learn that supposedly in the old days, design businesses could be started with low tech tools and a kitchen table, where now it takes major financial investments and equipment. This is in complete contradiction to their opening paragraph and, beside the point, false. Creating a design business may be that complicated by their definition of a design business; but since they go on in the next paragraphs to talk about desktop publishing and the breaking down of barriers between professional and amateurs, they cant even hold their own case up.
In combination with the reading I have done in a couple other books, I have to attribute the attitude of the introduction to Steven Heller. Aside from his frequent use of the word axiomatic (evident without proof or argument) in his writing, Heller has a almost deific love of graphic design; a strong wish, it seems, to elevate it past the reach of the common man.
Every business or craft has a level of professionalism and a class of participants that are above (or even far above) the skills of the others. Some even have degrees of training that distinguishes those levels (a butcher is not automatically a doctor). While admirable the desire to inspire and drive the members of your chosen field to greater achievements (whatever those are), it gets lost in the constant attempts to belittle the amateur of the craft.
A commercial art, graphic art is held much closer to financial gain or allegiances (by the authors own admittance). I feel a graphic artist is, first of all, anyone that makes a living at it. If youre sitting a round your kitchen table at your computer designing photo card frames to sell at the local faire; good for you. Youre a graphic designer. Maybe youre a graphic designer the same way a bar band doing 70s covers and a member of Jackie Brenston and His Delta Kings (the first rock band) are both musicians. But, good for you.
The tone of the introduction would label such a designer as an ignorant amateur. It would make the comparison instead between Brenston and a 2nd grader picking up his first guitar perhaps. But, in my opinion, what computers have done is to make a guitar that doesnt require your fingers to touch the strings. It executes sounds you hum into it, perhaps; or a guitar that plays notes you just think in your head.
The authors define a graphic designer as someone who needs to accept, promote and, perhaps, help change the existing standards. While noble in idea, its elitist in execution. And, by my definition (and opinion) art is far from elite.
To add on to the "being my friend beforehand"... you were actually one of my first friends. And always one of my favorites.