A Question of Responsibility
Tor de Vries
Eva Anderson wrote a chapter (#30) entitled "Simplifying Design (and Your
Life)". Among other things, she promotes environmental design, and wrote
about an "eco-friendly" show she was a judge at:
"For many pieces, we wondered where the thoughtfulness behind the idea was.
Did they consider the total impact -- environmental as well as aesthetic?
What about their responsibility -- not only to their client but to humanity
and earth?"
She closes the chapter thusly: "Just as John Ruskin said, 'There is no
wealth but life,' there is no design _without_ life. [original emphasis]
As designers, we live to communicate. What we choose to say during this
epic cultural shift is of utmost importance to the survival and wealth of
our future. Individually, we each make our choices. Collectively, we all
will shape the future of our species."
I'll leave it to you to read the whole chapter so you know what she means by
"epic cultural shift". (Incidentally, if you work in visual arts and you
don't have this book, you should buy it immediately.) Anyway, Anderson
poses an interesting question, and I have been revisiting it myself, so I
pose it to the newsgroup: what responsibility do visual designers have to
their environments, their cultures, their societies, their world?
Carol Ott
oneself a bit too seriously...my goodness. (Not you, Tor -- I'm speaking of
whoever wrote that drivel). Come on now, people -- we're not having such a
serious impact on humanity here...
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3C9EFF.19CB1%ne...@kortage.com...
bekee
(designers) have more of a responsibility than anyone else.
But what I can agree with is using our ability, knowledge, and skill to
better our surroundings. This doesn't mean designing "Put Your Trash Here"
signs for city garbage cans. This means volunteering to work on community
sponsored event fliers, working at the Boys and Girls club to help students
acheive a further knowledge of design around them, or putting up
"make-you-think" posters on city kiosks.
I'm not suggesting that working for free is a prerequisite. Payment comes in
all forms, not just monitary.
I should read the book, but I'm confused about her judging criterium of
responsibility to everyone and everything. Though, the more I re-read that
statement, it's not a terrible thing to strive for and be good at.
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3C9EFF.19CB1%ne...@kortage.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 12/30/2002
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"bekee" <be...@GETOUTbekee.com> wrote in message
news:m5HR9.110227$Hs2.10...@kent.svc.tds.net...
frogdome
No more than they take upon themselves.
www.frogdome
art for websites
Gordon Moat
something of such importance that it would become an issue. I think most of our
work does not have a cultural impact, even if we wanted it to do so. However, I
think the election issues that came up in Florida did show the importance of
cultural impact from design, and in that case it was a lack of thought from the
designer (and I use that term loosely).
To me "eco-friendly" just means choosing environmentally produced papers, and
printers that have good environmental practices. Beyond that would likely apply
more to architecture, or maybe environmental design. However, I think that most
public space design considers profit well ahead of functionality or impact.
My Objective on my CV states "To use design and photography to make the world a
better place." While that is definitely an idealistic statement, I do hope to
have the opportunity to put that to practice. If nothing else, perhaps just a
better place by being better looking ;-)
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/CV.html>
Matt Bostock
designers, after all we design everything.
So it is important, but it's far from being all our fault.
Just IMHO.
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lCGR9.14492$ta5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/02
artonio7
> serious impact on humanity here...
Ever hear of the pebble in the pond theory. (You... move a molecule and it
effects someone across the world.) Every action is likened to throwing a
pebble in a pond. Do something terrible and the repercussions are like a
wave that effects the entire pond in a like manner... do one tiny, seemingly
insignificant, act of kindness... and a tidal wave ensues.
This may all be a bunch of drivel but seeing the shape the world is in....
I'll spend my energies not adding to the misery if I can. I've not yet read
the Book that you're referring to Tor..But I've in the past driven myself
nearly crazy with the concerns that you've quoted.
If as an artist/designer you are called upon to eloquently illustrate or
communicate an *ugly truth* to incite a positive change then I suppose the
job well done would be to bring the audience to a state of rage or tears, or
at least enlightenment. How does one tell the *ugly truth* in a *pretty*
way without loosing the impact? I guess the real pro's know how to balance
the variables without repelling the audience. A fire alarm doesn't *whisper*
fire and that's ok....as annoying as the noise pollution of a fire alarm may
be... I'll put up with it's lack of pleasant aesthetic. It's a necessity. A
well designed building that serves function as well as form without
violating the indigenous life is preferable to some of the nasty cookie
cutter strip malls scaring the countryside.
How much control do any of us really have on the total impact of our world?
To opt for minimal negative impact in this consumer oriented system
inevitably would lead to doing "NOTHING".
I hate the thought of the impact that the publishing companies have on the
environment... how many forests of junk mail have been hand delivered to our
mailboxes over the past few years? The same JUNK that we designers wet our
panties hoping to produce. How do you get away from adding to the nightmare?
Is it at all possible? Regardless of the medium...it still has an impact, as
we must first destroy something to create something. Sure we try to make a
small difference by having our work printed on recycled paper whenever
possible. Or perhaps we use products from companies which are little more
eco conscious. We even separate our garbage into neat little categories
trying to repair some of the damage we keep inflicting on our earth But it
all seems to still amount to throwing * fistfuls of garbage in the pond*.
Sooner or later the pond will be so full there will be no more waves just a
huge pile our soggy little flyers and pamphlets that we and our kind
designed.
Oh... but wait... all of that stuff eventually rots doesn't it? Hmmmm...
what on this earth doesn't eventually? Ok... so I guess that since it all
eventually rots... the best we can hope for is to make pleasing garbage. On
our time off with the money we make from producing it all... we can either
take a holiday to places that doesn't have any garbage.... or we can adopt a
highway to pick it all up.
Goodness....this is giving me a headache.... Tor.... I may never be able to
sharpen a pencil ever again. Hmmmm Thanks :-)
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7.com
Rohit Seth
the society...And that impact can be seen more today than at any other point
in history.
We are responsible for creating impressions. And these impressions span a
really wide area......from simple brochures, websites and flyers to the high
end television ads and movie special effects.
To take an example to put things in perspective, consider this...
All ads for new products are "hanging" on a theme. Large corporations create
the impressions that want their product to have that would lead a consumer
to buy them. And very often these have very less to do with the actual
product itself. (My kids only want to use "Caillou Shampoo" and eat only
"Count Chocula cereal").
The designers are then called upon to create the visuals that communicate
these ideas across. Now, we may do an excellent job of communicating that
idea across, but how often does a designer take a step back and assess the
impact that visual is having on the consumer.
I simpler terms, you may design a flyer for a electronics company that says
"We have over 1000 satisfied customers" and leave out the reality which is
"Never mind that we have over 10000 dissatisfied customers". Am I getting my
point across?
Take kids for instance. Their minds are so impressionable that companies are
directing their campaigns at kids to make them the target of the campaigns
entirely through visual media. They dont tell the kids how many vitamins are
there in a box of cereal or how improtant vitamins are. They push the brand
mascot as a really fun chap. The objective simply is to get the kid to say
"Dad, I want that cereal ONLY".
The fact that this thread came up today surprised me because just yesterday,
I was in the office of the Front Office Manager of a hotel who's website I
had designed. He was frantically pacifying a gentleman who had made his
reservation based on the website and was extremely dissapointed when he
arrived at the hotel. He didn't say that we had misrepresented anything, but
said that the reality hadn't been accurately represented. After he left, the
Manager turned to me and wryly said "Rohit, another case when the website
did its job, but the property didn't".
And I was thinking of this same thing on the way back home and
wondering......is this right? I never got around to answering that question
(perhaps I didn't want to) but it certainly played on my mind for some time.
That's why, I say that Companies dont design ads, we do. And that's where
the question of responsibility comes in. And to be perfectly honest, I have
seldom reflected on the "correctness/accuracy" of the products that I have
designed. The endeavour has always been to make it look far better than it
does in reality.
How about you guys? What do you think?
Rohit
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3C9EFF.19CB1%ne...@kortage.com...
frogdome
"artonio7" <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:av7i8i$cu1uo$1...@ID-167660.news.dfncis.de...
You can't justify your existence in terms of the impact your life has on the
environment. People go through planets like termites go through logs. That's
just how nature is. Life eats life, and one day the feast is over. Don't let
the eventual outcome spoil your appetite. Eat, drink and be merry.
www.frogdome.com
art for websites
artonio7
>
> You can't justify your existence in terms of the impact your life has on
the
> environment. People go through planets like termites go through logs.
That's
> just how nature is. Life eats life, and one day the feast is over. Don't
let
> the eventual outcome spoil your appetite. Eat, drink and be merry.
>
Oh sure... Leave responsibility to the wind....I pray there are no genetic
engineers with a flare for design with that attitude. Responsibility and
Good judgment????? Who needs it? Come back to me after a genetic experiment
runs awry and all of your offspring look like tadpoles.
Matt Bostock
I know the world is a shit hole as much as the next guy, and I've never been
THAT content with it but why should we spoil it?
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"frogdome" <pa...@frogdome.com> wrote in message
news:_iIR9.561852$WL3.155397@rwcrnsc54...
Matt Bostock
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:TiIR9.182288$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Matt Bostock
in the replies in this thread. C'mon ppl!
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3C9EFF.19CB1%ne...@kortage.com...
speed
wrote:
>This may all be a bunch of drivel but seeing the shape the world is in....
>I'll spend my energies not adding to the misery if I can.
Absolutely. Every little bit helps, in every way.
speed
Drew
Drew
Matt Bostock
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3e175bb2.7710247@news...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
.Drew
> No more responsibility than anyone else. Sheesh -- talk about taking
> oneself a bit too seriously...my goodness. (Not you, Tor -- I'm speaking of
> whoever wrote that drivel). Come on now, people -- we're not having such a
> serious impact on humanity here...
Good point of discussion Tor. Carol doesn't get it with that nose so
high. "Drivel" can lead to good honest discourse.
Yes we are responsible and we're graced with more opportunities than
most. Maybe not with the impact of a 3M or a Ford, but responsible we
are. Far more than the common laborer. I offer the following as points
of discussion:
• I have friends who won't design billboards because of their visual
impact on the environment. Hogwash. If you don't design it someone else
will and could easily contribute to the clutter. Design something worth
seeing because the billboard it there anyway.
• If you're tasked with designing a burger wrapper at least make it
"pretty" biodegradable litter.
• I use to see bad design and say "a tree died for that?". Yes it did.
Make its "sacrifice worthy.
• I was taught early on to dispose of my used exato blades safely. Not
for my own good, but for those who will handle my trash down the road.
• Some aspects of the print biz produces hazardous waste. Use a spray
booth when using fixatives and dispose of your chemicals properly.
• As others have stated, use your skills and talents to promote worthy
causes when time and money allow.
• Plan your printing with the maximum paper usage available. Learn how
to get the best "cut" from your resource.
• We're responsible for oft times large budgets. Manage wisely as if
they were your own.
• Spec recycled paper. Though the end user may not care at least you've
used some pre/post consumer waste. Avoid designing grocery bags that
don't break down with extended UV exposure.
We can find a myriad of chances to provide for the best use. Find and
exploit them.
Drew
frogdome
By definition, responsibility is acknowledging the results of one's actions,
and, living up to what one what one has agreed to. In practice, it is
rationalization, to create the fiction that excuses a person from being
responsible at all. It takes about two minutes to get through the average
person's sense of responsibility. All you have to do is examine what they do
and how it plays out in the world. They become defensive and angry because
they are, upon examination, seeing that they are hypocrites who act in
direct opposition to their stated ideals. This is a subject handled best by
satire. Direct discussion only leads to a bleak sort of resentment.
Responsibility for driving a car, using electricity, buying products. Did
you know that the majority of pollutants from manufacturing happen before
the product even reaches the shelf? It's a ratio of about 18:1 if my numbers
are still current. For ever pound of product manufactured, 18 pounds of
waste is produced. The chemical byproducts of industrial processes that
pollute the environment wouldn't be generated in the first place if people
didn't buy the products. But people do. They know it and still they do. But
they also need to avoid seeing themselves in the picture. So much for
responsibility. How about paying taxes to fund all manner of things that
people are loathe to acknowledge they support? What about responsibility for
having an office party with money that could be spent buying life-saving
medicine for children dying of AIDS in Africa? And so on. Responsibility is
only for blaming someone else. Someone else should take responsibility for
their actions. The individual need only have excuses handy should the
subject come up. And when the excuses run out, attack until the
uncomfortable subject retreats.
A genetic experiment has already run awry, and we are it.
with equally warm regards,
Paul
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"frogdome" <pa...@frogdome.com> wrote in message
news:_iIR9.561852$WL3.155397@rwcrnsc54...
>
artonio7
You're talking about the grim and dark potential of humanity and in the same
breath one of it's greatest strengths. Responsibility always seemed to me to
have two sides which beckon for active participation; to see ones own
responsibility and act upon it, to see ones own responsibility and do
nothing. The action is in the choice. The outcome is always different. That
is a harsh reality.
Nature forever puts a premium on reality. What is done for effect, is seen
to be done for effect; what is done for love, is felt to be done for love.
speed
<matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote:
>Hooray for speed! (The person, not the drugs) lol.
>
>Matt
Goodness. You're trying to make me blush, aren't you?
It's an outlook that, fortunately, most of my friends have. The pebble
in the pool is a good analogy. Think about it - if you're walking down
the street and some random stranger smiles at you, tells you to have a
nice day, it cheers you up. Mind you, if that same person coughs in
your coffee or tosses profanity at you, it can bring you down for the
rest of the day. And, both of these events are very small and very
insignificant in the grand scheme of life, but still, they impact you.
One day I'll put my site up for everyone to tear to pieces, but for
now, it hides...
Cheers,
speed
Matt Bostock
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3e1772ef.632396@news...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 1/11/02
speed
<matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote:
>I have to say I'm appalled (sp?) by the lack of thought for the environment
>in the replies in this thread. C'mon ppl!
>
>Matt
I'll second that. But it goes beyond just designing responsibly. I try
to design and live as well as I can. My gf and I have basically
dedicated an entire closet to recycling. Granted, it's a pain in the
arse sometimes, and sure, every month or so it means we spend an hour
trekking to the recycling center, but if we don't do it, who will?
I'd rather go hiking through pristine mountains than landfill, any
day.
Cheers,
speed
Matt Bostock
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3e1775b2.1340289@news...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 1/11/02
/Drew
To the contrary.
Drew
Dan
>>>I definetly agree. Designers shape society and culture. All the time.<<<
Hardly ever. Design is the handmaiden of advertising; advertising is the
handmaiden of marketing.....and so on up the ladder. Commercial designers
put the polish on someone else's thoughts. Our challenge is to communicate
those thoughts in the clearest possible way.
"Got Milk?" The people responsible for the look and feel of that campaign
are not the same people who decided to sell more milk. They could just as
easily have been creating literature for weapons systems.
Is it noble to work on projects you agree with? Is it less noble to do a
fantastic job for causes you abhor?
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:81JR9.8690$4k6.841680@wards...
Matt Bostock
commercial designer is a designer, in some way or another.
Designers MAKE style. Style influences society.
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:tOLR9.95323$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 1/11/02
Dan
>>>My gf and I have basically dedicated an entire closet to recycling.
Granted, it's a pain in the arse sometimes, and sure, every month or so it
means we spend an hour trekking to the recycling center, but if we don't do
it, who will?<<<
That has nothing whatever to do with designing. Or the price of tea in
China.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:3e1775b2.1340289@news...
Dan
>>>That's why, I say that Companies dont design ads, we do.<<<
Nope. By the time we get to that stage, the companies have already decided
what the message is. Our job is to dress that message up and feed it back to
them in a way that makes them say, "Wow, you really get it."
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:TiIR9.182288$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
quiqueg
> I disagree. You mention commercial designers... what are you then? A
> commercial designer is a designer, in some way or another.
>
> Designers MAKE style. Style influences society.
>
Designers (art directors, photographers) contribute to the visual part of
"style", which is, perhaps, the most influential to that 'vision' of
lifestyle and marketing that -eventually- influences society.
But it is too complex a matter to be solved in a thread, I'm afraid.
QQG/I wouldn't work for anything related to firearms anyway. I couldn't.
Dan
Rohit Seth
But the question is that are we going to take defence behind that fact by
saying "Sure I pulled the trigger, but someone else ordered that hit".
The marketing guys decide the target audience, the product mix and the
market segmentation........the advertising guys decide on the branding issue
and the medium to be used and the message to be sent , etc. We fire the
final bullet that sends the message across to the consumer. Sure we do a
good job. No disagreements on that....after all, we gotta earn a living,
right? I think what's being discussed here is the extent of responsibility
at hand. And I feel that a lot of us side-step it one way or the other.
Perhaps... because there is no answer. If we dont do it, someone else will.
But lets at least come out and say, "ya, I live in a screwed up world".
Whew.......that was a lot of serious thought. Time to watch the Comedy
Network for a while !!
Rohit
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:B3MR9.95344$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Mike Minovski
> their environments, their cultures, their societies, their world?
>
Visual designers are message translators in a world of messages.
It sure makes a difference if your translator goes "...er... um...
y'know..." and uses dialect. You would certainly prefer one who can nail the
right words, written in the correct way - so you could grasp the core of the
message without unnecessarily wasting your time and straining your senses.
If the message is translated with style, tant mieux - then you will not only
appreciate its information value, but will also be pleased by the process of
receiving it... which, BTW, is how communication standards are estblished.
Design is a filtering/amplifying element in the communication between people
and the world they create.
The ideal such element (according to cybernetics) would be characterized by
100% noise filtering and zero own resistance/noise addition.
That is, if we manage to filter off all irrelevant content from a message,
while not adding any irrelevant content of our own, (still better, if we
manage to add *relevant* content - that is, amplify the message) - then we
would contibute to a more flawless communication in general. - which IMHO is
extremely important for our environments, and cultures, and societies, and
world.
Because I am convinced that most of the energy in this world is now wasted
over communication flaws.
So yes, I believe a designer *is* responsible for the future of the world -
a lot more than an accountant, a lawyer, an engineer, even than a teacher or
a doctor.
We're working on the front line of communication, folks. The work of each
one of us influences thousands of people every day. This definitely presumes
a pretty high responsibility.
It's not about how they will react to our work. It's about the standards we
are helping them to form, subconsciously; standards, which they will
transfer (just as subconsciously) to their children. Etc.
There is no mechanism to hold us accountable, so we ought to take care of
this ourselves. This doubles the responsibility.
I agree, it is the kind of responsibility that cannot be formulated into a
neat pocket guide of do's and dont's. Besides, our work is strongly
dependent on market circumstances, so we cannot always perform to the ideal
standards. Yet, realizing the responsibility of being a designer can be a
valuable reference point whenever one's own criteria are put to trial...
MHO.
Thanks for the post, Tor. I believe this is an important issue that deserves
a bit of discussion every now and then. Sometimes we need to take a peek
outside the capsule of our market existence... and talk beliefs and
principles, not only tips & tricks.
mike m.
Tor de Vries <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3C9EFF.19CB1%ne...@kortage.com...
> In the 1998 edition of the AIGA's Professional Practices in Graphic
Design,
> Eva Anderson wrote a chapter (#30) entitled "Simplifying Design (and Your
> Life)". Among other things, she promotes environmental design, and wrote
> about an "eco-friendly" show she was a judge at:
>
> "For many pieces, we wondered where the thoughtfulness behind the idea
was.
> Did they consider the total impact -- environmental as well as aesthetic?
> What about their responsibility -- not only to their client but to
humanity
> and earth?"
>
> She closes the chapter thusly: "Just as John Ruskin said, 'There is no
> wealth but life,' there is no design _without_ life. [original emphasis]
> As designers, we live to communicate. What we choose to say during this
> epic cultural shift is of utmost importance to the survival and wealth of
> our future. Individually, we each make our choices. Collectively, we all
Dan
>>>Designers MAKE style. Style influences society.<<<
Think it through, Matt. Cite some examples. Style is like icing on the cake,
but it isn't the cake.
Style reflects society and social subculture; it rarely influences them.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:fRLR9.2342$xE1.368208@stones...
?Drew?
> Style reflects society and social subculture; it rarely influences them.
Bullshit.
Drew
Rohit Seth
"Mike Minovski" wrote
"That is, if we manage to filter off all irrelevant content from a message,
while not adding any irrelevant content of our own, (still better, if we
manage to add *relevant* content - that is, amplify the message) - then we
would contibute to a more flawless communication in general. - which IMHO is
extremely important for our environments, and cultures, and societies, and
world."
Absolutely Mike,
But isn't it also a fact that 99.9% of the times, the brief given to us by
clients asks us to amplify the effect rather than to act as a filter on the
effect.? Aren't we always asked (directly or indirectly) to put the reality
aside and focus on what the clients wants the recepient of the message to
"see"?
And 99.9% of the times.........we designers follow that brief.
Rohit
Carol Ott
*customer* wants. It's all about the client's customer, IMO, and not the
client.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:8qNR9.157638$E_.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Dan
>>>I think what's being discussed here is the extent of responsibility at
hand. And I feel that a lot of us side-step it one way or the other.<<<
When Enron and Worldcom took their big dumps last year, who ended up in
front of congress? Not the graphic designers, that's for sure. You bet we
have responsibilities, and one of them is to "Cover Your Ass." Here are two
clauses from my agreements:
"I reserve the right to refuse to be a party to any project which, in my
judgement, would be illegal, fraudulent, or in some other way harmful to my
best interests. I will not be responsible for any claims made by you or for
any legal clearance incumbent upon you to receive. However, should you
request it, I will, at your expense, take all necessary steps to secure such
legal clearances."
and
"In the event that I sustain a loss as a result of a claim, suit or
proceeding brought against you as a result of the publication of material
which you approved of and authorized me to produce for you, you agree to
indemnify me for any such losses."
>>>Time to watch the Comedy Network for a while !!<<<
You got that right! I'm off to play drums at the Art Village Open House.
Have a great evening!
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:WHMR9.162467$yW.7...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Rohit Seth
>
> Dan
This is a "chicken and the egg situation".
Definitely !!
If I said society influences style because style is aimed at influencing
society towards a certain live of thought....where would this discussion
end?
Rohit
Dan
>>>99% of the time, we try to educate the client as to what their *customer*
wants.<<<
If this is the case, you need better clients. Good clients know more about
their customers than we ever will. We can guide them on making their case in
the clearest way possible, but it's *their* point and *their* audience.
Remind them of this. Keep them on track.
Many people in this thread are owning way too much of this stuff.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9sNR9.13312$tQ6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Dan
>>>If I said society influences style because style is aimed at influencing
society towards a certain live of thought....where would this discussion
end?<<<
Only insomuch as the cart can pull the horse, which it can't.
If one is going to try and influence society, then you best package your
message with some very familiar triggers and top it with a little tiny twist
that they weren't expecting.
Many of the posters tonight would have you believe that the twist can
function alone. Not true. That will get you squat as far as any kind of
significant response.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:XvNR9.185538$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:cJNR9.95444$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Carol Ott
of what we do is tailored to reach a certain group, so who is actually
influencing who here? Seems to me that Dan's reasoning about society
influencing designers is dead on.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:HTNR9.95453$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rohit Seth
> judgement, would be illegal, fraudulent, or in some other way harmful to
my
> best interests. I will not be responsible for any claims made by you or
for
> any legal clearance incumbent upon you to receive. However, should you
> request it, I will, at your expense, take all necessary steps to secure
such
> legal clearances."
> and
>
> "In the event that I sustain a loss as a result of a claim, suit or
> proceeding brought against you as a result of the publication of material
> which you approved of and authorized me to produce for you, you agree to
> indemnify me for any such losses."
So it "is" a case of taking defence behind that fact by
saying "Sure I pulled the trigger, but someone else ordered that hit".
You're right in saying that one of our responsibilities is to cover our
asses. We all do (brilliantly, in most cases). But I have a feeling this
thread was talking about our responsibility to issues other than our
asses.... and more so to what we "feel" about the consequences of what we do
and what we design.
On a separate note......you play drums?????? Lucky bloke. I've always wanted
to do that. Lets hope I can do that someday....maybe I'll come to you for
tips on that.
Have a great evening, Dan
Rohit
Mike Minovski
>
> But isn't it also a fact that 99.9% of the times, the brief given to us by
> clients asks us to amplify the effect rather than to act as a filter on
the
> effect.? Aren't we always asked (directly or indirectly) to put the
reality
> aside and focus on what the clients wants the recepient of the message to
> "see"?
>
> And 99.9% of the times.........we designers follow that brief.
>
Well, I wrote that off-line and posted it before reading the other posts.
Indeed, Rohit, we do follow that brief. There are several points to that:
One is a question of moral. Is it moral to, as you say, "put the reality
aside"?
This is individual. We cannot, and should not try to agree - each one of us
has their own convictions, standards, 'hot' topics, sensitive issues etc.
For instance, I would design ads for firearms; I would design (and have
designed) stuff for night clubs... pole dancers and all that - but I would
not design for those dumb porno magazines... OTOH, I wouldn't refuse to
Penthouse ;) However, I would absolutely *not* design anything for those
so-called 'alternative churches' that do teenager brainwashing, neither for
any MLM client. That's me, take it or leave it.
The second is a question of finding the optimum. If a client asks me to
present their product in a deceiving manner, I normally explain that this is
a wrong move which would (eventually) have only temporary success, after
which they'd just get slammed out of the market. Even though it's not my
business, I sit down to discuss marketing issues with them, trying to help
them rather aim at the appropriate target market (there *are* clients for
every product out there) than overadvertise. Most of my clients come to me
with their own ideas, without having consulted an advertising expert - so I
normally edit their message, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses.
Altogether, I try to do my best to produce not only adequate design, but
adequate advertising. It *is* possible to produce an attractive, but honest
ad piece for an average or low quality product (f. instance, by putting the
accent on price). Besides, there are millions of possible visual 'shells' to
an ad message... you can take one and the same concept and make it either
graphically exquisite, or graphically rough, and still carrying the message
well enough. The truth is, I have never had a client who would insist that
the product should look as if it was worth 10 times the money... even if
that would be their initial request, it is relatively easy to convince them
to 'tone down' the thing.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I produce ugly designs for low-quality
product - that would be unprofessional. Each ad is aimed at causing some
overexpectation with the client - that's a fact; I just make sure this
overexpectation is within reasonable limits.
The third one is what I actually meant in my initial post.
Advertising is advertising, it is not information. It is never 100% true.
The audience knows that, and expects it. So I don't see much of a problem
here.
It matters, though *how exactly* you would convey the message. If it is
clear, unequivocal, stylish, good-humoured, good-willed, if there are no
teasing distractions, no needless offensive elements etc., if the ad piece
is carefully produced and looks good, it is a message which is received with
pleasure. The more such messages, the higher the audience's standard goes.
THAT is MY responsibility - to aid that process through my designs. I can't
afford to slap a quickie crappy design even if my client's standards are low
and I'd get my fee anyway. I can't afford it because I care about the people
that will be looking at it, and about the gradual development of their
consumer standards. And I think this is the responsibility of a designer,
and the most important way in which design influences the environment, the
standards, and ultimately - people's lives.
No big deal, indeed. No matter how many projects I do, my designs alone
would hardly cause a noticeable change. But combined with the efforts of
those who think like me, my efforts become a factor.
A bit idealistic, I admit. But I think this is a healthy dose of idealism.
mike m.
artonio7
****************RESPONSIBLITY****************
BREVITY + HONESTY + INDUSRTY = INTEGRITY
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7.com
"Mike Minovski" <msign_mm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:av8bnr$d18no$1...@ID-112911.news.dfncis.de...
frogdome
"Mike Minovski" <msign_mm...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
cut
> Advertising is advertising, it is not information. It is never 100% true.
> The audience knows that, and expects it. So I don't see much of a problem
> here.
The client expects to lie, you expect to help create the lie, the consumer
expects to be lied to. Great expectations.
The manufacturer expects pollutants to be created in the manufacture of its
products, you acknowledge this happens, and consumers expect it, too. Choke,
gasp.
The client, you, and the consumer are all irresponsible, however each has a
rationalization so it's OK. Each has someone else to blame, as is normal in
cases of irresponsibility. The creation of lies and pollution is fact, yet
nobody is responsible for it. The same holds true for any other thing that
is created but nobody wants to own. The world is full of these orphans.
The problem of personal responsibility vs. property rights was solved by the
creation through law of the corporation, which is a legal entity standing in
for a person, insulating them from liability, hence responsibility. The fact
that actions are laundered at every next financial transaction helps a
person feel insulated from the eventual effects of their actions. All one
person ever does is "make money", or "earn a living", or "try to get by".
The one they blame is the person (or corporation) paying them, or, who
requires payment from them, "forcing" them to work for money. The actual
chain of events leading up to any particular effect is easy to ignore, as we
have this other story that allows us to lay the blame at other feet. When
cornered, people shrug, look around, share the blame and change the subject.
If pressed, they snarl and bite.
There is no problem here to see unless you see one, so, you're doing good
for not seeing one, which means there isn't one. Many problems are like
that.
Some might suggest that a society that deliberately creates lies, and
accepts them as a matter of course, has an ethical problem. I prefer to
think of it as a comfortable relationship with truth. What matters isn't
what you do, it's how good you look doing it! Who will be my flattering
mirror today? (And I will be yours...)
www.frogdome.com
art for websites
(no electrons were harmed in the creation of these graphics)
Mike P C
process, so I'll just write what I believe
to be true and ask my questions.
Using the "Got Milk" ad as an example;
The process:
The American Dairy Association decides
they need to promote milk.
They hire an ad agency to come up with
some ideas. The ad agency brings the
ideas back to the client and a decision
is made on which one(s) to run with.
At some point here, a designer(s), who
also may have been involved in the "ideas"
process, begins work on the ad campaign.
The ads are successful, and milk
sales increase by some percentage.
The questions:
Are the increased sales directly due
to the ads?
If so, is it the designer, the "ideas" or
both that are responsible?
If you were the designer, would you
feel you were responsible for any
portion of that increase in sales?
Was it your *work* that was an influence
on the public causing them to buy more milk?
Mike
artonio7
"frogdome" wrote
cut
> Some might suggest that a society that deliberately creates lies, and
> accepts them as a matter of course, has an ethical problem. I prefer to
> think of it as a comfortable relationship with truth. What matters isn't
> what you do, it's how good you look doing it! Who will be my flattering
> mirror today? (And I will be yours...)
hahaha! I like that take. So in other words... designers ask clients "Which
version of the truth would you like to sell?" Consumers ask "Which version
of the truth would we like to buy?"
Eventually the word lie is dropped from the equation. Those better at lying
make more money and can afford to by *better* lies.....hmmmmmm.
Funny how we as consumers and vendors buy and sell rationalization for the
mess we're creating.
I'm of the opinion that as an individual I have somewhat of a parental
responsibility to those around me. Regardless of whether I want to own that
notion or not my choices and actions effect others in this world. To
encourage others to participate in the destruction of our world either
directly or indirectly is a strange choice... Eventually our home will be of
use to no one.
The question still remains... how does one avoid adding to the problem short
of ceasing to exist?
Brian Mays
Carol Ott wrote:
> Oh no no no. 99% of the time, we try to educate the client as to what their
> *customer* wants. It's all about the client's customer, IMO, and not the
> client.
I have a good friend who asks me to take a look at his designs and he always
prefaces it with, "My boss likes it."
And I always tell him, "It's not about whether you like it, I like, your boss
likes it, or George W. Bush likes it...it's whether your boss's clients like it
and will use it."
Brian
Carol Ott
self-importance, as do our clients sometimes. Who cares about an ad that
nobody can understand or believe in, and who cares about a pretty website
that can't be accessed by its target audience? We've lost sight as to why
we do what we do, and who's the most important in the equation. We're not
fine artists who can create without rules -- this is purely commercial,
creation for the customer.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Brian Mays" <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E1836BD...@swbell.net...
Brian Mays
> We're not fine artists who can create without rules -- this is purely
> commercial, creation for the customer.
I would say the only exceptions to these are our personal websites...and in
those instances you still need to exercise caution and restraint if you use
your personal site for business purposes also.
B
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Brian Mays" <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E1842BD...@swbell.net...
Matt Bostock
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"?Drew?" <whoisthat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E178EE9...@hotmail.com...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/02
Matt Bostock
you're forgetting the wide variety of design applications there are - not
just in corporate branding or poster design.
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:B3MR9.95344$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Rohit wrote:
>
> >>>That's why, I say that Companies dont design ads, we do.<<<
>
> Nope. By the time we get to that stage, the companies have already decided
> what the message is. Our job is to dress that message up and feed it back
to
> them in a way that makes them say, "Wow, you really get it."
>
> Dan
> http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Matt Bostock
title of this thread.
Matt
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:2SLR9.95326$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> speed wrote:
>
> >>>My gf and I have basically dedicated an entire closet to recycling.
> Granted, it's a pain in the arse sometimes, and sure, every month or so it
> means we spend an hour trekking to the recycling center, but if we don't
do
> it, who will?<<<
>
>
> That has nothing whatever to do with designing. Or the price of tea in
> China.
>
> Dan
> http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "speed" <here@spam?nothanks.com> wrote in message
> news:3e1775b2.1340289@news...
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:15:50 -0000, "Matt Bostock"
> > <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have to say I'm appalled (sp?) by the lack of thought for the
> environment
> > >in the replies in this thread. C'mon ppl!
> > >
> > >Matt
> >
> >
> > I'll second that. But it goes beyond just designing responsibly. I try
> > to design and live as well as I can. My gf and I have basically
> > dedicated an entire closet to recycling. Granted, it's a pain in the
> > arse sometimes, and sure, every month or so it means we spend an hour
> > trekking to the recycling center, but if we don't do it, who will?
> >
> > I'd rather go hiking through pristine mountains than landfill, any
> > day.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > speed
frogdome
"artonio7" <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote :
cut
> The question still remains... how does one avoid adding to the problem
short
> of ceasing to exist?
>
> with warm regards,
> Tony
> http://artonio7.com
>
>
>
>
The usual way to avoid the problem is to deny there is one. The problem gets
added to with gusto, by people who are perfectly content to use up the
world, because they believe it was put here for that purpose, and that what
really matters after all is the next life, with this one being some sort of
preparation for it. The means to avoid adding another brick to the wall is
to simply stop reaching down to grab another brick. Name those additive
things you do, then stop doing them. Will you cease to exist? No. You will
simply discover other ways to live. The fear that you would cease to exist
is the basis for the rationale that allows you to keep adding bricks to the
wall. Fear is therefore what the wall is a monument to. This is a trick of
language that people have used ever since they first told stories. Borrow
from some awful possibility that which is most feared, link it through,
ahem, advertising to some product (such as an idea, or way of life, or
desired behavior) and leave it to the individual to associate the borrowed
fear with the choice at hand. For example, let's link a job with the
horrible prospect of starving to death.
Imagine how bad it would be to be alone, unhelped, laying in a back alley
someplace. You are hungry and sick, dying of neglect and starvation. That's
what you have to fear. Add any fears of your own, such as, the loss of your
family, or the loss of respect from people important to you. Spice up the
fear with images of starving people and homeless people. Make it as
realistic a scarecrow as you can. Also, remind yourself that people are cold
hearted, the world is a cold place, and use slogans such as "dog eat dog",
or, "it's a jungle out there". Picture a rent carcass of a hapless
wildebeest that the lion got. OK, now you have the fear nice and palpable.
Let's link it to the job.
The job is the source of money, money pays rent and buys food and pays
medical bills. To lose the job is to be homeless, sick, and hungry. Loss of
job equals realization of fear scenario. Can't you just get a better job?
NO! All jobs are the same. There are no good jobs. Make the best of the job
you have. What about the things you must do at work that contribute to the
Big Problem of how we are collectively destroying the world? If you don't do
them someone else will, and you will have quit the job in vain.
SHRUG. It's not your problem, there is nothing you can do about it, what can
one person do, it won't help if you just quit working and fall prey to that
which you fear, so, SHRUG, guess there's nothing that can be done, oh well.
The shrug is a motion that drops the weight of the world off your shoulders.
Otherwise what someone (else) would have to do is, ask themselves, in each
case where their actions bring about unhappy consequences, how else could
that thing be done? Then people start looking at what they do, and how to
behave responsibly, and they find that by working together they are
perfectly capable of living without creating the problems. After all, it's
us who create the problems now by how we work together, isn't it? Work
together differently and get a different set of results.
This requires a different view of the world and our role in it. It requires
a different view of other people. In other words, it would take other people
to do it! Can people stop creating the problem? Yes! Since they create it,
they can stop creating it. Will they? No! People who don't like how it feels
to look at themselves will not be able to work together anyplace with
mirrors. Out in the illusory world, a person can imagine their every
happiness while escaping their fears. All it takes is buying the right
products, and voting for the right candidate, and believing in the right
god. I can't see how this has much to do with design. It's not like people
make up their minds about such things based on advertisements.
I am getting off this topic now. I have some TV I need to go watch so I know
what to buy today. But it's been fun! I vow to only use soy-based electrons
in the creation of computer graphics from now on. I do what I can.
Paul
www.frogdome.com
rationalized art for websites
Mike Minovski
news:Z2VR9.570799$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> The client expects to lie, you expect to help create the lie, the consumer
> expects to be lied to. Great expectations.
>
> The manufacturer expects pollutants to be created in the manufacture of
its
> products, you acknowledge this happens, and consumers expect it, too.
Choke,
> gasp.
Pretty nice picture there. Would you pass me the gun, please, I'd like to
put that bullet in my forehead and be done with it.
>
> The client, you, and the consumer are all irresponsible, however each has
a
> rationalization so it's OK. Each has someone else to blame, as is normal
in
> cases of irresponsibility. The creation of lies and pollution is fact, yet
> nobody is responsible for it. The same holds true for any other thing that
> is created but nobody wants to own. The world is full of these orphans.
>
> The problem of personal responsibility vs. property rights was solved by
the
> creation through law of the corporation, which is a legal entity standing
in
> for a person, insulating them from liability, hence responsibility. The
fact
> that actions are laundered at every next financial transaction helps a
> person feel insulated from the eventual effects of their actions. All one
> person ever does is "make money", or "earn a living", or "try to get by".
> The one they blame is the person (or corporation) paying them, or, who
> requires payment from them, "forcing" them to work for money. The actual
> chain of events leading up to any particular effect is easy to ignore, as
we
> have this other story that allows us to lay the blame at other feet. When
> cornered, people shrug, look around, share the blame and change the
subject.
> If pressed, they snarl and bite.
Responsibility is a personal category. It doesn't matter what others advise
me on my responsibility - it matters how *I* realize it. Others may only
give opinion (as I'm doing now) which I could choose to take into account,
or not.
Responsibility can not be shared. It is irrelevant whether the person next
to you (or above you) is responsible or not. Under certain circumstances you
may be forced to perform actions that contradict to your understanding of
responsibility. Well, it happens - few are independent enough to avoid that.
Then, the conflict is handled through another personal category, called
conscience - it doesn't remain without consequences. Such instances do not
necessarily mean that you have acted irresponsibly.
There is no such thing as general responsibility (ahem... for the fate of
the world). No human can bear such a burden, even if we presume that it
could be precisely defined. Jesus is not a basis for comparison here.
Responsibility is always specific, and limited. It depends on where you see
yourself in the general picture of human society, how you evaluate your own
strengths and weaknesses, and where you see a real opportunity to influence
your environment. It is a direct function of your own value system. It is
limited to what you possibly can do, while preserving the efficiency of your
actions.
F. instance, I feel absolutely no responsibility for the spreading of AIDS.
It is something well beyond my reach, its origin is beyond my knowledge, and
the only thing I can do is take care of my own safe sex and advise my
daughter to that effect. But I wouldn't classify this as 'acting
responsibly' - this is simply following some reasonably prescribed actions,
and needs not be qualified in moral categories.
If I was a doctor, and specialized in AIDS, I could decide to go work in
Africa because I would be more efficient there - and that would be a
responsible act. If I was influential and/or rich, I'd have good reasons to
widen the scope of my responsibilities, and might include fighting AIDS even
though it is not an immediate concern of my own environment. But given my
current social status, abilities and opportunities, AIDS is not present in
my priorities list at all - and will not be. Including it would be
hypocrisy; dedicating my time and efforts to fighting AIDS instead of
efficiently working for the good of my immediate environment would be
irresponsible.
Responsibility *is* a matter of rationalization, and it *must* be -
otherwise it makes no sense. The irrational 'feeling of responsibility' is a
disaster that IMO needs to be constrained before it begins to cause harm.
You can think of your own examples - regretfully, there's plenty.
Responsibility has nothing to do with blaming someone.
You can't blame someone for not allowing you to be responsible: you are
either responsible and do your best to act accordingly, or not. How
successful you are, is a different thing. As long as you have honestly done
your best, though, you *have* acted responsibly. It's simple enough, and
it's useless to make it complicated.
In addition, you can't blame someone for not complying with what you
consider as your responsibility. Even less can you blame them for not
assuming a responsibility *you* think they should assume. This would mean
that you require from them to match their value system to yours, which is a
nonsense.
To summarize: Responsibility is a notion that is only valid *within* an
individual's value system. It *may not* be enforced in any way.
Therefore, labels as 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' have little meaning
when used by someone else to characterize you. Generally, one shows a
positive, the other one - a negative estimate. But without much weight.
That's all. It would be foolish to base on (or, God forbid, try to enforce)
some 'general standard' of responsibility. There is none, and can't be.
>
> There is no problem here to see unless you see one, so, you're doing good
> for not seeing one, which means there isn't one. Many problems are like
> that.
I'd put it somewhat differently: Each and every thing around us poses a
range of problems. Mind you - a *range* of problems. Their relative
importance changes all the time. Every now and then a new (part of a)
problem becomes a hot topic, and requires us to focus on it. That's what we
do, and that's how we keep being efficient. Totally denying the existence of
problems would be just as stupid as considering all problems to be of top
importance. We live in a relative world, frogdome. And I don't see a reason
to feel uncomfortable about that - human beings *are* relative creatures,
and they have created a world to match. No conflict here.
>
> Some might suggest that a society that deliberately creates lies, and
> accepts them as a matter of course, has an ethical problem. I prefer to
> think of it as a comfortable relationship with truth.
Lies... truth... now where was that gun again :) Actually, I tend to agree
with you, only you formulate a consensus statement using extreme
terminology, which makes it sound a bit weird.
> What matters isn't
> what you do, it's how good you look doing it! Who will be my flattering
> mirror today? (And I will be yours...)
>
What matters is both what you do, *and* how it is estimated - both by others
and by yourself. There are different types of people: some heavily depend on
the others' estimate, others care for their self-estimate only. Normally it
is a mixture of the two, the ratio being strictly individual. In all cases,
you have to account for what you do, and what you cause by doing it. If you
manage to be a neutral observer of the effect of your own actions, that is a
much better reference than anyone's estimate (your own included).
Then you could have as many mirrors as you like (or none), but that would
never be a decisive factor for you. I think that's a worthy goal... never
100% achievable, but still worth aiming at.
As I read everything through again, I have the strange feeling that we
actually don't disagree, frogdome. I can't figure out, though, why it sounds
like an argument...
Maybe you got teased by the obvious idealism in my statement, and decided to
counter from a more nihilistic POV? I agree, idealism is always
questionnable... just as nihilism :) ... but sticking to one or the other is
a matter of personal choice anyway. Hope you agree with that?
mike m.
Mike Minovski
artonio7 <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:7uRR9.45173$VA5.9...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> _______________________________________________
> ****************RESPONSIBLITY****************
>
> BREVITY + HONESTY + INDUSRTY = INTEGRITY
>
Okay, okay, I know I fail on the brevity point... :[
;)
Carol Ott
seriously. Your job is merely what allows you to live a nice lifestyle and
nothing more." After taking her advice, I noticed my stress level going
*way* down...
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"frogdome" <pa...@frogdome.com> wrote in message
news:zBZR9.573162$P31.199874@rwcrnsc53...
Dan
>>>And I always tell him, "It's not about whether you like it, I like, your
boss likes it, or George W. Bush likes it...it's whether your boss's clients
like it and will use it."<<<
You'd think so, huh? But no.
There are always three entities in the equation: The Client, The Designer,
The Audience. All three need to agree, more or less.
Take the simple case of a brochure. Let's say you (as the designer), because
you are such a fantastic salesman -- or maybe you threw a fit -- have
convinced the client against his will that your design is what he should
have ("Trust Me").
Maybe it *is* the holy grail of brochures, but guess what? The client
doesn't believe it, so it gets mailed out less than it should. It gets left
in the car instead of going to the sales meetings. It doesn't get passed out
at trade shows, it doesn't get promoted to the sales force, it gets shuffled
around the storeroom for months until he decides to throw them out.
If the client doesn't buy into "your" brochure, his prospects likely won't
get the chance to vote.
This doesn't mean you collapse and do the horrible work the client asks you
to do. This means you (and I mean all of us) need to buckle down and find
the solution that works for *everybody* in that equation.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Brian Mays" <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E1836BD...@swbell.net...
Tor de Vries
"Responsibility is a personal category. It doesn't matter what others advise
I'll add my personal thoughts.
All commercial graphic design is intended to impact consumers, at least in
terms of spending patterns. We do not design ads, album covers, web sites,
magazines, etc., to make consumers avoid the products or services provided
by our clients. We intend to influence their purchasing decisions. When
they brush their teeth, do they use Colgate or Crest or Aqua-Fresh? When
they drive to work, is their vehicle sold by Ford or Toyota or Hyundai?
When they wipe their asses, will they unroll Charmin or Scott or Cottonelle?
Can it really be true that graphic designers have some effect on how people
spend money or time, but we do so with absolutely no affect on their
lifestyle or mindset?
People tend to base purchasing decisions on a myriad of inputs, particularly
marketing inputs. And the most visible marketing input is graphic design,
our business. We are indeed the presenters of ideas that (often) we did not
birth. But to say that we are simply executing ideas that others are
responsible for is to remove the "design" out of our titles. We are mere
technicians if we claim no influence over the visuals we create. What are
we designing, if not the final "message" received by the consumer?
For my part, I can only say that I try every day to _not_ add to the world's
supply of crap and, when possible, to add to the world's quality. This
involves being ecologically-minded. This also involves avoiding certain
design directions. At times, it has meant turning down profitable jobs, or
killing projects after clients insist on certain directions that I could not
agree with. These are moral decisions, and are therefore personal. You do
what you want.
artonio7
argument.
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7.com
"Mike Minovski" <msign_mm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:av9omr$d59n5$1...@ID-112911.news.dfncis.de...
speed
>That has nothing whatever to do with designing. Or the price of tea in
>China.
>
>Dan
>http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
Sure it does. You keep treating the earth recklessly, and one day they
won't be able even grow tea leaves. Imagine the price of tea then.
And, to be as snide as your reply, if the world goes down a path so
dark and dreary, do you really think design will be all that
important?
You choose your attitude, and your decisions. It influences
everything, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
speed
Rohit Seth
LMAO
Rohit
"Brandons of mass destructions" <junk...@home.com> wrote in message
news:junkie46-807C9D...@news-central.giganews.com...
> if the world goes down a path so
> > dark and dreary, do you really think design will be all that
> > important?
>
> We'll make the armies of darkness look DAMN GOOD.
frogdome
"Brandons of mass destructions" <junk...@home.com> wrote in message
news:junkie46-807C9D...@news-central.giganews.com...
> > dark and dreary, do you really think design will be all that
> > important?
>
Exactly what's happening.
speed
>We'll make the armies of darkness look DAMN GOOD.
Hahahahaha, right on!
Thanks, I needed a laugh to get my uninspired arse going....
speed
Tor de Vries
book concerns the legal and financial aspects of running a graphic/web
design studio in America. They put a few thought-provoking chapters like
this one at the end, although frankly the chapter was not written terribly
well.
Dan
>>>So it "is" a case of taking defence behind that fact by saying "Sure I
pulled the trigger, but someone else ordered that hit".<<<
Rohit, when you get called one week before Christmas (as I did) to produce
12 pages of sales collateral, art direct a photo shoot and coordinate
printing for a client you have never worked for -- and have it all completed
in two weeks -- I doubt you take the time to check out whether their Chinese
factories are within your pollution standards or whether they are paying
their workers, both foreign and domestic, a fair wage; or whether they even
own the patents to the products you are advertising.
Frankly, my first concern was getting a workable production schedule. My
second concern was making sure the deposit check cleared.
That's what the clauses are for and it is SMART to include them. I don't
feel at all guilty. BTW, I made the deadline, the client is very happy, and
all the checks cleared :-)
>>>On a separate note......you play drums?????? Lucky bloke. I've always
wanted to do that.<<<
Yes! For many, many years. Currently in blues bands and in a dedicated
hand-drumming ensemble. We drummed (and people danced and pretty much went
nuts) until well past midnight last night. Music is a huge part of my life.
Email me if you want drumming tips!
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:88OR9.158301$E_.6...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Dan
way...<<<
Matt, I'm looking at things from 27 years of professional experience. And
you?
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
Rohit Seth
> Email me if you want drumming tips!
That's one offer I just might cash in on !!! Thanks
Rohit
Dan
F**kin' A right we will.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Brandons of mass destructions" <junk...@home.com> wrote in message
news:junkie46-807C9D...@news-central.giganews.com...
> if the world goes down a path so
> > dark and dreary, do you really think design will be all that
> > important?
>
Tor de Vries
>> if the world goes down a path so dark and dreary, do you really think design
>> will be all that important?
>
> We'll make the armies of darkness look DAMN GOOD.
lol!
Drew?
call your stance "hogwash". Throughout this tread you have constantly
pointed to the financial aspects of our profession. Your blinders seem
to be lined with dollars.
And what's this crap?:
"Style reflects society and social subculture; it rarely influences them."
I say "bullshit" once again. Which of the following reflected culture or
molded it:
The Beatles
Ali
Davy Clark Five
Elvis
Hank Williams
The '64 Mustang
TwisterŽ
Turquoise kitchens
Jacqueline Kennedy
"Where's the beef?"
It's best you stop me here.
I await your input.
Drew
SpaceGirl
all clients to know how to sell to their online customers; many companies
dont have the experience, and that's why they rely on web design companies.
It's not as simple as designing a pretty site for a client. It's designing a
site that'll sell (usually), and IMO very few tradional companies know much
about this at all. A good designer is as much a wiz in Photoshop &
Dreamweaver as they are an online business person; or at least they should
KNOW how to sell...
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:cJNR9.95444$hK4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Carol wrote:
>
> >>>99% of the time, we try to educate the client as to what their
*customer*
> wants.<<<
>
> If this is the case, you need better clients. Good clients know more about
> their customers than we ever will. We can guide them on making their case
in
> the clearest way possible, but it's *their* point and *their* audience.
> Remind them of this. Keep them on track.
>
> Many people in this thread are owning way too much of this stuff.
>
> Dan
> http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
>
>
>
>
> "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:9sNR9.13312$tQ6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > Oh no no no. 99% of the time, we try to educate the client as to what
> their
> > *customer* wants. It's all about the client's customer, IMO, and not
the
> > client.
> >
> > Carol
> > www.csottdesign.com
> > www.csott.com
> > REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
> >
> > "Rohit Seth" <gray...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:8qNR9.157638$E_.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > >
> > > "Mike Minovski" wrote
> > > "That is, if we manage to filter off all irrelevant content from a
> > message,
> > > while not adding any irrelevant content of our own, (still better, if
we
> > > manage to add *relevant* content - that is, amplify the message) -
then
> > we
> > > would contibute to a more flawless communication in general. - which
> IMHO
> > is
> > > extremely important for our environments, and cultures, and societies,
> and
> > > world."
> > >
> > > Absolutely Mike,
> > >
> > > But isn't it also a fact that 99.9% of the times, the brief given to
us
> by
> > > clients asks us to amplify the effect rather than to act as a filter
on
> > the
> > > effect.? Aren't we always asked (directly or indirectly) to put the
> > reality
> > > aside and focus on what the clients wants the recepient of the message
> to
> > > "see"?
> > >
> > > And 99.9% of the times.........we designers follow that brief.
> > >
> > > Rohit
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Dan
>>>You cant expect all clients to know how to sell to their online
customers; many companies dont have the experience,<<<
I hear what you're saying, but you are mixing up responsibilities. The
client is responsible for the USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Sometimes,
especially in the case of amateur clients, they don't know what that is or
what it means. Can we, as designers, help them with this? Of course,
depending on your sales skills and collaborative talents.
The flip side of that is: Many designers don't know what a USP is either, or
they may not have the time or desire to do the clients homework for them in
order to get the project.
In the case of amateur clients working with amateur designers, neither one
is even aware that you need a USP. Resulting in.....bad design, bad
advertising.
Once the client is armed with his USP, he is prepared to hire various
professionals to deliver his message. In the case of web design, he needn't
know very much about it -- but he does need to know how to hire someone who
does. His job is to impart to you what he wants to happen. It is then your
job to accept, reject, or negotiate a modification of that goal.
>>>A good designer is as much a wiz in Photoshop & Dreamweaver as they are
an online business person; or at least they should KNOW how to sell...<<<
Amen to that.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:6%4S9.3695$j9....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Dan
>>>I again call your stance "hogwash"<<<
What thread are you reading?
"This doesn't mean you collapse and do the horrible work the client asks you
to do. This means you (and I mean all of us) need to buckle down and find
the solution that works for *everybody* in that equation."
That's gold, Jerry....GOLD.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
Dan
>>>Dan, it's the clients job to *know their audience* <<<
"Audience" is too broad, "Customer" is better, but you are getting the idea.
>>>and it's our job to know *how to sell to that audience*.<<<
A worthy goal, young Skywalker.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:ac5S9.2617$xE1.412623@stones...
> Dan, it's the clients job to *know their audience* and it's our job to
know
> *how to sell to that audience*.
>
> There's a big difference.
>
> All this only applies to commercial design, of course.
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
Dan
gentle with you. You'll learn.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:n14S9.2602$xE1.410433@stones...
> Experience *with* commercial design though. Granted you do have a hell of
a
> lot of experience and I greatly respect your work. I simply think your
view
> was not considering the bigger picture.
>
> What I do have is 16 years of being influenced by design, even if I have
> only been designing for the last 3 or 4.
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
> news:p33S9.29510$p_6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ---
> No viruses found in this message.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 1/10/03
>
>
Dan
No offense intended, Matt. I thought it was a compliment. Ah well....
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:Fi6S9.2631$xE1.413472@stones...
> Dan, I don't mind you helping me or advising me but the Skywalker thing
was
> patronising... please don't - I may be young but I'm not *that* stupid.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
> news:Uc6S9.29775$p_6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
SpaceGirl
(the Internet), perhaps with little experience of doing this online. A WWW
design company should be more than just putting things online; shouldn't it
advise what sells and doesn't online? If someone approached *out* company
with something I thought wouldn't sell online, I doubt I'd keep it a secret
from the client...
"Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
news:xS5S9.29732$p_6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Drew?
> What thread are you reading?
This thread, but I'm starting to get concerned about your comprehension.
You know, "style is the icing and not the cake" crap.
You requested examples. I provided. Now give me your comments and
continued slack defense of your posture.
And Dan, you don't need to be condescending to *me*. I know it makes you
feel superior and all, but it's a transparent act.
Drew
Tor de Vries
had this to contribute to the topic...
-----
Clearly designers are _entirely_ responsible for the aesthetic,
environmental, intellectual, health, economic, and cultural consequences of
their design decisions. Edward Tufte, grand master poobah of information
design, begins many of his lectures with his maxim: "Above all, do no harm."
This is a guy who philosophises how to make charts for newspaper articles,
and he is talking about cultural damage.
I am sick to death of designers who consider their role to be "hired gun"
who simply performs services to draw a paycheck. Decisions made with that
ideology are unjustifiably selfish, and it is easy to look around at our
culture and see the devastating effects of art in service of commerce, with
no guiding values beyond market value.
Tor's question is very important because the media that contemporary
designers work in have extreme cultural relevance.
Let's face it, as deeply moving and meaningful as oil painting is to me
personally, oil painting as an image-making medium is culturally irrelevant
in our society. [it is sub-culturally relevant, it is counter-culturally
relevant, but it has little or no broad cultural impact. this, of course, is
tragic, but true.]
Graphics, video, music, and other media mass-distributed electronically
(including industrial design) are where the power is at in our culture.
Of course it's possible to make an irresponsible oil painting: Thomas
Kinkade is the fish in the barrel on this point. But Kinkade does no
widespread damage until the other graphic arts bend in service to Kinkade's
culturally irresponsible ideas.
Irresponsible designers have much to answer for on judgement day. I have
zero compassion for designers who designs and turns loose on our culture an
intellectually numbing TV show or ergonomically destructive chair or
environmentally unsound ad campaign, and tries to defend their actions by
blaming the people paying them to do it.
When we accept a paycheck to make crap where no crap existed before, we
aren't just "doing our job" to try to get by. We are enabling culturally
destructive forces.
Carol Ott
and not enough concrete fact. Thomas Kinkade -- do I like his art? No.
But does that mean he's an "irresponsible" artist? No. It's purely my
opinion. There are plenty of people out there who are willing to pay good
money for his art and hang it all over their homes. Because he's a
mass-produced artist, he appeals to a certain segment of society, and I
don't think that they have any less value than any other consumer market.
Words like "selfish" and "irrelevant" don't make the argument, they actually
weaken it. When you have to resort to such emotion-laden words, you're
short of concrete examples to back up your position.
Not every designer is in this business to make a grand impact on the
world -- and I hardly think that people who are in any business to make
money to support themselves and their families deserve to be called
"selfish".
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3F1C6D.19E23%ne...@kortage.com...
artonio7
with warm regards,
Tony
http://artonio7,com
"Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ayiS9.2997$xb....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Pip
> Organization: C.S. Ott Design
> Reply-To: "Carol Ott" <cs...@csottdesign.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:55:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: A Question of Responsibility
>
> What's sad about this is that there's far too much personal opinion here,
Just to add to the personal opinions (how can there possibly be too much of
that in a designer's ng? ;-) ) First of all I agree somewhat with you Carol
on the Kinkade issue. It's just like what I hear from my musician friends
all the time - If it's popular it must be crap and therefore somehow
irresponsible. Talk about ego trips. Who are you (not necessarily you Carol)
to say the opinions of the majority of people are worth less than yours?
This goes out to all you art snobs out there. Just because something isn't
commercial doesn't automatically make it more valuable. Do I have to hang my
head in shame because I think his little cottages are charming. Does all art
have to be deep? What's wrong with painting pretty pictures just for the
sake of liking what they look like? When I design a business card for the
local butcher do I have to consider the social, ecological and cultural
implications of the logo? What the hell does that mean anyway? Do have to
pressure my client to use recycled paper even if that's not in his budget?
Should I refuse the job because the meat industry has such a negative impact
on the world's ecology? I never claimed to be a fine artist with deep
meaning to express to the world. I'm trying to pay my mortgage here. In
spite of that I still do try to do the best job I can for each of my
clients, but I refuse to believe that it's my job to push them in directions
that they don't want to go. Just my opinion to add to the clutter.
Chuck
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"artonio7" <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:avcdrh$e28c5$1...@ID-167660.news.dfncis.de...
Carol Ott
doesn't mean he's wrong and you're right. You all are trying to argue in
absolutes, which can't be done in this case. All this finger-pointing and
soap-box ranting is a little asinine.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:2XlS9.9194$4k6.911315@wards...
> > What's sad about this is that there's far too much personal opinion
here,
> > and not enough concrete fact.
>
> Since when was ethics and morality based on fact?
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ayiS9.2997$xb....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Dan
questions, or even continue reading your posts, you'll need to rethink your
strategy.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Drew?" <whoisthat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E197984...@hotmail.com...
Dan
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Tor de Vries" <ne...@kortage.com> wrote in message
news:BA3F1C6D.19E23%ne...@kortage.com...
Gordon Moat
this up quite well, and that there was no more to add. However, this posting
hits the subject right on the mark. I agree that there are too many designers
just going for a paycheque. There are rarely incentives to go beyond that, and
to disagree with a client, or boss.
I had one opportunity to do a political campaign promotional package. It would
have been quite a paycheque for about two months of work. I informed the client
that in order to eliminate bias, I would like to bid to do the same type of
work for their competitor, and having the option to work for the competition
was my way of being fair and unbiased. They understood my position, and decided
to have someone else do the work. However, they even offered to pay me more to
reconsider. Some may think I was quite stupid for passing up a big check, bet I
felt a moral obligation to make the decisions I did, and I have not regretted
that decision.
Coming from a fine art background (especially oil painting), I can empathize
with the other comments. While some see not doing exactly the client's request
as a desire to push your own ideas, or an expression from a frustrated artist,
it is too simple a notion of dismissal. There are many considerations for each
project, and there should be room to consider influences that the work may
render upon the intended audience.
However, in defence of many not willing to take any chances, it is often the
easier route to bend to the client's wishes, or to the orders of an employer.
This becomes more true when layoffs are in the news, the economy is down, or
there is an air of uncertainty. Sometimes to do what may be morally responsible
may eliminate the ability to attempt that in the near future, or at least with
that particular client or employer.
I started a creative career with the idealistic idea that I might make a
difference. There have been some discussions on this news group in the past
about taking chance with style, content, and ideas. Those prior discussions are
what got me into this group. They have been in short supply, though I think
this thread kicks some life back into this group. Thanks Tor!
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/design.html>
Dan
>>>Oh I agree, definetly. I'm just saying, designers have responsibilites.
To the environment. That's my opinion ;)<<<
To the ENVIRONMENT?????
Matt, how has your graphic design helped the environment today? Don't answer
that. You're just trolling, right?
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:SwnS9.2915$xE1.443171@stones...
> > Matt, your ethics and morality may not be the same as the next guy's --
> that
> > doesn't mean he's wrong and you're right.
>
> Oh I agree, definetly. I'm just saying, designers have responsibilites. To
> the environment. That's my opinion ;)
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cUmS9.853$db....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
Dan
sell online, I doubt I'd keep it a secret from the client..<<<
You mean like EggsByMail.com? Or CloneYou.com? (please send my complete copy
of me to me :-) )
I dunno. If they're convinced it would work, and they are capitalized, and
if the designer doesn't have moral/ethical objections, why wouldn't you dive
right in?
Unless I am a partner in someone's business, I am not responsible for their
business plan or business model. They may have spent years getting to where
they are; I have certainly spent years getting to where I am...let's do
business.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:9LcS9.10553$j9....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:SwnS9.2915$xE1.443171@stones...
> > Matt, your ethics and morality may not be the same as the next guy's --
> that
> > doesn't mean he's wrong and you're right.
>
> Oh I agree, definetly. I'm just saying, designers have responsibilites. To
> the environment. That's my opinion ;)
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cUmS9.853$db....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
Drew?
You must be SO proud.
Drew
Drew?
> Actually I haven't designed anything today.
Seems neither has Dan for him to neglect his impact.
Drew
speed
sweater this morning. And before anyone says that's an economic
decision, heat is included in my rent.
speed
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:42:11 GMT, "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Carol Ott
While you're on this "ethical design" kick, Matt, please develop a vellum
and a mylar that can be recycled -- it's ridiculous that nobody's done this
yet.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:VuqS9.9692$4k6.923363@wards...
> Yes! Thank you Carol - at least you're doing something :)
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Carol Ott" <carol...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:DnpS9.5917$1c....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Rohit Seth
It's not all that black and white. We all have our principles and ethics.
Where and when we demonstrate those isn't written out in a leather bound
book. Your concerns are genuine.......I have seen that. But you simply can't
trash someone's ideology or stereotype them simply bacause the timing isn't
right.
I may have disagreed with Dan's views somewhere down this thread, but lets
appreciate the fact that he's talking out of "his" experience...... and he
has every right to base his views on his judgement. Take
FreelanceWorkshops.com. That was a brilliant piece of work which I'm sure
has helped out hundreds of people. I call that as assuming responsibility
and giving something back to the design community. Why does it have to be in
the currency that someone else advocates?
Rohit
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:yvqS9.3000$xE1.451875@stones...
> I guess it's a question of humanity - do you just do it and get paid, then
> watch someone's business, money, time and apsirations fall down the
gutter,
> or tell them straight....?
>
> Hmmmm, lemme think...
> Dan I have nothing against you but I really don't hold much respect for
your
> moral values when it comes to money. Where's your conscience?
>
> Matt
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "Dan" <D...@FreelanceWorkshops.com> wrote in message
> news:wKoS9.30889$p_6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...