« Proposition 86 | Main | Recap »

September 28, 2006


Kristen Coogan

I think graphic design is never not subjective. Design=art=style=trend, opinion, affinitity, etc.

Can you be more specific about what social barrier are you referring to? It may be easier then to make an analysis of what aspects of subjectivity are successful--form, content, audience--with respect to an identifiable framework

infinite artifice

yeah, i'm not sure exactly which social barriers but i kind of get what you're saying. i do think about how design can work towards a greater social good. i don't really have a specific issue in mind though there are millions. but if design forces the viewers to look at things differently, if it makes you question your basic assumptions because it forces you to look or read differently--maybe it could work on that level?

the way we think is very much effected by how we see. i mean this is just one way to tackle the issue or is it too abstract?


There is still design and typography that aims to be objective/denotative. I think the notion of a piece of design being objective is different from the idea that a viewer can have their own individual reading of it. Design can attack social barriers, but not sure what that has to do with the notion of inherent subjectivity. Perhaps you're saying that if design is by nature subjective and personal, then it should be able to change people's inner workings. I would like to hear more.

cameron ewing

to clarify, my initial question stems from a theoretical proposal: is it possible to design a body of work for public display that could introduce/educate two groups at odds with one another –illegal mexican imigrants and american residents.

at the core of the dispute i think is a lack of common understanding. ignorance. perhaps it is my optimism but it seems to be that in many case studies of negotiation and mediation disputes that at the crux of the problem is an inability to relate, or sympathize with the "opositon's" point of view.

the challenge then would be to educate through an enlightening or sharing of perspective between the two groups that are at odds.

after kicking this idea around i began to wonder if this was even possible. could graphic design be a neutral communicator, or to be affective does it always have to choose a side? would one group have to be addressed, and then the other–both bodies of work communicating a very specific message?


could one singular body of environmental/public design communication be created that educated/introduced both groups in a way that helped pacify the current tensions? and in this case, if it were indeed possible, does the communication have to be about objective design.

i wonder if this clarifies, and if so...what peoples' thoughts on it are: the power of subjectivity versus objectivity in design...and if design always has to take a firm stance to be effective.

Logo Design

nice cameron i'm new to the design industry but nice discussion was on here, any thing new now?

cialis online

I'm a huge believer of the importance of design. I'm not so sure about design + marketing >> engineering. Design should incorporate engineering, not be opposed to it or somehow differentiated from it. It's important to remember that these are processes, not discrete elements

company logo design

Well don't know whats going on but its not a Good way to do this. in my opinion we have to look again about this issue


i reading your blog today It was very interesting and informative.

The comments to this entry are closed.