• Pn_2
Graphic Design

I, Me, Mine: do we specialise too soon?

Guest posted by Peter Nencini,

Many creatives in this day and age see themselves as ‘multi-disciplinary’ – whether that’s a designer who can illustrate, an illustrator who makes films, or a photographer looking at themselves as more of an artist. This double-barrel is usually seen as an admirable asset, but is this always the case? For this week’s debate Pete Nencini asks; “Do we specialise too soon?”. Go on, stick your oar in.

We specialise too soon. Post-school, Art School. Foundation Course, a compact descendant of the Bauhaus’ Preliminary Course. Ignited by two months of polymorphic play. Then we stop and sign up for life, aged 18, to an homogenized pursuit of one from Archi/Graph/Illus/Anim/Fash/Text/Photo/Paint/Sculpt/Prod/Craft/ography.

For example, you specialise in Illustration. How to be an illustrator? What’s on the booklist? Some revelatory reads: David Mamet’s ‘On Directing Film’; Umberto Eco’s ‘Six Walks in the Fictional Woods’; George Perec’s ‘Species of Spaces and Other Pieces’; Paul Thek’s ‘Four Dimensional Design’. You probably won’t find them in Magma bookshop, or on the ‘Visual Communication’ library shelf. But each (in talking about writing, filmmaking, looking, thinking making) offers much, from a refreshing distance. A set of ‘manuals’ for a parallel process in your specialism. Without telling you how it should look. Because they talk about process rather than fashion. Much more useful than a subject-swatchbook of styles with a one-year lifespan.

This is not an argument for dilletantism, nor multidisciplinarianism (even the word is too much!). Specialist expertise is slow-grown, rooted in natural ability and will-to-learn. But our specialisms are conjoined. The conjunction. The in-between. The bit where we talk to each other. And where we make things together.

Technology is giving us the space to talk and to make fluently. Is our shared vocabulary up to it? In truly innovative, more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts collaboration, it’s not just about how well you understand your own process; it’s about how well your process is understood.

Look at the Bauhaus’ concentric-circular-curriculum. Compare with Design Academy Eindhoven’s Kompas subjects (colour, music, form, technology, culture, craft, economy, social science). Consider IDEO’s T-shaped designer (vertical stem equals deep specialist knowledge, horizontal bar equals understanding, empathy, passion for other subjects). Assess Martí Guixé’s self-defined status as an Ex-Designer. Toy with the craft-rooted notion of Vrije Vormgeving (‘free design’).

This is about your education in, experience of, passion for conjoined specialisms. As an Illustrator that could readily mean, for example, Typography. To support, some Linguistics? A dose of Sound Art? And so on. Hands on and time spent. Too much? Three years’ degree is a long time specialised. Especially when you’ve got the rest of your life. So, do we specialise too soon?

Peter Nencini is a freelance illustrator and designer; his recent work has been applied to sets for BBC’s Glastonbury Festival, ITV’s ’Hell’s Kitchen’ and Channel 4’s ‘T4’. After graduating from the Royal College of Art he worked as a graphic designer in Brussels before returning to London. He now teaches illustration at Camberwell College of Arts. www.peternencini.co.uk

Comments

12942303959839966 ObjectThinking on Mon Oct 19th 2009

Agree. Even multi-disciplinary degrees tend to assume students should define and demonstrate a specialism. Generalists are often considered indecisive. We need both. Pigeon-holing ourselves by discipline courts conservative business based upon its typical output. The brave practitioner either charts a distincive specialism and/or is unconcerned with boundaries, acknowledging that it is the project that need to work within a defined context, not the practitioner.

12942303966386073 Quinnuit on Mon Oct 19th 2009

Everyone's practice and ability is so diverse that no one umbrella shaped course title will keep a class within it's definition. Terms like Visual Communication help to add a subtitle to the story and can give it's applicants freedom to experiment within it's 'Visual' boundaries. (But is it too vague?) It's hard sometimes to focus on graduating not really knowing what you're graduating in and Art School can begin to feel like a lesson in semantics.

12942303975083208 rachillustrates on Mon Oct 19th 2009

This is really interesting, and I agree too. Especially the part about foundation degrees. I chose to do illustration and then 2 months later we had to apply to unis... I didn't even know what illustration was during a-level, foundation was literally a crash course, but because I loved it so much in that short space of time I wanted to do it at uni. However when it came to applying to unis, I feel that I didn't get in to my first choice because I was expected to be a professional illustrator at the intervew! And not a learning art student. Very strange atmosphere. But I got into my second choice and off I went, and three years later, I've graduated. Still don't know if I want to just do illustration... there's so many things out there I want to try.

1294230398335004 thomascoombes on Mon Oct 19th 2009

Jack of all trades, master of none. Although i think its important to have an understanding of many disciplines its also nice to have one you are really an expert in. If there was enough time in the world to be an expert at everything then great. But that would be a long degree.

12942303989948096 shornBatchelor on Tue Oct 20th 2009

I agree, I think that the more knowledge of other disciplines you have the more you can be aware of pushing a different discipline forward. For example a knowledge of film techniques may open a door in a printed application. It often requires a lot of self learning though. You can expect everybody in a course to want to do everything. I did a 3 year course and that simply would not be enough time to have professional skills in a single discipline if i was doing film, photography, illustration, cake decoration etc with any seriousness though they were touched on. (minus the cake decoration, literary flair)

1294230399626611 miiikerobinson on Tue Oct 20th 2009

I think the most interesting things happen when you have a broad range of executional knowledge (including some specialisms) and a good general creative approach. Surely you'll make better creative connections if you have broader knowledge?

1294230400914623 KathrynJaneHall on Wed Oct 21st 2009

'Multi-disciplinary' is another term to place before designer, why can't we be designers with no pre text required? I come from a degree that only could be said to specialize in encouraging an intelligent questioning approach to design where ideas are expected to stand up to critique. When you graduate you are a designer, how you describe yourself is up to you. I have a strong sense of what my principals and beliefs about what I desire design to be and mean. I am not too concerned with what I am beyond a designer, skills can always be learnt but ideas are harder to come across. Does having a discipline limit the potential of our creativity and ideas? Not knowing how to do something or not being sure of where it’s going can bring around the most interesting ideas and doesn’t have to be scary.

12942304017311618 PeterNencini on Wed Oct 21st 2009

Not interested in labels either. Also, the jack-of-all-trades comment above misses the point. I'm talking about the substance and detailing of our practical and conceptual approach. To make for better, more innovative work. I think it's fruitless to make a distinction between ideas and making skill. Who decided that one holds the other back? Making is thinking. Intimacy with process fosters invention. A Cuneiform alphabet's beauty is in the creative permutations coming out of a articulate understanding of a limited tool and writing surface. I'm really not proposing that we try to make everything or become polymath-super-designers. Just that, given the incredible access we now have to information and each other, is our empathy with each others' (thinking or making) process developed enough? Regarding hours in the day and sufficient time to learn... I learnt more through one month in a graphic design studio than a year in college. Don't get me wrong. My course was great; it was my capacity to learn under real pressure that HAD to develop. We can learn quickly and learn more. I'm convinced that knowledge beds in rhythmically and feeds our creativity.

12942304023532305 waywaiwaywai on Thu Oct 22nd 2009

I think it's true that we specialise too quick. Life is fast moving now and too often mapped out. We do this and then this and then this; we're making decisions and before you know it you're deep into it, not realising whether you yourself chose this outcome, or if you're just the unlucky bugger who ended up following some shoddy life advice...from the careers councillor.

It is sometimes if not always reaaally good to stray totally from what we think we should be doing. We should go learn about geology, learn to cook, learn about how we learn, learn crazy unnecessary theories, learn binary, learn off QI, learn absolutely anything at all, even something you hate.
And even if all we learn after that is that we'd just quite like to sit: pen in hand, paper at the ready, crouched over a table, drawing, painting, making for the long forseeable future... At least we know theres nothing out thre that we'd rather be doing.

12942304029664829 sebeys on Sat Oct 24th 2009

Look back to the renaissance period and that was a time of huge... change(as best I can describe it)many of the players at the time where multi-disciplinary or did not ties themselves with what they came up to be thought with, they kept changing,of which the pieces of work,created in that period are still relevant to this day

1294230403747679 darrylclifton on Sun Oct 25th 2009

I may be approaching this at a tangent but I had a similar experience to Peter, the 'road to Damascus' moment of clarity when first working in a fast paced and commercial environment. This kind of experience has become a determining factor in the curricular world of Higher education. There is major/confused emphasis on the need to meet the requirement of industry and it is predominant in the Creative Arts [possibly because of inherent course and resource costs/four year as opposed to three year programmes]. Referring to Industry [and its 'needs'] in a bid to better understand the requisite 'skills' in our graduating student body has benefits and disadvantages. It is the driver for a number of initiatives/individual student projects and a new fervour for educational programmes in well established companies [including the new Wieden and Kennedy 'school' for a new breed of advertisers], it is also the reason that so many bespoke courses have emerged in our Universtites over recent years AND more importantly it is having a net effect on the priorities set on the student experience overall. greater emphasis on the acquisition of skill sets [transferable and otherwise] have required greater specificity, greater accountability, more 'box ticking' exercises, an audit culture that is both ambiguous and unneccessarily specific.
Tail wags dog.

I am offering up this mono-context/soft rant about Education in order to give an opinion about our approach to specialism. My view is that students will be required to specialise earlier and earlier [it is happening this year with the abolition of route B, the old ADAR route tailored specifically for Art and Design students] because of the overall pattern of 'third way' Education. Specialism or naming of a discipline is often done for the sake of convenience/marketing/recruitment and the nuts and bolts of delivery and curriculum content are driven and defined by those people responsible for writing the projects. An holistic approach to Education is not particularly fashionable, because it is ambiguous, underpinned by beliefs and principles, difficult to describe and difficult to explain and deliver. However education is what we should all aim for, in its truest form, the cultivation of experiences/situations/spaces that enable individuals to develop within and without of a particular context, that process of 'drawing out' [ I reluctantly use the epithet; education is 'lighting a fire' not 'filling a bucket']. The radical in me says that we should be driving this in conjunction with Industry not passively asking them what they want, the latter may be the most practical, short term solution to whatever those uninterested Whitehall statistic mongers want but it will not serve either individuals or Industry well, it is a reductio ad absurdum, a hiding to nothing but mediocrity, bland and formulaic passive non creativity.
In short we need names, its a question of semantics but we need our education to be broad - wide and deep [yes T shaped], we need it to be at times complicated and problematic, at times simple and skills orientated but at all times part of an education not simply a 'training'. We have big brains and opposable thumbs, lets use them wisely!

12942304049221745 ratherlemony on Sun Oct 25th 2009

Late to the party as ever ... my short answer is yes; specialism comes all-too-swiftly for art students, or indeed prospective students from all disciplines. What eighteen-year-old knows exactly what they want to do, anyway? Personally, I vaguely wanted to be a lawyer at eighteen ... five years later I am finishing an illustration degree where my main focus is moving image. Go figure.

Back to the topic at hand. Feeling your way through to a correct working practice. I think it's very individual and for some perhaps it would come easier if on a generalised art/design course for three years, rather than a niche area. No labels. Just finding out what clicks and who you click with and deriving something that comes from this very organic process and hey, eventually you'll come out on the right track. For others, you need the security of a specific skill-set - something tangible that you feel can directly transfer into a career path. On the flip side, this niche can actually give you something to kick and rebel against, where in the nebulous breadth of a generalised course there would be nothing.

Ultimately I subscribe to this notion of deep understanding of a specialism combined with communication and cross-over between other disciplines that you mention. One area often feeds another, promoting creativity and intuitive leaps in our prospective practices that otherwise might not have occurred. This is important, not least because it ultimately means you have a personal practice which is both communicative with other areas AND more uniquely your own, as you have sought out the connecting threads that ultimately make what you do more substantial.

So what to make of all of this at the start of your degree? Well. I tend to think a lot of people are all-too-ready to nail their colours to the proverbial mast and label themselves (for better or for worse) because it's more comfortable than the alternative. There is such a need to define yourself at a young age, there is a security in tunnelling your vision like this. In wider society, your BA is often viewed as a means to an end rather than an opportunity to expand your ideas.

Maybe it's worth pointing out that although you specialise, that's not the final word. Things can change, your ideas can jump. Just because you ticked the photographer box when you were eighteen doesn't mean you can't change your mind, find the deep specialism at a later date (maybe not for a few years), etc. Your education does not stop when you graduate. You educate yourself if you are engaged and enthusiastic about the world around you. If nothing else, a good degree - regardless of specialism - teaches you to get interested in stuff - even if that stuff is the exact opposite of what you are meant to be learning at the time. You've still got the time and the space to get passionate about something and chase it. That's the key. Your time isn't wasted if you get the label wrong.

So I think what I am trying to say is that specialising in art/design at such a young age is tough. It works for some, not for others ... there probably should be more allotted time for play before you subscribe to something more rigid. But with things as they are, keeping your eyes and ears open about what is going on in other disciplines (and not just artistic, but scientific, mathematical, whatever) not only feeds your own practice but also may set you off on another path altogether and that is fine. It's up to the individual to keep looking and learning, though. College can provide a structure where this is possible, but it's really up to you to keep things interesting and keep questioning what you do and why.

12942304056008034 RobertSollis on Mon Oct 26th 2009

It's not so much about working in the gaps in between disciplines, which I don't think exist anymore, but working in the areas of overlap. It's important to have a broad knowledge that allows us to either make work that stands up to criticism from both disciplines or that lets us realise the limitations of our expertise and choose the right person to collaborate with. Choosing a good collaboration comes from an understanding and ability to identify ways that each of us approach making work, because the fundamentals of our approach are interdisciplinary even when the outcomes are not.

12942304063158715 Snicholson2 on Tue Oct 27th 2009

I too think branching out is very important, however, I do agree with “ Object Thinkings” point. If we are seen to venture too far from our discipline we are, the post-graduate, seen as being indecisive and unsuitable for the job. With all that said I do believe there are universities out there that offer courses that offer a focus, but provide the insight and flexibility to redefine how we solve problems. And even if your BA/MA/HND was particularly restrictive there is still hope!

Work placements! They are a great way, if you can afford to work for free, to have an insight into disciplines outside your training. I spent the best part of a year working under Architects, Branding specialists, Packaging designers, Interactive media specialist and others while I was in limbo between Uni and work. So if you can, I believe it is an invaluable experience.

Now with the financial upturn employers are looking for ‘multi-disciplinary’ students to employ to service their clients. The specialist are dieing breed, they are being replaced with polymaths and cross-disciplinarians to solve problems in a different. After all the problems are all the same–how can we make our product/service more visible to increate sales/shares/brand equity–It’s up to the creative to produce new solutions.

Posted by Peter Nencini

Most Recent: Graphic Design View Archive

  1. Colline-new-list-int

    Tonight sees the launch of a new book by photographer Annie Collinge at Ti Pi Tin bookstore up on Stoke Newington High Street in London. Some of you should get down there, but we appreciate that others of you are perhaps thousands of miles away. So here for your delectation are some spreads from the book and some close-ups of the images within.

  2. Zoo-art-and-music-int-list

    “Each project is an adventure,” says French design agency Zoo. And their enthusiasm shows – the work on their site is fresh, dynamic and brilliantly executed. The visual identity for Musique en Ville, a multi-venue event run by Rosny-sous-bois city council, manages to be hip without losing all-ages appeal, and is adaptable across any season or touchpoint. “We aimed to express ideas of a party and a travelling stage while leaving room for imagination,” says Zoo. “The images show one area with several spots of light; each word is the central point.”

  3. Grilli-type-int-list

    It wasn’t long ago that we were singing the praises of Grilli Type, a foundry looking into new and innovative ways to show off the new typefaces that their designers produce, and coming up with fun and playful mini-sites in the process. Now we’re back to let you know that it has done it again for GT Cinetype, a font designed by Mauro Paolozzi and Rafael Koch, which was inspired by cinematic subtitles.

  4. Currency-post-4-int_copy

    The Royal Mint has unveiled a new coinage portrait of the Queen, only the fifth during her 63-year reign. The new coins, which will go into circulation later this year, feature a portrait designed by engraver Jody Clark selected in a competition hosted by the Royal Mint Advisory Committee. In light of this, we thought we’d have a look at some proposed and actual redesigns of currencies around the world, from age old gold standards to Bitcoins, and abstract pixels to odes to scientific discovery.

  5. Paul-schoemaker-eventburo-int-list

    If nominative determinism had been a stronger force in German designer Paul Schoemaker’s life, perhaps we’d have a cordwainer on our hands. Or feet. Instead, Paul chose a graphic design route, and we’re glad he did.

  6. Paulinelepape-int-main

    Exciting new student alert! Meet Pauline, currently working on her advanced degree in type design at École Estienne in Paris – how glamorous does that sound? It’s rare to find a student with as much consistently fantastic work on their site, and for a while I didn’t actually twig that Pauline was still studying. She’s designed typefaces, had a bash at letter pressing for her business cards, and made some publications that I’d actually buy. The way she represented a bunch of Stéphane Monnot short stories is well-designed without overshadowing the writing, and that publication about the concept of an ornament just looks fantastic. Remember this name: Pauline Le Pape, she’s got big things ahead of her.

  7. Gabriela-maskrey-lapulperia-int-list

    In the two years since we first featured nomadic designer Gabriela Maskrey she’s taken on a lot of new projects and pushed her skills in all sorts of new directions. Originally she was all about editorial design – which it has to be said, she was great at – but she’s recently branched out into branding for Peruvian luxury food company La Pulperia. Her bold serif rendering of the company name coupled with historic imagery referencing Peru’s gastronomic culture combines to satisfying effect, and the addition of hand-drawn icons is a great touch too. All in all a great first foray away from the world of books and magazines.

  8. Freytaganderson-fraher-int-list

    Often the most interesting branding work hinges on a simple twist, and such is the case in this work by Freytag Anderson for Fraher architects. The Scottish studio’s concept revolves around the neat idea of the “F” in the logo doubling up as an architectural floorpan.

    “The intersecting compartments or rooms create a simple graphic device for containing text, images and texture,” the designers say. “A vibrant red accent colour supports the minimal yet functional aesthetic.” Rolled out across stationery, a soon-to-be-launched website and internal presentation documents, it’s a really impressive idea executed to perfection.

  9. Karl-anders-vitra-int-list

    Designing for a design fair must be as much of a dream brief as a terrifying one. But one agency more than up to the task is Hamburg-based Karl Anders, which is behind this brilliant campaign for Vitra’s presence at the Maison et Objet fair in Paris. We can’t get enough of the bright colours, playful art direction and unusual way of presenting the Swiss furniture brand’s products. The concept behind the campaign, Home Complements, is based around the idea of “unexpected outcomes,” hence the gloriously haphazard feel to the display of the products in the photographs, which are shot by Nicolas Haeni and Thomas Rousset. It looks brilliant, and marks a nice departure from the more serious look interiors brands often go for.

  10. Bdb-portfolio-7-int

    Amsterdam-based designer Bart de Baets has been making great work for ages, and 2014 was no exception. There are conference posters for the Goethe Institute, brochures for architecture pavilions and a really nice record sleeve for Melbourne-based band Total Control. Bart manages to combine minimal line work and graphic humour with a vast frame of reference and really great colour-ways. There are also slugs kissing.

  11. Michaelbierut-nyt-signage

    Michael Bierut is a designer, Pentagram partner, writer, lecturer and self-confessed nerd. Taking the stage at the Design Indaba festival in Cape Town yesterday, he announced his new book, pithily titled How to: Use graphic design to sell things, explain things, make things look better, and (every once in a while) change the world. Published by Thames & Hudson it won’t come out until later in the year, but we felt it was a good excuse to look at some of Michael’s most interesting work from across the years.

  12. List

    You’re 25 years old and Richard Turley calls you up out of the blue and says; “Hey, I’ve just got this sweet job at MTV and I’d like you to come on board as my senior designer, are you interested?” Of course you’re interested! You’d be a fool not to be interested, even if it means leaving your current (also awesome) job as an art director at The New York Times. Sounds nice right? Well this isn’t some fictional story I’ve just concocted in my head, this is the soon-to-be legendary tale of Erik Carter, a Virginia native turned New York City creative powerhouse who’s filling our (music) televisions with choice tidbits of witty animation and humorous asides from the world of the web.

  13. Rawcolor-febrik-4-int_copy

    Eindhoven-based graphic design and photography studio Raw Color has created a great multi-platform identity for interior textiles brand Febrik, using horizontal, laser-cut lines as a reference to archiving methods in textile sample books. They are utilised both for this purpose and as decorative details on business cards, stationary items and online.