15%

Design=Heart?
Before I even started to read this article I tried to think about what the title Design=Heart? might even imply. Is this a question regarding the emotional quality of design? How authentic the intention of the designer is? The motives of the client? Eventually my question is answered: “Can design do more than sell products for our clients… Can design play a bigger role in solving social problems?”

I begin to think that maybe the question isn’t “can it,” so much as “will it.” Will designers use their talents for a greater good? Sagmeister claims that, “The main reason for all of this fluff is that most designers don’t believe in anything. When your conscience is so flexible, how can you do strong work?” On this point I disagree with the author, Carolyn Sienicki. I feel that this statement is primarily true and that most people don’t question the ethics of their work or attempt to show a sense of humanity. I am reminded of Rem Koolhaas’ writings; “Junkspace thrives on design, but design dies in Junkspace.” Or, there is a cycle to be broken out of.

But with all of this said, how, by example, does Mr. Sagmeister show us the way? Stylistically (although he would claim style=fart) his handwritten text (Lou Reed poster, AIGA Detroit poster), his typographic studies from natural and found elements (Trying to look good limits my life, Anni Kuan Brochure), his work that feels more like a gift (Horse brochure), to his more “political” themed design campaigns (Move Our Money), all have a personal connection with the viewer. It is neither pretentious nor trendy and allows to viewer to become apart of it. The best example of this is his logo for The Seed Media Group, which allows each individual of the company to personalize and become apart of the logo/identity.

However, should we feel that emotionally connected with something that is essentially an advertisement? Is this not contrary to the question of "doing more than selling products?" I find that I can't distinguish the line between liking and appreciating good design for what it is (clever, appealing, beautiful ) and what it is doing (selling Skittles and soda). As soon as I start to enjoy something I think about what it is supporting and then start to question its motives. Many of Sagmeister's methods have been applied to modern advertising quite successfully, drawing the same sort of emotional experiences (McDonald's, Verizon Wireless, to name a few.) Yet, from all of this I wish to be reminded that design is about communicating with individuals who engage with it, not a “target audience” or “demographic”, that when we go to design something we should seek to “inform, delight, provoke, support, and simplify,” not to sell. So with this said, I feel that Sagmeister is correct in saying "Good form and the appropriate use of style can enhance any message," and that good design is not only about the execution, but also lies in the message, with a positive social impact being the yardstick.