In Quietude, Kenneth FitzGerald’s article wasn’t so tranquil as the title suggests. However, he does make some valid points about design and design critics. Fitzgerald points out that “It’s a pretty, subdued time in design. Passion is running low [and] design continues to be a busy but overly placid, pleasant surface.” To some extent I agree that their are some designers out their today that aren’t as passionate about design as those in the past but it isn’t necessarily true to state that all designers nowadays are that way.
Although their are designers that design aesthetically without much thought put into it, I think it’s most prominent now because jobs that are offered today are corporate ones that might not care whether a piece has meaning, but it doesn’t mean that those designers didn’t exist in the past either, even when graphic design wasn’t really associated with corporations at the time. Since design has grown since then, more opportunities have been available to designers and whether we like it or not if it continues to grow, their will be designers that are going to fill those jobs. It’s just a matter of which designers will turn away from that and design something that is meaningful rather than solely aesthetic.
FitzGerald mentions design education and art criticism and how “Design has no heritage of or belief in criticism. Design education programs continue to emphasize visual articulation, not verbal or writing. The goal is to sell your idea to a client and/or a hypothetical audience.” I don’t completely agree or disagree with him because personally I want the criticism from others to better my work but what I don’t understand is criticism that isn’t constructive. And even though we are taught how to work programs and how to achieve a visually appealing piece more than writing about it, in order to talk about them we must know how to create them first don’t we?