Comments on: Oh my alma mater!

By: Joshua Lopez

Joshua Lopez — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:19:48 +0000

@Clayton

lol thanks for the laugh I agree with you completely.

By: Bryce Howitson

Bryce Howitson — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:14:52 +0000

I'm a bit late to this party but it strikes me that the issue isn't as much the Emily Carr logo but the type of community discussion surrounding its critique.

For a long time design criticism has been firmly in the realm of the likes of Steven Heller. However with the introduction of the internet into the critical process anyone can be a critic in the same way that anyone with a copy of Photoshop can call themselves a designer. Now I'm all for self taught designers, but we're a the point where its impossible for form commenters to establish authority on a subject.

Due to this self publishing trend criticism is frequently degraded to subjective discussions about aesthetics. While many of us understand criticism from a functional standpoint, we are not the ones who's opinion is being heard.

It seems to me that the first step is educating our peers in the industry. I cringe when clients are asked if they "like" something, yet I rarely step in when other designers express their opinions in the form of "like" or "dislike" even though we of all people should know better.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the general public will ever come to truly value design until we as a community can get together and critique objects based solutions instead of aesthetics.

By: Bartosz Bos

Bartosz Bos — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:50:51 +0000

Design By Committee is the New Black.
Actually, come to think of it, I remember seeing a description for a new course called; Design by Committee. or Collaborative Systems in Design or something like that.
Sigh....

By: Sigrid Albert

Sigrid Albert — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:04:28 +0000

I had just seen the new ECUAD logo for the first time, when I ran across a similar logo of an art museum which uses a coil (can't find it now). I think the coil of light in the animation is stronger than the static wire coil. But that concept could have been pushed further.

As for the discussion, I agree, the anonymity on the web apparently gives people license to be nasty, to the point where it's rarely worth engaging in a conversation.

There must be places on the web where some etiquette of frank but respectful discussion is observed.

By: Scribbling « Sam Dal Monte’s blog

Scribbling « Sam Dal Monte’s blog — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:15:42 +0000

[...] Scribbling I think my fellow design students would agree this is a worthy cause. [...]

By: Clayton Misura

Clayton Misura — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:26:52 +0000

@John - It's annoying to read a long list of interesting responses, and then land on your BS.

I thought an institution such as Emily Carr would have taken the necessary steps to immunize themselves from a "design by committee" result. Unfortunately, it seems like even an Art & Design University is still vulnerable. Too bad. I'm sure Cari is a very competent designer, but competence is no match against an avalanche of competing creative input. They should have exercised due diligence and hired an independent firm.

By: John

John — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:43:42 +0000

Eric, I think that your writing may improve if you make a conscious effort not to repeat certain phrases. For instance, you used "that being said" four times in this post, and three of them are very close together. "Nevertheless", which functions roughly the same way, appears three times. It's easy to do this when writing and not notice it. Just something to look out for.

By: Roxanne T

Roxanne T — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:35:58 +0000

@Josh

To answer your question, we had to rebrand as we received a status change from Institute to University in April 2008. You can view the full details here:

http://www.ecuad.ca/homeu.html

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:24:44 +0000

I guess my main question would be is why ECU needed to rebrand at this time. What was the purpose? Was there a drop in enrollment or attracting competent teachers? Sure the mark could have been done a million different ways, but what was the reasoning behind it seems to be the more valid question at this point.

Secondly...

Sorry David, but I agree with the maestro and alumnist as well. Even when something as prestigious as branding the school is not involved, often contracting students for even internal advertising help is not the best solution.

I remember our GD2 class back in school was asked to do a poster for a graduate program regarding some sort of technology. I'm sure I can find it somewhere. This wasn't a giant committee project, but despite the efforts of some students creating vision for the program, the end result was a structurally sound comp, but cliched solution that really had no effect on building interest in the program.

That said though I'm a huge supporter of design education and not really so far removed that I don't understand the mentality and sentiment, an outside perspective is always the best and they have the experience to deal with the decision makers that students aren't prepared to in a professional sense.

By: David Ronnie

David Ronnie — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:13:51 +0000

Fair enough Eric, I retract my previous statements. :)