Designers must draw. We pretty much all agree on that one. Regardless of whether we're designing buildings, products, clothes or even web pages, a good number of us are judged--and judge each other--on our ability to snag a sheet of paper from the printer and quickly draft something beautiful and compelling.
This makes sense if you examine the history of these professions. Until the advent of desktop CAD, being a designer or architect meant being a draftsman too, for some or all of your career. The daily impression of pen on paper lent itself to the building of visual eloquence, and more importantly a lasting professional culture of valuing that eloquence.
In light of this culture, it's surprising to look back on the work of great designers of the early and mid 20th century and realize that what's usually depicted is the product itself: Russel Wright's teapot, the Eames' chaise lounge, Dieter Rams' phonograph. With few exceptions, when a book or exhibit highlights great product design, for example, the sketches associated with them are brought out only sparingly. This is partly because the design has passed into the realm of general public awareness, and plenty of non-designers are looking at them. It's also because a lot of them aren't that good.
Now, before you jump up and start shoving gorgeous car renderings from GM's glory days in my face, let me hastily acknowledge that the history of design has plenty of pretty pictures in it. The aforementioned auto designers drew beautifully, of course, as did influential product designers like Raymond Loewy and Alvar Aalto.
When thumbing through texts on classic designs though, one thing that jumps out about the accompanying sketches is how bad many of them are. Verner Panton's doodles for his eponymous plastic chair? Childish. Marc Newson's sketches for his Ford Concept Car? Boring, basic line drawings. Even the sainted Eames' sketches are more cartoons than evocative perspective work. Yet they're all brilliant designers, and brilliant designs. The longer you examine them, the more you question whether there is any correlation between drawing ability and design ability.
Ray Eames, Sketch of Chairs, Source: Eidelberg M et al. The Eames Lounge Chair: An Icon of Modern Design, via www.studio-international.co.uk
Last week, I worked with the local chapter of the IDSA to host a professional development event, at which several local designers and recruiters related their experiences finding and hiring creative talent. The final speaker, a Creative Director at Nike, spoke about his own hiring practices, and the characteristics of a good portfolio. The point on which he became most emphatic was the need to draw beautifully. "It is absolutely incredible to me," he proclaimed, "the number of portfolios we receive from applicants who simply don't know how to sketch well. A designer who can't sketch is like a journalist who can't write!" These were not idle words; he's been hiring and managing designers for well over a decade, and has dozens of successful products in his personal portfolio.
After the formal presentation, he brought the portfolio out for the collected students and designers in the room to examine. It was, as expected, stunningly beautiful. A crowd quickly formed, and I retreated with a colleague--an experienced Industrial Designer who's worked with Intel and IDEO, among others--to grab a glass of wine and discuss. "Yeah, I understand where he's coming from, and I'm sure that level of sketch ability is necessary in his studio," she said, "but I honestly don't think it's a universal." She's the first to point out that she has hardly any sketching ability whatsoever. "I research, I write, I give presentations."
Does such an approach constitute good design, even without the hot sketching? By any assessment of results, it absolutely does: she holds an ID degree, does top-notch design research, plans out interfaces and work flows, directs and informs design teams, and produces great work. It's almost guaranteed that this particular Creative Director would never hire her, and that doesn't seem to bother her in the least.
The applicability of the statement, "Designers must draw," becomes a little problematic in this light. Must they? The answer depends a lot on what comes to mind when you imagine a designer doing her job. Someone sitting at a table with a pile of markers and pencils, making marks on paper, constitutes an important but small fraction of the design process. The rest of it involves research, reviewing prototypes, writing briefs, driving CAD, talking to clients, and a hundred other things. There are plenty of designers--good ones--who haven't picked up a marker in years.
So why the fixation on sketching ability? It'd be easy to attribute it to some outdated romantic notion, but this is oversimplification of a different sort. It's more correct to say that sketching is a necessary skill, but one where the expected level of ability may exceed what's really necessary to get the job done. That said, car and shoe designers still develop concepts almost entirely in 2D, and therefore need freakishly good skills.
Opinions vary wildly on this point. At the same event, a creative recruiter from Filter Talent pointed out that the technical tools associated with most creative work are becoming so cheap and easy to learn that practically anyone can pick them up in a few weeks, call herself a designer, and apply for a job. Recruiters get buried under low-quality portfolios from kids who've picked up a little Flash and Photoshop, but haven't really sweated out the creative process to the point where they're any good.
And this may be the real value of good sketching: it's a skill that's extremely cheap to practice but takes extraordinary dedication to learn. Ask any designer the trick to sketching well, and they will almost always reply that you just have to do it a lot. There is no short cut, and no piece of software can take its place; and this makes it an outstanding differentiator of design ability as a whole. If you've put in the time and effort to learn how to sketch quickly and draw beautifully, goes the unspoken theory, you've probably got the passion and dedication to be a good designer overall.
So, do you really have to learn how to draw? The answer depends on what job you want to land. If you're dreaming of designing the next Air Jordan, Mini Cooper, or anything else that lives and dies by its visual appeal, then the answer is Absolutely Yes.
For the rest of you: even if you barely use it a year from now, you'll be judged by it, so it certainly couldn't hurt.
Comments
Good sketcher = ''Sketching is a must!''
Bad sketcher = ''Sketching isn't all that, what about model making?!''
Posted by: Anon | February 18, 2008 11:58 AM
Its interesting that one of the original definitions for the Latin "schedium" (which became 'sketch') is "extemporaneous poem".
The difference between sketching, and sketching well, and being able to describe an experience via other media (reports, research, having other designers do the work, etc.) is the sheer efficiency of communicating an idea through a drawing. The better the drawing, the higher the degree of lucidity on the part of the viewer. I would agree that there is a point of diminishing returns.
Some architects still use pencils or draw on vellum, to provide to the contractors. These are usually single family homes of the pricey variety, so they might find the drawings quaint and desireable, but one of these architects told me "drawing is very closely linked to thinking, and building something in your head". This was a good definition.
Posted by: slippyfish | February 18, 2008 07:41 PM
Wow, thank you for writing this. I'm stupid bad at sketching and I'm glad to hear at least one perspective on the relative significance (or lack thereof) of sketching in design.
Posted by: Billy | February 19, 2008 09:32 AM
One could never replicate a beautiful sketch,drawing or a rendering through CAD programs. Although, there are a number of programs that can jazz up a sketch; a CAD can never skillfully draw a crowd pouring over a nicely done rendering. It is not a question whether a designer is prolific or has the talent if they cannot draw. the reality is designers who "DO" have the talent and mad skills to sketch has a better sensibility and feeling towards their vision than one who spends their hours on a program. Honestly most designers who can't draw are just embarrased when asked or compelled to do so.
Posted by: isagani vengco | February 19, 2008 10:12 AM
Interesting article. IMO what the final sketch looks like is of little concern, in most cases. This is because the main purpose of sketching is to help designer's think, communicate, collaborate, and have a reflective conversation with the design situation (Schon).
Disclaimer: My background is in IXD, so my view may be a little skewed.
Posted by: Dave | February 19, 2008 01:15 PM
I have always felt that designers who don't draw aren't designers. Just like a writer who doesn't put a word on paper or a screen isn't a writer. A core role for designers is to visualize ideas. Drawings are the by product of creative thinking.
I've encountered folks who's business cards say designer but like to talk a lot and produce nothing to look at. Nothing substantial to evaluate the idea. Often these people rely on others with some skill to 'draw up' their ideas. And claim this is the design process. In fact neither of these people can qualify as designers. One is a conceptual thinker, the other is an illustrator.
To really call yourself a designer you need to be able to think and generate drawings/visuals to support that thinking. Maybe requiring designers to be licensed might separate the impostors from the professionals.
Posted by: Dave Pinter | February 19, 2008 02:13 PM
I am an engineer and amature designer. The problem seen in my profession is that people cannot communicate visually at all. The people that are freakishly good at sketching in the design field are one thing, but being able to at least sketch an idea so it is discernable to your colleagues does seem like a useful skill in general.
I am certainly no fine artist, but I believe that a basic drawing class should be required in the engineering curriculum, not just designers.
Posted by: bradley | February 19, 2008 02:37 PM
Designers that work with the actual design of things need to be able to visually communicate to others involved in the process. While the ability to make high quality marker renderings is valuable, much of the communication required between designers, model makers and prototypers is often very crude, and is only refined to the point where the communication is complete. The more experience a team has working the worse the drawings look to an outsider.
The ability to draw can be debated but a sketches ability to capture what is in your head and communicate it effectively to others is without doubt the shorthand of the design community. Think, sketch, make; repeat until satisified.
Michael Anderson
Posted by: Michael Anderson | February 19, 2008 06:08 PM
Henry Dreyfuss could draw a pretty good cartoon, and used them effectively in his sales pitches. His sketches, however, are labored and and he hired someone with those skills (Julian Everett, trained as an architect) almost immediately. He was still a pretty effective designer.
But to look at a Roland Stickney rendering in opaque watercolor is to behold something that only a few designers could even aspire to these days. It is a pity that these items are such rarities.
Posted by: Russell Flinchum | February 19, 2008 10:37 PM
check out the "Vintage Concept Sketch" section on the core77 boards:
http://boards.core77.com/viewtopic.php?t=3520
Sketching is essential. From your own example, as soon as the nike designer opened his portfolio, a crowd gathered. Why would you not want to have that ability?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM
A couple of good points, but it still doesn't negate that sketching well is the cost of entry. I think this piece explains why sketching isn't just important to get a job, but an essential part of the the process:
http://drawingconnections.blogspot.com/2007/04/types-of-drawing-making-marks-for-good.html
Posted by: Michael DiTullo | February 20, 2008 05:35 PM
I tend to agree along these sorts of topics. I teach design, media and interactivity, which often involves "sketching" ideas using digital techniques. The underlying sketching "craft" is software and hardware. When students come along with interesting ideas they want to develop - not being able to "sketch" in software or hardware is a significant impediment to them materializing their ideas. I would expect a similar challenge for designers stymied by an inability to sketch with pencil and paper. On the other hand, some students are exceptional at building ideas and mustering teams to articulate and execute those ideas. I imagine there must be a class of visionary designers who can't draw, yet who still manage to create remarkable things, as there are visionaries in the design and media arena who construct beautiful designs yet haven't an idea about creating software.
Although sketching can be established as a break-water that divides the gifted from the dabblers, I'm not sure that's an entirely useful argument given the equal number of opposing arguments that can be made. I do think, though, that there should be some significant literacy with the practices of sketching. And, c'mon..not just pencil and paper. That seems exceptionally nostalgic.
Nowadays, as more design involves a complex array of "materials" that include digital components, sketching should flex beyond *just* paper and pencil, to include an ability to express and represent one's ideas through a variety of mediums, including digital visualizations, constructing functional prototypes and so on.
Bill Buxton's "Sketching User Experiences" book makes a compelling case for a more full-bodied appreciation of sketching, and the tools and resources have lowered the barrier to more sophisticated idea-materialization tools, like Processing.org and Arduino.
Posted by: Julian Bleecker | February 21, 2008 12:19 PM
I approached this same issue from the design researcher's perspective:
http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/2008/02/sketchingdesign.html
Posted by: Rob Tannen | February 22, 2008 02:39 PM
Sketching is an important tool in any designer's skill set. Designing for a client can be an intimate sharing of a vision and needs to be communicated quickly in many instances on a job site or sitting in a diner. The ability to have a "chalk talk" as I like to call it can often seal the deal when trying to communicate your vision to the client. Sadly many young designers I work with today have absolutely no ability to do this. (I work in the interior design community).
Posted by: C. Wasmer | February 22, 2008 04:08 PM
5 years ago, I graduated from an accredited Art school in Philadelphia. Throughout the course on my school years and onto the professional level, I've always questioned what my craft is. As a designer, if you can't draw, then chances are your descriptions are going to China to get drawn and sent back to you to present to your client. Then what is your craft? I guess it's your the ability to be a really great project manager. Then why the hell does any designer need to go to art school to learn a significant visual craft. Call me stupid, but none of my big name clients have ever asked me produce for them a really great description of their idea to develop into a product. To finish, if we were just to come up with quick cute descriptions, does marketing then need to exist?
Posted by: Masood Siddiqui | February 27, 2008 05:37 PM
Drawing is interconnected with seeing and perception.
When you draw what you see or imagine, you start a process that is mysterious as it is simple(to anyone who can draw well that is). When you lack the ability to draw and you call yourself an 'Artist','Designer','Creative in the visual sense', then might as well call every joe and jane an artist. When a 'designer' or 'artist' can't translate his ideas with pen and paper, it is like calling someone a writer when he couldn't even write a proper sentence.
Posted by: Jonathan Shih | March 31, 2008 11:44 AM
The classical composers created music for several instruments, but they couldn't play all of them. I say it's the ideas and concepts that matter.
Posted by: Oz | April 9, 2008 11:52 PM