photo: FatMandy
The single most effective way to improve your prospects as a creative professional is to improve your creative skills.
Despite the millions of words of advice and discussion that have been traded on the web over the years about how to market yourself, that sentence is almost certainly the truest, most useful advice you're going to find.
As creatives whose jobs are tightly intertwined with marketing, branding, and other forms of perceptional influence, it's often tempting to focus more on the sizzle than the steak, even (or especially) where our own skills are involved. To a degree, this is useful, as the problem of the talented professional who never scores the right job due to poor self-promotion is a very real one. It's my suspicion, though, that the opposite is more pervasive: the designer, illustrator, or creative director who believes an improvement in self-marketing will always yield greater rewards than simply getting better at what he does.
There are a couple of explanations for this. The first has to do with this tendency among creatives to hyper-focus on marketing; we are, after all, frequently asked to take a weak concept and make it as appealing as possible, through adjustments in its physical design, surface treatment, advertising, packaging, or some other touch point that generates work for us. A missive in the New York Times Business section last week, though, offers an additional reason that's probably even more fundamental.
The article (If You're Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow, July 6, 2008) concerns the work of Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, who has divided popular perceptions of talent into two camps: the "fixed mind-set" and the "growth mind-set." As the names imply, the first view assumes that talent and ability are innate, and need only to be realized; the second takes a more flexible view, less concerned with natural talent than with enthusiasm and perseverance. You can probably guess her findings yourself: those who believe in flexibility tend to exhibit it, and therefore succeed at learning new skills and solving new problems, while their more fixed colleagues remain mired in self-doubt.
Although written with an eye towards business success, I couldn't help but feel like the message was directly targeted at creative professionals. More than in most fields, our careers live and die by our ability demonstrate specific skills, and our employability is largely a function of convincing those in charge that we've got them. And this is exactly why one of Dr. Dweck's "fixed mind-sets" can be so very damaging.
Think of it this way. Two students enter, say, an illustration program at a prestigious art school. One is convinced of her innate talent and skill, the other unsure, but deeply excited about learning and doing illustration, even if it doesn't impress the way her fellow student's does. The first has been told all her life that she has natural talent, and she's there to develop and express it, the second merely enjoys the process, and the acquisition of new skills. Who will wow the teachers first semester? That's an easy one. But who will ultimately be the more successful, able to grow, keep things fresh, take advantage of new media and technologies, avoid getting pigeonholed? That's probably an easy one too.
Unfortunately, the obsession with genius, already strong in North American and Western European societies, is inflated to legendary levels among creative professionals. We look at a poster by Vignelli, a logo by Loewy, a new Apple product, and we say "that's brilliant," not "wow, they must have worked long and hard to get that good." Overhearing discussions between designers, in real life and online, we get phrases like "Well, the thing with sketching is, you either have it or you don't," or "Yeah, he picked up Maya in like two weeks. Never seen anything like it," often spoken with a bit of awe and envy.
There's no doubt that some people have greater natural talent in certain fields, but where we get it wrong is in assuming that this will inherently lead to greater success. Dig a little deeper, and you discover that many of the long-timers with mad skills busted their asses for months or years to acquire them, not out of a desire to hone some inborn ability, but simply out of diligence and joy. And, more importantly, the belief that they could acquire them, despite multiple influences suggesting it would be a futile pursuit without some pre-ordained competence.
When it comes to becoming more employable, then, the "genius fixation" is especially counterproductive. If you assume that your skills are what they are, you will tend to focus more on portraying them in the best light. If you assume they are endlessly improvable, you will focus on improving them. So to the young creative job-seeker, the piece of advice that trumps all the others that have come before (networking, portfolio building, business card design, etc) is that you will never go wrong by getting better at what you do...and you can always get better.
Comments
Well put.
Posted by: Jay | July 15, 2008 04:30 PM
Good design assumes an intimate understanding of environment. As applied to architecture, I am guessing that Murcutt for instance, refuses to work outside Australia because he believes that he could not do justice to good design anywhere else other than where he has an intimate understanding of the land. That should not stop anyone else from approaching the problem of design in the same manner anywhere on the planet, only that they who do so, should not expect to come up with anything that looks like a Murcutt, but should in fact come up with something that arose from the land in which they work and live. They should come up with solutions to the problems that their site presents and not merely copy in the mistaken belief that design is something that can be removed from its context, when design is actually a result of its context. In this sense, context is not a merely a voluntary consideration when it comes to designing.
This is the crux of the problem for any designer who approaches the problem of design in any medium by using their own egotistical opinions of style or form as a first reference point. Which in turn is why an appreciation of ART is a more important beginning than a personal expression of art. The difference is in the direction at which you come at a problem and from which you arrive at a solution. It fails if you reference yourself because you are in affect making your own ego the problem to be solved, when it is the site and the client and the design solution needed that should be the first consideration.
Art, design, architecture and falling over in the street, all have a common denominator. They have a reason for happening the way they do that has nothing to do with your imagination. You have to look for what is needed, for what is asked for, and for what limitations exist on achieving those first two. That is design.
Your imagination will more often that not lead you astray from those three goals and that is why some people think experience is the only way and why some texts appear to contain more 'style' than substance. Experience, because you have to learn the answer to those three criteria above by careful and repeated observations of what works best AND what fails to work. 'Style' more than substance, because no one can be relied upon to be completely without style but they can be relied upon to be without substance.
Style is inherent to human nature, like a bird can sing and a domesticated dog can bark, but 'substance' is inherent to physical nature, like a tree stands up or certain plant seeds floats on the breeze. Their design was not 'imagined'. Their design is utterly rooted in the three parameters of what you should look for, that I have listed above and which you must understand completely long before your imagination comes into it.
Substance for a designer is understanding both limitations and the successful exploitation of those same limitations. Style is simply how you flap your wings. Design does not succeed if it does not reference the environment in which it must exist and you cannot 'imagine' the environment, so do not attempt to 'imagine' the solution to design problems. You must observe what fails and learn from it, until you stop setting up things that fail in the first place.
Good luck has nothing to do with it either. It is all about being a careful observer. The fixed mindset belongs to those who think of themselves as the first point of reference and the the flexible mindset belongs to those who instead, observe what is around them and learn from it.
Posted by: simon seasons | July 15, 2008 07:12 PM
as a 25 year old design student, I'm definitely suffering under the weight of wondering, "why is my genius not showing through yet?"
While I certainly agree with what you've said - to the extent a naive, spoiled modern kid can understand the value of true hard work - I am wondering how to know the difference between developing a skill and squandering time in dull, repetitive labor?
For instance, I would love to be able to whip out web work, but I struggle for days on end only to fail to understand divs and style sheets - is it not better to make mock-ups and pay someone else to finish it up?
Posted by: Daniel Erwin | July 15, 2008 11:12 PM
whew...please anyone answer Daniel's question. I am at the same spot.
Posted by: Jodie Thiel | July 16, 2008 04:36 PM
I never went to college, but am doing design for large international companies at this point (about nine years after starting in the graphic design field). The 'diligence and joy' you mention is exactly why I think I've gotten good at what I do. I'm also kind of focused on a specific area of branding, so focused work begets more of the same and you get to be seen as something of an expert in that particular area. I think young designers who haven't yet defined their specialty, should keep this reality in mind. It's good to be a master of one (or few) trades than a jack of all. You will get noticed faster and paid better.
Posted by: Yael Miller | July 16, 2008 09:32 PM
I'll take a shot at the question posed by Daniel, echoed by Jodie.
Build a web site, at least one. It doesn't matter if it is any good, because it doesn't matter. If it is good, great! That is secondary. For the past year I have been employed at producing mocked-up sites from Photoshop comps. Even a superficial exposure to the task will make you a better designer because, ultimately, they are hands-on pieces. If you care at all about a user-friendly site design, that is. Go ahead and fail at CSS. Each day I can see how things I've done might have been done more elegantly. It's dull and repetitive at times, to be sure. When it clicks, there is nothing in work quite as satisfying because all that frustration has given me an appreciation of the task and the confidence to build my own piece. It takes endurance to make it as a designer, no matter what your format, media, or tool of choice is.
That sweat equity can suddenly take root in Actionscript or PHP or some other branch of design; you suddenly get it, even though JavaScript or ASP, or something like CSS seemed impenetrable before. That would be a side benefit. The main thing is to know your subject. You don't have to become an expert, you just have to get wet.
Posted by: David Meek | July 19, 2008 01:18 AM
I am a 22 year old Textile Designer from India. I was a problem solver at school, and loved Physics and Mathematics. But I decided to avoid the rat race of budding Engineers, Doctors and Accountants, and decided to take an easy way out: Designing. I had never done anything creative, ever, in my life, apart from dancing, playing the piano and sketching still life objetcs, but what inspired me was the voice within me which told me something very similar to this article. My first assignment at design school was a disaster, I was so horrified by the idea of designing that I called back home and told my parents that I am not creative and I don't want to stay here, but when I graduated after four years, I was awarded the "BEST GRADUATING PROJECT" Award, the most prestigious award a graduate from the premiere-most institute of Design from India could get.
Posted by: Taniya Dhirasaria | July 30, 2008 05:10 AM
I'M A GRAPHICS DESIGNER FROM NIGERIA, I HAVE DIPLOMA IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, BUT I TAKE CREATIVE A LIFETIME, I WORK IN DUCHY CONCEPTS( AGENCY), I WANT U TO SEND ME SOME BOOKS THAT I CAN READ FOR CREATIVE, BESIDE, I WANT TO GO MORE IN ANY CREATIVE SCHOOL ,TOHAVE EXPERIENCE, CREATIVE MIND AND CERTIFICATE TO BACK MYSELF IN THE INDUSTRY. PLS I NEED UR ADVICE ALOT, AND I THINK IT CAN CHANGE MY CREATIVITY.
LOOKING FORWARD TO HEAR FROM U. BYE.
THANKS
Posted by: Akinyemi Abayomi | July 31, 2008 01:39 PM
This is for Daniel and Jodie:
I'm a Creative Director an doing interaction design for 10 years now. Yes, there is a trend by some clients and agencies to search for the non-existant designer/coder life-form to save money on an extra salary, or because they think that design is decoration and an easy side job.
People are always either designers or coders by nature. If they do both, they are better in one than in the other, therefore again, are either designers or coders. It is a sign of a badly run office to make an employee do both, because you will always be slower and probably unprofessional in one of them. If your boss doesn't know that, he is just stupid. Bosses are allowed to be stupid. That's why they are bosses.
It's better not to fight with windmills but to find an agency that has correct work definitions for designers and coders. If you feel in your heart that you are designer and your school makes you code your stuff, that's ok. Practice is good. But in your work place, you have to get out of that situation fast. Most big agencies do that separation between coders and designers.
This is how you should see yourself: you are the writer/director of a film. You are responsible to get the definition of all creative elements right that deliver the message. You define the lighting, the set, the costumes, the dialogues the camera angles, but you don't set them yourself. Production (coding, print production, post production etc) is not your job. I taught myself to code HTML in my spare time and know a great deal about coding (front and backend) but the way a director of a film would. Just so that I know what works and what doesn't and can brief the coder appropriately and judge his work.
Something about "dull tasks": Every line you draw, every click is a practice to become a better designer, measured on your inner scale. There is no such thing as a dull task. Use them to streamline your movements like a Japanese sword fighter would. There is beauty and art and dignity in the smallest job. Every bit of training helps. There is no waste. The improvements are too miniscule to see, but they are there. But it all depends on your inner motivation. It is possible to practice something 10 years without improving, if your inner mind set is not there.
Posted by: Petra Quilitz | October 6, 2008 05:03 PM