Ten things I have lerned

Ten Things I Have Lear­ned
Part of AIGA Talk in Lon­don
Novem­ber 22, 2001

1
YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE.
This is a curious rule and it took me a long time to learn because in fact at the begin­ning of my prac­tice I felt the oppo­site. Pro­fes­sio­na­lism requi­red that you didn’t par­ti­cu­larly like the people that you worked for or at least main­tai­ned an arms length rela­ti­onship to them, which meant that I never had lunch with a cli­ent or saw them soci­ally. Then some years ago I rea­li­sed that the oppo­site was true. I dis­co­vered that all the work I had done that was mea­ningful and signi­fi­cant came out of an affec­tio­nate rela­ti­onship with a cli­ent. And I am not tal­king about pro­fes­sio­na­lism; I am tal­king about affec­tion. I am tal­king about a cli­ent and you sharing some com­mon ground. That in fact your view of life is some­way con­gru­ent with the cli­ent, other­wise it is a bit­ter and hope­l­ess struggle.
2
IF YOU HAVECHOICE NEVER HAVEJOB.
One night I was sit­ting in my car outs­ide Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity where my wife Shir­ley was stu­dy­ing Anthro­po­logy. While I was wait­ing I was lis­ten­ing to the radio and heard an inter­viewer ask ‘Now that you have reached 75 have you any advice for our audi­ence about how to pre­pare for your old age?’ An irri­ta­ted voice said ‘Why is ever­yone asking me about old age these days?’ I recognised the voice as John Cage. I am sure that many of you know who he was – the com­po­ser and phi­lo­so­pher who influ­enced people like Jas­per Johns and Merce Cun­ningham as well as the music world in gene­ral. I knew him slightly and admi­red his con­tri­bu­tion to our times. ‘You know, I do know how to pre­pare for old age’ he said. ‘Never have a job, because if you have a job some­day someone will take it away from you and then you will be unpre­pa­red for your old age. For me, it has always been the same every since the age of 12. I wake up in the morning and I try to figure out how am I going to put bread on the table today? It is the same at 75, I wake up every morning and I think how am I going to put bread on the table today? I am excee­din­gly well pre­pa­red for my old age’ he said.

3
SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC AVOID THEM.
This is a sub­text of num­ber one. There was in the six­ties a man named Fritz Perls who was a gestalt the­ra­pist. Gestalt the­rapy deri­ves from art history, it pro­po­ses you must under­stand the ‘whole’ before you can under­stand the details. What you have to look at is the ent­ire cul­ture, the ent­ire family and com­mu­nity and so on. Perls pro­po­sed that in all rela­ti­onships people could be eit­her toxic or nou­ris­hing towards one ano­ther. It is not neces­sa­rily true that the same per­son will be toxic or nou­ris­hing in every rela­ti­onship, but the com­bi­na­tion of any two people in a rela­ti­onship pro­du­ces toxic or nou­ris­hing con­se­quen­ces. And the import­ant thing that I can tell you is that there is a test to deter­mine whe­ther someone is toxic or nou­ris­hing in your rela­ti­onship with them. Here is the test: You have spent some time with this per­son, eit­her you have a drink or go for din­ner or you go to a ball game. It doesn’t mat­ter very much but at the end of that time you observe whe­ther you are more ener­g­i­sed or less ener­g­i­sed. Whe­ther you are tired or whe­ther you are exhil­ara­ted. If you are more tired then you have been poi­soned. If you have more energy you have been nou­ris­hed. The test is almost infal­li­ble and I sug­gest that you use it for the rest of your life.

4
PRO­FES­SIO­NA­LISM IS NOT ENOUGH or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT.
Early in my career I wan­ted to be pro­fes­sio­nal, that was my com­plete aspi­ra­tion in my early life because pro­fes­sio­nals see­med to know ever­y­thing — not to men­tion they got paid for it. Later I dis­co­vered after working for a while that pro­fes­sio­na­lism its­elf was a limi­ta­tion. After all, what pro­fes­sio­na­lism means in most cases is dimi­nis­hing risks. So if you want to get your car fixed you go to a mecha­nic who knows how to deal with trans­mis­sion pro­blems in the same way each time. I sup­pose if you nee­ded brain sur­gery you wouldn’t want the doc­tor to fool around and invent a new way of con­nec­ting your nerve endings. Please do it in the way that has worked in the past.
Unfor­t­u­na­tely in our field, in the so-​called crea­tive – I hate that word because it is misused so often. I also hate the fact that it is used as a noun. Can you ima­gine cal­ling someone a crea­tive? Anyhow, when you are doing some­thing in a recur­ring way to dimi­nish risk or doing it in the same way as you have done it before, it is clear why pro­fes­sio­na­lism is not enough. After all, what is requi­red in our field, more than anything else, is the con­ti­nuous trans­gres­sion. Pro­fes­sio­na­lism does not allow for that because trans­gres­sion has to encom­pass the pos­si­bi­lity of failure and if you are pro­fes­sio­nal your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat suc­cess. So pro­fes­sio­na­lism as a life­time aspi­ra­tion is a limited goal.

5
LESS IS NOT NECES­SA­RILY MORE.
Being a child of moder­nism I have heard this man­tra all my life. Less is more. One morning upon awa­ke­ning I rea­li­sed that it was total non­sense, it is an absurd pro­po­si­tion and also fairly mea­nin­gless. But it sounds great because it con­tains wit­hin it a para­dox that is resis­tant to under­stan­ding. But it sim­ply does not obtain when you think about the visual of the history of the world. If you look at a Per­sian rug, you can­not say that less is more because you rea­lise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every shift in form is abso­lu­tely essen­tial for its aes­the­tic suc­cess. You can­not prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way supe­rior. That also goes for the work of Gaudi, Per­sian minia­tures, art nou­veau and ever­y­thing else. Howe­ver, I have an alter­na­tive to the pro­po­si­tion that I believe is more appro­priate. ‘Just enough is more.’
6
STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUS­TED.
I think this idea first occur­red to me when I was loo­king at a mar­vell­ous etching of a bull by Picasso. It was an illus­tra­tion for a story by Bal­zac cal­led The Hid­den Mas­ter­piece. I am sure that you all know it. It is a bull that is expres­sed in 12 dif­fe­rent styles going from very natu­ra­listic ver­sion of a bull to an abso­lu­tely reduc­tive sin­gle line abstrac­tion and ever­y­thing else along the way. What is clear just from loo­king at this sin­gle print is that style is irre­le­vant. In every one of these cases, from extreme abstrac­tion to acute natu­ra­lism they are extra­or­di­nary regard­less of the style. It’s absurd to be loyal to a style. It does not deserve your loy­alty. I must say that for old design pro­fes­sio­nals it is a pro­blem because the field is dri­ven by eco­no­mic con­side­ra­tion more than anything else. Style change is usually lin­ked to eco­no­mic fac­tors, as all of you know who have read Marx. Also fati­gue occurs when people see too much of the same thing too often. So every ten years or so there is a sty­listic shift and things are made to look dif­fe­rent. Type­faces go in and out of style and the visual sys­tem shifts a little bit. If you are around for a long time as a desi­gner, you have an essen­tial pro­blem of what to do. I mean, after all, you have deve­l­o­ped a voca­bu­lary, a form that is your own. It is one of the ways that you dis­tin­gu­ish your­self from your peers, and esta­blish your iden­tity in the field. How you main­tain your own belief sys­tem and pre­fe­ren­ces beco­mes a real balan­cing act. The ques­tion of whe­ther you pur­sue change or whe­ther you main­tain your own dis­tinct form beco­mes dif­fi­cult. We have all seen the work of illus­trious prac­ti­tio­ners that sud­denly look old-​fashioned or, more pre­ci­sely, belon­ging to ano­ther moment in time. And there are sad sto­ries such as the one about Cas­sandre, argu­ably the grea­test gra­phic desi­gner of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, who couldn’t make a living at the end of his life and com­mit­ted sui­cide.
But the point is that any­body who is in this for the long haul has to decide how to respond to change in the zeit­geist. What is it that people now expect that they for­merly didn’t want? And how to respond to that desire in a way that doesn’t change your sense of inte­grity and purpose.

7
HOW YOU LIVE CHAN­GES YOUR BRAIN.
The brain is the most responsive organ of the body. Actually it is the organ that is most sus­cep­ti­ble to change and rege­ne­ra­tion of all the organs in the body. I have a fri­end named Gerald Edel­man who was a great scho­lar of brain stu­dies and he says that the ana­logy of the brain to a com­pu­ter is pathe­tic. The brain is actually more like an over­grown gar­den that is con­stantly gro­wing and thro­wing off seeds, rege­ne­ra­ting and so on. And he belie­ves that the brain is sus­cep­ti­ble, in a way that we are not fully con­scious of, to almost every expe­ri­ence of our life and every encoun­ter we have. I was fasci­na­ted by a story in a news­pa­per a few years ago about the search for per­fect pitch. A group of sci­en­tists deci­ded that they were going to find out why cer­tain people have per­fect pitch. You know cer­tain people hear a note pre­ci­sely and are able to rep­li­cate it at exactly the right pitch. Some people have rele­vant pitch; per­fect pitch is rare even among musi­ci­ans. The sci­en­tists dis­co­vered – I don’t know how — that among people with per­fect pitch the brain was dif­fe­rent. Cer­tain lobes of the brain had under­gone some change or defor­ma­tion that was always pre­sent with those who had per­fect pitch. This was inte­res­ting enough in its­elf. But then they dis­co­vered some­thing even more fasci­na­ting. If you took a bunch of kids and taught them to play the vio­lin at the age of 4 or 5 after a couple of years some of them deve­l­o­ped per­fect pitch, and in all of those cases their brain struc­ture had chan­ged. Well what could that mean for the rest of us? We tend to believe that the mind affects the body and the body affects the mind, alt­hough we do not gene­rally believe that ever­y­thing we do affects the brain. I am con­vin­ced that if someone was to yell at me from across the street my brain could be affec­ted and my life might chan­ged. That is why your mother always said, ‘Don’t hang out with those bad kids.’ Mama was right. Thought chan­ges our life and our beha­viour. I also believe that dra­wing works in the same way. I am a great advo­cate of dra­wing, not in order to become an illus­tra­tor, but because I believe dra­wing chan­ges the brain in the same way as the search to create the right note chan­ges the brain of a vio­li­nist. Dra­wing also makes you atten­tive. It makes you pay atten­tion to what you are loo­king at, which is not so easy.

8
DOUBT IS BET­TER THAN CER­TAINTY.
Ever­yone always talks about con­fi­dence in belie­ving what you do. I remem­ber once going to a class in yoga where the teacher said that, spi­ri­tua­lity speaking, if you belie­ved that you had achie­ved enligh­ten­ment you have merely arri­ved at your limi­ta­tion. I think that is also true in a prac­tical sense. Deeply held beliefs of any kind prevent you from being open to expe­ri­ence, which is why I find all firmly held ideo­lo­gi­cal posi­ti­ons ques­tio­nable. It makes me ner­vous when someone belie­ves too deeply or too much. I think that being scep­ti­cal and ques­tio­ning all deeply held beliefs is essen­tial. Of course we must know the dif­fe­rence bet­ween scep­ti­cism and cyni­cism because cyni­cism is as much a restric­tion of one’s open­ness to the world as pas­sio­nate belief is. They are sort of twins. And then in a very real way, sol­ving any pro­blem is more import­ant than being right. There is a signi­fi­cant sense of self-​righteousness in both the art and design world. Per­haps it begins at school. Art school often begins with the Ayn Rand model of the sin­gle per­so­na­lity resis­ting the ideas of the sur­roun­ding cul­ture. The theory of the avant garde is that as an indi­vi­dual you can trans­form the world, which is true up to a point. One of the signs of a dama­ged ego is abso­lute cer­tainty.
Schools encou­rage the idea of not com­pro­mi­sing and defen­ding your work at all costs. Well, the issue at work is usually all about the nature of com­pro­mise. You just have to know what to com­pro­mise. Blind pur­suit of your own ends which exclu­des the pos­si­bi­lity that others may be right does not allow for the fact that in design we are always dea­ling with a triad – the cli­ent, the audi­ence and you.
Ide­ally, making ever­yone win through acts of accom­mo­da­tion is desi­ra­ble. But self-​righteousness is often the enemy. Self-​righteousness and nar­cis­sism gene­rally come out of some sort of childhood trauma, which we do not have to go into. It is a con­sis­tently dif­fi­cult thing in human affairs. Some years ago I read a most remar­ka­ble thing about love, that also applies to the nature of co-​existing with others. It was a quo­ta­tion from Iris Mur­doch in her obituary. It read ‘ Love is the extre­mely dif­fi­cult rea­li­sa­tion that some­thing other than one­self is real.’ Isn’t that fan­tas­tic! The best insight on the sub­ject of love that one can imagine.

9
ON AGING.
Last year someone gave me a char­ming book by Roger Rosen­blatt cal­led ‘Ageing Grace­fully’ I got it on my birth­day. I did not app­re­ciate the title at the time but it con­tains a series of rules for ageing grace­fully. The first rule is the best. Rule num­ber one is that ‘it doesn’t mat­ter.’ ‘It doesn’t mat­ter that what you think. Fol­low this rule and it will add deca­des to your life. It does not mat­ter if you are late or early, if you are here or there, if you said it or didn’t say it, if you are cle­ver or if you were stu­pid. If you were having a bad hair day or a no hair day or if your boss looks at you cockeyed or your boy­fri­end or girl­fri­end looks at you cockeyed, if you are cockeyed. If you don’t get that pro­mo­tion or prize or house or if you do – it doesn’t mat­ter.’ Wis­dom at last. Then I heard a mar­vell­ous joke that see­med rela­ted to rule num­ber 10. A but­cher was opening his mar­ket one morning and as he did a rab­bit pop­ped his head through the door. The but­cher was sur­pri­sed when the rab­bit inqui­red ‘Got any cab­bage?’ The but­cher said ‘This is a meat mar­ket – we sell meat, not vege­ta­bles.’ The rab­bit hop­ped off. The next day the but­cher is opening the shop and sure enough the rab­bit pops his head round and says ‘You got any cab­bage?’ The but­cher now irri­ta­ted says ‘Lis­ten you little rodent I told you yes­ter­day we sell meat, we do not sell vege­ta­bles and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those floppy ears to the floor.’ The rab­bit disap­peared has­tily and not­hing hap­pened for a week. Then one morning the rab­bit pop­ped his head around the cor­ner and said ‘Got any nails?’ The but­cher said ‘No.’ The rab­bit said ‘Ok. Got any cabbage?’

10
TELL THE TRUTH.
The rab­bit joke is rele­vant because it occur­red to me that loo­king for a cab­bage in a butcher’s shop might be like loo­king for ethics in the design field. It may not be the most obvious place to find eit­her. It’s inte­res­ting to observe that in the new AIGA’s code of ethics there is a signi­fi­cant amount of use­ful infor­ma­tion about appro­priate beha­viour towards cli­ents and other desi­gners, but not a word about a designer’s rela­ti­onship to the public. We expect a but­cher to sell us eata­ble meat and that he doesn’t mis­re­p­re­sent his wares. I remem­ber rea­ding that during the Sta­lin years in Rus­sia that ever­y­thing label­led veal was actually chi­cken. I can’t ima­gine what ever­y­thing label­led chi­cken was. We can accept cer­tain kinds of mis­re­p­re­sen­ta­tion, such as fud­ging about the amount of fat in his ham­bur­ger but once a but­cher kno­win­gly sells us spoi­led meat we go else­where. As a desi­gner, do we have less responsi­bi­lity to our public than a but­cher? Ever­yone inte­res­ted in licen­sing our field might note that the rea­son licen­sing has been inven­ted is to pro­tect the public not desi­gners or cli­ents. ‘Do no harm’ is an admo­ni­tion to doc­tors con­cerning their rela­ti­onship to their pati­ents, not to their fel­low prac­ti­tio­ners or the drug com­pa­nies. If we were licen­sed, tel­ling the truth might become more cen­tral to what we do.



Einen Kommentar hinterlassen