(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:76
056-091_28858.indd 76 8/30/12 4:44 PM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:77
056-091_28858.indd 77 8/30/12 4:44 PM
Writing & research for graphic designers
(Text)
76
Cover of the premier
issue of
Eye
magazine,
conceived and edited
by Rick Poynor.
If design can sometimes be too perfect or professionally crafted, can
the same be said of writing?
It’s hard to imagine an everyday writing situation where this could possibly
be a problem. The more you revise and polish your writing, the better it
tends to be. A point will come when the writing is good and is of a publish-
able standard, but even then it will improve if you continue to work on it.
There is certainly a danger of overwriting and “purple prose,” but neither of
those traits is a sign of perfection or professionalism. The writing needs to
achieve a balance of form and intent. If the rhetoric is faulty, through either
overwriting or underwriting, then it won’t convince. Writers should strive
to do the best writing they can.
Do you tailor your voice to your audience?
The aim, naturally, is to maintain your voice. No ambitious writer wants
to sound interchangeable with other writers, or to be squashed flat by a
publication’s unifying editorial style. Some people think they can only
write in one way. They might be great geniuses but more probably they
are just inflexible or inexperienced writers. Writers who aim to write for
different outlets and audiences will need to make pragmatic adjustments to
their style. Understanding what is possible within a particular context and
saying what you want to say within those constraints are essential profes-
sional skills. Once you have mastered this, writing to suit different editorial
formats is a pleasurable part of the craft.
What qualities do you think are common to the best design writing?
I’m not sure I want to distinguish here between design writing and ordinary
writing. The qualities that make any writing good will also make design
writing good. Depending on the genre of writing (report, essay, column,
review, book chapter) these qualities might include a readable style, origi-
nality of language, clarity of expression, avoidance of cliché, precision of
observation, accuracy of reporting, thoroughness of research, knowledge
of the subject, the ability to tell a story, the ability to develop an argument,
and a coherent personal point of view. Whatever the subject, the reader needs
to feel that the writer has something valuable to say and that the writing
is worth the time the reader puts in. The writing should be vital and fresh.
Do you have a typical research methodology?
I have regular ways of going about research, but these are so thoroughly
ingrained now that I never think of them as a “research methodology.”
Reading is the most essential activity. I’m always scanning for information
that relates to my existing interests and looking for new subjects to pursue
in my writing. I did this before the Internet and now the Internet facilitates
even wider-ranging searches. Nevertheless, my library of books, magazines,
and journals, built up over many years and tailored to my present and
future research needs, remains my most essential research tool. I have filing
cabinets full of cuttings dating back thirty years—and many more still to
file. These printed materials are a constant reminder that a great deal of
what you need to engage in historical research is not available online. Over
the years, studio visits and recorded interviews have been crucial to my
research. I still try to avoid email interviews when writing about someone.
When necessary, I visit libraries and archives. A notebook is essential, of
course, and increasingly I’m using my camera as an aide-mémoire and as
way of generating visual material that might become the basis of an essay.
You’ve often discussed the difference between design criticism and
journalism. How does this distinction manifest in your writing?
That’s really a matter for the reader to decide. It’s true that I have talked
about the differences between criticism and journalism, and when I was
working as an editor, I proposed “critical journalism” as a form of writing
that might attempt to unite the positive aspects of both. I also tried to
practice this myself. But I certainly never intended critical journalism to be
a replacement for a purer kind of criticism. Critical journalism was a way
of saying, “If we take a journalistic framework as our starting point—trade
magazine, newspaper—is it possible to be more critical about design than
standard practice usually allows?” I would like to see a design criticism
aimed at the interested general reader that is independent of the academy
(even if it’s written by academics) and unconstrained by journalistic limita-
tions. We see this approach in music and film writing—for instance, Con-
tinuum’s 33 1/3 series and the BFI Film Classics series. It should also be
possible in a popular subject like design. Yet there are still very few outlets.
Rick Poynor Talks about Writing Criticism
Founding editor, Eye magazine
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:76
056-091_C67944.indd 76 9/22/12 11:25 AM
section 2
surveying the diciplines
(Text)
77
streets to a degree that Nairn, who died in 1983, can scarcely
have imagined. Many people find it harder to feel such a keen
sense of outrage today because they have ceased to believe that
it’s likely to have much effect. What counts is to find ways
of accommodating things as they are and of making what-
ever practical interventions you can lever, though these aren’t
expected to bring about fundamental change. In architectural
circles, the term “post-critical” has gained currency as a way of
describing some younger architects’ acceptance of the prevailing
social, economic and cultural reality. In a recent issue of Harvard
Design Magazine, Reinhold Martin notes that this form of
architecture is committed to “an affect-driven, nonoppositional,
nonresistant, nondissenting and therefore nonutopian form of
architectural production”.
Reinhold wonders, with some justification, whether post-
critical polemic might just be part of the general political
swing to the right, an authoritarian manoeuvre intended to kill
off once and for all any lingering traces in architectural thinking
of the radical politics of the 1960s. If the post-critical position
purports to be “realistic”, then Reinhold proposes “utopian real-
ism” as a riposte. “Utopian realism is critical,” he writes. “It is
real. It is enchantingly secular. It thinks differently. It is a style
with no form. . . . It is utopian not because it dreams impos-
sible dreams, but because it recognizes ‘reality’ itself as—pre-
cisely—an all-too-real dream enforced by those who prefer to
accept a destructive and oppressive status quo.” We are back
to the idea that criticism’s purpose is to strip away the layers
and try to expose what is going on underneath. This task has
nothing to do with professional and institutional needs to build
careers and promote the design business.
So where does that leave the possibility of design criticism
today? Britain has plenty of outlets for design journalism, but
design criticism is much harder to find. The quickest way to
assess its state of health is to try naming some design critics,
writers who are well known for consistent preoccupations
and points of view, who are prepared to speak out and take
a stand, and whose writing has a distinctive style and voice.
If we use, say, the great Reyner Banham as a yardstick, is there
anyone who measures up? Recently, I took part in two panel
discussions about design criticism organised in London by I.D.
magazine and Rhode Island School of Design. Part way through
the second event I pointed out that no one on either panel had
mentioned any design critics. I challenged my fellow panellist,
Icon’s editor Marcus Fairs, to name some—he proposed himself
and his team. I threw in the name of Sam Jacob whose writing
about design and popular culture in Icon and Modern Painters
seems to me to display an individual voice. And that was it.
I would say we have a problem. We desperately need
criticism. It’s a vital part of the development of any creative
discipline. It helps to shape the way practitioners think about
their work and it plays a crucial role in fostering critical reflection
among design students. Conducted convincingly, design criticism
might even establish design in the public’s consciousness—at
last—as an activity that has a little more to it than dreaming
up cool things to buy in the shops.
It comes back to our publications. The standard of design
criticism is in the hands of the editors who commission most
design writing. New writers cannot possibly emerge without
places to publish and sympathetic support. The greatest gift
an editor can give a writer is the space and freedom to explore
a subject in a personal way; this was the opportunity that AR
gave Nairn. Nurturing writers is a basic editorial task, but it’s
not clear that editors see it that way any more. Most magazine
writing is publisher-led: this is what we need, this is our style,
1,200 words, go away and do it. What we see in the best blogs
is a desire, in both writers and readers, for writing that shatters
There is no reason why criticism has to follow set paths. Analysis
of the designed world can, and should, take visual forms.
pArT five: CriTiCism
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:77
056-091_C67944.indd 77 9/22/12 11:25 AM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:76
056-091_28858.indd 76 8/30/12 4:44 PM
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
#175 Dtp:225 Page:77
056-091_28858.indd 77 8/30/12 4:44 PM
Writing & research for graphic designers
(Text)
76
Cover of the premier
issue of
Eye
magazine,
conceived and edited
by Rick Poynor.
If design can sometimes be too perfect or professionally crafted, can
the same be said of writing?
It’s hard to imagine an everyday writing situation where this could possibly
be a problem. The more you revise and polish your writing, the better it
tends to be. A point will come when the writing is good and is of a publish-
able standard, but even then it will improve if you continue to work on it.
There is certainly a danger of overwriting and “purple prose,” but neither of
those traits is a sign of perfection or professionalism. The writing needs to
achieve a balance of form and intent. If the rhetoric is faulty, through either
overwriting or underwriting, then it won’t convince. Writers should strive
to do the best writing they can.
Do you tailor your voice to your audience?
The aim, naturally, is to maintain your voice. No ambitious writer wants
to sound interchangeable with other writers, or to be squashed flat by a
publication’s unifying editorial style. Some people think they can only
write in one way. They might be great geniuses but more probably they
are just inflexible or inexperienced writers. Writers who aim to write for
different outlets and audiences will need to make pragmatic adjustments to
their style. Understanding what is possible within a particular context and
saying what you want to say within those constraints are essential profes-
sional skills. Once you have mastered this, writing to suit different editorial
formats is a pleasurable part of the craft.
What qualities do you think are common to the best design writing?
I’m not sure I want to distinguish here between design writing and ordinary
writing. The qualities that make any writing good will also make design
writing good. Depending on the genre of writing (report, essay, column,
review, book chapter) these qualities might include a readable style, origi-
nality of language, clarity of expression, avoidance of cliché, precision of
observation, accuracy of reporting, thoroughness of research, knowledge
of the subject, the ability to tell a story, the ability to develop an argument,
and a coherent personal point of view. Whatever the subject, the reader needs
to feel that the writer has something valuable to say and that the writing
is worth the time the reader puts in. The writing should be vital and fresh.
Do you have a typical research methodology?
I have regular ways of going about research, but these are so thoroughly
ingrained now that I never think of them as a “research methodology.”
Reading is the most essential activity. I’m always scanning for information
that relates to my existing interests and looking for new subjects to pursue
in my writing. I did this before the Internet and now the Internet facilitates
even wider-ranging searches. Nevertheless, my library of books, magazines,
and journals, built up over many years and tailored to my present and
future research needs, remains my most essential research tool. I have filing
cabinets full of cuttings dating back thirty years—and many more still to
file. These printed materials are a constant reminder that a great deal of
what you need to engage in historical research is not available online. Over
the years, studio visits and recorded interviews have been crucial to my
research. I still try to avoid email interviews when writing about someone.
When necessary, I visit libraries and archives. A notebook is essential, of
course, and increasingly I’m using my camera as an aide-mémoire and as
way of generating visual material that might become the basis of an essay.
You’ve often discussed the difference between design criticism and
journalism. How does this distinction manifest in your writing?
That’s really a matter for the reader to decide. It’s true that I have talked
about the differences between criticism and journalism, and when I was
working as an editor, I proposed “critical journalism” as a form of writing
that might attempt to unite the positive aspects of both. I also tried to
practice this myself. But I certainly never intended critical journalism to be
a replacement for a purer kind of criticism. Critical journalism was a way
of saying, “If we take a journalistic framework as our starting point—trade
magazine, newspaper—is it possible to be more critical about design than
standard practice usually allows?” I would like to see a design criticism
aimed at the interested general reader that is independent of the academy
(even if it’s written by academics) and unconstrained by journalistic limita-
tions. We see this approach in music and film writing—for instance, Con-
tinuum’s 33 1/3 series and the BFI Film Classics series. It should also be
possible in a popular subject like design. Yet there are still very few outlets.
Rick Poynor Talks about Writing Criticism
Founding editor, Eye magazine
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:76
056-091_C67944.indd 76 9/22/12 11:25 AM
section 2
surveying the diciplines
(Text)
77
streets to a degree that Nairn, who died in 1983, can scarcely
have imagined. Many people find it harder to feel such a keen
sense of outrage today because they have ceased to believe that
it’s likely to have much effect. What counts is to find ways
of accommodating things as they are and of making what-
ever practical interventions you can lever, though these aren’t
expected to bring about fundamental change. In architectural
circles, the term “post-critical” has gained currency as a way of
describing some younger architects’ acceptance of the prevailing
social, economic and cultural reality. In a recent issue of Harvard
Design Magazine, Reinhold Martin notes that this form of
architecture is committed to “an affect-driven, nonoppositional,
nonresistant, nondissenting and therefore nonutopian form of
architectural production”.
Reinhold wonders, with some justification, whether post-
critical polemic might just be part of the general political
swing to the right, an authoritarian manoeuvre intended to kill
off once and for all any lingering traces in architectural thinking
of the radical politics of the 1960s. If the post-critical position
purports to be “realistic”, then Reinhold proposes “utopian real-
ism” as a riposte. “Utopian realism is critical,” he writes. “It is
real. It is enchantingly secular. It thinks differently. It is a style
with no form. . . . It is utopian not because it dreams impos-
sible dreams, but because it recognizes ‘reality’ itself as—pre-
cisely—an all-too-real dream enforced by those who prefer to
accept a destructive and oppressive status quo.” We are back
to the idea that criticism’s purpose is to strip away the layers
and try to expose what is going on underneath. This task has
nothing to do with professional and institutional needs to build
careers and promote the design business.
So where does that leave the possibility of design criticism
today? Britain has plenty of outlets for design journalism, but
design criticism is much harder to find. The quickest way to
assess its state of health is to try naming some design critics,
writers who are well known for consistent preoccupations
and points of view, who are prepared to speak out and take
a stand, and whose writing has a distinctive style and voice.
If we use, say, the great Reyner Banham as a yardstick, is there
anyone who measures up? Recently, I took part in two panel
discussions about design criticism organised in London by I.D.
magazine and Rhode Island School of Design. Part way through
the second event I pointed out that no one on either panel had
mentioned any design critics. I challenged my fellow panellist,
Icon’s editor Marcus Fairs, to name some—he proposed himself
and his team. I threw in the name of Sam Jacob whose writing
about design and popular culture in Icon and Modern Painters
seems to me to display an individual voice. And that was it.
I would say we have a problem. We desperately need
criticism. It’s a vital part of the development of any creative
discipline. It helps to shape the way practitioners think about
their work and it plays a crucial role in fostering critical reflection
among design students. Conducted convincingly, design criticism
might even establish design in the public’s consciousness—at
last—as an activity that has a little more to it than dreaming
up cool things to buy in the shops.
It comes back to our publications. The standard of design
criticism is in the hands of the editors who commission most
design writing. New writers cannot possibly emerge without
places to publish and sympathetic support. The greatest gift
an editor can give a writer is the space and freedom to explore
a subject in a personal way; this was the opportunity that AR
gave Nairn. Nurturing writers is a basic editorial task, but it’s
not clear that editors see it that way any more. Most magazine
writing is publisher-led: this is what we need, this is our style,
1,200 words, go away and do it. What we see in the best blogs
is a desire, in both writers and readers, for writing that shatters
There is no reason why criticism has to follow set paths. Analysis
of the designed world can, and should, take visual forms.
pArT five: CriTiCism
(Ray)
(Fogra 29_WF)Job:08-28858 Title:RP-Writing & Research for Graphic Designers
09-C67944 #175 Dtp:225 Page:77
056-091_C67944.indd 77 9/22/12 11:25 AM
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.