Our private little sandbox

This week I’m departing from the series on concepts of design for a moment of personal investigation on a topic.

Just the other day my boss came into my office and plopped a magazine down on my desk. “You’ve got to read this,” he said. This is a guy I highly respect and who is a leader in his area so I listen carefully when he gives something such a glowing remark.

Before leaving I threw it into my bag for a read over the weekend. As I was browsing through the articles I came across one written by a guy with some lengthy credentials. The title caught my eye as something I thought I could relate to. So I dove in.

Whatever my expectations were I realized by around the second column that they weren’t going to be met. Don’t get me wrong, the content was great. The author was quoting sources, using proper illustrations, and using a logical story progression.

Technically it should have been a perfect article. The problem was it didn’t say anything to me. It was talking a lot, and quite eloquently, but I didn’t get it.

I thought about this pretty carefully. As I said I was interested in the topic, I was in a proper setting to hear what it had to say, in my normal chair at a quiet time on a Sunday evening. It just didn’t register.

As I went back and read over it a second and then a third time I started to see problems in the writing. First and mainly, the writer was writing for himself. The article was more of a journal entry that had been adapted for publication. Much like a book adapted for screen, it just usually doesn’t live up.

The writer was playing in his own sandbox, making his sandcastle. It was a perfect castle to him and most importantly it made sense. The problem came when someone else wanted to play in his sandbox.

When I came in I didn’t understand the rules or the circumstances of the sandbox. Therefore it made little sense to me.

Looking over it I realized crucial points were left out of the illustrations, gaps were left between supporting resources and his own points, leaving the reading to wonder about their connection.

There is a parallel here with design. Often designers play in their own sandbox. We create complex symbolism and iconography that often is lost before that masses.

However, I don’t believe that the burden of understanding lies on the public in this case. As designers it is our creative task to develop symbolism with significance. If all we ever do is play in our own sandbox then how are we to expect others to understand our meaning when they don’t know our circumstance.I love symbolism. I often spend time looking up color meanings, animal icons and type histories. I want everything to be authentic and meaningful. But when you look at one of my designs will your first instinct be to crack open your laptop and google the colors I used. I would imagine not.

As designers it is our calling to create images with universal application and understanding. We must create design with both meaning and comprehension for everyone. How, is the much more challenging and eternal question.

Avoiding the fatalistic other extreme is equally as difficult. We mustn’t determine that since not everyone will understand that we will only create those things which have no significance.

Erring on one side or the other allows the birthing of design which is not worth the time the public will spend viewing it. We absolutely must strike a balance. Failure to find that higher middle ground only leads to the degradation of the art itself.