I saw this a few weeks ago at Powells. I’m thankful for seeing it: it phrases better what I’ve been trying to clarify in my head for so long. Design must be free, because it is a liberal art for all, while at the same time it is the craft and trade of a few. I believe there should be methods created to teach it as such. I believe that the more people understand the patterns and intent of design,the better we all can think, frame problems, and empathize with our audiences. The deeper this is understood, the more value we all will see in design, whether we do it for a living or not.
If design is visual communication, it should be treated as such: as a means for people to transmit what they think, what they feel, and as a way to amplify their message, whatever that may be. Teaching people about design in no way nullifies the value of designers, much in the same way that teaching someone to write does not dismiss the value of the work of Shakespeare, an essayist at the New Yorker, or a copywriter. Learning to write teaches us to organize thought and how to communicate with one another. I believe design can do the same when taught at a mass scale.
Typography belongs to the people. Typography does not belong to graphic designers. Visual communication, like verbal communication belongs to all. Just as we are all free to speak, we should all be allowed to communicate graphically. Trained designers are not the only ones who have earned the right to do so. Designers who stand in opposition to such “untrained” communication stand in the way of democracy and the right to speak our minds.
I guess what I’m saying is that an understanding by the masses doesn’t negate the value of the specialists. Or, more simply: if we think it’s important, let’s teach everyone.