Off The Grid
I recently had the chance to visit a wonderful exhibition on Belgian graphic design entitled Off The Grid that was held at the Design Museum in Ghent and curated by Sara De Bondt. It was perhaps the first time I’ve visited an exhibition that was destined for the general public and although focusing on Belgian designers was presented in such a manner that anyone could learn something about this profession without falling off the grid completely - which can be the case for many graphic design shows.
The exhibition was organised into various zones, each with a specific keyword that reflected the relevant areas of work that a graphic designer embarks on in his/her practice: typography, collaboration, social relevance, seriality, surface, colour, economy of means, pattern, form and education. Each was beautifully illustrated with bold and striking designs from the 1960’s and 1970’s: Books, posters, objects, articles as well as video interviews with a handful of prominent practitioners of the period.
What struck me whilst perusing this wonderful show of work was the relevancy of those words with relation to how I teach programming and it became increasingly clear throughout my visit of how each of those words resonates with my thinking on pedagogy and represented in my mind a complete and structured course on coding for graphic designers. Indeed, the course I teach already includes many of those key concepts, making strong links with perhaps the more formal aspects of the above. We start with form, surface and colour that lay the visual foundations and enable us to practice the basic concepts of programming such as variables and functions. From here we develop on ideas to include pattern, seriality and economy of means that I approach within the context of code as learning about iteration, for loops and randomness. At this stage of the course, there is lots to be said about the generative quality of working with programming. The idea of thinking about a program as a flexible system for generating a multitude of ideas and graphic output rather than a process that produces a single result - which actually it never really does because iteration is an integral part of the creative process and the graphic designer never produces one instance of an idea.
The links to be made with the tradition of graphic design are strong in my eyes and it’s always heartwarming to see when my students manage to grasp those ideas yet also begin to the understand the particularities of the medium of code and discover the possibilities beyond. I conceived of that course as a means, to not only introduce a new medium but also as a means to consolidate certain notions that are key to the learning of an evolving tradition. The particularity of my approach is that I concentrate most of my efforts within the realm of print output, introducing only some interactive concepts as I go along. The idea in my mind is that I’ve never wanted to introduce code as some new medium that will somehow supersede a long standing tradition. Quite the contrary, I strive to reinforce those hard-earned concepts in the field of graphic design because not only do I value them but I see their worth in the newer mediums of our times. The course is therefore designed for making a smooth transition between a tradition that has its heritage firmly anchored in print and static form, to one that has become increasingly dynamic, first with the moving image and today with what we call interaction.
If we look at the evolution of graphic design teaching, many courses have included classes for video and perhaps even motion design as a discipline over the past fifteen years. If we are to consider the introduction of interaction, we can see that many schools bring this into play under the hood of web design and this is quite clear when you look at the market too. We have made room for the graphic designer and even given him/her their own cap entitled UX/UI designer. They are the one’s who have perhaps the closest links with programming - even if for some they have been relegated to wire-framing and confined to the browser. Please don’t read this as a negative point of view. I’m extrapolating a little here in line with my personal approach to the teaching of code.
The course I have developed over the years and which continues to evolve has its genesis firmly rooted in a tradition yet with the intention of opening up doors. The aim is for a generalist to rise, not a specialist to prize. Some schools position the designer alongside the coder and indeed this is how things compartmentalise in a contemporary studio or agency. One sits at one table, the other across the way. A hybrid designer seems unfit or perhaps unwelcome for that environment, or at best he/she must decide on what cap they want to wear. Indeed, the hybrid designer is a rare species, I could probably count on my fingers the number of studios who claim to such a setup where code is an integral part of their tool and mind-set accompanied with a graphic designer’s outlook.
Interaction has of course drowned the discussion as it were when it comes to talking about ‘creative coding’ or, as just stated it has become a new métier for designers of the infamous app. However, my choice has always been to favour the development of a general course that lays down a foundation for students and enables further practice and enquiry for those who wish to carry on. The particularity of working with code gives one the possibility of working across many medias and mediums. Whether you are looking to make a striking visual for print or a full blown interactive installation, the possibilities are vast when you have the capacity to encode your ideas. Despite the lure of getting my students to work on exciting large scale interactive pieces - which some schools clearly promote - it is beyond our resources and I also tend to think it is beyond our cause. The root of my teaching is found in the idea of tool-making and if I can get my students engaged in thinking about that - the creative as well as relational facets - then I’m usually quite happy.
The academic year is short and I realise that my course is lacking in two important aspects that are presented in that fine exhibition. Unfortunately, I rarely get time to talk about collaboration which is intrinsically linked with the open source ethic of coding. The notion of learning from others but also sharing with others is such a vital part of the process. Collaboration also implies many important interactions in the professional world. There is then the social and indeed political, philosophical and economic aspects of code which remain a challenging yet enriching field of study that can open up the student to a wider picture and put them in contact with many other disciplines that can become an axis for future thought or research. These are matters that I will address with time. I realise though that I’m increasingly in need of learning more about pedagogy for teaching code, to exchange with others, and yet the resources or opportunities are scarce. Beyond the obvious fact that not all art schools teach code, there is also a clear difference in how we teach it and to what ends. Furthermore, there is little exchange on the topic between teachers beyond the technicalities of coding. Amazing tutorials and initiatives are out there and their role is incontestable. After all, we are in the realm of a highly technical discipline. However there is an essential need to exchange further on topics of substance; to what ends does a graphic designer make use of this medium may be a good start would it not?
Originally published in June 2020 as part of a newsletter.