Understanding authorship in design

It seems like the topic of authorship in the design world has been discussed to near exaustion, and yet we are still nowhere closer to putting the issue to rest. It is an issue that bears no right or wrong, a characteristic provides the debate with very much the same intensity it began to take in the early 90’s with Michael Rock’s piece "Design as Author".

In it, Rock discusses how us designers are meant to address the issue, but never really finding a meaningful resolution to the issue. Perhaps due to the multifaceted nature of the subject, there really is no quick solution, or solution at all for that matter. I have previously gone on record during a Seminar class on how the designer should remove himself from the position of authorship and make work that will stand on its own not because of author, but because of its value. In retrospect, I find that statement to be lacking. Lacking of greater meaning and lacking of understanding of how we can make changes to the world and have them be associated with us. You see, my issue has always been with the concept of ego.

One would like to think that it is possible to detach oneself from a project so as to not let it inflate one's ego, but is that even possible? I feel like doing work that moves us and tugs at our heartstrings necessarily brings a feeling of pride and accomplishment, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a negative situation.

Scientific texts, at least through the Renaissance, demanded an author’s name as validation.

Validation through authorship became prevalent after the Renaissance, ressurging in the 18th century with the introduction of the Statute of Anne, the first real copyright act ever put in action. This view of the author would go on to become much discussed in the 20th century by scholars such as Walter Benjamin and consequently discussed by the design community, but I feel like there is a balance when it comes to how we deal with our position as professionals and as potencial authors.

I am of the opinion that Michael Rock’s proposed "designer as translator" is the most accurate way we should deal with the issue.

The ultimate goal is the expression of a given content rendered in a form that reaches a new audience.

We cannot remove ourselves from the equation because we are inherently part of what we create. Each poster, book cover, visual identity project, et al, will have tiny specks of our personality imbued in them, for we are creatures imbued with influences and tastes. I find the "designer as translator" adequate because we can transmit content to any given audience without having it be about "me". Our handprints are always present, they just shouldn't take center stage.

When Michael Rock revisited his view on authorship in 2009 with his essay "Fuck Content", he did so with hopes of sorting out what was initially seen as a misunderstanding. He did not want to discourage designers also acting as authors, but wanted to address the role of the designer AS author.

In Designer as Author I argued that we are insecure about the value of our work. We are envious of the power, social position and cachet that artists and authors seem to command. By declaring ourselves “designer/authors” we hope to garner similar respect. Our deep-seated anxiety has motivated a movement in design that values origination of content over manipulation of content.

The citation above speaks to me in the sense that, I believe a full life in our profession is a mixture of new content and the manipulation of that which has already been created by someone else. Being a graduate student at Pratt provides one with the possibility to create projects one can truly call one's own, but I would be to remiss in stating that I wanted a life where all the work I did was of me, myself and I. For my Visual Language class, I'’ working on a mask that conceals the wearer's identity with string, providing the wearer with the ability to determine how much of his own identity can be transpired to those watching. I love the fact that I can call that project my own and that it is an original creation of mine, but in the end I can only hope that it moves people in way or another and calls attention to the rest of my work. There is no intention of authorship, of being an artist in disguise. I just want for that work to create interest in that which I have been taught to do. Working on personal projects allows for the artist that resides in us to explore, to quell that everlasting hunger we have to make meaningful and beautiful objects. But, those two characteristics are often present in work that we do for others. In addition, the work that we do for others carries a different emotional weight due to the fact that many of the times (be it creating a campaign or a visual identity for an up and coming company) we are trying to give visual life to a lifelong dream. I have always had a fascination with identity and the masking of said identity, and I get to play with that on my own personal projects, but, the work that is done for others can and should be placed on the same level as the work that screams "you".

If we ever find a common ground with the issue of authorship in design, it won't ever be universal. In the end, our differences as individuals and as professionals will always stand in the way of a "solution", but one can come out of all of this realizing that, if there's no right or wrong, its the best problem we could ever have.