I know of a magazine editor who, after deciding that ‘enough is enough’, took it upon herself to educate one of her old-school writers to use a computer.
How could she not do so when for one article, she would have to spend for two because an additional hired hand was needed to encode the writer’s typewritten submission? It turned out that the grizzled veteran did own a Mac and knew the concept of word-processing, among others. But the only thing is that he could not complete a decent piece because, as he put it, he needs to hear the sound of a typewriter in order to churn his best pieces.
As we speak, the editor is persuading the poor soul to try a new software that mimics the sound of his Olympia each time he taps his keyboard. Amusing story, but this anecdote is so real, it gives us an insight into the comparison between the traditional and the digital way of doing things as we talk about visual art. Because, the fact is, there is a digital congestion and confusion out there in the backdrop of the teeming number of tools available for visual design. And so, some designers are yearning for the simplicity and satisfaction that came with designing the old fashioned way.
Hands-on
Back then, the designers were hands-on with the whole process. Ideas were purer; designers did not have to worry about what software to use to produce a particular imagery or layout even before a concept was formed. During the days of the metal type, in the case of typography for instance, it would take a typographer weeks and even months to create each nuance of every stroke and serif of characters, but this resulted in a beautifully crafted typeface where each font is spaced individually. Today, typefaces abound because anyone can become typographers using commercially available software and hardware. Computers do the kerning mathematically, which, although it produces a fast output, it pales in comparison with the individually set fonts in terms of quality.
In short, before, there were artists who were not only creative and skilled, but most tellingly, had the flair, the passion and the patience to create the painstaking details that came with the craft. Today, this is no longer the case.
A typesetting machine, for example, sold itself by saying that even company secretaries could now set the type, saving the boss the type founder fee.
Digital Advantages
Of course, it is no longer debatable whether the traditional way of visual design will rule over, much less, pose an alternative to the digital technology available nowadays to visual artists. This is mainly anchored on the fact that digitally-aided design is faster, cheaper and compatible with the systems of mass production and therefore, profitable.
Expensive hardware, tools such as compasses, protractors, T-squares and drafting tables are also done away with. The design workflow was significantly reduced and the possibilities of imagery became endless. The so-called desktop publishing revolution empowered typographers and designers to be able to have many options available to them as well as the ways to control their typefaces and design. This is far better than at any point in human history. It has been said that the relative cheapness of the hardware used for digital design also democratized visual art.
Finally, there is the incidence of the Internet, which for its part, revolutionized the way information is shared, the way communication is undertaken and even the way business is done.
Fortunately, these digital technologies do not bestow upon the users the skills and, yes, the eye for design. At the end of the day, these - the hardware and software - are still tools that would follow whichever course the designers meant them to go. Also, one should remember that digital technologies empower designers. Before, a typographer was exclusively a typeface expert. Today, a designer can be a designer and typographer and so much more at the same time. As we agree that a designer's involvement is somehow reduced on one hand, his skills and area of expertise are expanded on the other.
One cannot have everything. It is too much to ask for. Bringing back the analog style in designing could be interesting, initially, but when factors like project turnover, fee income per head and the rush to market that is business today, then we definitely would be winding back the clock in more ways than one and we would lose out to nimbler, faster competitors in a rapidly changing and highly competitive market that is this global village. |
