[Sigia-l] Putting the "Graphic" back with"Designer"(was:thelesser importance of home pages)

[Steven Pautz]

On 1/7/06, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> [...] a master-of-one-trade-only specialist (like a
> graphic designer, as Christopher mentioned) is not in a position to make the
> all-important, strategic, product/service/experience shaping decisions I've
> been talking about. He's a role player, not the Designer I'm referring to.

Although I fully agree that a graphic designer is not in a position to
make such decisions or contribute those specific values values, I feel
that the lines you've drawn to emphasize this point impose artificial
limitations on the discipline -- at both your high-level "Designer"
level and the more specialized "graphic designer" level.

My intent with the forest/trees example was to show that there is no
meaningful, discipline-level distinction between what you call a
"Designer" and what you call a "role player" -- they're echoes of the
same fractal pattern; the differences exist in the values they provide
(and thus the meetings they get invited to.) Looking through a graphic
designer's lens, graphic design will appear as an echo of your
"Designer", with a multitude of high-level shaping decisions at the
graphic designer level, and a multitude of "role player"-esque folds
extending below it. Looking through the lens of your expertise, the
graphic designer's 'high-level shaping decisions' appear as a
role-playing specialization, and the shaping decisions occur squarely
at your level. From a lens at an even higher level than yours, even
your level's duties would appear as role-playing specialization -- as
would the higher-level's when viewed from an even higher level.

With this infinite number of lenses, it's impossible to establish a
beginning or an end. Trying to establish endpoints -- trying to
classify individual lenses or approaches as 'shaping' or 'role
playing' -- only distracts from the more relevant traits (eg, values)
that ought to be the focus of the discussion.

I believe that the necessity of having a designer for "strategic,
product/service/experience shaping" should thus center on the values
delivered by that specific level/lens; drawing lines along
"specializations" and "roles" does discredit to both your Designer and
the myriad of fractal echoes extending from it in all directions.

In summary:
- There's an infinite number of levels, or lenses, which fit together
harmonically to form a fractal which we (I?) call "design".
- Each level can be seen as a high-level 'shaping' level, a
specialized 'niche' level, or anything in between, depending which
lens you're looking through.
- Given the infinite number of perspectives, it's meaningless (not to
mention impossible) to classify any specific level as fundamentally
'shaping' or fundamentally 'niche', since they're all echoes of each
other. Everything is a forest and everything is a tree, and thus
nothing is a forest and nothing is a tree.
- Since we can't look at forests or trees, we should focus exclusively
on the values and benefits delivered -- ignoring and avoiding
declarations about specialization levels (or the lack thereof). This
has the fortunate benefit of ensuring we don't get distracted or held
back by artificial, self-imposed limits: by focusing on values and
discarding distractions like 'trees' and 'forests', we're more free to
explore the fractal, reshaping or refocusing our individual lenses to
deliver the greatest value for our individual interests and strengths.

That's how I see things, at least. =)

----------------------------------------
Steven Pautz
design newbie