absolutely NOT!

I'm a graphic designer. I do websites, corporate identity, tradeshow graphics and all sorts of electronic & tactile communications pieces. A good friend of mine is an engineer by degree & product marketing guy by trade. He also happens to be very talented in landscape design. When I ask him to come help me choose plants for my landscaping, I hear the same response that I've heard from him for two years, "You're a designer! How could you not understand layouts of plants, boulders, rocks, etc. It's the same thing as paper, there are focal points, accents, blah blah, blah," and the lecture continues all the way to the nearest garden center. Bottom line, everyone has their talents. I don't understand jack about landscape design, but I can sure create a mean layout or logo.

Peel away the veneer of technical skill which one acquires in the process of becoming accomplished in the design business, and you expose a fundamental 'sense' of design possessed by that individual. This, I believe is developed but not learned, and more so in some, than others. But when layered with learned technical skills, sets us in an inevitable pecking order determined by our peers.

As a type designer (1st career) who is also a graphic designer (2nd career)-and one who was originally trained as a fine artist-I believe strongly that type design is an art unto itself. There are so many intricacies involved when designing a typeface that to create a good one involves years of training. One needs to learn, for example: how to create a cohesive design for each character, and how to carry that through a family of weights and stresses; how to train your eye to create beautiful curves without odd flat spots; where to adjust stem and hairline weights from one character to another and again, from one weight to the next; how far below the baseline and above the cap- or x-height rounded or pointed characters need to fall; and how to space your font so that it reads well at various point sizes, a task just as important and integral to the finished product as the design of the characters themselves. And there are many more details I haven't even touched upon. I have worked on hundreds of the designs of others, refining them so they work as a font, and have seen many horrendous original offerings. Being a good designer is a start, but is just that. To assume that type design is just another form of design that can be easily executed is as foolish as going to a general internist for heart surgery (ok, no, it's not life and death, but you see a specialist because you need a specialist).

Being trained in design (recognizing how forms work together) is all inclusive when it comes to recognizing good design and is a great asset for learning graphic design.

If the passion is there, and the skills are learned to do a differnt type of design, yes I think Design is Design.

I have a BS in Interior Design, and later got an Associate Degree in Graphic Design. My first degree gave me a huge advantage. After having applied myself, I now have a rewarding career as a Graphic Designer!

For the most part I agree that design is design. Due to the nature of my work, which includes signage design, I go back and forth regularly from print to furniture/industrial design. I even approach cooking effectively as a design discipline, substituting taste and smell for visual elements.
Curiously, the only creative types I have come across who seem to have trouble with print design are architects. They are very creative, but don't seem to be able to deal well with the tiny space units that underlie good type design. Having employed several starving architect friends during hard times, I can't count the number of times I have had to rework their layouts to save them (and me) from embarassment. Even dancers and stage designers (whom I've also employed) make better print designers than architects!

The differentiation that comes to mind is that some designers may have more ability with two-dimensional spatial relationships while others may have the talent for three-dimensional design. I don't know that all graphic designers would make good architects or interior designers and vice-versa.

I've always felt creative professionals should follow both their hearts and minds. Most everybody is interested in other disciplines, so it's only natural to be tempted to test the waters. If a designer wants to move into another area, say photo or writing, I would encourage it -- some of the best work is the result of a fresh perspective. Novices should always be aware it takes dedication and effort to produce on a professional level, but that's true in every industry. Some of the best guitarists started on the piano and even some hall of famers started in different fields. One other thing interested me: I recently watched an interview from the 60s with Orson Welles where he said the creative fields weren't producing enough generalists, enough people who could see the big picture. I started in journalism and moved to photo and then design, so I tend to agree. Actually, I feel I wouldn't have met my potential if I hadn't broadened my scope.

Barry M
Canada

I feel While you go to classes to study software such as indesign, illustrator and so on- you cannot wake up the next day and say I am going to be a designer- you have it in you ,or you dont, if you have that creativity in you the medium should not enter into the equation
whether it be web design or Annual reports
of course saying this if a designer producing annual reports were to design for the web the basics would need to be understood as rollovers, flash etc.. but the content would always be as superior as if designing the annual report...Nutshell

On one hand, yes, design is design, no matter the medium. Good design is about function and most designers are capable of seeing it, grasping what works and what doesn't, even outside their own disciplines. On the other hand, each medium has it own quirks and limitations, not everything translates or carries over. Every medium requires its own special skillset and every medium's audience behaves differently under those conditions. We've seen designers fall flat making the transition from print to web. We've also seen people without a design background get into web work and fall flat because they don't understand function and the commonalities that cross from print to web to furniture to can openers.

We all started on square one. It is our OPPORTUNITY to stretch past square one. I work with designers who never go be-on there medium. I say WHY NOT! It doesn't mean we will be brilliant in every medium, but we will bring something back to our initial niche. Every time Adobe upgrades Photoshop there are new things to learn. We are not bean counters - we are the creative bunch. It is in our nature to go outside the box.

As a middle aged graphic artist, I say keep learning, keep stretching and don't sit in a box.

Some design basics ARE common to both static and interactive media but MANY are not. I have been a printer and graphic designer for over 30 years and have learned many differences in different media even when they are all static. For instance, a billboard design can't follow the same design rules as a newsletter or brochure. To make a board like a brochure would create a non-reader. Lots of issues must be considered as you plan your communications. With an interactive medium like the web or video/Power Point presentation, some forms of design can and should be ignored. Subtle color variations don't work for boards and are hard to notice in PP presentations. (At Least to my 54 year old eyes) Animation and interactivity allow changes which would look ridiculous on paper. Not to mention the loss of purpose of an animation.
The "eye" of a designer is developed (I believe) by the dimensional aspect of his medium as well as other factors inherent to the medium itself.
As with every "rule" there is always a time and place to break it in order to make a point or draw the viewer's attention. A furniture designer probably won't know the print designer's or web designer's basics even if they could all produce adequate work. Consistent quality would be an issue.
Thanks for the opportunity. Ron Snyder

Although I have successfully made the leap from traditional graphic design to web design (we still do both), there are certainly many kinds of "design" I wouldn't even attempt: interior design, architectural design, ship design, etc. the meaning of the word "design" has also come to encompass many different disciplines–drawing, painting, 3-dimensional work, programming, databases, etc. It would be impossible to say one could do well in any kind of "design"....The only person in history this might have applied to is Leonardo!...and he didn't even have a computer!

Recent discussions on the Adobe forum surrounding what to implement in a print design course peaked my interest about "good design." The topic was about Fine Arts curriculum teaching design essentials, but lacking instruction surrounding what is producible on a press (I personally identified with that). Can design be productive if the final product is unattainable? No. A beautifully drawn building that cannot be built is not architecture-it is a well-drawn building. Similarly, a detailed illustration with 120 spot colors is unrealistic for a press, but it is a lovely image on screen.
An idea can look great, but it needs to producible as intended in the original design. Yes, the medium matters. Versatility, within the umbrella of design, is understanding the materials and fabrication methods of the intended design-and executing them with skill. Material(s) and appropriate construction skills are fundamental to a well designed product (whether that be web, print, architecture, furniture, etc.) A well designed final product demonstrates "good design."

While the one common thread in all good design is a knowledge of design basics, I don't believe we all have strengths, necessarily, in all aspects of design. I, myself, am a graphic designer who happens to have interior design ability, but I wouldn't even attempt some other forms of design...as someone said previously, I think the point is we're all different in our abilities and strengths.

Art never lives in a vacuum. Graphic design is informed by product design which is informed by pop culture art which is informed by music which is informed by film which is informed by visual art and design, etc. We cannot be experts in every field (and not everyone should be, but some can -- look at Leonardo Da Vinci), yet I find that the careful study of a related field -- like typography -- will sharpen my graphic design skills in wonderful and unexpected ways. But why limit learning and deep study to other art forms? What about the study of science and technology, history and sociology? These all can add a depth and beauty to our visual art, grounding the art in a world rich in beauty all around us. All of that said, if I were to design a chair, I would at least study up on furniture design; I would not expect my training in graphic design to replace the training in more "practical considerations" that are specific to furniture design.

I originally went to school to be an architect, but after taking a few classes in journalism, I quickly realized that I could use the same creative skills in graphic design and layout. Being horrible at math, I decided that was my new major; creativity! I took classes ranging from Photojournalism to Video production to Printing Technology. After graduation I landed a job at a newspaper designing everything from inserts to real estate ads.

When the internet boom took off in 1996, I became a web deisgner, then in 1998 I was doing video work for streaming web sites.

Now I work in an internal marketing department of a midsize company. I design print materials, orientation videos, and I am now the intranet architect. I use the entire Adobe print, web, and video suites. It all seems to equally quench that creative thirst. Now if Adobe could just come up with a software package that covers the whole gamut, Id be in business!

I originally trained as an architect (with additional work in English). This education helped tremendously when I retrained in graphic design. The rules of good design are the same, no matter the medium. I'm now an editor and designer. (The English background was just as valuable.)

I, too, am a graphic designer who now has 128 fonts for sale at MyFonts. I design fonts for relaxation. It is the same process of design, but the knowledge required is different. A designer is a designer, but it may take a while to get proficient in a new medium.

Yes and no. Design basics are just that and apply across the board, and every designer needs to know them. How each designer goes about using the principles is what makes one better, fresher, more skilled than another. Some designers, just like the gifted athelete can excell in several areas, but certainly not all of us. Each craft takes time to hone, and for most of us to become excellent, truly good requires time to develop.