If memory serves me correctly, I met Jason Tselentis during an AIGA Nebraska event where House Industries presented at a bowling event. After the presentation, Jason ended up being in the same group of lanes I was during the after-presentation bowling. Over the next year or so, I spoke with Jason at a number of AIGA events, until he left the city to get a master's degree.
Years later, we ran into each other in the online world, with him writing for Speak Up and me at the also defunct Be A Design Group. It was only a matter of time before he finally stepped foot back in Nebraska, where we got him to stop by and record a podcast with us.
Since Jason also teaches design, we start with a conversation of specialization versus generalization in design degrees and design businesses. From there we show him that which he has never seen. The new 'Aol.' mark.
Mig Reyes makes a return with a student tip, and we end speaking of Jason's upcoming (2011) Rockport book on Type.
And please, let us know if you use the measurement known as the pica. Do you?
Awesome discussion. As someone with a graduate degree in design, I wanted to interrupt the conversation after pretty much every sentence.
Also, the matter of specialisation is always going to be a debate. Some will say that jack-of-all-trades designers are the best kind, because they are versatile, but I have seen first-hand that when times are tough, companies go for the super-specialised. When Jason used the example of a "web designer for healthcare" that illustrates the rather dangerous phenomenon of being specialised both in a media and in an industry. While I agree that that experience in a sector is helpful, I don't think we _need_ this level of specificity — employers, and clients, are way to picky because of this.
There is a certain open-mindedness required in our profession. We have to know that like actors, we'll play many parts over the years. Similarly, clients and bosses need to understand that we _can_ play different parts, and they should audition us for our talents in general, not solely for our previous roles.
While I agree with nearly everything Jason has said (and written), I have to warn anyone who uses the word "expert" (or "expertise") anywhere near a discussion about education. Having a tilt toward a subject does not make one an expert by age 22. I wish this were so. As is said, there's just too much subject matter to take on in only those years.
Prescott, you are correct, people use that term 'expert' far too early and far too often.
Great show. After looking at the Aol. new identity, I'm sticking my neck out there to say that I like it. Initially, I was skeptical, but after viewing the Fast Company article, and accompanying YouTube video of the identities usage, it grew on me faster.
One note, I'm shying away from calling it a logo, and will refer only to it as an identity, as it makes use of multiple elements to communicate the brand image.
I like it.
Prescott, I especially like your actor analogy. It's a relatively good way to frame how designers can perform: flexibly moving from one genre (content area) to another, with the capacity to move between media (radio, television, feature film, stage). This expert notion has been, and will continue to be an ongoing debate no matter whom we compare ourselves to.
But here's a question: if a designer specializes in one media (print, digital, mobile, film), will their expertise demand higher pay, higher profile work? If they specialize in one content area, will it make them more suitable for the job than a generalist? I ask this question, because it typically comes up during a career discussion. And, as a new creative revolution dawns with sites like crowdspring inviting anybody to design a logo; the small jobs could begin to disappear with only the larger ones left over. (Even the reverse could happen, or worse yet, both scenarios.) Wouldn't being a specialist make you a better suitor?