PRACTICE

october 1997 / planet of the arts 17

by Erin Gunther with assistance from Brian Gallant

he annual exhibition of graduating student

work is important to anyone getting a

diploma from the Institute. It’s the impres- sive culmination of four years of intensive training and the point at which students poise themselves to leave the shelter of the school community.

For many graduates from the School of Design, the exhibition of their final work projects is the fac- tor determining exactly how and where their skills will be employed in the professional design market. This adds a particular urgency or buzz to the design component of the Grad Show.

All of this was emphasized by Tracy Uertgreen, a 1994 Design alumna, as she perused the 1997 Grad Show. Uertgreen obtained employment shortly after presenting her own graduating project. One of the principals of Tandem Design, a local design firm, attended the Show and responded to seeing her piece by forwarding Uertgreen an offer of

employment.

Amnesty International Awareness Display Chris Dixon

Uertgreen was both nostaglic and enthusiastic about the Show. After three years in the work force she still feels a close connection to the Institute but her professional experience has given her a certain distance in looking back at her education.

She found the overall show impressive, and noted that design students have to grapple with the very problems she must deal with in a professional setting: mastering and applying fast-evolving tech- nology: producing designs that appeal and commu- nicate to the audience while configuring the content in creative and personally satisfying ways: balancing the economic necessity of selling one’s skills with the personal necessity of being true to oneself and one’s vision. As in any show, the works on exhibit solved these problems to varying degrees of success.

Uertgreen noted several elements that had changed since her time at Emily Carr and which, in her view, made the work of current students stronger than in previous years.

One of the changes immediately apparent to Uertgreen was current graduates’ advanced level of technical skills in handling materials and applying digital resources at every stage of project planning and presenta-

VECC Poster Stacey Noyes tion. This resulted in highly pol- ished works which, in Uertgreen’s opinion, demonstrate that the growing emphasis on technology “has probably catapulted ECD [Electronic Communication and GD [Graphic

Design] into a whole new realm.”

Design|

There have been important changes at the level of the School of Design itself that Uertgreen commented upon. One is the shift to a much better space (the lovely quarters in the recently constructed South Building) which took place the year after Other

institutional changes are the less-

Uertgreen graduated. ening of boundaries between var- ious creative and design discours- es and strategies, and the growing proliferation of digital resources.

Uertgreen commented, “Pm

impressed with how it’s all mixed

caring

Th sh

to

O about

the subject

oan yeuth FOTIC1Len¢c

together and everyone’s made their space into an environment unto itself.” The dynamic interposi- tioning of projects in relation to their own spaces and to each other, and the exhibition of paper, dig- : ital and industrial design pieces side by side, made the show consistently interesting to design newcom- ers and aficionados alike.

Uertgreen observed that these changes at Emily Carr Institute over the last three years reflect changes in the professional design world, where dig- ital technology and diversification of media have come to predominate as the tools and forums of choice. “You can only do so much in print,” she commented in this vein. “In Graphic Design, a lot of clients are asking for websites and other alternative solutions.”

This evidence of an expanding, well-nurtured, and up-to-date School of Design elicited a two- sided response from Uertgreen. The show was impressive and the work had definitely benefited from all the official-level care and attention being devoted to the School.

However, in the context of the design market regulated by econumic and social trends, in which design skills are treated as a commodity, the show of graduating design students work might well repre- sent the richest opportunity the participants will ever have for exhibiting independent and personal work. According to Uertgreen, fourth year design school is the only time she’s ever had to go for it and please herself without compromise. “In fourth year,” she pointed out, “you mostly just want to fin- ish. But if you could go back and have that year again, working on a project with completely no parameters, no budget, no reality, no client ... it’s like gold. [As professionals] we spend our whole lives now trying to please the client!”

It's a given that a professional designer sells his or her abilities. In fact, the point of the School of Design’s presentation night, in which the grads pre- sent their pieces to a select audience of friends, rel- atives and scouts for different design companies, is to foster job contacts. Designers also learn to com- promise between their ideas and the needs of the client. Professional designers are restricted in their work by technology and trends (e.g. they have no choice but to use computers), by what the public or perhaps more accurately the clients want, and by

the subject matter they have or are given to work

with. Especially in commercial work, getting the public’s attention and persuading them of the truth of this or that statement becomes the designer’s goal.

Therefore, says Uertgreen, a designer’s ability to generalize and work with a range of content regard- less of its focus will be valued over the designer’s personal style or interests. The usual task for a graphic designer involves being given “some copy and some images which you've got to bring to life so that youre not just reading it, but experiencing it on the page.” Uertgreen describes this balancing act as a “corporate” as opposed to “personal” approach. The former approach is what Uertgreen adopted in her typography-based 1994 grad piece, with the aforementioned success.

Uertgreen speculated that the pieces in the 1997 Show that used a “corporate” approach and were based on generic subject matter might have more © attraction to potential employers than idiosyncratic student work. “As someone who’s been out work- ing,” she said, “I can say that’s what my boss would look for — someone who can deal globally with a lot of crap and put it all together coherently... as opposed to really particular focuses.”

At the same time, Uertgreen noted that pieces in this year’s exhibit showed a more pronounced focus on personal themes. “They've evolved towards things they are comfortable with and can really dig into, so you can see their personalities emerge through the projects,” said Uertgreen. Icelandic Horse by O.D. Olafsson exemplified this transition. Olafsson’s project taught about its unexpected sub- ject in a virtual, interactive, and entertaining man- ner.

It was the idiosyncratic work in the exhibit that often seemed the most brilliant. It’s the “diversity and unexpectedness” of the grad show that makes it special, Uertgreen asserted. The best projects achieved success not so much because of the stu- dents’ design skill per se, but “because they care about the subjects.”

It seemed that greater technical prowess was matched by a more fine-tuned consciousness of the place and potential of the students’ design training in their lives — and the more integrated and economically nourished the School of Design

has become, the more proudly personal the

continued on next page, see “Design Show”

PRACTICE

‘october 1997 / planet of the arts 17

“Amnerty International Awareness Disploy ‘hrs iron

jet gg RE

caring about the subject

~~

by Erin Gunther ‘with assistance from Brian Gallant.

ma etn dting cer pla fo hn henge Pe pl espero aps ti ce plo eter ore the on of til woh procs te ‘ordre fw vive i wilde empoyein he prttnal doin mae ae eT eesti Tatil tlle ere 199 Design nn ache ered he 197 Ged oes etree. Onc tie GRERTE eune Des « al dsg _ i apaerres = her BEE by frei Uergen ‘af of

employment.

UUerigreen was both nostaglic and enthusiastic bout the Show. After three years i the work force she sil el close connection to the Insitute but her professional experience has given her a certain distance in looking back at her education.

She found the overall show impresive, and noted that design students have to grapple with the very problems shen

st deal with in a profesional settings mastering and applying fast-evolving tech

ology: producing designs that appeal and comma

neat to the audience while configuring the content in creative and personally satisfying ways balancing the economic necessity of sling one's kills with the personal necesty of being true to oneself and ‘one’ vision Asin any shows, the works on exhibit solve these problems to varying degrees of suces.

Ucrtgrcen noted several clements that had hanged since he time at Emily Carr and which, in her view, made the work of current students stronger than in previous years.

One of the changes immediatly apparent to Uragren was current graduates’ advanced level of technical sil in handling m

i

terials and applying

ial esoures at every stage of project planning and presenta tion This resulted in highly pol ished works which, in Uertgreens ‘opinion, demonstrate that the _growing emphasis on technology “has probably catapulted ECD [Electronic Communication Design} and GD_ [Graphic Design into a whole new reat.”

There have been important changes a the lvl ofthe School ‘of Design itself that Ue

‘commented upon, One is the

and

Shit to a mach better space (the lovely quarters in the recently South Building)

‘which took place the year after Other

institutional changes are the less

Uerigrcen graduated «ning of boundaries between ar ious creative and design dscours cvand strategies and the growing proliferation of digital resources, Uergreen commented, impressed with how itll mined

1m

together and everyone's made their space into an ‘environment unto itself” The dynamie interpos tioning of projects in relation to thei own spaces and tach other, and the exhibition of pape, dig ital and industrial design pecs side by side, made the show consistent interesting o design neweom: cexsand aficionados alike

Ucrgreen observ that these changes at Emily Care Institute over the last three years reflect changesin the profesional design world, where dig ital technology and diversification of media have ‘come to predominate asthe tools and forums of choice. “You can only do so much in pring.” she ‘commented i this vin "In Graphic Desig, lot of clients are asking for websites and other alternative solutions”

This evidence of an expanding, well nurtured, and upstordate School of Design elicited two. sided response from Uerigren. The shove was Impresve and the work had definitely benefited from all the offiia-level cate and attention being devoted to the School

However, inthe context of the design market regulated by econ.mic and social trends, in which <esign sks are eated as commodity, the show of graduating design students work might well repre sent the richest opportunity the participants will

‘ver have for exhibiting independent and personal

work. According to Uertgreen, fourth year design schoo isthe only time she's ever ad ogo for it and please herself without compromise. “In fourth

yea she pointed out, “you mostly just want to fn fish, But i you could go back and have that year again, working on a project with completely no parameters, no budget, no reality no client. is like gold. [As professionals] we spend our whole lives now trying to pleas the cient”

1a given that a profesional designer sells his or her abilities. Infact, the point of the School of Design’ presentation night n which the grads pre Sent thee pieces toa select audience offends el ativs and scouts for diferent design companies, s to foster job contacts. Designers ao learn to com promise between their ideas and the needs of the lent Professional designers ate restricted in thir work by technology and trends (eg, they have no

choice bu to use computers) by what the p

bic or pethaps more accurately the clients want, and by

the subject m

ter they have or are given to work

With, Especially in commercial work, geting the publics attention and persuading them ofthe trth ofthis or that statement becomes the designer's eo

‘Therefore, says Uertgren, a designe’ ability to generalize and work wth range of content regard les of its focus wil be valued over the designer's personal style or interests. The usual task for a graphic designer involves being given “some copy and sone images which you've goto bring to life so that youre not just reading, but experiencingt on the page” Uertgreen describes this Balancing act as a “eorporate” as opposed to “personal” approach, The former approach is what Uergreen adopted in her typography-based 1994 grad piece, with the aforementioned succes

Uergren speculated thatthe pices inthe 1997 Show that used a “corporate” approach and were

might ave

attraction to potential employers than idiosyncratic

based on generic subject mat

student work ’As someone who's been out work in” she said, “I can say that's what my boss would look for someone who can dea globally with lo of crap and put it all together coheremy.. ‘opposed to really particular focuses”

‘tthe same time, Uertgreen noted that pices in this year's exhibit showed a more pronounced focus on personal themes. “They've evolved towards things they are comfortable with and can relly dig imo, so you can see their personalities emerge through the projects” sid’ Uertgren, Ielandic Horse by OD. Olafson exemplified this transition, Olafsons project taught about its unexpected sub ject ina viral, interactive, and entertaining man:

Te was the osyncratic workin the exhibit that ‘often seemed the most brilliant. It’s the “diversity and unexpectednes ofthe grad show that makes it special, Uerigreen asserted. The best projects achieved success not so much because of the stu dents design skill per se, but “because they care about the subject”

It Seemed that greater technical prowess was matched by a more fine-tuned consciousness of the place and potential of the students! design traning in their ves ~ and the more integrated and economically nourished the School of Design has

become, the more proudly personal the