“The absence in art of a well-formulated and systematized body of literature makes the problem of teaching a perplexing one. The subject is further complicated by the elusive and personal nature of art.”
I agree with this quote, that graphic design, along with other art forms, is a very confusing and complicated subject because it’s such a personal process. I think that with any design, there needs to be some level of personalization or aesthetic on the designer’s part. I also appreciated that the reading put an emphasis on “logic” when solving a design problem. In this case, logic is a meaning behind the design; what the design needs to accomplish. I think that these two ideas are sort of a “yin and yang” concept, where the logic and the personalization are two opposites that create a perfect recipe for solving design problems; you have to have goals and parameters, yet also have personalization and aesthetic to create a great design.
Along with that, you’ll need to develop the right set of skills in order to navigate the balance of aesthetic and logic in achieving a great design. The reading talks about how problem-solving in graphic design is like playing a game, and it involves skill to “win.” The author talks about giving students basic problems to solve, and applying them in a practical, real-world context in order to build the skills necessary for the “game” of graphic design. I agree with this idea, because I think that doing so helps to eliminate the complicated nature of graphic design. Although art is such a personal process, creating art with certain parameters and goals in mind helps designers to develop the skill of solving design problems. I do, however, believe that some level of personalization should be allowed through this approach, because of the personal nature of art and design.
