Its true that most all magazines are partially financed by the advertisers, because there are, of course, business loans, investors, subscribers, etc that take part in paying the costs of producing the magazine. I beg to differ on your point that “the field of graphics is not very huge” and that it is “very specialized”. It is, in fact, very large indeed and quite diverse. Every magazine on the stand, every advertisement in print, most professional posters, a majority of websites, etc are all in the “field of graphics”. The pool of designers to purchase magazines about graphic design may not be huge, relatively speaking, and maybe that was what you were after when you made the statement.
Whether $30 is a lot for a “specialized” magazine is subjective. To a designer fresh out of school that might be a lot indeed. Ultimately whether the product is “worth it” to us is when we value it more than we value the cash we possess equaling the asking price.
Hyperbolik, it’s not that what’s in print cannot be replicated on the web, it’s that print is (to many standards) an outdated medium and it doesn’t make sense to replicate the same functionality or visual agenda. If anything it’s print that’s limited because it’s restricted to a non-progressive format which isn’t being adopted digitally as a result of it’s unsuitability. I’ve seen website using the same visual layout method as a newspaper and it can be made to work, however as a result the usability of the medium was hindered. Web designers have a much broader range of factors to account for, and an increased need for flexibility for various layout models, we (if anything) have a lot more choice than print media, we’re not bound by fixed limits or an un-evolving medium
To opening post: No. With a statement that broad it’s pretty easy to find a counter-example that disproves it.
I think part of this is simply because it seems designers often follow a different logical process than those around them and thus creates this stereotype.
The example with Garamond vs. Adobe Garamond is an excellent example. Spending an hour agonizing over such a detail would appear to observers as illogical, but in reality perhaps there’s too much logical wrangling going on.
Such misunderstandings are going to happen when you deal with people who aren’t like-minded. However ‘that insult,’ while incorrect, is sometimes based on some amount of reasoning and previous experience. Thus you’ll have to deal with running into it so long as you work in this field. Just as I have to deal with the misconception that, as a programmer, I can never understand “normal people’s” point of view.*
*Which is also incorrect, though based on reasoning and experience.
PS: I work with a print/web/flash designer. So I can speak from experience that it took a while to realize that the logic was there, just different. I, to this day, still get frustrated sometimes that we never seem to come to the same conclusions.
All these generalizations are not good. The OPs post rested on a generalization as well. Yes, there are traits in people who work in different professions, that is probably why they chose to work in a particular area.
Don’t take it so personally. The one before him was like that too. Logical conclusion (to me) is that you might have to think differently to get a different job done.
Edit: which isn’t a bad thing, but it can lead to misunderstandings as explained in the first post. I’m more or less stereotyping the job rather than those doing it now that I think about it.
Heh, so you figured it out… I was hoping to play a bit more.
sigh Fine I’ll get to the real point then: We use inductive reasoning to create generalizations so that we can use them to fill in gaps about people we do not know (or do not know well). You will be generalized, deal with it. There are too many people in the world to personally get to know everyone you meet, hence the necessity of generalizations. With that in mind it makes complete sense to ask others whether or not a conclusion you’ve come to is a valid one.
The problem becomes: technically false conclusions become accepted as valid the more they are affirmed, despite being technically false.
However, you can set in motion part of a partial correction of the generalization. Inductive conclusions like this are never 100% accurate, but they can be made more accurate by clarifying things with those you come in contact with.
The aforementioned designer, for instance, began explaining some of his process to me to correct my assumption. I no longer hold the assumption “designers can’t work logically”. My first post indicates this: that designers are logical, but the logic might have a different outcome than your own. Others will read this statement and assimilate it into their own reasoning. The line of causation here is obvious.
If you don’t like the labels applied to you: suck it up, and try to change them a little bit at a time! Calling others “sheeple” isn’t going to help you at all, and will probably earn your population segments more undeserved negative labels.
Haha, I am certainly not a troll, but I do like to play ping pong. The original question was so utterly off the mark, there was just not much else to do with it really
haha
