Being a 'multi-disciplinary' designer is difficult. It means you're a 'Jack of all Trades' but an expert in none. By saying 'none' I probably discredit myself; I'm quite good at a lot of things, but I'm not ready to 'settle' into one distinct path just yet, and am not sure when I will be.
I've been told a few times that I can't draw. When I was in Year 2 (7 yrs old) I was told by the teacher that I was "too heavy handed' and should use my pencil a little lighter. Again when I wanted to take GCSE Art (13 yrs old), I was told I "might struggle" because my "drawings were weak". I've never really let this discourage me too much, as I've been strong enough to pull myself through (I got an A* in my GCSE, and an A in my A-Level). The same situation has haunted me when I've needed to curate portfolios for the endless University Applications I've subjected myself to.
Truth is, I can draw, just not in the traditional sense.
The problem is not the drawing, it's that I don't fit the system.
This turns into a crisis when applying for Creative Jobs. My Foundation Diploma is in Art and Design. I specialised in Graphic Design/Illustration, but I don't feel confident enough to approach an organisation or professional and sell myself as that. I went to an Interview for BA Graphics Design where the interviewer said to me "the problem with you is that you're into everything, aren't you?!"
Hence, my BA is in Design.
"What is Design?" You ask.
"Design is everything" I respond.
I experience a constant battle with my chosen course of study that goes something like this:
"What do you study at University?"
"I study Design"
"What kind of Design... Fashion?
"I could if I wanted to, but the kind of Design I study is generic, so if I feel the best approach* to a subject matter is through Fashion Design, then I'll work in Fashion."
*represents the point where the interest of the person I'm talking to is lost, and the beginning of me trying to wrap up the conversation asap.
What I usually fail to address is that I enjoy reading Design Theory, I enjoy the tactilities of making things, I enjoy print, colour, and my most recent work has been performance based. Purely because the understanding of people around the topic of Design, or more specifically (so Fucking) Goldsmiths Design is limited, it's hard to keep them interested without putting them on the course.
What we do at Goldsmiths is very ecclectic/eccentric, and therefore quite difficult to pin down, and explain in one sentence. I'll provide you with a few examples.
1. The kind of Design I do is multi-disciplinary, I will define the problem in a given situation, and then use my range of skills to solve the problem or explore the parameters in the most effective way I can.
2. My approach is somewhat similar to Speculative Design, where I envisage possible/probable futures, and design objects or concepts to aid the explanation of these imaginings.
3. I'm an 'ideas first, tools later' designer. I'm great at thinking critically and subverting and challenging norms, then applying the correct tool, method or approach my idea in order to materialise it.
I initially signed up to the course because the course leader, Matt Ward was depicted in the course video, saying that "Design will make (you) Future-Proof". I must have watched the video 10-15 times from the time I applied to my first day. I'm still trying to work out if his assertions are true.
Am I Future-Proof?
What does "Future Proof" mean?
Does it mean that I'll be employable no matter how the industry evolves over the next 47 years? (the time it will take for me to reach state retirement age in the UK if it does not change in the meantime).
Does it mean that I'll be provided with skills that are intangible, and therefore no matter how the tangible aspects and demands of the industry change, I'll still be useful?
Maybe the fact that I "can't draw" doesn't matter so much after all.
