Changing attitudes, images and terminology

The image of a designer has altered markedly in the past half century or so. It is interesting to consider how changing terminology over that time has affected the public perception of designers. Inevitably, designers' perception of themselves, their job and their place in the hierarchy of occupations has altered as well.

In the 1940s graphic design was termed commercial art, with all the connotations that it involved. The year 1946 saw a turning point in the perception of designers with the Britain Can Make It exhibition which presented design as the saviour of industry. As Sir Stafford Cripps put it – prefaced by the comment that we were busy beating swords into ploughshares at the end of the war – in the foreword of Design 46: 'The improvement of British design is an important factor – a very important factor in our attempt to re-establish and increase our export markets'. Praise indeed, perhaps the first accolade for many years! We were recognised as vital for the economy by the President of the Board of Trade. The exhibitions officer of the Council of Industrial Design then described the exhibition: 'As if it were a book; of which the object was to explain the meaning and importance of industrial design'. But who were these industrial designers represented in this first post-war exhibition? Book designers, textile designers, designers of kitchen equipment, fashion designers, etc., were all lumped together in one category. I wonder how many book designers or fashion designers today would think of themselves as coming under that title.

'These are the designers for industry, from the professional man with his diverse list of clients to the young girl in the design room of a cotton mill. ... These are the successors of Josiah Wedgwood the first, of Thomas Chippendale, of George Hepplewhite, of William Morris.' But not quite: 'For these men and women are designing – as Wedgwood was not and as Morris would have scorned to do – for prolific machines, automatic looms with an output of millions of yards, plastic or metal presses turning out myriads of identical parts' wrote S C Leslie, the Director of the Council of Industrial Design. Somehow it still holds an echo of the Industrial Revolution. Designers were clever and useful in 1946 but not yet prestigious, nor anywhere near as respected as artists.

An attempt was made by Bernard Hollowood to define the term design. 'An industrial design (or an article designed for factory reproduction) is made in response to a known or anticipated demand; and the most important of several tests of its quality must be based on how far it satisfies that demand. A design has two main functions – to serve its purpose as usefully and efficiently as possible and to provide maximum pleasure to the mind senses by its appearance and form. Some would have it that function is in itself a guarantee of aesthetic appeal, but this view, though a healthy reaction to the dismal notion that beauty and utility are incompatible, is much too narrow.'

He was more interesting on the subject of taste and fashion: 'Your individual tastes, however different they may be, are attuned to a common denominator of contemporary style and seasonal fashion. Fashion is made to be flouted perhaps. Style breathes the spirit of an age and we cannot escape its influence if we would. ... Functionalism, the character of the first half of the twentieth century, is an expression of our pre-occupation with ways and means. Designers create fashions: but style evolves almost in spite of them.'

Professor Darwin, in a section entitled 'Designers in the Making', opened with a statement that sounds incredible today: 'In this exhibition you will see for the first time the name of the designer or group of designers put alongside that of manufacturers of the article that they both helped to make'.

Those sentiments were all expressed about the time that I entered art school. No wonder designers were not held in very high regard. From early on I was conscious that designers were considered somewhat inferior to artists, although it may never have been put into words. This view was backed up by F H K Henrion in the introduction to John Brinkley's Design for Print, published in 1949 by the Sylvan Press.

He wrote: 'The first point I wish to stress is the attitude of the intending designer to the profession in which he (note the 'he') contemplates a career. He must feel his vocation as a designer and not regard commercial art merely as a more profitable career than fine art. Neither must he imagine that it is second-best for those without the qualifications necessary for success in fine art (a most common art school delusion).'

Another unnecessary division came between designers and craftsmen. Craftsmen came next in the hierarchy after artists because they were perceived to design as well as craft their product whereas designers were an adjunct to industry. William Morris has a lot to answer for in this respect.

The elevation of artists to a position over and above craftsmen and designers may well have its origins in the social climate of a couple of centuries ago. However, its relevance today is questionable and the whole idea of separating artists and designers from early on in their training seems destructive and wasteful. After all, we all start with the same set of skills – the ability to observe and draw, and the desire to create and bring our own personal vision into being in some form or other.

John Sassoon, who looks at the subject more as an educator, puts it this way: 'Every artist is a designer for part of the time, when he arranges his canvas or wonders whether the statue he has so grandly visualised will stand up; and every designer is an artist when he starts with a sketch of the setting for his project, illustrating the impression he is trying to create.

'Artist and designer do not describe different kinds of people, but different activities of the vast number of people who make things and have creativity in common. Every visionary is trying to give form to the mental image; so it may perhaps be worth a moment just to glance at what we mean by visionary.

'We all have certain faculties that we cannot define but we know we are always using. One of these is intuition, normally followed by its product, perception. They are very similar, and often...