a recent ted talk features graphic designer stefan sagmeister explaining his wondrous case of “experimental years.” that is, instead of spending 15 years in idle retirement, why not pare away 5 of those 15 years and evenly distribute them as self-rewarded sabbaticals? 7 years of work. 1 blissful year off. 365 days of pure experiments, finishing your thoughts, and living on your own timetable.
in describing his most recent year off in bali, he tells us of days beginning at five, awakened by roosters. he talks of meeting a local wig master who “has people going through regular black hair looking for single white hairs, collecting them strand-by strand.” and some how, all these idiosyncratic events seem to culminate into one great stream of inspiration.
it is such a simple and ingenious thought, and my heart flutters as i watch him explain the need for designers to use the “language of design” – as he calls it – to do good, instead of doing what they do best, selling. “there is nothing inherent in our profession that forces us to support worthy causes, to promote good things, to avoid visual pollution,” he writes in his essay titled “how good is good.”
here, quoting victor papanek, sagmeister says advertising design is a business of persuading people to buy thing they don’t need, with money they don’t have. in realizing that this need not be the case, he sets off to create work that most likely will not pay the bills. some of them involve wearing a t-shirt that reads “dear mom! have a great birthday” during a tv interview (the station agreed to air it on sagmeister’s mother’s birthday in austria). others involve covering the window sills of a casino with the subtle words, “money. does. not. make. me. happy.”
but aside from these playful experiments where art meets design, what i admire the most is his frank discussions on the vulnerability that he brings to the work.
“of course there are different degrees of separation. the rescue worker down at ground zero is directly involved, when i design a pin to raise money to help the rescue worker, i’m a couple of degrees further removed. but i might just function twice as effective as a designer than i would as a rescue worker.”
he argues that the essence of art is to foster the kind of uncertainty that results in questions. and it is these willfull debates that draw me to him.
in his book” things i have learned in my life so far,” (if you have the time, visit the website where others have contributed to the ongoing list!) sagmeister shares personal awakenings and home-made maxims in the form of beautifully rendered installations. imagine the words “trying to look good limits my life” sprawled out in the arizona desert as part of half-commissioned art and half humanitarian advertising of ideas (see, it’s difficult to describe. better to pick up a copy of the book and see for yourself!).
some entries discuss happinness, and how it is designed as a compass, a tool to show us the way (thus, he argues, a state of prolonged happiness defeats its very purpose of serving as a compass).
others address the sentence that may be responsible for every conflict known to man: everybody always thinks they are right.
one particular story discusses a graduate class at the school of visual arts that sagmeister teaches. the entire class is designed to answering the question: is it possible to touch someone’s heart with design? sagmeister sets up metrics that will guide the students. the end product must: touch people they know (friends and family), touch those they do not know (members of their immediate neighbourhood), and touch everybody else (humanity, etc).
the course syllabus describes that every concept must be acted on. so brochures must be distributed, posters put up, ideas spread, you get the point. i mention one particularly touching case briefly here.
somewhere in the book, he also reflects on his earlier designer days when he was still torn over his commitment to design and whether he shouldn’t be delving into film or other arguably more powerful medium, like most his friends seem to be doing. in the end, he chose to stay with design. and in describing why, sagmeister tells us that he felt the need to master the language of design, since just as it is possible to say “i love you” in writing, it is also possible to say “i love you” in architecture, as taj mahal proves. and i guess in this line of thought, he reckoned why not say i love you in design, the language i know best?
of course, he has had his share of putting on acts that seem self-deprecating at best. like the time he had the details of a talk xacto-ed onto his torso by his intern.
or that other time when he ate kilos upon kilos of junk food in the name of a photoshoot.
sagmeister is now involved in an initiative calling for 15 per cent of the pentagon budget to be reallocated towards healthcare and education (they are called the business leaders for sensible priorities).
you can here him talk here and read more about his year off here.
