AIGA Boston Journal, no. 1

The first issue of the AIGA Boston Journal was published in 1996 and was co-authored by Geoffry Fried and Douglass Scott. The issue was edited by Jill Donley Rege and printed by Arlington Lithograph Co., Inc. As is noted on the cover, the publication was billed as “A forum for exploring design issues.” A bright red cover features a diagonally intertwined all-caps sans-serif title reading “The Common Core,” which we can assume was the issue's title or general theme. 

The inside front cover includes a listing of the 1996 AIGA/Boston Board and a short introductory note from its then-Chapter President, Paul Montie. In his remarks, Montie notes that “The design profession is continually redefining itself,” and notes that with “the advent of new technologies comes new alliances, new questions and an endless stream of debate over the course to assume as a collective discipline.”

The 16-page issue features three thematically intertwined co-authored essays titled: 1) Who We Are, 2) What We Teach, and 3) What We Value. The body text of the publication is set in serifed black text and is peppered throughout with short quotations from designers and scholars set in burgundy sans-serif type.

The first essay, titled “Who We Are,” begins by stating, “For some time now, the landscape and boundaries of graphic design have been shifting” (p. 1). Such a statement reveals uncertainty in the profession at the time, driven by changes such as “ever-increasing access to once specialized tools” (Loc. cit.). The essay asks, “Since computers have recently made it possible for so many people to manipulate text and images, can everyone claim to be a graphic designer?” (Loc. cit.). As the essay proceeds, the authors grapple with issues of knowledge and skill acquisition (p. 2) and with the distinction between generalized and specialized knowledge (p. 4).

The second essay, titled “What We Teach,” develops these ideas a bit further. The authors suggest that “Basic graphic design education should cover subjects related to perception, concept, and method, with particular emphasis on the relationships among those three things” (p. 6). Naturally, the authors then dedicate a paragraph or two to each idea. The section concludes by suggesting that design education should focus less on designing specific things and more on the process of designing things.

The final essay, “What We Value,” noted that, “Graphic design education is a combination of many things, but the first of those is the study of graphic design” (p. 12). With this statement, the authors seemed to advocate for graphic design as a distinct profession and discipline that might stand on its own. Citing the work of Herbert Simon, the authors also describe design as “a way of acting” (p. 14). In this way, the authors suggest a less technical focus on properties to be developed in designers, as “the means for achieving” graphic design seemed to be “in flux” (p. 15).