Julius Shulman’s name has been synonymous with California architecture for over 40 years. His contributions lay not in the design of the structures themselves, rather in his ability to capture a place through a careful and deliberate photographic composition.
I’m continually amazed at how thoughtful and composed Shulman’s photos are, especially considering a typical day may only yield 10 frames. I find his work an inspiration, particularly in a world that seems to value speed over precision and production over thought. Some of my favorite of Shulman’s images follow.
Case Study House No. 21, Hollywood.
Case House Study No. 21, Los Angeles, 1958.
Case Study House No. 22, Los Angeles, 1960.
Convair Astronautics, San Diego, California, 1958.
I just read a post entitled Logos For Sale from Graphic Hug, left a comment and realized I had much more to say. The topic, which affects all designers —cut rate online design and the effect of spec work on the design profession. The question posed: whether or not this type of work is a benefit for clients on a budget and designers in need of the work. This seems to be a popular subject for the week, so here’s my take.
Does spec work democratize design?
David Carson, one of the most outspoken advocates of democratized design recently stated in a SXSW panel discussion “it (spec work) devalues the value of the profession of individual designers, I think in a shocking and horrible way.” The full conversation below is worth a watch.
Mike Samson of Crowdspring.com, an advocate of spec work, uses two false premises in the defense of his business. The first, that spec work is beneficial for young designers looking to establish a body of work before they enter a career. While it’s true many designers need time to develop a portfolio and gain experience, competitions for work in no way prepare a designer for a professional career and other designers know this. The truth is, the designs are created in a vacuum, and relationships are not developed between the designer, agency or client. The designer ends up with a body of work that is not informed by a working relationship with the client.
Samson’s second false premise is that by providing willing clients his site democratizes design. While the site provides accessibility to a competition for work, the client relationship is actually inaccessible and undemocratic, which is the complete opposite of what he claims. In my opinion, a faceless online company that harnesses the talent of the masses to make a buck is anything but democratic.
Case Study House No. 21, Hollywood.
Case House Study No. 21, Los Angeles, 1958.
Case Study House No. 22, Los Angeles, 1960.
Convair Astronautics, San Diego, California, 1958.
Mobile Gas Station, Anaheim, California, 1956.
