OK, here’s the question -
You’d think that design sensibility would be quite broad. Like athleticism, for example. By that, I mean that if you are an athlete, say a runner, you are probably also pretty good at other sports to a certain extent. Of course design as a creative and intellectual pursuit is different than a physical trait, so excuse the messy metaphor.
In practice however (non-scientific, just my own observations), I don’t see too often one type of designer that is strong or has an aptitude/interest/sensibility in other design areas.
As an example, let’s take 3 different kinds of design: Fashion, Graphics, ID.
I’ve seen tons of fashion designers that make strange product design choices and have a terrible understanding of graphics.
Lots of IDers have pretty much no fashion sense and many are weak in graphics.
Lots of graphic designers likewise have no interest/sense of fashion and don’t seem to have much of an appreciation of product design.
Am I just crazy? I’d think that having an understanding of design would translate more to other disciplines… Maybe it’s just because my own work/experience is kinda in the middle of these three areas, I just notice differences across the spectrums more.
Is this something that relates to the ongoing discussions about design school specialization? It seems that perhaps in the old days, there was more cross over and if you were a Designer, you could do almost anything. As an example, look at Charles and Ray Eames (furniture, architecture, graphics, textiles), Dreyfuss, a lot of the old Italian guys…sure there are more examples…