Louise Sandhaus, director of the graphic design program at CalArts, is working to put the word graphic back into graphic design. As a designer, writer, and educator, she has witnessed an increasing tendency for designers to distance themselves from the much-maligned G-word, perceived too often as a dirty one. The impulse isn’t new, Sandhaus notes, and it stems from the view that to concentrate on the visual—to focus on the “graphic,” even under the rubric of “graphic design”—is a superficial pursuit.

“The visual part of graphic design has been demeaned for so long because it’s associated with style, which, in turn, is associated with superficiality and vacuousness,” says Sandhaus. “Since style doesn’t provide the kind of credibility that designers seek, they hesitate to associate themselves with a part of the practice that garners little respect.” In March 2005, Sandhaus served as co-chair of the 2005 AIGA educators conference, “Schools of Thoughts 2: Poised Toward the Future of Graphic Design Education” (see “In Review” on page 22). In panels, discussions, breakout sessions, and presentations, prominent educators and design figures explored design research, history, critical studies, and “the intelligent practice of creating visual form.”

It is “intelligent practice,” in fact, that pulls visual form out of the perceived wastebin of decoration, and it’s a subject of great interest to Sandhaus. “I don’t think ‘making’ is understood as a form of thinking,” she says. But this is because graphic design isn’t often acknowledged as an intelligent practice that translates complex ideas for a viewer through thoughtful crafting—a far from superficial endeavor. “If you come across a great piece of writing that helped you to understand something complex,” says Sandhaus, “you realize that that writer is a great thinker, who helped you understand and engage in the idea. Writers use verbal language. Graphic designers use visual language. Graphic design deserves to be recognized as equally capable of representing thought through sophisticated and engaging visual form.”

In its design curriculum, CalArts continues to emphasize the graphic, an approach that Sandhaus believes puts the school in a lone-wolf position, as others focus on either skills training or highly conceptual approaches that put less emphasis on visual form. The program stresses design history and theory to help students understand that their work is part of a continuum within technological, economic, and cultural constructs. By understanding this, students are less inclined to rearticulate existing design languages—or to make the mistake of accepting familiar design as good design. Rather, they understand the importance of inventing their own graphic language.

Turning to the writings of Lorraine Wild, designer, design historian, and faculty member of CalArts, Sandhaus brings the discussion to its logical conclusion. She points to the article, “The Macramé of Resistance” (Emigre No. 47), in which Wild wondered, to paraphrase: If the design community continues to ignore form and increasingly focus on concept and ideas, then which discipline is going to make those ideas? Moreover, which discipline will make those ideas worth looking at?