Are you a “bricklayer” or an art director? Chris Do explains.

Earlier this month, the video above made the rounds on social media, ruffling feathers and triggering debates in its wake.

In it, Chris Do, owner of 20-year old studio Blind and co-founder of The Skool, talks with Art Center instructors Allison Goodman and Petrula Vrontikis about what he sees as fundamental problems facing contemporary design education.

Chris tackles a lot of topics, but we wanted to zero in on some of the more controversial assertions he made, giving him a chance to clarify his position.

Let’s talk about the idea of an “art director.” Don’t you think that the best art directors are those that have actually logged several years as makers, too?

Not necessarily. It does seem to work out that the people who have lots of hands on experience tend to become art directors. But I don’t think age, experience or years doing something are indicators that someone is qualified to be an art director.

To me, an art director has the very difficult task of (working either directly with a client or a creative director) to decipher the needs of a client. This could be going through a script, brief or conversation to understand what the design and communication objectives are. They have to relay this to the client, gain their trust and win the job in a competitive pitch situation.

There are a lot of interpersonal or “soft skills” needed to do this. They have to demonstrate an ability to ask great questions, remain objective, listen intently, parse wants from needs and convert vague language (e.g. “cool,” “organic,” “epic”) into a shared visual language. This is the first challenge and not everyone is cut out to do this.

Secondly, an art director has to determine the best team of designers and animators that are best suited to execute the job given a specific budget and schedule. They need to communicate the objective to their team, redirect them when they veer off course, manage personalities and morale and keep the project on track. At times, they need to coach their team and help them get over creative blocks.

Lastly, they have to be able to break down difficult tasks into more manageable chunks and divide the work up so that team members can contribute and share the workload.

Just like age is not an indicator of maturity, I don’t think years doing something makes one more capable than another in terms of being a great art director. It’s an entirely different skill set. It’s also why some of the best coaches aren’t the best retired athletes.

I’d like to ask you the same question. Does having more or less experience as a designer or animator make you more or less qualified to run the number one site for motion graphics?

Not sure if that’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll take the bait.

I think the fact that I’ve spent 15 years making stuff hands-on (continuing to this day) has definitely had a positive impact on Motionographer.

As a maker (albeit a mediocre one), I have a genuine love for the craft. Every piece we don’t post pains me, because I know how much talent and effort goes into even the simplest creations. That sustained empathy, I think, is what separates Motionographer from other sites.

Back to the video: About 8 minutes in, you compare designer/makers to bricklayers. The term “bricklayer” upset some people on social media. Why do you think that was?

I would not have said that if I thought it was so offensive. I was trying to make a point.

My best guess as to why people are upset is because they draw a distinction between the artistry, thinking, training, etc. of being a professional designer/artist and that of a tradesperson (a mason). I don’t.

Back in the 90s, when I went to school, my fellow classmates would often refer to design school as being an over-glorified trade school. I was not offended by this comment as it was rather commonplace to hear it. We weren’t being delusional about what we were learning and doing.

I’ve never seen myself as an artist. I draw a sharp distinction between being a designer creating work for hire and creating art as a means of self expression. I personally don’t see much distinction between one set of creative professionals versus another.

A bricklayer, cabinet maker, chef, glass blower and designer are all the same to me. They all require years of practice, learning and craftsmanship to become an artisan of a particular trade. When I’m making something, I don’t see myself any differently. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. It’s just not for me.

I’m interested in solving other kinds of problems, not just graphic ones. I’m growing my business by helping other businesses grow.

So I have to give up the making part and focus on the things that no one else in the company can do, which includes: business development, closing jobs, public speaking, writing and planning for the future.

If I squint my eyes a bit, in the video it sounds like what you’re saying is that there be an additional educational option for people that focuses on entrepreneurship.

But the way you actually put it, it sounds like that educational option is supposed to be instead of learning how to make things. 

My point was/is that we should create space for divergent thinking in design education.

What’s the point of having every instructor have the same philosophy and approach to teaching and the application of design? How has our educational system adapted to the changing needs of the world? What responsibility do instructors and the schools themselves have to students in preparing them for a long, sustainable creative life? Are we being realistic about a students ability to pay off their loans given the current market for designers?

I was making a passionate plea to anyone that was listening and in a position to affect change, to arm the students of tomorrow with as many tools to make them competitive in the 21st century, global market place.

If there’s a student who exhibits particular strengths that seem out of the norm, shouldn’t we find a way to help this student versus punishing him? Shouldn’t we hone what he’s good at as opposed to telling him to work on his weaknesses?

If you’re asking me, I object to that kind of thinking. I’m a big believer in “go all in on your strengths and forget about your weaknesses.” As a well-respected, creative institution, shouldn’t we be pioneering and include courses on leadership, management, business theory, rhetoric and design thinking? The world has changed, but have we changed to meet it?

Anything else you’d like to add?

Some people are really upset. I understand why.

We seem to be on precipice of the decline of motion design. Jobs are fewer and smaller. Our clients ask for more but have 25% of the budget from just a few years ago. The leverage seems to be on their side because supply and demand are out of balance.

We can complain about it. We can try to double down on the same strategies. We can look for new niche markets to apply our talent to.

But I’m proposing that we design our own solution to the problem. Can we apply the same creative thinking that we sell to our clients and apply it to ourselves and our industry? I think so.

The answer varies depending on the individual, but my answer is to encourage everyone to think more on an entrepreneurial level. Stop looking for a job and create one. Build an audience around common beliefs, shared values and leverage that to create your financial future.

Use all of your skill, talent and creativity to make something that helps, entertain or move others.

You can follow Chris Do on Twitter and subscribe to The Skool’s YouTube channel