This is a little off topic, but could be useful. (It’s also quite long, so stick to it…)
There are some occupations that require a great deal of training. Doctors, architects, engineers and space shuttle pilots come immediately to mind. You don’t want to find out, just as you’re being wheeled into the OR for vital heart bypass surgery, that your ‘doctor’ was self-taught from books.
But not all qualifications need to be so formal. If the good folk at Random House are presented with the next great novel, are they going to check up on the author’s tertiary qualifications before publishing? And if they discover that she never went to college and never got a degree, will that prevent them from putting her ground-breaking novel into print?
Or how about the brilliant young star of the latest Coen Brothers movie; will the Academy insist that before they award him with an Oscar, they need to see proof that he attended acting school?
I don’t think so.
The difference between actors and doctors is that with the former, the proof of their abilities is all out there in front of them. You can’t hide from having no talent. But a doctor, on the other hand, spends most of his time wandering around in a white coat, speaking in soothing tones and enunciating Latin phrases. Where’s the proof that he can make accurate diagnoses or cut flesh or disseminate life-saving advice? It’s not until he kills someone with a wrong diagnosis or cuts through an aorta that his employers will want to take another look at his credentials.
Therefore, with doctors at least, before they can gain a position as head surgeon in a big hospital, they must show proof that they did indeed attend university, proof that they completed a residency and proof that they have performed life-altering surgery before.
Whereas all an actor has to do is act. Which is why actors, singers, writers, song-writers, poets and all manner of creative people can sometimes pop up out of the floorboards without any warning.
Of course the operative word here is ‘creative’. For creative people, the proof lies with the results. Do you think if you were going to employ a singer that you’d do so without hearing them sing? What if they attended the best singing school? Had a degree in music appreciation? Would that sway your decision when it’s clearly the case that they can’t make a note to save themselves?
One area not mentioned so far is fine art. Once again let’s go through the process; as a gallery owner, if you were shown a selection of paintings that you knew, absolutely knew, with every bone in your experienced body, would sell for top dollar, would you first ask whether or not the artist went to art school?
What if the artist was a chimpanzee?
Which brings us to the vaguely defined and unnaturally broad area of graphic design.
Design is art - with rules. A fine artist can draw, but not necessarily design. (Some designers can design, but cannot draw!) Many vacancy ads for designers insist on a tertiary qualification. Some might couch it in words like ’suitably qualified’, but most cut to the chase. Yet some of the best designers in the world never attended college or university. How is that?
The answer is long and complicated, but the solution is relatively simple. Creative people are… creative. No degree course can give an uncreative person an injection of creativity. What’s the saying? You can’t polish a turd.
But what a four year degree course will endeavour to do is tease the natural creativity out from within a student and then show the student how to wield it to the best of its potential. In the case of graphic design or visual communication, the training will also instil a few theories and impart some of the rules that must be adhered to - such as punctuation, spelling and other written language devices.
But non-designers can appreciate good design and spot something that was created by an amateur or untrained designer. How can that be?
Design is visual, universal and all-encompassing. Which means it’s a natural occurrence. Teaching design is like teaching parenting skills or music appreciation. We all come to the classroom with a measure of ‘natural talent’, some more than others.
It might help to think of the design environment as learning to drive. You can attend classes and lessons and be taught by an experienced instructor, while learning the road rules from a book and being tested on your knowledge with an exam. You can then pass a driving test on the road and ultimately be awarded with a license to drive. You still, however, must spend a lot of time on the road and gain experience before you’re a competent driver.
OR you can steal the keys to your dad’s Ford, jerk down the road trying to avoid obstacles, stop for red lights because that’s what you’ve observed others do, and generally teach yourself.
After two years of driving, is there any difference between these two drivers?
Of course big-time design at agency level is like a race track with twitchy, seriously powerful cars and narrow, tight corners. But neither of our ‘learners’ will go straight into this environment.
UNLESS they had natural talent in the first place.
You can imagine that natural driving talent, Scott Dixon, who won national karting titles at 13, going straight out onto the race track and winning. It’s possible.
But did that ‘natural talent’ have to go through the driving school? Chances are that this prodigy was one of the ’steal the keys’ types, and has never had a lesson in his life. In fact, lessons from ‘lesser mortals’ can screw up some of a ‘natural’s’ innate abilities.
Four years of design school, for a natural talent, is nothing more than a waste of three-and-a-half years. They can see the design of the world and replicate it with ease. All they need is a few small lessons to prevent them from make some fundamental errors in the beginning.
If we go back to the singer, we wouldn’t employ her without first listening to her sing, but neither would we demand paper credentials from someone with a voice like Dido or Mariah Carey.
I’ve never heard of a graphic designer who has fronted up to an interview, presented a photocopy of their degree and gotten a job WITHOUT presenting some form of portfolio. But I HAVE heard of designers with fabulous portfolios gaining jobs without degrees.
It’s all in the proof. An actor can act, a singer can sing, and a designer can design. If you can present a portfolio of work that you have created yourself, and it is good enough to sway the interviewer, a lack of formal training, or the fact that you dropped out of college to have a baby, or were headhunted by Saatchi & Saatchi before you graduated, shouldn’t have any bearing.
I say ’shouldn’t', because one or two design companies may hold the lack of a degree against you - for no other reason than pique - but most will be captured by a great portfolio.
The only fly in the ointment is… getting that perfect portfolio without going to college. It’s not easy. But it IS possible.
This isn’t a treatise on avoiding formal training. Far from it. But I have seen too many brilliant talents who have wasted years of their lives on training when a few months of ‘apprenticeship’ to a veteran would have given them the boost they need. I’ve also seen very talented amateur designers told that they have to go to college if they want to ‘make it’, and consequently give up on their dream.
And finally I know of many, many talented people who never went to college, and who are on the precipice of greatness - but who just need a little bit of polishing in order to make the portfolios grand. (And no, they’re not turds!)
So to answer the question posed at the start, no it’s not necessary to have a degree to be a graphic designer. But you had better have a lot of natural talent, and find your necessary training elsewhere. The proof is in the results. The portfolio. And the proof doesn’t lie.
If you liked this theme, there is more in my book; Get a Job in Design, available from
http://www.graphic-design-jobs.com