‘Reproductionitis’ and work presentation

As I renewed efforts this week to update my web presence (a task I loathe but understand the importance of) I was reminded of something that one of my art history professors said years ago and find it relevant in portraying the state of work in design projects. The professor, Dr. Lauren Weingarden was one of the best and I had the pleasure of studying art with her in person at the Louve, Tuileries and D’Orsay while studying abroad in Paris during my undergrad. We were making the transition from viewing works in books and on screens to viewing them in person. There is so much to be said for experiencing art in person and being near the physical elements of impasto paint, changes in light and just experiencing the true size of the work. Dr. Weingarden called what we had been experiencing “Reproductionitis“. As students we had been looking at art in books and on screens, and occasionally in person. What books and screens fail to communicate are some of the process elements of producing art. Brushstrokes are different when seen as a 2×4” image at whatever linescreen your publisher has deemed adequate. Most blur and are merged to create a simplified impression of the work.

How is this relevant to design work? Often people present the hero shot of the work – and that’s absolutely necessary – but only some present the iterations and steps, failures and odd insights that are a part if the design thinking process. It’s easy to think when you are starting out in design that talent prevents these missteps but I think that these are actually so much a part of the design process and should be celebrated. As I am working on making a cohesive story for some of these projects and trying to communicate the successes in meeting user needs I’m also trying to show some of the steps that got me there – even though it’s a bit anxiety producing to show the mess!