Back in April, Imprint published an article revisiting the great Tibor Kalman vs. Joe Duffy debate. This is the stuff design legend is made of. I remember being told of a mythical argument that once happened between Joe Duffy and Tibor Kalman back college that got incredibly heated. Luckily the transcripts posted did not disappoint. After reading through the scuffle, I decided to add my own thoughts to the conversation, as insignificant as they might be. This will be the first in a three part series examining specific issues that were exposed during this debate.

The altercation was initially sparked by an ad that Duffy placed in the Wall Street Journal touting design's power to influence corporate bottom lines. The headline "How two guys with art degrees can do more for your business than a room full of MBA's". On its surface it was a brash reach out to the boardroom from the cutting room floor. Duffy justified the ad saying, "The main reason was to speak to an audience that I think has pretty much ignored design in this country. I think that we really need to deal with a higher level of management in large companies in order to do good design. We were speaking to that audience in a language we felt they could relate to and understand."

Kalman retorted during a lecture at an AIGA conference claiming that the ad was one example what what was wrong with design in the 80's. "I was saddened by the fact that graphic designers have kind of gotten down to this issue of having to help distinguish Diet 7-Up from Diet Sprite." What would follow would be one of the great design debates of this century putting the designer's role under a microscope.

The initial argument in the debate revolved around the relationship between art and commerce. Initially Kalman seems more idealistic while also being a bit more honest about how the sacrifices his company has made. Duffy tends to come off as either being slightly naive about his own company's decisions, or simply to have talked himself into believing that the things he's doing are actually aligned with his values. When asked if he has ever done work he's not proud of, Duffy responds with a succinct "No" followed by a paragraph of posturing and justification as opposed to Kalman's "Oh, yes. We took on complete garbage."

But that's not necessarily as harsh of a critique of Duffy as it might sound. Essentially what he's saying is that he never lets his company get put into the position of having to sacrifice the quality of design in the first place. Whether or not that's completely believable, you have to admire the firm stance taken. The defiant positioning of client work is obviously something that works a lot better when you're not working paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure many designers or studios would love to take such a solid stance but are forced to accept work they may not agree with simply to make ends meet.

In all agencies I've ever worked for there is definitely the double standard mentioned by Duffy, "ethically one of the biggest problems design faces is that the people who are capable of doing great design have two standards: one for clients that allow them to do good work and another for clients that will pay the freight, so to speak. I think that’s wrong, and I guess I’m most proud of not succumbing to that attraction."

Some agencies tend to deal with this double standard by hiring obviously disparate levels of designers. Dan Shepelavy once referred to this arrangement as "cloud city and the worker bees" (My apologies, Dan if I've cluttered up your metaphor). One class of designers basically works on portfolio projects while other designers grind out the day to day money work. Another arrangement is the "everyone take a bite of shit pie" method where undesirable work is spread evenly throughout all levels of the institution. Both methods have their ups and downs and can affect the culture of a studio in different ways. I'm sure we would rather not have to deal with the situation but agencies tend to have high overheads and often will take the work.

While Kalman never talks about how the undesirable work floats through an agency, he does explain a very different approach than that of Duffy's. "For a very long time, the two standards were the only way in which we could both survive and be capable of doing the kind of work we thought a lot of our small clients deserved, in spite of their cruddy budgets. I think that’s okay and I think a lot of people have to get started that way." Kalman is obviously being more transparent and honest about the process of getting to that point.

He continues with, "we did a lot of fairly funky projects, both morally and esthetically. And as we got better known and better able to sell our work, we began to combine the two standards so that, to some extent, they overlap significantly. Now we can actually make money on projects we believe in."

We'd all love to have Duffy's freedom and flexibility in deciding what we will be working on, but the financial realities typically lead us to a conlusion like Kalman. We do what we have to do now so we can do what we want later (thanks, Jimmy John's sign). This process is actually something that developers embrace as a working method for projects. Get the basics up now and refine as you continue. There's a comfort to knowing that your body of work is a living, breathing thing that can constantly be taken in new directions. I think the main thing for upstart shops to remember is to constantly strive for that overlap point or else be doomed to either financial ruin or even worse design mediocrity. This is the reality for most people in our profession.

From here, the conversation seems to degrade to a heated personal argument with Kalman seemingly backpedaling on the strong verbage he used during his AIGA presentation when confronted by Joe personally. This comes to a head when discussing the ad in question:

HELLER: So again, Tibor, what is so offensive about that ad given that that was the purpose and you agree with the purpose?

KALMAN: Nothing was really offensive about the ad. I think it was completely fine. I think that Joe should advertise his services. It’s smart of him to try to reach a higher level of management when he talks about design. It’s terrific that he tries to get business and tries to grow-all those things. I don’t see anything wrong with them.

DUFFY: If the ad was fine, if you agree with it—

KALMAN: No, I don’t agree with it. I only agree that it was fine for you to do.

That's basically Kalman giving Joe Duffy the 1980's designer version of the hipster "You Would!". After a few rounds of dragging each other through the mud and more backpedalling on Kalman's part this portion of the argument ends with Kalman saying "I was not worried about being fair to you. I was just worried about making a point." Followed by Duffy's "Good. I’m glad you admit that."

This portion of the article underlies something that seems to be omnipresent throughout the entire debate. The fact that these two men have very similar stances on most subjects with only minor differences that cause huge rifts. Tibor Kalman rallies for the art of design, the designer's prerogative, and the purity of design over business while oddly, simultaneously confessing his agency's past sins in these areas. Duffy comes off as being defensive against Kalman's attacks and seeking vindication for a previous public drumming. While the tension in the transcripts is almost palpable, I can't help but come away from this first round feeling that Joe is simply reciting what he's convinced himself to believe.

Advantage Kalman.