This is the third and final part of my series involving the Kalman vs. Duffy debate. After discussing the "Agency Double Standard", and "Falsifying Authenticity", the conversation was shifted in another direction.

HELLER: There’s another important issue that comes out of Tibor’s talk at the AIGA conference, and I think Joe should respond to it as well. And that has to do with subversion and Tibor’s whole discussion about being bad. What do you mean? Can you really subvert a client into doing something the client does not wish to do or into producing a product that he or she isn’t geared to produce?"

While that seems like a loaded question, what follows is a thorough dissection of the designer's role. Kalman and Duffy both make great arguments in justifying the designer as not only an agent of aesthetics, but as an agent of change (sorry for getting all Bruce Mau on you there). They both agreed that the designer should not only take what the client gives them and produce work, but rather work with the client to make sure that they're doing the right thing from a financial and ethical point of view. They should consult with the client to change the questions, instead of simply answering them. Duffy goes on to speak of the lack of respect directed at the profession from the people who need their services most. "The people who can really make the decisions in terms of using design for good purposes are people who haven’t a clue as to what we do. They don’t listen to us". This is what Heller meant by "subversion", a term that may have worked at the time of the article going to press, however today this is widely seen as a core part of what design is all about.

KALMAN: Well, yeah. One of the ways that you subvert the design process is you say, “Come back to me when you have a good product.” The client says, “What do you mean? We have a perfectly good product," and you talk about why they don’t. We attempt it on every single project we work on. We hire the writers for 95 per cent of the material that we design. We think through the marketing issues, and that’s another area where designers have to be involved because, otherwise, they're picking typefaces and colors.

I find myself cringe in this article whenever the idea of "subversion" comes up. It makes me think that a traditional designer was expected to work in a completely responsive manner. As if a designer standing up for his ideas is somehow subversive. In actuality, the more successful projects, agencies, and relationships I've been a part of have all had an element of this "subversion" in them. I prefer to call it honesty. If the relationship is based on a mutual desire to work together through a completely open transfer and ideas, the designer should have no problem securing a role as more than "cake decorator". When clients see that you're just as invested in a project's success as they are, a lot of problems can be avoided.

Duffy seems to have a similar path of thinking when defending the sale of his company, saying "I’m not about to compromise our principles. I don’t care if it’s for Procter & Gamble or General Mills or whoever. If they won’t allow us to do good work, then we won’t work for them." Kalman responds by implying that Duffy sold his business to allow a financial backing for these kinds of decisions. Duffy fires back by saying "I sold the business because large companies do not want to deal with a 10-person operation based in Minneapolis. They consider us a boutique. If we are part of a multinational organization that deals in a number of different disciplines-that has experts in a number of areas they feel we need experts in-they will listen to us; they will give us work."

Another example of the minor but great divides between Duffy and Kalman. Duffy, in short, admits to selling his business in order to be a part of a multinational studio. This in turn would give him the legitimacy of walking into Fortune 500 Companies with significant leverage to stand up for his ideals. This could be perceive as an odd sort of bought legitimacy not totally dissimilar to the kind that Duffy sells to his clients. Kalman on the other hand would rather remain small and grind out the tough jobs in order to serve the clients he really loves. With Joe's new found name and power, he sees himself as being able to leverage a more business-oriented side of design that will allow him to make bolder decisions in the conference room, thus spawning the Wall Street Journal article. Kalman on the other hand wants to rid himself of the business side of design all together.

HELLER: Do you have an interest in being bought out?

KALMAN: Yes, but let me tell you what it is. The frustration to me is that M&Co. has to make money, which is a drag. What I’d like to do is suggest that Michael Peters buy M&Co. and allow it to lose $2 million a year. Maybe it could grow a little bit over time, but I’d like to be able to lose $2 million a year, and anyone that wants to let us do that, our company is for sale.

HELLER: And what will you do during that grace period?

KALMAN: Not a grace period! We want that forever; we want heaven on earth. What will we do? We’ll spend a lot more time working on the projects that we really love and the projects that don’t have adequate funds to be done as well as we think they deserve to be done: working for museums, artists, music groups, political organizations.

I've been fairly openly in Kalman's corner for most of the debate, but with that last statement, Tibor may have just invalidated his entire argument. Kalman's disdain for design's role in Corporate America is fueled by the uselessness of differentiating "Diet Sprite from Diet 7-Up", a viewpoint he has no doubt bolstered through his Robin Hood technique of client selection. His wishes to bow out of this world entirely shows that while he tires of its purpose he neither has the interest or energy to try to change it. Whether this comes off as defeated or egotistical, this little exercise in impossible scenarios served to reveal Kalman's reluctancy to deal with the larger issues of being a client-facing design studio. On the other hand, Joe has recently sold his company for a seat at the table gambling that a huge name will give him easier and more prominent access to the boardroom.

Fast forward 20 years and look around, one of the best things that's happened in our culture has been the dissolving of the term "sellout" (Rob Walker's "Buying In" is an interesting read). In Duffy and Kalman's day there were definite lines in the sand that have since eroded with the era of collaborative projects (especially evident in the music and clothing industries). Companies today are doing things that Duffy and Kalman would have never thought possible, and designers are paving the way for change within Corporate America in regards to responsibility. One thing that hasn't changed since Kalman's day is the designer's responsibility to cultivate a relationship. As long as we have clients, we have an obligation to push them forward. Kalman's attempt to evade this responsibility is basically ignoring what it is to be a designer for the sake of his principles and freedom. In the same way that For-Profit companies are doing amazing social work across emerging populations (see Social Entrepreneurship), designers must find a way to do what's good for everyone while doing what's good for our own financial future. This point is proven as the debate rages on:

KALMAN: Well, I think there is lucrative work where you can do very good design. But it’s a lot rarer than most people admit. And I think no matter how successful you are as a graphic design company, the one thing you sorely lack-and this is something Milton Glaser has told me-is good clients. And if Milton Glaser has trouble finding good clients, God help the typical design firm in America. I think that’s part of the reason people accede to a lot of mediocrity. They’ve got to get the project out; they’ve got to pay the rent. And it’s a very sad, hard struggle. I think there are a few heroes in that struggle: Art Chantry, Tom Bonauro, Rick Valicenti - people who are not taking the route of least resistance and most money, people who are staying independent and not seeing design as a business or as a career or as an opportunity but who are lighting to return design to the idea of art and making it part of culture.

DUFFY: That’s where we disagree most—

KALMAN: Definitely. You think design is a business and I think it’s an art.

In truth, the last 20 years have shown us that it's both. Taking a position on one side or another only serves to exacerbate the problem. Kalman and Duffy are actually not that far apart on this issue, but again this minor difference causes a huge rift. Kalman believes that design is "becoming too professional and analytical, not intuitive enough." Duffy believes that the only way to affect the change to allow this level of intuition is by approaching it with a business acumen.

To command respect in the business world while holding on to your values and integrity in regards to work is the ultimate goal of both men. The approach couldn't be more different. Is it better to follow your beliefs at peril of business or to maneuver through the business world to a place where you can exercise your beliefs? Both men have had to make sacrifices along the way. Kalman admits to having bent his principles for money on occasion, and Duffy has in some ways made a deal with the devil by selling his company. Kalman is apologetic for his transgressions while Duffy maintains justifications for his actions at whatever cost. Essentially they've taken two ways up the mountain top. The end of the debate furthers this conclusion with a few heated points before Heller rings the bell.

KALMAN: Let me say that one of the things that’s going to have to happen if design is to get any better over the next few years is that people are going to have to be criticized-including myself-and be ready to stand up to criticism and defend what they do. The more public one becomes, the more we are criticized, and that criticism is a very good thing for this industry.

DUFFY: My concern is not the criticism, because I appreciate that, and I’ll stand up to that. But I want to be given the opportunity to stand up to it, and I think my whole problem with AIGA San Antonio was that I did not have the opportunity to present my side of the argument.

KALMAN: But that’s what the next conference is for, Joe. The next conference is for you to attack me.

DUFFY: You miss the obvious. If I have something to say that is negative toward you, then I'll say it so that you can respond to it. You didn’t give me that opportunity at all. I don’t think it's fair.

KALMAN: I did say it in front of you. I think you said you were in the audience. And I would have welcomed you standing up right at that moment and interrupting the speech.

DUFFY: I don’t think it's fair to—

KALMAN: Life ain’t fair, you know. I don’t think that we can have a polite forum for criticism in everything we do. And I think this issue of fair and unfair and opportunity to respond is bullshit. I think what really distinguishes us is that, with all due respect, and don’t take it personally-I think the political issue is more important than the personal issue--you’re a Reagan-era yuppie and I am, unfortunately, a ’60s radical. And I think the difference between us is precisely that: You see this as a good opportunity, a nice career, a chance to make a killing. And I see this as a business that affects people's lives and affects people's brains.

DUFFY: I think you’re completely wrong. I have not worked for people in order to just make money, as you have, so for you to accuse me of being in this business to make a killing is absurd.

HELLER: Let’s end it on that happy note.