A Response to a Internet Comment. (Probably the last of many)
Self-taught designers can't make good type. (Paraphrased)
This actually provokes critique of a kind of blind trust and faith in the institution. Not entirely warranted, or at all...If you reconcile that the institution (either academy or professional) is only supposed to take creativity and philosophy and any other largely subjective field so far. The point of the institution is to develop scholarship, not to breed excellence. The excellence part is—in this and many other cases—a matter of taste, whimsy, and even vaguely irrelevant, next to the capture and dissemination of works that exist at the edges, that help document the field as it exists.
The thing is: College and study can certainly be a predictor of output. The whole idea of organising a profession is to rationalize the various ways of learning/knowing and compose a kind of cannon.—of people who have expressed confidence in these areas as to expand and further codify what reliable qualities and practitioners might show up. When I say predictor of output, I mean there will be more consistent output from people who have studied design. The various programs will create more consistently bad, or good designers, designers who are more or less consistently concerned with one or more aspects of the field and how it is expressed.
Academic or Professional communities might be compelled to define:
Good Design: Qualities of design that might be a signal of a professional standard.
Ethical Guidelines for Practice: What is boundary of the profession as it relates to ethics.
Text Books: As a continuous reference—and Authors who are attending trends and advancements in the field.
Branches of study/specializations: Typography, Data, Screen, Print etc.
Of course there are many contributions that institutions (and their inculcated curricula) offer, to be frank-limitless-. I want to caution the reader to include excellence. This is about the often rarely viewed constellation of access, instinct, drive, and raw talent. And that shit shows up in lots of ways for lots of people. I wish us all luck. Always.
I do still believe that there are really very few rules in graphic design that are valuable beyond exploring what kind of quality it provides. There are—and will always be—ways that we are—more or less—effectively communicating with each other. Some of these ways are created for very specific audiences that possess their own languages, vernaculars, and visual codes, norms and more. And where I sense we lack some rigor is that I believe Designers would do well to ask—That is to—Research and position their works for those audiences that they are charged with reaching or hang back and let those who are fluent, do the work. This also goes a long way to help those fluent in those obscure dialects develop their confidence in our very competitive field.
The competition I speak of is against acculturation and intellectual simplification. Neither—a great recipe for design. (More on that later)
The audience can spot the signals—when it's for them. The designer owes the audience a way to enter.