What with the logarithmic leaps of technology, my dream of being able to do what I do, where ever and when ever I want to is fast becoming a reality. What was once the provence of high-end, proprietary graphics packages is slowly migrating to the desktop, as software gets smarter and hardware gets faster. What I’d like to talk about is how this affects the industry, and what it portends for the future.

The date is rapidly approaching when an individual can have a multi-processor computer (say a Macintosh G4, or some Windows NT behemoth), a handful of clever software (Photoshop, After Effects, Electric Image, Form-Z, Lightwave, or some combination of the above...), an output option (say a CD-ROM burner, disk array, or an Exabyte drive), and they’ll be set to create graphics that could rival those produced in multi-million dollar graphics suites or on SGI workstations. Some might say that day is already here.

What will it be like when every schmuck with a PC can produce television graphics and animations? For one thing, people are going to start thinking that they can pay less for that work. Some cost-conscious individuals will ask. "Why should it cost thousands of dollars for a news package when the software to create it only costs $1999.95?"

Well, there’s an easy answer to this. Have them buy the software. Tell them to take it home. Have them install it on their computer. Then tell them to have it to do a station package for them. Hmmm... it seems that something is missing. Gee, this software won’t do anything without someone who can operate it.

“Alright,” they might say, “I’ve got a nephew who can use this stuff. I’ll just have them do it.” This may sound ridiculous to say, but believe me, it has been said. Even more ridiculous is the fact that some nephews will actually attempt to do some station packages, and some will even be paid for their efforts.

What comes into play then is a sort of Design Darwinism. People will get the design that they pay for, and deserve. Garbage will be put on the air, and the viewers will notice. While graphics are sometimes a subliminal sort of thing, bad graphics will stand out like a proverbial sore thumb. Heck, even now people pay too much for packages being done by large companies with no sense of design, imagine what it’ll be like when they get a hobbyist to do it for them.

I wouldn’t think of manufacturing shoes, even if I had some skill with leather-making tools. The same goes for rocket science, accounting, and even short-order cooking. The point is that familiarity with the tools isn’t enough. One must have talent as well as skills to perform a job, and training couldn’t hurt either. Speaking as a confirmed generalist, yeah, it’s fun to dabble in all sorts of things, but to expect someone to pay me to do it is another matter.

Bad graphics will look bad, and good graphics, uh, largely go unnoticed. That’s the nature of the work. Good design isn’t about how it looks, rather it’s about how it works. Think about when “desktop graphics” first came out, and how everyone said it’d be bad for that industry? Well, I certainly think that while there’s a lot of unreadable print design out there, there’s also a lot of innovative design that might not have happened had the tools not been made commonplace. I also think that it’s great to give ordinary people the chance to design things even as mundane as their own letterhead without being at the mercy of the local Quickee-Print print shop.

Out of all of the new work that will be done on these systems, both good and bad, some people will have a talent for the job, and will rise above the rest. That’s the upside of this democratization of television graphics. If we can get the tools into enough hands, those with talent will get the chance to show off their talent, and that’s just great. Design Darwinism works that way too.