Piers Schmidt urges ‘independents,’ of which I suppose I am one, to ‘band together to raise standards’ (Design Business, DW 8 November)
But where is the evidence that independents occupy any high ground, let alone exclusivity in creative or ethical standards? Isn’t it a fact that by those common standards that chart success, commissions, awards, profitability et al, and honours are even between independents and conglomerates.
The paradox is that whereas Anthony Storr can show evidence that highly creative people can be solitary and independent, it is also clear that fabulous acts of individual creativity emanate from collaborations within large concerns, from Concorde to Guinness ads.
That James Beveridge, or the principals of any of the independent firms you mention, prefer to work that way is entirely their choice. Indeed, that I and others like me, having once lived supergroupdom, have chosen an independent modus vivendi did so, I suspect, less because our individual creativity is threatened and more for lifestyle reasons. Or, as with Schmidt and Michael Peters they can see a different way to do business.
Good stuff. But the inference in the article that supergroupdom in some way dilutes the creative, moral or ethical juices of the design industry is, I suspect, unsubstantiated. And that independents should rally around in opposition is disingenuous.
Rodney Fitch & Co