Deep Thoughts
I studied philosophy in college -- enough to get a major -- which means I'm qualified to actually have deep thoughts. But what follows is best described as opinion.
Typography:
Adobe Garamond is the most beautiful serif font, and I think we can all agree that the serif fonts are generally more characterful, more interesting and generally more lovely than the sans serif fonts, which means Adobe Garamond is the most beautiful font, period.
Helvetica is much maligned. I think it's a fabulous font, versatile, elegant, fun to use HUGE, and wonderfully legible when used small. It's less obtrusive than any other font and it's been contemporary since 1957. Any typophile worth their kerning should see the film "Helvetica" (a documentary by Gary Hustwit, produced by Swiss Dots/Veer).
I've used Frutiger a lot (too much?), and I used to think it was the "new" Helvetica but I was wrong. The letterforms really have way too much character to do what Helvetica does so well: disappear on the page. Frutiger is just too showy. None the less, it's all over the place (Apple uses it, for example).
Every good designer I've worked with just LOVES type. If I were looking to hire a graphic designer, I'd ask them a question about Times Roman and see if they sneered, or I'd query them on kerning headlines. If they got a dreamy, far-off look in their eyes and they wouldn't stop talking about it, they'd get hired on the spot.
Art
Now and again I'm accused of being an "artist." Which is nonsense. I'm an illustrator and in spite of the expressions of pity I get when I insist on the difference, being an illustrator isn't bad. For one thing the pay tends to be better. And like Charles Russell said, "Any man that can make a living doing what he likes is lucky, and I'm that."
The difference lies in this: artists have something to say, some larger meaning to express. Illustrators just draw stuff. If I had something to say, and I needed to get it out visually, then maybe I'd be an artist. But all I really want to do is have somebody hand me things to draw, or pages to layout.
And another thing: all the great masters before the advent of photography were essentially for-hire illustrators, trying to find paying clients and getting long-term gigs: "I have this chapel celling I'd like you to look at painting. It's pretty big, but it shouldn't take too long," or "you know, we have a lot of people at court who are going to love this portrait you painted of my wife. You could get plenty of work if you stuck around a while..." Yes, they were passionate about their work, yes they were gifted, yes they were creative, yes they were driven -- often by their own demons; just like the best graphic designers and illustrators still are.