Under the leadership of Alexander Gelman, president of New York-based Design Machine, the distinguished panel of judges closely examined artwork in five individual categories (Print, Illustration, Photography, Time-Based Media, and Multiple Media) and two group categories (Print Collaboration and Digital Collaboration). The judges were to determine which works in each medium stood out as exceptional by their innovation and execution.

Gelman's co-judges included:

• Andrew Blauvelt, design director of the Walker Art Center
• Carol Bokuniewicz, principal of Carol Bokuniewicz Design
• Karin Fong, director and designer for Imaginary Forces
• Lucille Tenazas, principal of Tenazas Design

A confluence of organization, concentration, and conversation flowed as judges examined works on paper that were displayed in layers atop tables. From this abundance of entries — hundreds of them — judges noted encouraging trends.

"There's sort of a collage element in ... a lot of the entries, I think, where people are putting in their illustrations and mixing it with photography and typography," Fong observed. "Obviously, the software is making that easier in people, but it's exciting to see people take advantage of that."

Back at the tables, all the works in each layer were considered, and the tables were reset with the works selected for a second viewing. Each judge was given three tokens for voting in the finals — first-place token (3 points), second-place token (2 points), third-place token (1 point). The tokens were placed with amazing consistency, and award winners were selected.

Exceptional work drew notable praise in panel conversations. Tenazas, especially impressed by the challenge of a project that used a paper forum folded — and unfolded — several times over, offered this assessment: "You'd have to look at it, and just say, 'This is kind of an engineering problem.' This person had to deal with massive amounts of information that they had to categorize and organize, and it works. You know, it doesn't look cluttered. So that, also, was to me worth an award."

Conversation was put on hold in the initial stages of judging digital works. Each judge, equipped with earphones, sat at an individual computer for a private viewing session. Finalists were selected from the 25 to 30 entries viewed at the work stations. From those finalists, winners were selected.

Collaboration, of course, entered the picture in the later stages.

Gelman had this observation about an entry: "I didn't see any political content there. I just saw this kind of a zen, this strange situation of somebody ... he's like focused on assembling something. ... He's not looking at the camera anywhere. ... It's just so well thought through."

Bokuniewicz added her admiration. "You know what's really great about this, is it straddles this line between being melancholy and being funny. It's both things, and I think that's what's brilliant about it."

It truly was amazing to see the ease with which the judges' divergent backgrounds blended. Their wide range of professional focus, as well as their widely scattered geographic home bases, seemed to set the stage for artistic differences.

That wasn't the case at all, Blauvelt insists. "In almost all cases, there was broad agreement among the jurors about which art was the best in its category," he said. "The range of work also testifies to the idea that there is not one form of design that dominated; only an excellence in the execution of the work which made it stand apart from other submissions ... above even our own expectations."

Finally, amid the spirit of collaboration in the judges' chambers, this closing observation was made, prompting a final round of agreement among the jurists:

"Adobe® Photoshop® was the star of the show."

At the invitation of Adobe, about 40 design faculty members, students, and professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area were treated to a question-and-answer session with the judges.

Jurists noted a wider range of opportunity for graduating students as corporations make design a more central part of business activity. Judges recommended that design schools involve businesses in the curriculum beyond traditional internships, giving students opportunities to tackle real-world problems through sponsored projects and business-oriented class assignments.

Students wanted to know what trends the judges observed in the Adobe Design Achievement Awards entries. The judges specified typography with content and wit, lots of irreverence, and a broad cross-section of techniques that use tools transparently.

Clearly, the judges provided insightful words of advice in addition to keen eyes and ears for exposing talent. Gavel to gavel, they helped make the 2004 Adobe Design Achievement Awards some kind of show!