Do you REALLY want to Visually Communicate?

I think many who go into this field are frustrated fine-artists in their hearts. That's not necessarily a problem as long as you can differentiate the practice of fine art from the profession of visual communication.

Many folks know how I feel about the discipline of being a "Visual Communicator." I shy away from the popularized 1980's term "Graphic Designer," which (beyond being a bit dated) tends to look 'inward' versus 'outward.' Visual Communications feels like a richer and more diverse term for what most professionals in the field engage in.

It's also pretty concise— you are communicating using visual language versus purely written words. Written words are a part of the arsenal, but they are not necessarily the first line of attack.

You are also communicating "on-task" versus self-indulgently. That doesn't preclude you from inserting your unique personality or style as long as you can stay on the communicative message, and be the most effective advocate for your client's message. In fact, that is the primary objective on any assignment. Like a Realtor legally entrusted to represent the best interests of the seller, we are ethically bound to be the best advocate for a client's message.

In my opinion, the actual "verby" activity of the whole process is brand communication; as long as you don't get too bogged down by defining brand in an overly restrictive sense.
I always tell my students to think of brand simply as personality. That can be a person, a product, a company, a service, or even a "sense of ______."

If you are not encapsulating what the assorted target audiences of your communication messages need to know about the brand, you are off the mark.