What to learn? Illustrator, InDesign, or something else more appropriate?

Question

Hello All,
I couldn't find an appropriate place to post this discussion, but I thought I would start here as I saw a similar discussion in this forum.
I have been a musician for a long time, running my own ensemble, but recently I have decided to pursue a path in arts administration, a sector in which I have moderate experience.
Still going to keep my music and ensemble going, but to bolster my resume as well as my skills to help my own ensemble, I've decided to take classes and pursue certification in web/graphic design at a local Art/Design college.
These days arts administration job postings seem to be looking for candidates that also have some digital media skills.
I'm starting off with a basic web design classes to become familiar with Dreamweaver, HTML, CSS.
This Art/Design College also offers courses in Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop. I will probably next take Photoshop, but wondering whether to take Illustrator or InDesign, or something else?
I think I understand what the two do, but would appreciate real world advice. I could take both, but I am wondering if I would spread myself too thin?
These arts admin jobs are probably looking for someone that can update/maintain websites, prepare images/videos/audio for websites; but also probably someone who can create simple flyers and brochures if needed. That is when I thought of InDesign. I also assume that InDesign also helps in preparation of pdf/documents for websites?
But I am also interested in Illustrator because for my ensemble, we occasionally create moderate-sized banners as stage design elements, and as lobby displays. I often hired a designer to create some new artwork, do the layout, and prepare the files for printing on a large format printer. It would be nice to have a little more control in the whole process, so I thought I might learn Illustrator, but it seems like InDesign covers some of these tasks... ??
I don't know if I am very much off the mark in the functionality of these two. Both seem very interesting, and both probably useful in both my marketability in the job market and my personal work. But I would probably feel more comfortable become very proficient in one rather than a novice in both. I would take both if many people here find good reason to do so.
Any guidance would be appreciated...

Answer 1

There are basically two different kinds of computer graphics: raster-based (arrays of pixels) and vector-based (stacks of mathematically-defined paths).
Web-centric work is overwhelmingly more dependent upon simple raster images.
Several technologies enable the web to deliver vector-based artwork. Websites which do that are generally more sophisticated.
Photoshop (and programs like it) is for creating/editing raster images.
Illustrator  (and programs like it) is for creating/editing vector-based graphics.
( By the way, you seem to have overlooked video, which is becoming as ubiquitous a content type as the other two.)
Then, there are programs dedicated to "page assembly"; the work of combining raster artwork, vector artwork, and text into finished whole documents.
InDesign (and programs like it) is primarily for page assembly of documents destined for commercial print.
Dreamweaver is primarily for "page assembly" of web pages.
However:
Programs like InDesign and programs like Illustrator are far more similar than you'll commonly hear from conventional-wisdom. Both so-called "page layout" programs and "vector drawing" programs are what I try to explain as "object based" (not to be confused with the term 'object oriented programming', which is another thing entirely). That is, they both create documents containing stacks and arrangements of individual and independent objects. Those objects can be any combination of text objects, raster objects, and vector objects.
The difference in that regard is this:
Programs like InDesign are almost entirely geared toward assembly of moderate-to-high page-count "bookish" print documents containing long threaded text stories, and repetitive page layouts.
Programs like Illustrator are ostensibly geared toward creation of vector-based artwork. But the truth of the matter is, they are really just as much intended for (and just as frequently used for) whole page design as for standalone illustration.
The vast majority of "page layout" projects are more graphics-intensive than text-intensive, involve low-page count, and less-repetitive page-to-page design. In other words, placement ads, fliers, mailers, brochures, business cards, stationery, etc., etc. The typical freelance illustrator/designer produces far more of these types of projects in a year than the kinds of "bookish" projects which programs like InDesign expedite. And the "dirty little secret" is: It's actually more efficient to build these kinds of common whole-document design projects in a decent so-called "vector drawing" program than in a conventional-wisdom "page layout" program.
Here's The Thing:
The fact is, all of Adobe's core applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) had their beginnings in the days of the desktop-publishing "revolution" of the mid-80s. They are all highly print-oriented. They have all gradually acquired over the intervening decades more "me, too" web-centric features. But the truth is, no one seriously uses Illustrator or InDesign for generating finished web pages. These programs are still primarily rooted in content creation for print. It's just that once you've created a graphic for print, it's a simple thing to dumb it down to re-purpose it for web.
And that's actually a good thing, because…
Here's The Other Thing:
The vast majority of commerical enterprises which buy graphics and design do not only market themselves on the web. Despite decades-old buzzword claims to the contrary, print is very, very far from "dead." And the ugly truth is, when you are creating graphics for a both print and web delivery, it makes far, far more sense to develop for print first, web second. Understand; I said graphics.
Here's The Other Other Thing:
Anyone seriously involved in computer graphics in general (whether for web or print) needs to be at least well-versed and intelligently conversant in all three functions: Raster imaging, vector graphics, and page assemby, and how they relate.
Beyond that, anyone seriously involved in print publishing also needs to be at least conversant in print-centric technicalities. Color separation. Halftoning. Process color versus spot color. Ink on paper. Color correction versus color calibration. The vast majority of print-centric content creation is done in programs like Adobe's core applications. But courses which merely teach how to use a specific graphics software, typically merely touch upon those other very important related technical subjects.
Beyond that, anyone seriously involved in web publishing also needs to be at least conversant in web-centric technologies. Nowadays, basic HTML and CSS is not enough. It's big-yawn, archaic kid-stuff. The days of the dumb, standalone web page are numbered. Nowadays there's client-side scripting (Javascript), server-side scripting (PHP), and database back-ends (SQL) and all of these are becoming ubiquitous, even for fairly modest websites.
Back To The Three Basics
So the "big three" fundamental functions (raster images, vector graphics, page assembly) are just that—fundamental. For the vast majority of basic web use, creation of raster and vector graphics is much less technically demanding than for print. They are really rather mundane, and can be done with programs far less expensive and requiring far less time to learn. There exists a plethora of raster imaging and vector drawing programs. Some good and widely-used ones can be had for free (GIMP, InkScape).
As for web page assembly, Dreamweaver is sort of "last of the dying breed" of WYSIWYG web page layout applications. These factors are at play:
As mentioned above, even modest websites nowadays need data-driven functionality. Making a page clean and attractive is just basic design principles. Meanwhile, let's face it: There's only so many arrangements within the rectangle of a web browser window that make good sense for clean, clear, intuitive, and efficient navigation.
Meanwhile, the average-joe web developer just doesn't have time to continually re-invent the drop-down menu wheel. There won't be anything special or innovative about it anyway (and even if it were, it would be more annoying to users than anything else). He's too busy figuring out the schema of delivering the content. 'I need this kind of data to be organized and accesible by this kind of visitor. I need this particular story to be editable by this particular in-house staffer, who knows nothing about HTML code. My customer needs to be able to routinely upload data refreshes, and he doesn't have time to know web code either.'
Also meanwhile, people have grown weary of continually "upgrading" their WYSIWYG web editor to get a few piecemeal proprietary features, each with its own proprietary interface and learning curve.
So the simple "practicality vaccuum" of it all has given rise to open source server-side WYSIWYG website assembly tool (Joomla, WordPress, etc.) which provide robust SQL data-driven functionality, and do it for free. These kinds of solutions are quickly supplanting the position of traditional web editors like Dreamweaver.
Bottom line:
If I were in your shoes, and really did intend to focus entirely on direction of web-centric advertising, marketing, and graphics, I really woudn't be all that concerned with specifically-Adobe apps anyway. There are scads of web developers out there who never touch a WYSIWYG web page editor. And creating a graphic in GIMP or InkScape is small-potatoes no-brainer. There's no reason to become immersed in Photoshop and Illustrator esoterica for creating individual web images; you can do it with most anything. I'd be focusing on web-centric technology and delivery schema. I'd also want to be conversant in database fundamentals.
On the other hand, if I were in your shoes and intended to focus on art direction of all aspects (web and print) of a company's advertising, marketing, graphics, and information delivery, I would consider it a necessity to be converant (maybe even working-proficient) in programs like Photoshop and Illustrator. InDesign would be somewhat less important unless the business is publishing "bookish" or "magazine-like" documents.
JET