To find the key differences between this & the 1964 manifesto
Differences:
In the first manifesto there is a definite point on wanting to stop designing for consumerism and consumerist needs, and make design for more meaningful causes.
In the 2000 manifesto the point is still there showing not much has changed over 40 years.
More urgent - different tone of voice
Context - global consumer system
Aimed at a wider audience
Focuses of social effect - the dumbing down of society
Politicalisation
A challenge to the consumer system
Some of the products have an ethical problem - credit card - debt etc - SUV - fumes & environment
Design activism
First things first ( revisited) - Rick Poynor
Ken Garland - CND Campaigner
Commercial design is political
Supporting the status quo
Style over substance - people care more about the visuals than the message
Designers feel that politics is not their concern
Michael Beirut - Ten Foot Notes to a Manifesto
Criticism of the 2000 manifesto
Signatures are graphic 'cultural workers'
Designers as exploited class
Consumer culture
What do we do instead?
No clear good cause
No clear choices
Replacing manipulation for consumerism with mass manipulation of political causes
First things first 1964
Context - boom - height of consumer civil rights protest - anti-war demos
Ken Garland - designer and activist
Against design for trivial purposes
For design for society
For design with a purpose
Proposing a reversal of priorities
Task
Write a critical discussion on the First Things First Manifesto.
Triangulated discussion based on two works of design.
Unethical design - Burger King Ad:
Ethical design - Amnesty International Ad:
The way designers use their talents has been a large debate for decades now. While a designer must make a living, comments have been made on how the designer does this happily when their talents are being wasted on large scale consumerist advertising campaigns for clients who only have an interest in making money and gaining customers. Three authors who have comments on this are Garland (1964), Poynor (2000) and Beirut (2007).
With references to the two images above, what is classed as an 'unethical' advertisement is a ad campaign for fast food chain Burger King. This is because unethical design is classed as design which fuels the purpose and needs of the clients and does not help the greater good of the world or change the world in a positive way. This ad by Burger King reflects that as it is a ploy by the company to get more customers, giving them a temptation that they won't say no to, when in reality, there are millions of people in the world who are starving, and nothing is being said. This is essentially the consumerist culture; more for less, no questions asked, no meaning. Garland comments on the use of designer talent in the 'First Things First Manifesto' written in 1964. He states, "By far the greatest effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity".
This is further backed up by Rick Poynor in 'First Things First (Revisited)' (2000). In this he comments on how this way of life for designers and the world has become the normal. "For many young designers emerging from design schools in the 1990's, they now appear to be one and the same. Obsessed with how cool an ad looks, rather than with what it is really saying, or the meaning of the context in which it says it, these designers seriously seem to believe that formal innovations alone are somehow able to effect progressive change in the nature and content of the message communicated". The third author, Michael Beirut, comments on this from the point of view of how the designers have got to this stage; "Ad agencies have treated designers as stylists for hire, ready to put the latest gloss on the sales pitch". These three points work together cohesively to show a timeline of how the designers of today are working; advertisers see designers as someone to make something look good, designers want and need to make a living so take the jobs even if unethical, and now young designers see this work and think it is the right thing to be doing.
In contrast to this way of designing, visual communication is the simplest form of communication in the modern day and should be used for good and meaningful causes. Even if this does involve an advertising campaign, there are campaigns that are there selling meaningful messages. For example, the Amnesty International poster above is obviously something that has had a lot of money spent on it, but unlike product advertising, there is no lie, manipulation or deception in the design. It is truthful and meaningful. It connects to viewers because it sees the poster from their point of view. With the words 'It's not happening here, but it is happening now', it hits on the viewers state of mind that because it's not happening where they are, they just become consciously ignorant to it and gloss over it.
While there is a greater demand for pointless advertising campaigns, ethical campaigns like this are the ones that designers should have the choice to do. Using their talents for something with a purpose and something that is lasting is much more of a fulfilling job. Garland comments on this, "We do not advocate the abolition of high pressure consumer advertising: this is not feasible. Not do we want to take any of the fun out from life. But we are proposing a reversal of priorities in favour of the more useful and more lasting forms of communication". He states that while it is wrong to thing these advertising campaigns are good, there is a need for the designer to do them to make a living. If a designer were to just devote their entire career to doing ethical design, it would be a very hard career to be had. Beirut makes an interesting comment in "The greatest designers have always found ways to align the aims of their corporate clients with their own personal interests, and, ultimately, with the public good". In a way he is backing up what Garland is saying, and providing a sort of solution in saying that because designers get the control of the design elements in these advertisements, they can turn this in their favour and be ethical, while staying in the consumerist corporate side of the world. He is saying that while a designer may not have a choice in where the work is done, there is a chance to turn this work in their favour. This is also commented upon by Poynor, "Even now, at this late hour, in a culture of rampant commodification, with all its blindspots, distortion, pressures, obsessions , and craziness, it's possible for visual communicators to discover alternative ways of operating in design'.
In comparing the two posters, the fact that designers created both of them shows exactly how misconstrued the line between designer and advertiser has become. While designers are constantly battling to be able to design something meaningful, at the same time, they are all taking money from collaborating in a corporate campaign. Poynor says "At root, it's about democracy", meaning that there has to be a balance between ethical and unethical designs that a designer does. Without this, a designer has not got much hope of making a living if they are so against unethical design. All three authors hit on the points that while it is not what designers want to do, it is what they must do to keep surviving in the world. If they do not do it, someone else will take their place as the consumerist culture is so large now. While ethical design is a lot more meaningful and is memorable, this is only because of all of the unethical design that is around. One ethically driven poster surrounded by a hundred unethical posters is surely more powerful than if every poster was ethically driven.
No comments:
Post a Comment