First Things First. Utopia Or Oblivion
I strongly believe that there is no more controversial piece of work in the world of graphic design than First Things First manifesto.
When Ken Garland published his First Things First manifesto in London thirty-five years ago, he threw down a challenge to graphic designers and other visual communicators that refuses to go away. Many other designers and critics later question manifesto (like Monica Parrinder) noting that while many designers are sympathetic, they also feel that the manifesto presents “an idealism that is impossible and impractical to live up to on an every day scale”
Garlands publishing aimed to awake the spirit of graphic designers, art directors and visual communicators. He tried to create an effort about environmental, social and cultural crisis.
I want to isolate a part of his publishing and to make a question among my peers, the new generation in design industry and to ask who of us could sign that manifesto at this time.
“We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, photographers and students who have been brought up in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable means of using our talents.We have been bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work of those who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as: cat food, stomach powders, detergent, hair restorer, striped toothpaste, aftershave lotion, beforeshave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodorants, fizzy water, cigarettes, rollons, pull-ons and slip-ons.?"
Most designers have some private negotiations with themselves about the contract they make between art and money. I refuse to believe that any of as prefers to design for Tesco instead for Tate. No one prefers to design supermarket stickers than posters, cheap monochrome leaflets, meager ads and all the cheap insipidly thinks we asked to develop in everyday life as an employee.
Through my personal experience in advertising industry I was enforced to learn doing both, supermarket labels and creative, culture oriented posters.
I worked with United Nations in an intentional campaign about racism and diversities. I also worked for consumer brands and I made things that I used to forget about them by the next day
Then the question arise, to you think living in material culture makes as guilty of design consumerism? Should a designer be adhering to the needs / wants of consumers & clients? Where can and should we draw the line between the two?
Georgia Evagorou
I agree with the affirmation that we make value judgements based on our individual needs and perspectives. There should always be a personal 'negotiation' when considering the value of any design brief and thus a decision based on one's own values. I think that you've highlighted the key value of this text in the word 'negotiation'. The First Things First manifesto is in itself totally unworkable for the reason that no two designers think alike and if one designer steps aside another will step up to fill the breach. However, it does remind us to make a conscious decision about what we believe in and I think that there is great value in that. It reminds us that we do still have choices and if something is too distasteful then it can be rejected.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important how you describe the process of learning. By creating designs for both culture and commerce we can weigh up how they both make us feel and use these reactions to guide our future decisions. For example, if money is no issue and we learn from previous work that we gain negative value from capitalist projects then we can negotiate more clearly with ourselves to reject future offers. However, as we all know, money is almost always an issue and without a livelihood, we cannot indulge in the creative briefs when they arise. This is why we all have to make private negotiations with ourselves to decide if money or morals are stronger.
Personally, I do not have issue with design being used to fuel consumerism, but I do when it results in over consumption. If consumption was only based on needs and people did not over consume then there would be no issue with designing packaging and advertisements, (assuming no environmental or cultural issues). Ultimately the problem lies with our society. Yes, design is partly responsible for making us want to consume more, but it is not alone. Over the weekend I visited a farmers market where I saw beautifully designed signs and leaflets for a poultry farm, but this did not make me want to over indulge on eggs. It is the combination of design and a society that revels in consumerism that is the problem, and one that cannot be fixed by our industry alone. To solve this problem one needs to reeducate society, confronting the media, advertising executives, designers and capitalist corporations together (to name but a few).
Until that happens, we have to continue making our value judgments. If we decide to contribute, after making these judgments, than we should commit fully to the needs of our clients. Each designer must draw the line during his/her private negotiation, if the brief is too distasteful then step aside and take value from making a personal move in the right direction.
Jonathan