Task 2
“The second CoP
seminar and practice session focused on the themes of society and politics, and
the ethics of the Graphic Designer.. To extend on this, you are asked produce a
critical analysis of one piece of Graphic Design, drawing upon at least three
of the four seminar texts (triangulation) to deepen your reading. It is
expected that your discussion will comment on the socio-political contexts of
Graphic Design, and the responsibilities of the creative within these
contexts.”
Oxfam Campaign: Be Humankind
Graphic Design and Advertising have always been closely related but since the rise in consumerism in the 1960’s post war where families had a larger disposable income designers were needed to sell and were used for their skills to make money. However design can do more than just create money for large corporate brands from their products, which are not a necessity in someone’s life. The first things first manifesto of 1964 states that adverting useless products is a “high pitched scream” and that this type of consumerism is “no more than sheer noise” therefore rejecting the idea that designers may only be used for selling.
The campaign I have chosen to focus on is by Oxfam and uses the tagline “Be Humankind” with the purpose of creating awareness with the public about the issues in our world currently. The campaign works much like that of advertising because it is used as a tool to gain money, however for an entirely different purpose. The manifesto as mentioned before from 1964 suggests that design should be used to create a “greater awareness of the world” and this campaign definitely shows this through its purpose of wanting to change people’s minds on how the world is viewed. The campaign states; “Everyone deserves life’s little luxuries. You know, food, water, that sort of thing.” which mocks the idea of consumerism and what we consider as needed. It suggests that our view of what is seen as important needs to be changed. The viewer and audience of this campaign would be someone who has a disposable income and would consider these things as part of their lives however they are highly overlooked as more expensive items are considered of a higher value. Some people around the world do not have these “luxuries” and this shocking statement makes people question their own lives.
The idea of a need for change is also suggested in the updated manifesto of 2000, the manifesto follows the same principles as 1964 but is definitely seen as a higher state of urgency that “environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention” which could been argued is a form representation of a designers views and impact on the world. Rick Poyner comments on the previous manifestos mentioned and in conjunction with this he states that Katherine McCoy (American design educator) argues “design is not a neutral value free process” which furthermore adds to the idea design and in particular designers themselves choose to be part of brief’s and campaigns which follow their own beliefs. This means that designers no longer have to be a part of consumerism if they do not wish to be, but this could also suggest designers can do both, they can make money through consumerism but play their part in doing good too.
Bierut’s 79 short essays comment on many aspects of design but one in particular questions what would happen if every designer were to transport themselves away from the money making business of selling products. He questions what would “happen when the best designers withdraw from that space”. This questioning provides a key purpose in design and advertising it is to make what is a moneymaking market bearable. If designers were to leave consumerism and the act of selling goods, products would be poorly designed and would in the end contribute to a lack of money. As designers it is important to consider ethical elements within design and it up to the individual to decided what projects and briefs they wish to partake. The 1964 manifesto in fact never stated that they were completely against the act of selling, in fact the manifesto states; “we do not advocate the abolition of high pressure consumer advertising”. This therefore means that designers are not condemned for creating work that is used to sell, but simply educated that there are other ways in which to use your skills, knowledge and experience.
Bierut also argues that the designers who signed the 2000 manifesto would be “unfamiliar to the average rank-and-file American graphic designer” his opinion suggests that these designers have previously made their popularity through the system of consumerism and they do not worry about income and therefore can partake in creating work for campaigns like the Oxfam ‘Be Humankind’. Ethical design I believe is an important part of society however younger designers must be allowed to be excused from the judgment of those who have a higher income. Those who are more popular and have a higher income should therefore take it upon themselves if they do so wish to partake in charitable work and to use their skills and knowledge to create a difference. Oxfam employ intelligent and creative designers for their campaigns, which use the skills from advertising to create a reaction from the audience, which in this case is not to buy a product but to want to make a difference and donate.
Texts used:
Garland, K. (1964) 'First Things First Manifesto', self published
Lasn, K. et al (2000) 'First Things First Manifesto', Adbusters
Poyner, R. (19990 'First Things First: Revisited', Emigre 51
Beirut, M. (2007) 'Ten Footnotes To A Manifesto', in 'Seventy Nine Short essays On Design'
No comments:
Post a Comment