In today’s session we listened to a lecture centred around the “First Thing’s First” manifesto by Ken Garland, and also how the role of the Graphic Designer has evolved over the past 100 years.
“The pivotal position of design within contemporary culture traces back to the turn of this century [20th], and its growth in importance is inextricably linked to the rise of industrial mass production.”
Ewen, S, 1990. p192
When the world became more industrialised, and mass production became readily available through the invention of printing machinery etc, businesses needed branding and advertising in order to sell their products to the consumer. During this time, design was less about creativity and aesthetic, and more about the speed at which it could be created and how easy it was for the general public to comprehend. Typeface and layout were simple, often monochromatic in colour.
In the 1880’s, the Arts & Crafts movement became prevalent. This movement governed a return to the decorative arts that mass production had removed, imagery and type were more considered and artisan in nature. Artists such as Augustus Pugin, John Ruskin and William Morris suggested that design style and production methods expressed the quality and values of a culture. Morris sought to restore the dignity of labour and pleasures of craft.
Inversely, the aesthetic of Industrial Modernism was quite the opposite – namely that of the Bauhaus – they made use of modern processes and embraced the functionality and form of geometric shapes, and machine aesthetics. The nature of the design here was to find a response to industrialisation and it’s effects. The Bauhaus was considered avant-garde and very ahead of it’s time. From looking at an image of the building I wouldn’t have ever known it was built in 1919. The school had strong links to industry, creating things that could be mass produced, rather than one off pieces that no one could afford. They had a belief in design as an agent for social change, using a transdisciplinary community of work they set out to concieve and create the future – and ultimately succeeded. (I think at least)
Eventually the Bauhaus was shut down by the Nazi’s for being too experimental. Post WW2 the voice of the people grew louder and this time period saw the rise of Dadaism – a movement that critiqued mass media and consumerism through the use of collage and photo montage. During the war period many accomplished illustrators, and advertising or editorial designers lent their hand to the war effort. Questions were raised about the nature of propaganda and the social responsibility of designers through the effectiveness of graphic design as a shaper or manipulator of public opinion. People felt that these familiar poster styles eased the transition into armed conflict, making it seem more of a continuity than a disruption of everyday life. The Dadaists used phrases, images, and typefaces designed for commerce – cutting and tearing publications to create new meanings in often quite disturbing collage compositions.
With the dissolution of the Bauhaus, many of the teachers and students emigrated to the United Sates; it was at this time that Graphic Design became a corporate profession, and we can see a certain iconic style emerging in this area that is quintessential of 1970’s corporate America. “It is part of a general process by which systems of images, symbols, and meanings have over the past century become increasingly fused with the priorities of corporate merchandising and mass marketing. During this period, design has been called upon to establish corporate identities firmly in the public mind and to motivate the development of ever-hungry consumer markets. These design imperatives are now embedded within the routines of the job and thus appear natural: they are rarely thrown into question.” (Ewen, S, 1990. p193)
With this new corporation based society that came about, so did a counter-culture movement. It was very much an anti consumerist ideology, similar to that of Dadaists, it was certainly influenced by the aforementioned movement. During this time everything was governed by corporation, this brought about the “First Things First” manifesto, by Ken Garland, signed by over 400 graphic designers. The manifesto outlines the deep concerns that the design industry had become complacent, lazy and uncritical. It was a response to rich and affluent Britain of the 1960’s, reacting against the consumerist culture that was purely concerned with buying and selling.
The counter culture movement continued into the 1980’s when activist design groups took their professional experience into new mass communication campaigns, aiming to alter public awareness and opinions of social issues. This was unlike anything seen before, in the way that these artists produced commercial-grade work, rather than fast and dirty graphics. The issues addressed were things such as the AIDS crisis, black rights, corporate power, and nuclear disarmament.
Later on in the 1990’s counter culture was still going strong. A manifesto was released in AdBusters magazine, for “Culture Jamming” (or guerrilla communication) which was a form of subvertising, the act of making spoofs or parodies of commercial and political advertising. The main themes were anti sweatshop, the aids crisis, black rights etc. “We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we live in the 21st century.” The culture jammers mounted campaigns against corporations such as Adidas and Gap for their use of sweatshops and child labour.
In 1999, “First Things First” was renewed, titled “First Things First 2000” and was subsequently published in many arts magazines such as Eye and Emigré amongst others. It was considered an expansion of the original manifesto, taking an adversarial stance.
The lecture finished by posing two alternative essay questions:
“Discuss the two First Things First Manifestos or the Culture Jammers’ Manifesto. Would you sign it?”
“If you were to write a design manifesto, what would its argument about the social purpose of design be?”
I choose to answer the latter, as while I was sat listening I was prompted to question my own stance as a designer, regarding that of consumerism and whether I wanted to work for a huge corporation, selling my skills designing shampoo bottles for a living, or whether I wanted to be an agent for social and cultural change. My friend Richard raised a very important point, in that art & design has followed the “power” throughout history. This of course begins with Religion, then propaganda, and perhaps ending with corporation. However, I feel now more than ever that the voice of the people is becoming louder. In recent times, social media has been used effectively to organise mass protests, and I think that the BlackLivesMatter movement has become iconic of the tipping point that we’ve reached as a society. The public are becoming increasingly aware of government deception and manipulation, and particularly in the UK politics has become somewhat of a boys club in which nobody looks out for the common good.
So to answer the question, my argument for the social purpose of design is to become the voice of the people, (which is where I believe the power now lies) and to build on what was achieved by the activist design groups of the 1980’s, and focus on current issues. (which are largely the same) I feel like design should be a confrontational voice towards political agenda and policy. I feel like we need someone to deconstruct the messages in British politics into something that the common people can understand. I just fundamentally believe that people should use their skills for the common good and betterment of mankind, to put an end to manipulation of the masses, and allow people to think and act freely.
Laura Walters: Creative 