Critique of First Things First Manifesto
In January 1964, Ken Garland, a British graphic designer, was asked to read out his 324 word manifesto called “First Things First” at a meeting of the Society of Industrial Artists in London. His manifesto got such a good response that he managed to get twenty-two designers, photographers and students to leave their signature on it.
The manifesto highlighted the current design climate and how it revolved around getting people to buy things so they can make profit rather than using the power of design to create a better world. Ken felt strongly that designers were being used for unimportant things and being rewarded for it rather than contributing something more lasting and positive to the world.
It uses persuasive, almost angry language, “By far the greatest time and effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.” (Ken Garland, 1964, 154). Of course, graphic designers who may be quite content in their advertising jobs may feel a little inferior after reading this and deny that they are unhappy where they are.
The manifesto suggests we should, “promote our trade, education, our culture, and our greater awareness of the world.” (Ken Garland, 1964, 154). This all sounds great to me personally, as I do want to get into that side of things as a graphic designer and I think more opportunities should be opened for graphic designers with the same mind-set.
“We do not advocate the abolition of the high pressure consumer advertising: this is not feasible. Nor do we want to take any of the fun out of life,” (Ken Garland, 1964, 155) suggests to me that Ken Garland does not intend completely end the promotion of consumerism for luxury items and thinks it is not possible to do so anyway but just simply wants a, “reversal of priorities.” (Ken Garland, 1964, 155).
The manifesto was redrafted in 2000 to make it more up to date and I’d say more persuasive than the 1964 version. “Many design teachers and mentors promote this belief; the market rewards it; a tide of books and publications reinforces it,” (Bierut et al, 2002, 5) is a quote I am not sure is entirely true to this day but then I have not taken enough courses that can prove this to be true. I have done a diploma at a Graphic Design course at Leeds Art College and we often used art to create purposeful things like: promoting a charity, anti-drugs campaigning, rebranding BP in their true light and adverts for road safety on top dipping our toes into a little bit of commercial advertising as well as other more fine art projects. But when I did my work experience at a graphic design company back at High School, I was producing things for commercial purposes like branding and adverts… some of the things I admittedly found a little dull and purposeless. If you’re choose an advertising course then obviously it is your intention to try to get into a career related to advertising but degree courses in graphic design do seem to be revolved more around branding when I look at exhibitions or course galleries. I do not have enough evidence to support what students on graphic designer courses learn about throughout the country. There are courses based on marketing and people go onto careers to market things and it is those graphic designers often seem to answer to. At Leeds Art College, when I go into the library, I personally think there are books in every field depending on what route you want to go down in art just simply offering you how to produce art works for no particular purpose. But of course, I have not seen what the other libraries at other universities have to offer. I will say that I have not found any specific books on promoting the good in the world with art; although to study purposes like well-being, climate change, culture, education, etc.- these would be books in their own category rather than combined with art- an entirely different subject to study and in my experience from reading some books based on these subjects, they have made me more passionate about these causes. What I suppose I am saying is, this above quote does not seem entirely applicable to me when I am in an art specialised university but when I do work experience, it does seem like that all graphic design has to offer is commercialism- and I have applied to few places when looking for experience. However I have specifically chosen to do a Visual Communication course because it appealed to me using art to make a better world- and I have not found any other art courses making it obvious that is their primary purpose.
I notice that the 2000 version of the manifesto has taken out any similarity to the quote in the 1964 version I mentioned earlier about how it is not feasible to abolish commercialism and not wanting to take the fun out of life and saying, “With the explosive growth of global commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent.” (Bierut et al, 2002, 5). This is an example of language that makes this manifesto sound more urgent than the last one as though they feel that commercialism really has got out of control and needs to be stopped. They did not leave any room for suggestion that it is okay for some graphic designers to go down the commercialism route- in fact I’d say they are trying to dumb them down- that they should use their skills for “pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills.” (Bierut et al, 2002, 5). The manifesto puts these graphic designers in a bad light by making them out to be manipulative, “changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond, and interact.” (Bierut et al, 2002, 5)
“First Things First, A Brief History” by Rick Poynor gives a brief history of design and commercialism and gives different sides to the argument but making it clear he did not support the use of designers for commercialism. This article gives an insight into whether designers want to use their skills for more fulfilling purposes or not. When Garland made his manifesto, he certainly “struck a nerve” (Rick Poynor, 2002, 8) and he had “letters in his files from designers, design teachers and other interested parties as far afield as Australia, the United States and the Netherlands requesting copies, affirming support for the manifesto’s message or inviting him to come speak about it.” (Rick Poynor, 2002, 8). That does show that there are designers who do indeed share his line of thinking and want to put their skills to better purposes.
McCoy, an American design educator says, “…this is a decisive vote for economic considerations over other potential concerns, including society’s social, educational, cultural, spiritual and political needs.” (Rick Poynor, 2002, 9). This does seem true as to why doing good for the world seems to get outvoted by society therefore pushing graphic designers to work for commercial products as that is what the public choose to pay for. But then of course is it the public’s choice or have they been conditioned to think they should pay for things they technically don’t need as it is the designers (amongst other people) that make them think they need these items? But is it possible that their minds could be changed if more design promoting things that appeal to the real needs of the world was used?
McCoy also says, “We have trained a profession that feels political or social concerns are either extraneous to our work or inappropriate.” (Rick Poynor, 2002, 9) That does indicate that the designers think it is a waste to train designers for causes rather than for commercial advertising- but can that be changed if they were made more aware of the negative influences of their work and if there were more jobs available for working for good causes? Artist and critic Johanna Drucker points out, “is not so much the look or form of design practise as the life and consciousness of the designer (and everybody else, for that matter),” (Rick Poynor, 2002, 9) says to me that basically everybody is to be blamed for their priorities being in the wrong place- the public influence the designers and the designers influence the public. This sounds like a vicious circle but one some designers and even the public (given their constant complaints at how the world could be a better place) want to get out of.
“First Things First: Now More Than Ever” by Matt Soar makes an argument for and against using graphic designers for commercialism and again, he makes it clear that the manifesto is more vital now than ever. Is this a truth that is so undeniable? I get the impression that the graphic designers (as well as other professions) have taken a defeatist stance because of the way society is, “it’s very easy for a profession to take its current concerns and obsessions and assumptions for granted; to assume these are natural, that this is the way things are.” (Matt Soar, 2002, 10). A lot of people, tied to their careers, seem to think their thoughts don’t matter in creating a better world but I think this is something that we should be encouraged to fight for. It seems clear that citizens in this current climate are not happy with the way things are so wouldn’t designers be especially useful in spreading a movement in making the world a better place? Promoting events, educational tools, etc. that is useful? Give hope to citizens?
But alas, graphic designers need companies that promote these things to work for. I think this is a big factor. Is it not the designers that are the problem but the lack of jobs? Where are the companies that are involved in: “cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes, and other information-design projects”? (Bierut et al, 2002, 5). I’m not saying there’s no jobs that involve that but there doesn’t seem to be enough it seems. Is it not just design courses, but other educational subjects/courses that are not encouraging and teaching people how to think about what others need rather than profiting themselves? The citizens themselves feel that there needs to be something done, “at the end of every century in human history- not to mention the millennium itself- there’s been this sense that the world is used up, that things have gone wrong, that the wrong people are in power, that it’s time for a fresh vision of reality.” (Matt Soar, 2002, 10). It is undeniable that people hope for change.
Is it realistic to put an end to commercialism like the manifesto from year 2000 seems to want to see happen? If we do not promote products, does that mean companies will go out of business and jobs will be lost as the public are not encouraged to spend as much on them? On the plus side, I don’t think it’s just graphic designers who desire to contribute to a better world but the citizens as well. If companies started creating products that are more useful to us, then that would open other jobs to citizens like working for a company that publishes environmental magazines. These companies not only need designers but need people to help run them.
If we really all want this to happen then we need to motivate ourselves and work together as a large community to make a world that meets our social, cultural, spiritual, political, educational, economic and environmental concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment