Readings for 9/23/10

First Things FIrst 1964 a manifesto-  

  This declaration of designers, photographers, and students outlines their plea that design be more than trying to persuade the public to purchase a specific item based on the advertisement.  They state, "the greatest effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes." They insist that designers put create things with purpose, things that are long lasting. Such as signs for streets, buildings, books, periodicals, films etc.  They want to promote their skill and "greater awareness of the world" to the world, and that wasn't being done at the time they wrote their manifesto.  They  disagree with  the way design was primarily being used- a tool to  get people to buy  things based on a mediocre design or cheesy advertising. They  would rather  have graphic designers  change their priorities  from creating quick fixes to lasting, meaningful messages that show their technique for "worthwhile purposes."

  I think this essay has  an enlightened element to it. I can't see how a designer could read it and not be inspired. The authors' strong opinion and  passion for how and with what intention designers should create is obvious. Also, I appreciate the authors' straight to the point approach. They get directly to the point, make their case and end  strong. 

• Designers in the advertising industry are wasting their effort on  publications to sell  miscellaneous items. 
• Effort of the designer should instead be geared towards producing more meaningful items, such as books, street signs, buildings, films, educational aids, catalogues, periodicals, industrial photography, etc. 
• The signers of the manifesto suggest a "reversal of priorities in favor of the more useful and more lasting forms of communication."

 First Things First 2000 A Design Mainfesto: Design is about democracy by Rock Poyner

   Rick Poyner's essay takes a behind the scene look at design in the 1960s and the impact the  1964 First Things First  manifesto had on designers and non-designers at the time it was released.  The idea of the manifesto was supported by  many and  published in  Tony Benn's weekly column in the Guardian newspaper.  In agreement with the manifesto's claim Benn responded, "the  evidence for it is all around us in the ugliness with which we have to live. It could so easily be replaced if only we consciously decided as a comunity to engage some of the skill which now goes into the frills of an affluent society" (2 Poyner). After being acknowledge by the Guardian a BBC news TV program discussed the manifesto, the manifesto was reprinted in  several notable design periodicals.  Soon the manifesto was being discussed world-wide.  While some  praised the manifesto others thought it was "naive." But Poyner still claims that the signers of the manifesto were absolutely correct in their, "assessment of the way design was developing."

  Poyner  says that design and advertising are closer now than at any time since the 1960s. However most designers today are still lacking the ideals that the manifesto signatories found so important.  I think an important point brought up by artist and critic Johanna Drucker is that  what's at stake is the life and consciousness of a designer.  And I wonder about the point Poyner brings up about  today's design students learning, "very little these days other than the commercial use of design." But since my professor has assigned this article to read, that might not be true in my case. And I'm pretty sure this article is from the 1990s so maybe it isn't actual valid today?

• Today design is  not so much about the actual product but what designers associate with the product to manipulate how we feel. "What seduces us is the 'image'."
• The 1964 manifesto  confronted design as a giver of information vs. design as a persuading tool.
• Poyner agrees with the manifesto that designs should be "useful and lasting", and today that is still lacking. 
• What a designer chooses to focus on creating is ultimately a political choice, says Poyner. "Design is not a neutral value-free process"- Katherine McCoy ( American design educator).
• When Poyner says 'political choice' it is in regard to creating things for corporate/commercial purposes vs.  the "lasting" projects.
• Most designers now believe that formal qualities are more important than really capturing the meaning of something. 
• Designers should ask of a project, "in whose interest and to what ends? Who gains by this construction of reality, by this representation of this condition as 'natural'"-Johanna Drucker. 

1964: The Responsibilities of the Design Profession by Herbert Spencer

  This piece discusses the  "new" importance of 'good' design and the "international competition for trade" in 1964. The essay states that  there has been a vast exchange of information between countries, so the frame of design has definitely widened.  Integrity of designers vs. their ability is questioned at the time of this essay, being that design was a relatively new  profession.  

• EVERYTHING is designed. "there is no such thing as an undesigned product" (157 Spencer).
• The industry of design has become more complex as it became popular. 
• In about 1870  'Artistic Printing' was the result of  the new platen machine.
• printing tradition was becoming lost. 
• designers are motivated by the need to impress/out do one another rather then to make and, "honest attempt to solve specific design problems" (159). This results in too many "designer's designers"
• Designers should NOT  abandon traditions, accept 'artificial' conventions.
•  The psychology behind design: influence of color, pattern,  and lettering- THE CONCERN for the "health and happiness of our society."
• World problems that could be solved or helped by the design community: helping handicapped people navigate, street signs and helping people become literate in third world countries!

 Each of these articles confront the problem of what are the Ethics of design.  To what regard should designers  produce material?  These three articles agree that designers should not fall prey to corporate  run of the miss designing, and should  be true to themselves and the  ethics of the First Things First of 1964.