Triangulation Task Five

The original first things first manifesto raises several important points about where the design industry is heading. The manifesto begins by criticising the long upheld idea that the techniques of advertising are the best way for visual communicators to utilise their talents, going on to explain that the market rewards this belief, with publications approving and therefore reinforcing this way of working. Garland denounces this waste of designers’ efforts on ‘trivial purposes’ giving such examples as the selling of cat food and striped toothpaste. He describes a ‘saturation point at which the high pitched scream of consumer selling is no more than sheer noise’ (Garland, K 1964) and goes on to promote the idea that there are more worthy uses for designers to apply their skills to, suggests the industry begins focusing efforts on ‘media through which we promote our trade, our education, our culture and our greater awareness of the world (Garland, K 1964). He stressed that he and the signatories were not advocating the abolition of consumer advertising but rather a change in priorities towards more worthwhile purposes.

This manifesto was updated with the help of Rick Poyner in order to be published in Adbusters in 2000. This version had not changed much from the original, other than a paragraph which was added about how many designers had become uncomfortable with the worlds perception of design, i.e. purely commercial work.. In this version it is suggested that designers who primarily work in advertising, marketing and brand development are ‘supporting an implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages’ that to some extent they are ‘helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.’ This version also stresses a higher level of urgency claiming that the problems outlined in the first version have only become worse due to a growth in global commercial culture, ‘consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged.’ (First Things First Manifesto, 2000)

The Manifesto has had mixed responses. Rick Poynor seemed to strongly agree with Garlands points in his over view and puts forward a strong argument in the manifesto’s favour. He commented that some of the signatories were well-established figures, such as Edward Wright and Anthony Froshaug who were successful typographers. (Poyner, R, 1999). Michael Bierut however seemed to feel entirely differently about the manifesto and the signatories and argued that most of the names of the signatories would be unfamiliar to most and suggested that their lack of success may well be the reason behind their support, he remarked ‘They’ve resisted manipulating who trudge the aisles of your local 7-eleven for the simple reason that they haven’t been invited to. A cynic then, might dismiss the impact of the manifesto as no more than that of witnessing a group of eunuchs take a vow of chastity.’ (Bierut, M. 1999). He also entertains the idea that because the manifesto implies that graphic designers have this huge responsibility and ability to better the world, the supporters are flattered, and ‘when it comes to graphic designers, flattery will get you everywhere’ Bierut, M. Poyner however points out that Garland had for a long time been trying in earnest to voice his opinions and better the world, for example he was a committed campaigner against the bomb – so it cannot be disputed that he did use graphic design for the purposes he was proposing others do, and believed in graphic designs ability to impact the world. Karen McCoy agreed that designers had forgotten this element of their work stating ‘We have trained a profession that feels political or social concerns are either extraneous to our work or inappropriate.’ She also pointed out that even corporate work was never devoid of political bias and described it as a decisive vote for economic considerations over other potential concerns. (Poyner, R, 1999)

The manifesto distinguished between design that communicates and informs such as books signs and educational aids and design that persuades, arguing that too many designers are concentrating their efforts on the latter, however Michael Bierut argued that design intended to persuade isn’t necessarily a bad thing claiming that these persuasive techniques have been used to create ‘some of the most effective work on behalf of social causes’ (Bierut, M, 1999) e.g the Guerilla Girls. He also suggested an element of jealousy influenced graphic designers contempt for the design world due to the clarity of the effect of advertising compared to the vagueness and immeasurability of the outcomes of graphic design.
Garland criticised design work for ‘trivial purposes’ i.e. selling such things as hair restorer and cigarettes but Bierut disputed the idea that these objects are undeserving of designers consideration – ‘What makes dog biscuit packaging an unworthy object of our attention, as opposed to say, a museum catalogue or some other cultural project? Don’t Dachshund owners deserve the same measure of beauty, intelligent and wit in their lives?’ (Bierut, M 1999)

Today graphic design is still viewed as a largely commercial field, but there are still people trying to change this. For example, visual communication degree courses have evolved to become more focused on bettering the world, rather than simply teaching young designers the technical skills necessary to go out into industry, ‘From a Utopian point of view, we are here to help define and build a better world through the development of skilled, aware, creative minds and appropriate action.’ Professor Neil Brody, Head of Visual Communication at the Royal College of Art. Because of this there are still at least some young people being taught that they can do more with their skills than just make things aesthetically pleasing.

There are still some visual communicators using their skills to educate the world about issues outside the commercial realm, such as graphic novelist Adbusters. There certainly scepticism surrounding graphic designers capability to change the world, but there is hope as well. ‘‘Once we’ve acknowledged that designers have certain inherent limitations as message bearers, the question which must be asked is: “Can graphic designers actually do something to change the world? ‘The answer is “yes”, if one disregards the fact that there are very limited outlets for this kind of work, and accepts the fact that being socially responsible means taking the initiative oneself, dealing rationally with issues, and having a commitment to a specific cause.’