08 Jul 09

Ethics and design

Provokateur has always believed in the power of design to do good things. In fact, for Provokateur, that’s what design should be about. In an article written by Provokateur’s chief agitator, Joshua Blackburn, the gauntlet is thrown down to the design industry.

Design Can Save The World

Designers and communicators have long debated the ethics of their craft. In 1964, the seminal First Things First manifesto appealed for designers to pursue ‘more useful and lasting forms of communication’. 34 years later, Adbusters updated the manifesto and called for the ‘exploration and production of a new kind of meaning’ in what they saw as a battle for the ‘mental environment’ against the uncontested rise of consumerism. Even more recently, champions of ‘sustainable design’ have unveiled manifestos for a greener industry and disciples of Designism have made declarations for a more caring one.

But is anybody listening? First Things First still comes last; Adbusters is still angry; Designism isn’t; and most visual communicators are continuing down Milton Glaser’s ‘Road to Hell’ (not that Mr Glaser is on a road to Hell, he merely wrote about one). ‘Socially conscious design’ (what a drab concept that sounds) seems so often to be either self righteous smuggery or an amusing diversion.

Getting right to the heart of this is a cheeky poster by illustrator Frank Chimero. In big bold caps it declares: “Design Won’t Save The World”, with the postscript, “Go volunteer at a soup kitchen you pretentious fuck.” Delicious.

Is this the repressed id of graphic design today, more interested in the rewards of immaculate kerning than social change? Or is there an uncomfortable truth here that, really, graphic design shouldn’t get ideas above its station?

The notion of design having a social role to play is far from new – and hardly a conceit. Artists and designers have long served as messengers, missionaries, revolutionaries, agitators, and propagandists. Centuries before the holy Brand Guidelines, visual communication was being sharpened as a tool of religion, war and politics.

First Things First might bemoan the commercialisation of graphic design, but 44 years earlier it was taken to its greatest and darkest heights in Nazi Germany in a terrible exemplar of the true power of design.

The point might be uncomfortable, but it’s an important one. Visual communication has always been a tool of social and political change – its role in selling consumerism only came later. It’s significant that the father of modern advertising, Edward Bernays, was first a master of propaganda at the US War Department in 1917; only when the war ended did corporations begin to covet the power he had harnessed.

The irony is that today, political and social concerns are seen as either extraneous or inappropriate to the craft of visual communication. We’ve become so absorbed in selling trainers and toothpaste that we imagine it’s improper to do anything else. The idea that ‘design won’t save the world’ has become a pervading ethos within an industry that apparently celebrates its own indifference.

The co-option of visual communication by business has convinced its practitioners that it was ever thus. Schools of design train students to handle their tools like jobbing carpenters and off they go, eager logo monkeys hungry for business. This is the reality of visual communication, or the reality we’ve come to accept. There might be a government awareness campaign or a pro bono charity job, but our real business is selling.

Those writing their manifestos for a new theory of design talk about ‘responsibility’ and ‘citizenship’ and certainly that’s an ethos Provokateur shares. But those notions miss an important point. The creative industry has downgraded from an understanding of ideas to an enchantment with things. We’ve taken the most powerful tool for social change and committed it to the most mundane of tasks.

It hasn’t been fashionable to use the word ‘propaganda’ for a good seventy years – instead, we refashioned it ‘social marketing’ and ‘public affairs’ (apparently a sweeter pill to swallow). But it is time for those who craft visual communications to look again at what they do.

Let us be propagandists in the true sense of the word; not, as we imagine, a disseminator of lies but a propagator of ideas, and let those ideas be driven by more than product. Let us be propagandists that understand how visual communication has always connected with politics and society, and that being a lever for change is greater by far than being a tool of business

Instead of imagining politics and ethics have no place in design, we must realise they’ve always been there, we just forgot about it. Design can save the world – if we want it to.

  1. interesting article! here, in Italy, there is a little discussion inside Aiap (the italian graphic design association) about the social responsability of designers and their role in the public space. I don’t think design can really save the world but, as propagators of ideas, can change the way of think. The problem is that designers themselves have to change their ones (and in Italy the scene is terrible).

  2. provokateur says:

    Hi Claudio – glad you found the article interesting. Yes, I know it’s a rather grand statement to say ‘design can save the world’ – a bit too grand perhaps. But think of it this way: many of the greatest challenges we face, most importantly climate change, require a substantial shift in human behaviour and values. Communication is at the absolute front line of making this shift. Just as advertising has been an integral part of creating our consumer society and mindset, so the same persuasive communication must be used to promote an alternative, more sustainable way of living. Obviously no one thing can ’save the world’ – but design and communication exerts incredible influence on how we live. As designers we don’t just produce pretty pictures – we are key actors in shaping the mental environment within which we live, something the folks at Adbusters have long argued. The key point of my article is that designers substantially underestimate the influence they have. The triumph of consumerism is a testimony to the power of design and communication – my belief is that if the same energy and determination was put into promoting a more sustainable, value-driven lifestyle then, yes, design could play a real part in saving the world from itself.

  3. Hi P! I like very much the idea of using the same weapons of market to promote other, sustainable way of living.
    The problem, as I can see here in Italy, is that designers themselves don’t try to think in an other way. I spoke with other collegues (older and well known than me) about the “ten ways design can fight climate change” and they just said “oh yeah,interesting but too difficult, or too politics”. I don’t think its a problem of underestimation but a problem of culture (and politics). Like you say in the article, actually, in design schools, students learn to use softwares just to be ready for the market, without using their brain. The first thing to do (and you do!) is make campaign to change the way of think (and live).
    In this way, the tapwater campaign is great!

  4. claudio says:

    I wrote a reply a couple of days ago but it’s not here (maybe I didn’t save it, sorry).
    Well, I agree with your idea to convert our “weapons”, the problem is that designers have to change their way of thinking and it’s really difficult. I don’t think it’s a problem of underestimation, the problem is cultural.
    Here in Italy, for example, sometimes I speak with other designers (older and well known than me) about the importance of sustaibility and they usually say “oh, interesting but it’s too difficult” or “too politics”(?). And design school just teach (as you said) how to make a good logo or a good poster but they don’t teach to think in a different way.
    I think good and sustainable works are the first step to make and communicate the possibility of change.

Leave your comments: