Scary

Michael Bierut's "A Manifesto with Ten Footnotes" gave me chills while reading footnote #4. Bringing up the issue of shoes and dachshund owners, how could I not take this personally? I hate that he refers to products as gruesome. I don't believe that all designers should go protest and speak from a soap box. If that were the case then the world would be louder than it is now. There are those who take iniciative and fight back, and there are those who dodge the bullet and stay clear from certain issues that aren't as important to them as it is to others. I am that second person. I agree that dog biscuit boxes should be attractive to the consumer who is buying them, why not? Is it so wrong that I would rather create shoe boxes and ad campaignes for the Gap than to create anti-smoking ads? I am concerned for the consumers would buy cigarettes but they know what the results are in the end, its their choice, it's no secret that it causes cancer.

Fuck committees

I like this guy. Yes today there are so many rich people out there. And yes I agree that we should be nice to them in order to use their resources and we should use their help. I dont know i like what he wrote, straight to the point. That once USA was one way and now it's it the opposite and yes it is a corporate culture. And i can relate that to Russian too. When I was growing up it was one way did not see as much bright labels, fashion was more important then bright label. After visiting this summer, huge bill boards advertising smokes, ohhh on the huge building there was Bionce Knowls for L'oreal adveritising the lipstick, things like that are spreading out. Being from another country i can say that every other culture is trying to be like US. So, US should be proud and not change.

Once more

Oh yeah I like this one very much! He says, " What will happen when the best designers withdraw from that space, as First things first demands?....." Oh my gosh that is what they should do, because young people need a chance. He says we all are hypnotized about same stuff well because same people are working and working. Why not really leave and let the young people come in with fresh brains. Like I am really upset when I am looking at job postings and all I see 5 years of experience nessesary. That is so discriminative, because why am I getting this education? If I come out of college does that mean I am worth nothing, I cannot work at your company because I am young? People whom he calls great designers are great including himself but they are from another era, we are living the life that they didnt live, means we fit in better and need a chance. And who will benefit? The country will, the young generation will. So much ego it's insane! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Disagree with Michael

After reading his break down of first things first manifesto, I really got aggravated with some things that he wrote. I dont know if it was his intension to piss us off or he really thinks like that which is kind of arrogant. He is saying that we need to design work that will better the world we live in or possible United States, right? I think that it's not my responsibility to better it, yeah I can do some recycling and making sure i dont throw my cigarette buds on the streets but really that is the most things I can do because I have no money really to save the world. Educational institutions offers us so many degrees and those degrees are responsibilities. So, if I choose to design that means I will do my job and design that wrigley gum package whoever my client wants it, because It's my job to sell his product and make it work for the public. The president is the one who takes other responsibility which is taking care of the country. I am not a president I dont do what he is doing, just don't have what he has. Another thing Michael is saying that we should simlify design. I think that it's not right unless you are trying to push new ideas. I think that we are so advanced in technology today that it would be a waste of power, money and our brain to just not put it to work. I like to see bright labels and fun type on the shelves. It's the part of culture and millions want to come and visit America just to see the advertisement. I dont understand why you would want to change that, when you are being a spark.

Tibor Rocks My Socks!

I have a new design hero... I thought you might all like to know. I think that his very short article concludes in an incredibly consise solution for how to make a difference even if you end up working for corporate America. Essentially, screw the man by using there wealth and resources. If they don't go for that pitch you make for some advocacy snuck into their advertising campaign, consider I don't know: copying your zine on company time or paper, create posters with the latest software you pirated from the office, use their staples, plotter (you get the point... whatever you can get away with and not get fired). You could do more honest things like spec recycled paper for the annual report, or less harmful paper packaging over plastic packaging.

There is one point that I didn't agree with Mr. Kalman about. He said that corporations are creating things that people neither love nor hate. I think part of the problem is that designers are so good that we have the power to make people love things. I believe in the Saatchi and Saatchi Lovemark. I only hope that as a designer I can use this power to make people love things that are good for society, and the future, not the pocketbook of the man I aspire to steal staple from.

Side Note: I'm not sure how successful I was in formulating my question for Tim Hamil the other day, but in short I was glad to hear that he didn't think that he was working for a company that was harming America (whether it is or not), and that he had several really amazing examples of what he liked about Walmart besides that they are cheap. This whole idea of being an ethical designer really is nothing except a personal issue. If you personally feel comfortable about the companies/accounts that you work for is what is going to count in the long run. I am just really happy that this class is making me generate my own limitations, and realize that I am not the only designer that is gung-ho about making a difference in the world (no matter how taboo that seems to be in the current / postmodern art scene). At the very least it has come to my attention that even if I can't work for some cultural force rather than a corporation, I regard it my responsibility to do no harm, if not improve the status quo.

Pentagram in KC version two

This one is for Landon

Landon, I agree with you on a certain level. Midwest design sucks. oh, sorry, sorry...being a midwest designer sucks. Having a firm/company located near the client or work seems logical. right?

Considering that people are far less conservative than those in the midwest, design groups on the coasts to do seem to capture the more radical clients in which more radical designs would be allowed and utilzed. I'm not sure this is a result of ease or reputation. However, we as midwest designers must prevail. There is a strong and growing force of more radical and progressive designers that are creating work right here in the midwest and are even getting international attention within the larger design community. Due to technology and the internet, midwest designers are allowed to compete with other coastal designers. There is more and more focus on midwest design, generally acknowledged for its clean, conservative, and even smart designs but those ideals have evolved. They have evolved into something more.

--------------------------------------------
checkout MikePerry : www.midwestisbest.com

this midwest designer is reponsible for the amazing artwork that is associated with the infamous Urban Outfitters.
--------------------------------------------
checkout MK12 : www.mk12.com

Kansas City based animation/motion/print graphic group recognized internationally.
--------------------------------------------

Pentagram in KC?

The whole time that Michael B. was talking i kept thinking, wondering, if that if Pentagram was base-stationed here in kansas city, if the success of the company would be the same. i feel as though they get these great design jobs because of the company location in NYC. It seems logical that they do the street directional signage for lower manhattan, because of the ease to see the actual location on demand. I feel that is what kansas city is lacking. right now i don't feel there is anything that would be drawing large companies to have there work designed in the midwest. i don't think that design is taken as seriously here in this area. It makes amanda's comment the other day that people really don't realize that EVERYTHING is designed. I feel that the design culture on the coasts is more respected mainly because of the large amount of coverage it gets.

Mao comes to town

If I remember correctly, we had a discussion last week about propaganda. As we gazed at a slide showing Mao’s face looming over a city square in communist China, Brockett made a comment to the effect of “We don’t really have a context for this type of propaganda in our culture – it’s pretty rare that you see a huge face on the side of a building in Kansas City.” Well Brockett, this is your lucky week!

If anyone has driven by the Plaza lately, you could not have missed the 8-story portrait of Lance Armstrong on the side of the American Century building. His face is accompanied by the tag line: “Put Your Lance Face On”… nobody really knows what it means or why it’s there… but suddenly we have someone watching over us.

Is this a type of propaganda? The Kansas City Star ran an article on the strange advertisement, revealing to its readers that the CEO of American Century recently beat cancer and felt an expression of solidarity was necessary – but does the entire city need to know? To associate Lance Armstrong and cancer with American Century doesn’t make too much sense to begin with – but we’ll have to assume it’s there for a reason. And until we find out what that reason is: we can rest in knowing that Lance is watching over us.

guerrilla advertising

Wow. Michael Bierut's lecture was amazing. As he spoke on Friday about the recent campaigns he has engaged in, I found it quite relevant when he brought up the issue of guerrilla campaigns (particularly the Ted fiasco). I noticed how the vibe in the room immediately became jovial as we all watched these unsuspecting people thank a fictitious man Ted was responsible for so many kind acts around the city of Denver. Advertising agencies seem to be resorting to these underground techniques more and more, probably in order to engage on a personal level with their audience. We are all so cynical about advertising, because it feels a lot like coercion - and guerrilla marketing seems to be a way to undermine those sentiments.
Furthermore, I am not sure if this technique is horribly sneaky, or brilliant. I know I would like Ted to buy me flowers, or a cup of coffee, but when I found out who Ted really was, would it make me feel more manipulated than a traditional advertising campaign? Who knows, we'll just have to wait for Ted to come to town.

visual advocacy

Internet banner ads are an instance of narrow casting. I’m not sure how many sites do this, but on my excite account there is always a small banner ad at the top
that changes between all the stores I shop at online.

If you’d like to read all about how banner ads
work go here:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/banner-ad.htm

visual advocacy

right on zeitler! i agree that we should push for the dirty work of advertising to be left to the "pr" people. a designer is not a copywriter or an advertising executive. we need to re-define our job description in this world of multi-tasking-do-it-yourself-ers. i beleive that we have been trained to design - which is essentially a vocational skill, and we are not responsible for the art of persuasion. or are we? i would like to believe that we are only resonsible for the visual elements of our work, but they are so closely linked with the message of the product, and the marketing strategy that we soon find ourselves in the slippery slope of the dangerous "gray area".
even today, as we were struggling to define luxury, it became difficult to differentiate between what was acceptable societal norms, and the extravagant items left for the elite. each of us had a different definition of luxury (based on the items we each described... socks, porche, estate planners, etc...) with the objects varying so greatly, it made me begin to wonder whether or not there is such a thing as luxury. are these things up to the designer to define? or is it the population? and why would we try to promote something as "luxurious" (for instance) if we do not believe ourselves, that it is such an item.

Not Cool

All of this talk about the impropriety of the advertising business makes me want to stay far, far away from its seductive prestige, money, and fancy offices. All that we have hashed out in regards to cause-related advertising is that it is socially "questionable" at best. Where does that leave the rest of advertising? Like Stef said in a previous post "designers are being hired", and in some cases it is to do the dirty work. Why has it become our job to stretch the small deeds of companies into saintly acts? Can we give this job back to Public Relations people? Is design advantageous because it allows companies to present a message into the public domain from a neutral entity? Like we talked about with our assignments on Wed. it's the ambiguity of the designer's voice/identity that allows us to believe the American Heart Association put their seal on the Cherrios box, and that it was CARE recognizing Starbucks, and not Starbucks boasting its deeds in Natasha's work. Whether it's a harmless fib or an out right lie to embrace such ambiguity I'm not sure. But, I'm pretty sure I don't want to walk that line with the goal of boosting profits in mind... maybe if I can be convinced that it will truly benefit the cause it would be a different story.