A quick note on the Mau reading... although it made some good points, I really did not see a lot of room for contextual elaboration. It was all pretty much cut and dry, good practices to adhere to, so if you haven't read it yet, you should.
The reading from Michael Bierut on the other hand was likely the source for much dispute, just as the original "First Things First" stirred up 45 years ago. Having read from both sides of the debate, I understand why he would argue that the public has just as much right to a well designed dog biscuit package as they do a socially conscious poster for some non-profit organization. However, there are those designers out there that would make a conscious decision to focus their own efforts towards something they strongly believe in, even if it means less potential "bread and butter" work that makes it easier to pay the rent. I think the issue really just comes down to each designer's own personal standards. Take for instance Beirut's BAM client, which (assuming everyone reading this attended his lecture here a few years ago) we all know is probably his favorite client just by the way he always likes to use it for reference. This is the first time I've heard that BAM is greatly supported by Phillip Morris (a.k.a. "the devil", lindsey will know what I mean). As much as I am sure BAM is a wonderful non-profit to work with, I personally, in knowing now that they are backed financially by Phillip Morris, would have to choose not to work with them. Granted I wouldn't say a negative word to anyone else about taking up the job, and if I were ever in that position I might even go as far as referring another good designer for the work. But there are certain personal moralistic standards that would keep from allowing myself to promote them knowing that there is an affiliation with P.M.
I don't think it is any designer's job to judge or demean the choices of others out there, even if they do not agree with them. So as much as I respect some of the work the authors of these opposing writings, I do not entirely see cause for the argument in the first place. All we can do is present our information the best that we know how, and let people make their own decisions. It is up to each and every designer to decide where they want to draw their own lines, if they even choose to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I really enjoyed Bierut's essay. I think he addressed the expansive gray area created by the FTF Manifesto by acknowledging that designers are indeed human. Someone has to design the lowly everyday things in the world, and we all can't be supermen all the time. I like the ending note of the essay, that simply respecting our audience and cumulating small efforts can lead to overall positive change.
As for the Mau reading...
I love the part in the Bierut essay about adding "meaning" plain and simple to the works we create. If we're creating work just to "pay the rent" or "win awards" what is the point. Why not design something that actually MEANS something to a person, families, governments, the world? Plus the line about storming t.v. and radio, billboards and buses is such an amazing thing to think about...think of all the petty commercial work out there and imagine replacing ads for medicine to help you with your "restless leg syndrome" (which is completely crap in itself) you replace it with something to persuade, even just one person, to question something they're comfortable with!
The section in Bierut's essay that left a impression with me most was talking about designing for charitable causes and informational design. I appreciate the fact that designers can make a difference in the way people learn daily facts such as nutritional labels. The issue of reading and understanding nutritional facts has never really crossed my mind, but it is a huge deal. like Bierut said, "making the complicated simple and finding beauty in truth." I completely agree with this 100%! As a designer i would rather be recognized for creating more understandable design rather than the pretty trendy stuff. Hopefully my classmates feel the same...
So on to Bruce Mau. I wonder why he wrote all of these rules, or this new manifesto. He just sort of jumps right into it and makes hints that this is for the benefit of a designer, but he never really explains all of his reasons. Like in the section about don't enter design competitions. You shouldn't do it because it just isn't good for you. Thats all there is to it...
Beyond that I did actually really like some of his rules, especially the one about only read the left side of the spread. This cut down his rules by half for me so I still have more autonomy than i did before.
Wow I really love Mau. Alot of them seem like they belong in a mens magazine, giving hints on how to get a date, but they seem to cross over quite well into the design field. Through most of these readings i get a feeling of a lot of filler and backstory, but his work just skips reason, skips fact, just gets down to slogans that could adorn design office walls worldwide. For someone who loves quotes, his was full of hilights. Bierut sums up the rest, "manifestos are simples, life is complicated."
bierut and kalman are chasing each other in circles. non-commercial elitism vs. commercial populism. it's not that easy.
does anyone seriously think you're imbuing crappy consumer goods with "meaning" or "significance" by doing "good design" (and what the hell is that, anyway? design that gains commercial or social or political capital? design like you see in the books?) for them? that's redolent of training brochure bullshit-- "wal-mart's not just a business, it's family." no it's not.
"but who will make the public square PRETTY?" uh, not me. i won't. that takes the status quo for granted. that's only a question you have to ask yourself if you assume that the public square is the property of private agencies who give everyone else the privilege of being surrounded with what someone somewhere considers "good." and i don't really think that michael bierut cares, either. he read this thing, this manifesto, and felt a twinge of shame and came up with an elaborate justification of why he shouldn't.
the brooklyn academy of music bit is interesting but specious. see, he's not working for the brooklyn academy of music, he's working for disney and nike and whoever. let whoever comes to that bridge cross it, and let michael beirut keep making sure that when poor kids kill each other for their nikes they get their money's worth of "good design."
sorry if that sounds harsh. i wish it never happened too.
not that he's more guilty than tibor kalman or kalle lasn. i get the sense that they don't want to give the visual world back to the people who have to live in it, they just want their own side represented. kalman didn't lie for benetton; he just juxtaposed something ideologically 'good' next to their logo and let the consumers do the lying to themselves.
elitism isn't a solution to any of these questions. whose rent got raised because their landlord bought your latest masterpiece?
i don't buy the "inform / induce" dichotomy either. the distinction has only to do with whether you think you're right.
and ultimately whether we in petit-bourgeois computerland feel like we have or haven't broken a rule, whether we decide to feel shame or not, is not that important. what's important is the ramifications of our actions on the gigantic majority of the population that never was and never will be offered the kind of privilege that we have.
like for example: if i had a choice between advertising for mcdonald's or let's say a local co-op restaurant with exactly the same menu, i'd go for the latter; mcdonald's relies on poverty and racism and oppression to fill its restaurants and make its profits, and this imaginary other place doesn't. the food's bad for you or whatever. so are plenty of things. if you drive to mcdonald's and back to eat once every day, you're more likely to get obliterated in a car crash than to die from what you're eating. in fact, i'd rather do bad work for the local place than good work for mcdonald's. i'm not angling for a spot in the class of 2018's textbooks.
thing is though i'm not being offered that choice. if you limit your options for making money to professional white-collar design jobs, you're probably not gonna get that choice most of the time either. i guess you can choose to feel guilty about that or not to, according to the dictates of your conscience.
i'll talk about the mau one later
edit: i didn't realize that michael beirut did work for BAM. i still don't think that choice is equivalent to every oher one, though.
Post a Comment