A QUESTION OF DESIGN

The industrial revolution wasn’t designed; it gradually evolved over time. It was driven by the desire for capital. Products were made as efficiently as possible, and many of these products followed the cradle to grave model. They are used for some time, then thrown away. However, there is no such thing as away. We pump pollutants and industrial waste into our environment while making the initial product, and then throw in back in a worthless heap of poor design. Our environment has been abused because of the demands our human population put on it. From cutting trees for lumber to mining for coal, these resources were thought to be regenerative. In fact, they are not. I disagreed with many of the motives behind the Industrial Revolution. Although it was considered a time of great change, I feel it started a never ending struggle between our natural environment and the human race. It has been difficult for us to find solutions to its many drawbacks such as waste disposal, land contamination, and health concerns. Creative minds, engineers, and designers of our era should consider the wellbeing of future generations. We need an efficient cradle to cradle system.

The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

According to Janine Benyus Biomimicry is the practice of borrowing nature’s design principles to create more-sustainable products and processes. It is an interesting concept for designers, engineers, and architects. Like Benyus said, we stumbled upon fossil fuels and used our natural resources before we were able to consciously understand the consequences of our usage. As humans we use way too much energy. Life in the natural world operates on small amounts of energy without using high heats or toxic chemicals. We need to start finding ways to appreciate and use the subtle amount of energy already provided. I think it is interesting to find though that we are already mimicking nature in some sense. Benyus says that the humpback whale’s flipper is being mimicked in wind-turbine design, as well as having dye-sensitized solar cells mimic photosynthesis. There are many other examples of Biomimicry that are already being implemented, or are developing in society. I agree with Benyus and think it is really important to teach students at an early age on how to learn from nature instead of learning about nature. If the natural world has been successful so far at using and recycling resources, then as a human race we should be learning from what nature and executing as much as we can of what we learn into new designs. Sustainability is not as simple as it sounds however. It would take the support from the masses to successfully make a change for the better. We are so used to doing things the way we always have that convenience triumphs over sustainable practices. Biomimicry has been around since ancient times, we need to spread the practices of this concept and make people fully aware of it’s benefits.

American Apparel

This essay expresses a concept in advertising that is well known and over used. Yes, we know that sex sells. We also know that photographing young women in sexy clothing is going to boost the sales of their product. Females in the United States are obsessed with body image and will stop at nothing to look like the models in advertisements. Again, this is not something new. Kealey is acknowledging the fact that many companies use overly sexualized advertisements to sell their product, she however is pointing out the key differences between other companies and American Apparel. For example, a company such as Calvin Klein may shoot a highly sexualized AD to put in a magazine, however Klein has a team of people who work with the models and coordinate the photo shoot. Dov Charney, the CEO at American Apparel shoots all of the ADs himself, which means he chooses the models, he chooses what they will wear, and he choosing how sexually they are going to pose. The amount of harassment lawsuits against him is disgusting. One of the most interesting points Kealey makes Dov's choice of models he uses to promote his company. To quote her she says, "There are also negative connotations relating to his choice to use a large number of Asian and black models, as the sexual nature of the imagery can be seen to encourage the belief that non-white women are more sexualized and/or submissive." Throughout history and especially in art, an image of a black woman symbolized being barbaric and sexual, so is it true that Dov uses these models to be even MORE sexualized? Ah, I guess we'll never know the truth.

Does Design = Art?

According to Kees Dorst’s article “But, is it art?” “An artist determines his or her own goals” whereas a graphic designer’s goals are “partly determined by others.” This statement is very true in a sense. However, I do agree with her last two sentences which says, “a designer who develops his own goals […] is something of an artist, as far as I’m concerned. The medium may be a little odd, but still.” Designers use every project as way of developing who they are as a designer. Every designer wants to “reach his ideal” which is why different projects contribute to their personal development. As a designer working on my thesis right now, I can completely see how design can be art. A design thesis is conceptual and designed upon something personal the individual wants to explore. There are no clients involved; therefore thesis work is a great example of how a project can contribute to ones personal development. On the other hand, I partly agree with Rick Poynor in his article “Art’s Little Brother” where he says that design is meant to be functional and serve a purpose whereas artists are free to do what they want “in pursuit of their self-chosen goals.” When working for a client, a designer ultimately has to do what the client wants. However, to argue Dorst’s point again, there is always a personal relationship between a designer and any given project.

Poynor also brings up the argument that, “There are more passionate, less detached designers just as there are highly cerebral artists.” He goes on to say that many artists (like designers) use other means to create their art; whether it is photography, computers, video, or any other means. The key difference however is that design again is meant to be practical and functional. So there is this split between function and vision. Also, according to M/M in “Royal College of Art discussion with David Blamey” designers are very much engaged with society, whereas artists can use their work to detach from society. “Art isn’t supposed to be practical or even sensible.” This statement, as sad as it may sound, is true. Artists can create whatever they please and call it “contemporary art” but designers have to stay true to their function, which is creating something that is practical and ironically has a function.

Speculative Prehistory of Humanity

In Fuller’s article he discuses the advance and efficiency of technology in industrial design. He also makes a point to let society know that we are wasteful of our energy (which most of us already know) he states, “we have on average of two million automobiles standing in front of red spotlights with their engines going, the energy for which amounts to that generated by the full efforts of 200 million horses being completed wasted as they jump up and down going nowhere.” Besides humans being wasteful of energy, Fuller states, “"The architectural profession-civil, naval, aeronautical, and astronautical-has always been the place where the most competent thinking is conducted regarding livingry, as opposed to weaponry." He is referring to livingry as human-life advantaging and environment-controlling. Humans should be using their resources (naval, aeronautical, etc.) to enhance living on Earth. Humans should be using such ideas as spherical buildings which are environment-controlling buildings, instead of using tall vertical buildings which have the maximum possible energy losing capability. Fuller states that war is obsolete, meaning that we should no longer be using the military’s and NASA’s competent thinking individuals to create weapons, instead we should be collaborating on how to use what we know about energy to improve human life, which will give humanity the option of becoming “enduringly successful.” We have the knowledge and technology to shift design in a more useful direction, we just need society to take part in it.

Oh, Helvetica, I love you so.

Ever since we watched Helvetica in class I have been seeing the typeface everywhere! It’s used in television advertisements, billboards, and magazine layouts. It really is everywhere. Everywhere except in Adobe CS4 (on my computer that is) I was actually stunned to find that the typeface wasn’t standard on the CS4 applications. I am definitely a Helvetica fan. It is a strong and sleek typeface that is so versatile. It is a simple yet bold typeface. I personally use it in a lot of my work because the space in between the actual letter forms seems so concrete and confident. Yes, Helvetica maybe be overused, but when used properly it dominates other typefaces. I don’t associate the typeface with any brand or company in particular. Some people do, which is why they may hate the typeface. I found a couple of blogs online with strong arguments for and against the typeface, whoever reads this blog should check them out. They are quite amusing.

http://www.lovehelvetica.com/

http://www.nikibrown.com/designoblog/2009/01/23/do-you-hate-helvetica/

Byker Wall

The Byker Wall video was hard to take seriously due to Beatrix’s heavy accent. Epic music played in the background as the camera angled up towards Byker Wall. The video montages were almost humorous. All joking aside, the Byker Wall did not look too interesting to me. Maybe it was the specific footage in the movie, or maybe it really isn’t good design. I was expecting something more grand, (maybe because of the music!) than what I saw in the video. The Byker Wall is an interesting concept so that people can view something better than tall high rises, but the design was just not up to par with the concept. The clip from the destruction of the Pruitt Igoe helped me realize how easily a “modern style” apartment complex could fail; especially in the location it was built. Again, I think the concept of these modern apartment complexes is refreshing in regards to architecture now, but they concept and design need to be coherent.

BRAND ON THE RUN

This article brings up a couple interesting points. The first statement that stood out to me is how issues that deal with big brands are kept out of the mainstream media. This is because the mainstream media is “run by big corporations with a vested interest in the status quo.” The three short stories in the beginning of the article caught my attention. Bernard Kemp is right, the design and brand doesn’t mean anything if it’s made in the same place as lesser known brands, or cheaply designed commodities. I personally feel that we are all playing a big game of monopoly and the big corporations are monopolizing the industries. They are devouring small businesses who work so much harder to deliver a better product. The Adbusters organization uses parodies and protest to try to defeat the almighty “BIG CORPORATION.” I think their ads are genius. Taking ads from Calvin Klein, Camel, and Absolut and twisting them to spite the brand is a smart idea because they are taking the most recognizable ads which help catch the attention of the everyday consumer. Also, I admire the “pranksters” that the article mentions. Their “media terrorism” activism is an interesting way to spite big corporations. I am talking of course about the Barbie Liberation Front who attacked the big corporation Mattel by buying up Barbie and GI Joe dolls, swapping their voice boxes, then returning them to he stores. I think it is a great idea to make life difficult for big brands in small ways.

BAD!

I love this article. Enough said. The design is great, the content is even better. Designers do need to be outsiders. My favorite statement: “maybe the client doesn’t need a brochure. Maybe he needs a new product. Maybe he really needs an advertising campaign. Or a decent copywriter. Or a career change. Maybe we should tell him.” I absolutely love the sarcasm and honesty that this article portrays.

This article was truely interesting to read. Not only was the layout of the article interesting, but it was a great collaboration for the content of the article. One of the most interesting aspects of the article was the comparison of products. Pepsi versus Coke, and others. The statement next to these comparisons is what is most interesting and true! "If graphic designers didn't exist how would we know the difference between..." then lists the comparisons. Designers are needed to persuade consumers to purchase one product over another, especially if it is something that you can't taste, and must be based solely on how well the product is marketed.

Branding the Individual

I have read so many articles and books (like Branded by Alissa Quart) that deal with how brands define an individual. Everything a person eats, wears, drives, etc., is a brand. The reason for which an individual chooses a certain brand over another has a lot to do with the emotion that is attached to purchasing a certain brand of product. There is no escape from being “branded.” I agree when Pavitt states, “we can use goods to locate ourselves and establish a sense of belonging.” Individuals who buy fancy cars and brand name clothing feel accepted in the social circle that they are trying to join. Branding is creating subcultures, and is inevitably dividing society. Is there a stop to this? I have no idea. I think branding becomes worse every year.

My cousin has an eight year old child, and when I went over to visit she was wearing an entirely new outfit from head to toe, including jewelry and shoes. I asked her what the occasion was, and why she had gotten new clothes. She said to me “Julie is the coolest girl in school because she buys her clothes from Justice, so mom took me shopping there so I can be just as cool as Julie.” It turns out that my cousin spent over $250.00 at a place called Justice in the mall because she didn’t want her child to feel left out at school. The entire store she said was aimed towards my cousin’s age range. There were hip new child stars such as Miley Cyrus modeling Justice clothing in their catalogue. I could not believe how brands were targeting such young children. I still can’t get over it.

The Impotence of Being Earnest

The designers who signed the First Things First Manifesto are understood as the upper class. Soar refers to them as the usual suspects in his article. When I read the First Things First Manifesto I was a little judgmental and frustrated with what was being proposed. I understand that these designers want to extend their skills to more worthy causes such as for educational or environmental purposes, however, the first thing that popped into my head was, “how will they make money to survive?” Then I realized, that the usual suspects who signed the manifesto don’t need to worry about money right now, they have spent their entire careers working in commercial advertising so they are pretty well off (and upper class) Like Soar mentions, what about the rest of us? What about the middle class designers who struggle to make ends meet. I am sure they would rather use their talents to better society and stay clear of commercial design; however it is just not in their budget to do so. If the usual suspects want to shift their priorities and have the means to do so, then nobody is stopping them. They can’t however expect all designers to shift their priorities when the middle class designers are not making the same pay check as they are.

Media, Gender, and Identity

We are without a doubt victims of branding, advertising, and media. I feel like tradition is established when the majority of society agrees on one societal issue. These “issues” are usually things like gender roles and social status. Media has always influenced the way in which women are perceived in comparison to men, or how homosexuals are perceived in comparison to heterosexuals. Gauntlett states “the traditional view of a woman as a housewife or low-status worker has been kick-boxed out of the picture by the feisty, successful 'girl power' icons. Meanwhile the masculine ideals of absolute toughness, stubborn self-reliance and emotional silence have been shaken by a new emphasis on men's emotions, need for advice, and the problems of masculinity.” I definitely agree with this statement and it is exceedingly obvious that gender categories have been changed/blurred/shattered, due to the change in traditions. Women are more independent and successful than ever before. I know more single women than I do who are married or in a relationship. My cousin is a thirty-two year old female who has one of the highest paying positions in a pharmaceutical company, and is happily not married or in a serious relationship. She gets what she wants and swallows men up whole. She chooses to defy the gender roles and does a damn good job at it. If she were living in the 1960’s I’m sure her life would be a lot different because the media would dictate her role in society. If it wasn’t for all of the “girl power” and the emphasis on women being independent in the media, then I’m sure many of the women who are successful today would be in a totally different place in society. As for men in crisis…it’s about time that advertising and media give men a run for their money. They’re really not in crisis though; they are just shifting to the new modern gender roles that society has created for them.

I agree with Gauntlett’s statement when he says, “the media disseminates a huge number of messages about identity and acceptable forms of self-expression, gender, sexuality, and lifestyle. At the same time, the public have their own even more robust set of diverse feelings on these issues.” Mass media and audience power are almost equal (in today’s society, maybe not generations ago) As humans we still feel the need to “fit in” and be accepted, but with the ever-changing ideas of sexuality and identity, almost everything is accepted.

Pioneer Modernism

Pioneer Modernism was a very involved and thorough movement. Greenhalgh mentions twelve different elements that Pioneer Modernism consisted of. One of the problems with this stage of modernism in comparison to the International Style was that the principles of one school were not followed by all of the others, which in turn made the movement patchy from the start. There was too much variety of emphasis on different principles. The Pioneers in essence formulated the theories that were later used in the International Style. The theories unfortunately stayed in their idea stage during Pioneer Modernism because at the time they didn’t have the resources or any other means to turn the idea into something existent. This is not to say that their ideas and theories were illogical, they were just impractical for the economics and politics of the time. It was just circumstantial. Shame.

First Things First 2000

The First Things First Manifesto 2000 is very similar to the one written in 1964. In thirty six years hardly anything has changed in terms of commercial design versus educational design. The manifesto states, “The profession’s time and energy is used up by manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best.” This statement and the manifesto itself almost makes me want to laugh. Here is something written by designers who have obviously made their money and paid their bills by commercial designing. If they don’t want to design commercially…then don’t. Don’t be a designer then, or don’t have a professional in design. Design for fun and get a different job to pay the bills. From personal experience, I already know that if I pursue a career in design, I will be using my skills and talent to market a brand. Many of the design assignments in a graphic design program at any college (including Mason Gross) teach you as a designer to create brand identities, and to learn how to market products in a commercial world. This whole shifting priorities concept will never work unless you start at the root. The root in this case is the graphic design students at any university. Distribute this manifesto to them, not as an assignment to “respond to” but just as a manifesto itself. Hopefully it will change the priorities of these graphic design students before they enter the professional world and become tainted like every other designer out there. (Who have no room to complain about anything considering they make their money by commercial design)

First Things First 1964:

This manifesto is interesting because it states, “by far the greatest time and effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.” Garland is referring to such entities as cat food, detergent, cigarettes, etc. I’m sure Garland realized that all of those “trivial purposes” were contributing the most to national prosperity. (In the monetary sense) I agree with the ideas of the manifesto. During the 1960’s design could have been used in more efficient ways to contribute to national prosperity. (In the educational sense) The problem is: designers can’t shift their priorities if the country itself is not shifting its priorities. If there is a greater demand for advertising cat food than there is for designing educational aids, or periodicals, then designers need to design what is in demand. Actually, that is not entirely true. They can design whatever they wish, however they will only get paid to design what is in demand. This is a difficult topic because it is discouraging and almost pathetic that the country’s priorities are geared more towards commercial needs than to educational or cultural needs. As a designer, one must ask themselves, “Do I want to design as a career, or do I want to design to change the world?” Yes, there are more worthy purposes for visual communications, but designers are not politicians, or members of the government. They can’t change what is in demand at the time (in this case commercial design) so this manifesto is more of a plea to the country to change its priorities, which hasn’t happened and sadly will not happen from what one can see in the First Things First Manifesto 2000.

No Logo

According to Klein, brand management and marketing are becoming the focus of companies in North America. Numerous corporations are finding ways to save money on production to in turn, spend money establishing their brand identity and launching ad campaigns. Companies are now outsourcing their production to third party contractors to reduce the price of labor. North American companies have closed almost all of their factories. “The reason for this shift is simple: building a superbrand is an extraordinarily costly project, needing constant managing, tending and replenishing.” By outsourcing their production, the companies are creating and controlling their demand by exhausting their energy on marketing strategies. The more money they can spend on advertising their brand, the more their product will be in demand by the public. Companies are also spending a lot of time establishing their brand as a lifestyle choice. For example, Nike and Adidas are not only a shoes and clothing companies, but they are considered the choice of athletes. They are promoting a type of lifestyle.

There is great disconnection between the product and its means of production. Since companies are outsourcing to third party contractors they are no longer concerned about the means of production or the working conditions in their factories. It almost becomes a human rights issue when dealing with working conditions overseas. However, the big North American companies naively defend their outsourcing decisions by saying that they do not employ people from places like Haiti…the contractors do. The companies are turning a blind eye to what is going on in their factories overseas so that they are not liable for anything that happens. Ken Green a Disney spokesperson asks, “With the newsprint you use, do you have any idea of the labour conditions involved to produce it?” The answer to that would probably be no. However at least with a newspaper the public is buying it for the material printed on it which is produced in the United States. So at least some of the labor conditions are overseen by U.S. companies. Although big corporations are outsourcing to contractors, they still have a way to keep in contact with the contractors and follow up on working conditions. Instead, they choose again to defend their decision with a comment about newsprint that doesn’t even equate to what they are doing.

Something that is very interesting from Klein’s article is that company logos are no longer displayed across their factories. The reason? Because there are none left in the United States! They especially don’t want their company logo plastered on a factory in China because they want to keep their means of production a secret. This may be because they are embarrassed of their outsourcing decisions, or they are too busy building such a strong reputation and brand name in the United States that they don’t want to taint their brand by admitting that Haitians and Chinese actually make their product. When was the last time you saw “MADE IN THE USA”?