Graphic design as a mode of response is unfortunate. Its creation, as a response to capitalistic mass consumerism, has been its primary goal, and unfortunately it still is. The conundrum lies in the fact that both design and capitalism exist hand in hand, and to destroy one would inevitably lead to the destruction of the other (at least in their current forms). Many designers have tried to highlight this factor such as Ken Garland (among another 21 contributors) with his release of the First Things First Manifesto in 1963. Garland believed that good design should be used for a greater function than its previous use purely in advertising for a consumer society, Poyner writes, “The critical distinction drawn by the manifesto was between design as communication (giving people necessary information) and design as persuasion (trying to get them to buy things)” (Poynor, Émigré 51, 1999). The manifesto prompted a healthy response among designers, artists and humanitarians alike. In a column written in the Guardian on the 24th January following the release of the First Things First Manifesto, Labour Member of Parliament Anthony Wedgwood Benn wrote, “The evidence for it is all around us in the ugliness with which we have to live. It could so easily be replaced if only we consciously decided as a community to engage some of the skill which now goes into the frills of an affluent society." So the question must be asked, if this problem was highlighted over 40 years ago, (and again with the First Things First Manifesto 2000) and received such a positive response, how is it that so little has changed?
The reason for this (as mentioned before) is mainly due to the economy to which graphic design has leant itself to (based upon the monetary system), and more recently to the added influx of graphic designers in the industry. As graphic design has become more popular (and so, more competitive) the education of the field tends to focus more on how to get a job, rather than its reasons for existing. Students now tend not to look at the history behind the design and the reasons for its existence, but seem to focus more on the trends and styles of its current existence. As this has become the case, designers attempts in the past to try to make design more ethical (or more aware of itself) has been lost. The teachings at the Cranbrook academy reflect this notion as the students’ work (which was heavily based upon the search for the vernacular) was quickly transformed into a visual style while the ideas became insignificant.
In fact the increase in unethical design can be seen in more and more recent examples of graphic design today. Due to modern advances in media and technology, graphic design has been forced to evolve in many different ways. Due to the competitive nature of the consumer society we live in, modern design has been forced to become slicker and more deviant than ever before, and through brand-marketing and advertising techniques companies no longer sell their goods as much as they sell themselves. Design now goes as far as creating whole personalities depending on which target audience the company is aimed at. Although it could be argued that variations of this technique have been used for a long time (since the birth of graphic design), it is undeniable that its recent usage is more powerful and more invisible than ever before. Yet the problem of ethical design always relates back to its reason for existing in the first place. The idea of design in its pure form is a beautiful thing, and basically exists as a form of expression in which can help people communicate ideas and information. But when its primary use is aimed at making people buy something they probably wouldn’t (which it usually does) it looses that which constitutes as ethical.
Recently I E-mailed freelance designer Mike Carney questioning how much emphasis he puts on ethical design, he replied “on some occasions I might be asked to work for a client where I just don't empathize, understand or have any interest in what they're doing, and on that basis I usually turn the work down (unless of course, I am skint).”
