OUGD501 - First things first Seminar

First things first Seminar

Today, in our last seminar of the year (!) we raised a discussion about the different viewpoints and opinions that sprung from the 'First things first' manifesto of 1964 and the revised version of 2000. We were split into 4 groups and then made notes on each of the 4 pieces of texts relating to these matters:

First Things First 1964:

With a little background research into the initial author of First Things First; Ken Garland, we can put into context his reasonings. In the decade this was written, the western world saw a boom of consumerism. The country finally saw a true recovery from the world wars and the country was back on it's feet, with some disposable income to spend. Without having objects around them for so long, it was inevitable that there would be a surge in materialism. This meant that lots of designers saw a change in their job role from essential political artist to advertiser, flogging mundane objects to the general public for a living. Meanwhile, there was another war stirring up the publics concern: Vietnam. This could be argued the start of revolutionary hippie culture against the war, which Garland was a part of; for example the very first Easter March. He argues that designers are getting bogged down with the more trivial design tasks while they could be involved and prioritise their efforts in more meaningful, functional design.

First Things First 2000:

The revised First Things First manifesto was a much angrier and urgent relative to its proceeder. This was because of the overwhelming force of consumerism rapidly increasing since the first manifesto in the 60's. Rather than a polite request, this manifesto is a wake up call to designers, asking them to challenge consumerist culture and create 'more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication' to stop exploiting their creative talent. As opposed to the mundane consumerist objects listed in the First Things First 1964 manifesto, the 2000 one lists things such as credit cards, diamonds and designer coffee, much more self-indulgent and contracting products. This manifesto is also addressed to all creatives and not just graphic designers like the original manifesto.

First Things First (Revisited) article from Emigre magazine by Rick Poynor:

Rick Poynor addresses some of the issues and observes the different attitudes towards both First things First manifestos. He states that even those designers who lay low and turn away from their political responsibilities and argue that they are just making a living creating adverts and don't want to change the world are still contributing to the political state of affairs by feeding the consumerist culture whether they like it or not because design has power. He also goes on to say that the manifestos aren't just design related, they are a political project; the environment we live in was designed!

The Footnotes of First things First by Michael Bierut from 2007:

In these footnotes on the 2000 manifesto, Michael Bierut argues against and defends his way of living. He lightly points out that the creatives who signed the manifesto were already well established as designers and didn't NEED to be involved in the mundane tasks of advertising for consumerist culture and that the position they were in was probably because they had to go through all of those kind of tasks to be in a position to refuse them or that they've always had the pleasure of designing for the 'culturally elite'. He also questions the manifesto's request for motives: Can you just drop out of the consumerism game? And if you can, should you? What good will come out of it? He also questions that the world is complicated and nothing is as simple as just becoming a designer for a pure cause, and uses the Brooklyn Academy of Music, a nonprofit organisation charity funded by a consumerism tobacco giant company as example. Does the fact that it's funded by a 'negative' organisation make the Academy evil itself? He concludes with the argument that is it really a good cause? Is switching from mass manipulation for commercial ends worse than mass manipulation for political ends? It's all propaganda in the end!



The task from this session can be found here.