 |
| Example 1 |
 |
| Example 2 |
 |
| Example 3 |
A number of authors have discussed how
consumerism effects the legitimacy and the deeper importance of
graphic design. Garland, K. 'The First Things First
Manifesto (1964);
Poyner, Lasn et al (2000) ' The First
Things First Manifesto 2000'; Poyner, R. (2000) 'First
Things First Revisited' and Beirut, M.
(2007) 'Ten Footnotes to a Manifesto' have all considered
how designing for consumer purposes effects the meaning of graphic
design. For example Garland first proposed the anti- consumer agenda when he
wrote the first things first manifesto, 1964 where he states 'we are proposing
a reversal of priorities in favour of the more useful and more lasting forms of
communication. We hope that our society will tire of gimmick merchants, status
salesmen and hidden persuaders, and that the prior call on our skills will be
for worthwhile purposes.' This is also supported by Poynor, Lasn et al in 2000
when they propose ' a reversal of priorities' just as Garland had, they go on
to a similar proposition 'in favour of more useful, lasting and democratic
forms of communication- a mindshift away from product marketing and toward the
exploration and production of a new kind of meaning.'
The intention to switch to an ethical
and purposeful design is agreed by both of the authors. The images above relate
to more to Beirut (2007) 'Ten Footnotes to a Manifesto' in which he discusses
the works of the other authors and how feasible they are in reality.
On the one hand images 1 and 2 are examples of work with an ethical/
social message, but image 3 supports an entirely unethical message, and
speaks to the consumer.
Beirut poses the idea that you can be
neither one of the other 'like many cultural institutions, they are
supported by the philanthropy from many large corporations...' outlining the
fact that there is no clear good, and this can be said for the images above, on
the one hand the company is promoting the fact the workers have rights, they
aren't slaves and they have a fair job , (example 1) it is saying that american
apparel is against unfair treatment of its workers, a good social campaign, as
is example 2 where the company had a campaign for gay rights and so you
could say that the company is for social rights and that they are good
according to Poynor, Lasn et al who state 'there are pursuits more worthy of
our problem-solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social
and cultural crises demand our attention.' which is true in image two's case,
gay rights is a big social issue in america, and Garland also supports this
idea and takes it further by suggesting 'the other media through which we
promote our trade, our education, our culture and our greater awareness of the
world.' implies that a different media can help a greater cause.
However image 3 is highly sexualised
like most of the advertising campaigns for american apparel, it takes a
voyeuristic look on the products advertised. The photographs in the adverts are
almost overly sexual and feature what look to be underage girls, american
apparels target audience is young adults, this kind of imagery is not promoting
a socially 'good' message and is almost making this sexualisation acceptable,
and so in designing for this company are the designers contributing to this
derogative message, according to Poynor, Lasn et al they are. 'Designers who
devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development
are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated
with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen
consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we are all
helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.'
But Beirut challenges this idea in footnote 2, when he discuses the
fact that it is easy to be culturally/ ethically and socially moral when you
are a distinguished designer and money is not a problem. Could it be that the
designers of image four and many similar adverts of american apparel use these
images just so they can pay the bills.
A point the opposing authors both agree
upon is that style is recognised on all design over substance, Poynor (2000)
'What seduces us is its image."The image reaches us first as a visual
entity- shape, color, picture, type".' and then again in the work of
Beirut (2007) 'They embrace the products of Disney, GM, Calvin Klein and
Phillip Morris not because they like them or because the products have
any intrinsic merit, but because their designer puppet masters have
hypnotised them with things like colours and typefaces.' This can be seen on
the advertisements of american apparel, the design work is actually clever, its
modern, and minimalist, the implementation of a grid structure makes a
neat and clean arrangement of the page. The type itself is eye-catching and
again follows a modern aesthetic. The idea behind the imagery itself is also
quite interesting, in the way it doesn't look like a professional photograph,
its quite laid back, and casual which is enticing for the young target
audience, going back to the previous two statements, it can be seen why and how
this has an effect. But all of this is towards a overly sexualised series of
images that are crude and promote a derogatory message. And so in a sense
its an open ended question of what is good and bad ? and to what extent ? Does
the fact that american apparel support workers rights and gay rights outweigh
the fact they objectify women in their advertising ?
'What a disappointment to learn that this
revolution is aimed at replacing mass manipulation for commercial ends with
mass manipulation for cultural and political ends.' Beirut (2007) what is
really better ?
An
No comments:
Post a Comment