I sat down to make a post about the national attention that typography is receiving on the news right now, but it looks like I am going to take this in a different direction. First, let me bring you up to speed:

CBS is being accused of forging documents that question Bush’s service in the National Guard on 60 Minutes. To the delight of type nerds like myself, the news has been filled with typography talk. Kerning, letter combinations, quotation marks, and other telling typographical elements seem to suggest that the documents are forged because these features weren’t available before Microsof Word. For a better description of the story, turn on the news or do a Google search. (An interesting sidenote is the role that bloggers played in bringing this story to the attention of the mainstream media.)

Here is where I digress. I did a quick search of the design blogs I read, and sure enough, Design Observer was already talking about this very issue (sort of). Unfortunately, what could have been an informative article turns out to be nothing more than an opportunity for Design Observer to push their political agenda. If you pay attention to their blog, you know this isn’t the first time this has happened, but this one seems especially blatant.

BE A DESIGN GROUP takes great care to keep our political opinions seperate from our ideas on design. Politics is not off limits, but when the topic comes up, you can be sure we are talking about design, and not pushing an agenda or endorsing a candidate. Doing so can only lessen the impact of our design discussion. We are professional graphic designers who have dedicated our lives to design, not politics. You don’t care what our political view are, do you?

If you are interested, here is the comment I left on Design Observer (in case they delete it):

Time after time this blog pushes its political agenda and I am tired of it. Here you have an opportunity to talk about the power of blogs and the national attention given to typography recently, and you waste it by turning it into cheap smear tactics. You can’t even consider that maybe CBS forged those documents? That seems much more likely than a Republican conspiracy.

I respect you guys so much that I am baffled as to why you can’t stick to the issue that you are good at: observing design. Why in the world would you take such a left wing position on this blog during a time when the population is so evenly divided? What is gained by insulting half of your audience? What does your political bias have to do with design?

Am I wrong about this? Does anyone else think this is important?

Comments (17)

David said:

“We are professional graphic designers who have dedicated our lives to design, not politics”

Here, here! I couldn’t have said it better myself. I haven’t read the blog in question, but if they are doing what you say they are, I think your comment is very well put.

A prevelant example of people who don’t know what they’re talking about voicing their opinion (and unfortunately, their voices can reach far), is, of course, Hollywood actors.

Posted on September 12, 2004

Adrian said:

It was great to get a response from Michael Bierut and William Drenttel on my comment on Design Observer even if their responses were, ummm, disappointing. Michael pretty much said, its their blog and they can write about whatever they want and they don’t care who it offends. William quoted from our site and called us naive and wrong for not taking a partisan side on political issues. That pretty much blew me away. After that he apologizes for letting his point-of-view enter into the equation of his post. I am paraphrasing here, so read the thread for yourself. While you are there, make sure to look for the comment from Matthew Carter (he designed Georgia and Verdana if you don’t recognize the name).

Posted on September 14, 2004

Bennett said:

I left a comment on Design Observer as well. It is kind of late in the discussion, but we will see if they respond to my comment.

Kadavy,

I really enjoyed your comment on this Design Observer post as well. Very nice and a bit obsessive.

clinton said:

Maybe some of Seattle’s liberal, eco-obsessed, anti-establishment mentallity has rubbed off on me, but I didn’t feel William Drenttel’s article was pushing an agenda. It was obvious where his vote would be cast in November, but I don’t think the topic was being used only to push an agenda.

I think part of the problem with politics is that it isn’t discussed as much by the public. We tend to talk amongst only those we share similar views with…strengthen our view with often slanted facts. And then don’t enter into meaningful debate with those around us. We’d rather have our ideas protected than challenged. That doesn’t sound much like a melting pot to me.

I don’t care what your view of Ferenheit 911 is, but I know I’ve had more good two-sided political conversations stemming from that movie than any debate or campaign advertisement I’ve ever seen…and for that I am greatful. However, I realize we aren’t about being a political BLOG, so I’ll stop there. Well, maybe one more comment…

For what it matters (and I think it might relate), I heard 50,000 canadian football fans cheer when they announced that the United states got beat in Hockey’s world cup last friday. USA wasn’t even playing Canada.

Now back to design.

Posted on September 15, 2004

Clinton,

I agree that most of what William Drenttel was taking about wasn’t pushing an agenda, and he did apologize for the comment that was obviously slanted. Maybe my problem isn’t with this exact post, but with the graphic design elite.

It seems like anytime you hear about a graphic designers opinions it is very liberal. Designers seem to only be praised for social work when it is either non-partisan or part of a liberal campaign. I would like to know if there are any famous designers out there that support Bush. I would guess that if there is any, they wouldn’t admit it, because they would be labeled a war and hate monger. OK. Sorry. Look at me getting political. In the future maybe when I read about liberal agendas and designers I will try to look at it with a different perspective.

If they aren’t pushing an agenda over there, I don’t know what else to call it. If you read them regularly, you see they never miss an opportunity to bash Bush or the Republicans. I don’t object to them having a political opinion as much as I do to the fact that their political comments are cheap shots and unfair. It’s not like they are trying to initiate an intelligent debate over politics. They do a hit and run and call it a design observation. Bierut says, “there seems to be no way to view it except through the lens of one’s particular bias.” That sounds “naive” to me. Believe it or not Michael, it is possible to talk about design without putting your own political spin on it. And yes you can “write what you want no matter who it alienates,” but why would you want to alienate people by talking about issues that don’t benefit design discussions?

Clint mentioned Fahrenheit 911. The way Michael Moore pushes his agenda is better than the way Design Observer does. At least he has committed his life and profession to spreading his propaganda. It wouldn’t make sense for Moore to use his movies to take cheap shots at graphic designers, and it doesn’t make sense for Design Observer to use their expertise in Design to bash Bush.

Posted on September 16, 2004

Guillermo Roemer said:

A search on Design Observer for “Bush” gave these telling results:

1. Milton Glaser suggested that Americans could express their unhappiness with the Bush presidency by lighting up the sky.

2. Britain and America: Two Nations United in Idiocy

3. I was astonished, and then heartened, one morning about a month later to find the main subway station at New York’s Grand Central Terminal transformed into a veritable hotbed of anti-Bush propaganda.

4. I would urge Design Observer readers to visit étapes, the French design magazine’s site where there are close to 1000 anti-war posters against Bush, America, and the Iraq enterprise.

5. I wondered if designing t-shirts was anything near a sufficient response to the crisis in leadership we’re facing.

6. Americans with the least to gain under from Republicans tend to love them the most.

7. George W. Bush Is Hiding Something… I want to believe these documents are authentic. Meanwhile, I have design peers who fear an even worst outcome, that they are part of some larger conspiracy by the Republicans. "One theory in our office is that the GOP did it to cast doubt on the Kerry campaign."

8. Errol Morris has created a series of television commercials for MoveOn.org featuring former Bush supporters who are voting for Kerry in 2004.

Posted on September 21, 2004

Rob said:

Really guys, what’s the point here? Certainly design plays a role in the communication of political ideas and it should be obvious that it is there blog and they can write what they want. I for one find it both engaging, humorous and educational. And let’s face it, there are a lot of people unhappy with Bush as president. And the fact that we can say that is what makes this country great.

Guillermo, To be fair, not all those articles are really pushing an agenda. I was going back through the Design Observer archives, and although they are obviously liberal, I am probably wrong to classify that as pushing an agenda.

Beirut’s recent post takes the wind out of my argument that they aren’t trying to initiate an intelligent debate over politics. The thread over there is very good and it is actually restoring my respect for them.

Posted on September 22, 2004

I agree, Michael’s recent post is pretty fascinating and as usual, generates useful and enlightening discussion.

Just thought I’d share this link with you, the conference is over but it’s topic was something I thought you’d find at least interesting, although you may disagree with it.

http://www.arts.ulst.ac.uk/artdesign/events/polit.html

Posted on September 24, 2004

Rob, Thanks for the link. That would have been an interesting conference. I wonder if they have anything like that in the USA. Cool billboard graphic, too. I wouldn’t object to a conference about design and politics (unless the speakers used it to promote their personal ideology). I think it is possible to talk about the relationship of design and politics without endorsing a political philosophy.

Steven Heller isn’t an author on Design Observer, but I thought his recent comment on Michael Bierut’s I Hate ITC Garamond seemed to fit into this discussion. It seems that some of these people have political Tourette’s. After bashing on ITC Garamond, Steven Heller makes the following comment.

Forgive me for changing the the subject, but if George W. Bush were a typeface, he’d be ITC Garamond.

Posted on October 11, 2004

That is pathetic! It is so disappointing to hear the biggest voices in graphic design lower themselves to cheap partisan insults. Is that political dialogue? NO! How can we really take these voices seriously about design when they reveal how shallow and childish their thoughts on politics are. To put it in perspective, Steven Heller has written over 60 books and his contribution to a design discussion about a poorly designed font is to compare it to the President of the United States. That is absolutely unbelievable.

xhanubis said:

As an outsider living in a third world company that is still struggling to integrate the concepts of freedom and justice in its social fabric.

I find it fascinating that…in the land of the free…where everyone is free to express him or herself…that anyone would take offence because another person cannot seperate his politcal views from his website.

Does it really matter isn’t that what freedom of speech means…and since you want to keep design blog free of “politics” isn’t that your agenda thats being pushed?

Sounds crazy but for all its talk of rights and freedom…this seem no different from home…freedom of speech for all unless…you offend…contradict…disagree…takeside…

interesting….

Posted on October 12, 2004

I don’t want to take away anyone’s rights. They can talk about whatever they want. I just don’t think it is a good idea for them to dilute their great reputation in the field of design by slinging mud and making unintelligent partisan remarks. If they think that is beneficial then by all means they should proceed. Wouldn’t BE A DESIGN GROUP lose credibility if we took every opportunity to preach about the genius of Power Rangers? Just because we have the freedom to talk about whatever we want, that doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

Who decides whats a good idea for someone else…obviously they don’t mind diluting there great reputation…do you honestly think when the author sat down to type his statement he was thinking I am going to now make some “Unintelligent and Partisan remarks”?

I doubt he did…maybe…just maybe he believes in those remarks…and maybe just maybe…the reason you are on hom for them is because you do not agree with them, hence the “unintelligent” gibe.

anyway all I am saying is because you disagree does not make it bad or diluting or however…design cannot exist outside of the social framework which underpins it…

but then again you have already decided :)

Be A Design Group

Be A Design Group

BE A DESIGN GROUP is an invitation to all people to participate in design. It is a place where designers can test new ideas, share observations, and comment on cultural trends. Our definition of design is intentionally broad so that the subject matter of our posts can be diverse and unlimited.

National Spotlight on Typography

by Adrian Hanft, (17 comments)

Sponsored by:

Comments (17)

David said:

Adrian said:

Bennett said:

Bennett said:

clinton said:

Bennett said:

Adrian said:

Guillermo Roemer said:

Rob said:

Adrian said:

Rob said:

Adrian said:

Bennett said:

Adrian said:

xhanubis said:

Adrian said:

xhanubis said:

Post a comment