What is Designism?
by Adrian Hanft, (16 comments)
You probably caught the term “designism” that has been getting thrown around the design blogs lately (SU, Unbeige, Core 77, DO, and many more) . Before I get to my rant, I would like to introduce the new polling feature of Be A Design Group. Informal survey questions will become a regular addition to our posts and I think this will be a great way to take the pulse of our readers about current design issues. Our first poll has to do with designism. The question is:
What do you think about the attention designism has gotten lately? Pick the answer that best matches your thoughts about designism:
1. I have no idea what they are talking about.
2. I like the idea of using design to promote social change. Where do I sign up?
3. The discussion is interesting, but the left wing politics turned me off to the whole thing.
4. Designism is a waste of time and I don’t think it will ever become a movement.
5. Designism is a monumentally important design movement and it is imperative that we keep the discussion going.
6. Design has always been about making the world a better place, so I don’t really get the point of inventing the word “designism.”
Voting is annonymous and simple so cast your vote here. If you just want to check out the results, they can be found here.
After you vote, continue reading to find out what I think of designism and why the movement is off to a bad start.
Yesterday I listened to the podcast of the designism event hosted by The Art Director’s Club recently. The event was conceived of by Brian Collins, and the cast included Milton Glaser, James Victore, Jessica Helfand, George Lois, Kurt Andersen, and Tony Hendra and was moderated by Steven Heller. If you have the stamina for an hour and a half podcast, I recommend it. If for no other reason, you will know what people are talking about when you hear the word designism getting thrown around.
Before listening to the podcast, I wouldn’t have been able to define designism. Now it is clear that the movement’s goal is to connect design to politics. In other words, designism is the use of design for political activism. If you want a less “loaded” definition, it is simply the ability to change the world through design. If you read this blog you already know my feelings against confusing design with politics, so it shouldn’t surprise you that I am not a big fan of designism as it was presented in this event. (I suppose I should also admit that I don’t share the extreme left point of view of the event, but you also won’t hear me promoting an opposing viewpoint. I don’t because that would be appropriate.)
My disappointment with the event has to do with the fact that I agree with the noble premise that design can (and should) make the world a better place. That is a belief that I have repeatedly promoted on this site, and will continue to motivate my work. However, it seems to me that the designism movement (using the conference as my main source of information) is off to a rocky start. The convention amounted to little more than a self congratulatory love fest for liberal designers. If designism is going to take off as a movement, it needs to appeal to a broader audience. For what it’s worth, here are my recommendations (and criticisms) of the designism event:
1. Appeal to more than one political point of view.
If Designism is going to become a movement, it is going to need the support of many different political opinions. The audience became eerily quiet when Steven Heller asked if anyone there disagreed with the liberal point of view that was presented. Perhaps not a single moderate or conservative voice was in attendance, or more likely no one spoke up for fear of being lynched. I know I wouldn’t have said anything had I been there. The tone of the evening was set by Tony Hendra who said,”The late sixties and early seventies and the early to mid eighties (is) when great design thrived. What do these two things have in common? Ah, yes. Right wing presidents.” This was sarcastically refuted later in the evening when the panelists declared Karl Rove to be a “great designer” on par with Goebbels. It is very clear that not even a moderate voice (let alone conservative) would have been welcomed in this venue. That is a shame because the message of design as a tool for improving the world is so much bigger than the narrow point of view presented. Design has the power to cross political borders and I wish that had been the focus of the evening. All political endeavors can benefit from design, so why limit the designism conversation to liberals?
2. Find common ground and strive for some universal truth.
Hatred for George W. Bush is not a foundation for a movement. Not only is it an absurd starting point for a design discussion, but the pessimism of that belief undermines the positive premise of doing good. Jessica Helfand had some interesting ideas about using design to improve voting and using design to better organize social information systems like Flickr. Those are the kind of things that are universally appealing, without isolating people or limiting the scope of design to a single agenda.
3. Speak in a civil tone.
Designers are supposed to be proficient communicators. If you can’t go a couple sentences without dropping the “F” bomb, you aren’t qualified to lead a discussion. George Lois’s strategy amounted to little more than “getting pissed” and “ass kicking” your way to social change. I was embarrassed for Jessica Helfand, whose refined verbal skills were insulted in contrast to the gutter language used by some of the other panelists. I can only speak for myself, but I would never want to associate my name with the vulgarity that was used by certain members of the panel. Unfortunately, that is an all too common occurrence in our industry.
4. Avoid controversy.
The interesting thing about all the examples discussed by the designers is that most of them were controversial political statements. I think a case can be made that good political design almost needs to be controversial. I don’t think that the foundation of a design movement should be built upon controversial political positions, however. Extreme political opinions may energize a group of like-minded listeners, but if the designism message is going to get legs, it needs to appeal to many and offend very few. The starting point of designism needs to be universal even if the end products require provocative design solutions.
5. Don’t insult designers by saying that political design is more important than other forms of design.
Most designers aren’t going to quit their day job of designing dog biscuits in favor of picketing in the street with well designed posters. Politics is only one of the countless areas that can use design to improve the world. There needs to be a practical aspect to designism that can appeal to designers who aren’t interested in the political arena.
Perhaps my midwest upbringing has something to do with it, but I obviously had a hard time connecting with what was said on the designism podcast. I would love to hear the panelists respond to my criticisms. If they want designism to do good and to grow into a strong movement it needs to be more than a left wing designer club. There is potential to the idea of designism, but if the ideas are going to spread it will need to win the support of people like me. What do you think? Are you on board with designism as it was presented in the podcast?
Comments (16)
Peter Marquardt said:
I can only agree. While design has always been there to change the world and has certainly been used for political activism, politics are not the essence of design and political design is not more important, better or even different from designing dog biscuits.
If design is really there to make the world a better place the first and most important political action should be bringing the political extremes together. Driving them further apart and reinforcing their extreme positions is not an improvement.
Milton, you lost my respect. Sorry — Peter
Posted on September 27, 2006
PixelHustler said:
First of all, I don’t think you’re allowed to coin your own term, then proceed to scream about politics, and call it a movement. I find it both presumptuous and narrow-minded to tie “good” design to one’s own political point of view. Yes, design can be used to enhance or promote a political stance, but designing an anti-Bush poster is no more noble a task than designing a pro-Bush poster, regardless of what you think of him.
Also, with all their political posturing, and trying to relate that to some esoteric design goal, I find it funny that quite possibly the most impactful design work produced in regards to a political operative comes from the old USSR.
Posted on September 27, 2006
Ben said:
I must admit that it was the very aspect of designism — the ability to change the world through design — that pushed me towards a career in design. Although my experience is extremely limited, and my knowledge of history and the world is still growing, in the last five years I have not seen a convincing example of design that influences and/or instigates social change in a profound manner.
It seems that design permeates only a shallow depth of our culture and society, and that politics is nearly untouchable. I might be having a bitter day, but I’d like to see and learn about design that really can and has made a real difference.
I still hold out hope that designism has existed and is pulling strings today still. But honestly, I don’t see it yet.
Posted on September 27, 2006
jwh said:
adrian,
while i agree with some of your suggestions, i, like ben, am glad to see some anger. some days, i think that we are all asleep! i would assume that some of this has to do with glaser’s new book, The Design of Dissent: Socially and Politically Driven Graphics.
throughout history, design HAS taken sides because images and words are so powerful. i don’t see a problem with that. you either buy in or you don’t. it is really not to pull in people that agree, it is used to pull in people that aren’t sure if they agree. design is supposed to give you something to think about or illicit some emotion.
to your point about the president and liberal design, i think that right now… at this point in time, folks are just very, very angry and want to make a strong statement. they want to speak for folks that sit in their chairs in their living rooms feeling like they don’t have a say or that no one speaks for them. i just think this movement is just a reaction to the way many, many people are feeling. right or wrong… i am just glad to see SOMEBODY do SOMETHING!
Posted on September 27, 2006
Thomas Jockin said:
Adrian,
Having gone to the event, In terms of the political aspect, like you’ve said, only a small pool of people are going to to open arms to this “movement”
While I admire the idological, soild stance of this group, in a age of wishy washy design and beliefs/ ethics in general. I know for a fact only 10% of people fit the hardcore poltica activist profile.
Most people know that poltics isn’t worth the time and effort, becuase it’s all just about amassing money and favoritism, with little to do with making lives better, but creating and maintaining an industry and a way of life.
Like said before me, the desire and hope for design to do great things in people lives, as much as possible is honorable and desireable.
My man stick over at Speak Up and on my own blog has been how do we take an activity that right now is just a luxury after you do you’re nike ad, and make it an essitienal nature of graphic design?
The pat on the back mantra of designers today is too late to change, but I wonder about the guys like me in college right now. With us we have a group untouched by the heated debates of the 80’s~90’s and can truely forge a new path for design.
will that happen? I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m hopeful.
Posted on September 27, 2006
Christopher Tobias said:
It seems that designism is similar to what journalism has become…instead of serving the public by investigating and reporting, many journalists see their mission as one of social change by promoting a particular worldview.
As designers (or should it now be designists?), we certainly should use our gifts to promote good causes (I use the term good deliberately). But, it isn’t about us. Design serves a cause to the point that it gives credibilty and draws attention to the message. But it seems extremely ego-centric to me to think that design is the solution to the world’s problems. Have we become that self-obsessed and self-important?
Posted on September 27, 2006
alwaystheleo said:
I agree most with pixelhustler…. this “designism” isn’t new. The only thing new here is the word Designism. Like pixelhustler said, the greatest examples of designism in history come from revolutionary states. Think Cuba, China, Nazi Germany, USSR. I’m sure plenty “Designism” comes to mind. However, I think most designers have a desire to use their skills to promote something they truly believe in, and there’s nothing wrong with encouraging us to do so.
Posted on September 27, 2006
Joe Moran said:
Dear Sirs,
I have a great new idea. It’s called the “wheel.” It’s round and rolls.
Everything I do from now on is going to incorporate the great “wheel.” I’m also going to tell everyone I know about it and promote the idea of “wheelism.”
I can even ride on one — yes, only one — wheel! (Without the help of “balance.”)
I don’t have a need for those who can ride on two wheels anymore. (Screw them!)
(And I’ve fallen. Many times.)
Respectfully,
Posted on September 27, 2006
DC1974 said:
Hmm.
I guess since I tend toward the left. And my own art work is very much influenced by the social protest/critique movement I’d say that this all a very good thing. I also got my BFA in the Bay Area — where of course, I was considered something of a conservative. Thankfully, now that I have moved to DC — I can once again claim to be to the left. I think this is because I’m a midwesterner and generally can see things from the center.
Journalism is a great example (but not for the reasons stated above). Journalism has attempted to be more objective over the last 50 years or so. While simultaneously losing the interest of the readers. And losing subscribers.
Journalism, like Design, can be about positive social change and speaking truth to power. That’s what a free and independent press is all about. Standing outside of politics but not necessarily outside of an agenda.
As Designers we make decisions each and every day about who are clients are. What types of ink and paper we print on and whether we want to propagate the consumerist system. We should and can pick sides. That’s what life is about. That is what passion is about.
So although the Designists (following in the tradition of the designers that made up the Dada movement or Russian constructivism, or whatever) can and should pick sides because passion is important. Whether that tends left, right or in between is up to the designer. But we have been taught to help mediate the world of information as well as ponder inconsistencies. We might as well use our powers for good? No?
Posted on September 27, 2006
david in manhattan. said:
I attended the ADC Designism lecture. It was definitely a lecture; not a convention, and by no means a conversation. The short and somewhat obligatory Q&A session at the end was not passionate. I did not leave feeling the audience became inspired. To answer the question of the evening, yes, design can and should “do good.” But I don’t see this as the start of a movement. Hopefully, and at best, heightened awareness. But heightened awareness can be the start of something more…
Adrian, I agree with you on many points. (And thanks for your comments on my blog post about Designism and that night’s event.) A broader point of view and range of truth? Yes. Speak in a civil tone? Yes. Avoid controversy? Sorry, but no. Controversy is what drives many of us, and in the end delivers a better product. Controversy for the sake of controversy, no. But opening up a dialogue is essential.
Jessica Helfand and James Victore really conveyed what I hope the message and purpose of the evening was: Do Something. Because we’re not. Not to the degree that we could. But, in the broader context, and touching on the comparison made re “right-wing radicalism” and great design, I don’t think there’s as much upset in the general population as there should be, given what’s going on. (I will leave my political thoughts at that, except to say, here’s a link I hope everyone will go to: The U.S. Constitution. Done with the soapbox.)
Jessica Helfand wants us to “… us(e) design to explore bigger issues for all of us …” James Victore wants us to do something - whatever that looks like to us. Christopher’s and PixelHustler’s comments (above) really resonated with me (thank you.) Many of us play in that narcissistic sandbox that design sometimes becomes. James Victore’s thoughts (“the graphic design response … just paled, compared to the stuff that real human beings made, and left in the corner, or put in the street, or pinned up someplace, that was so completely moving, and they did it because they needed to, they did it out of pain and loss.”) about post 9/11, non-professional work (art, design, etc.) reflects that. (I think it has something to do with the comparative lack of sacrifice the general population has had to make because of this war, as opposed to other wars.) We need to step out of the sandbox, find something that hits us in the gut, and do something about it.
Posted on September 27, 2006
Christopher Tobias said:
Another thought. If we agree that design should be used for good, then we should actually do something good with it. Find a church, or a community center, or a shelter where you live, and design for them—pro bono. Be daring and refuse to be credited. Acts like these will have more impact on society than the symbolism of any movement.
Posted on September 27, 2006
david in manhattan. said:
Christoper,
Good for you! I think your thoughts parallel what Jessica Helfand was trying to communicate. It’s a great idea.
Speaking of pro-bono, most of you probably know this, but Milton Glaser’s “I Love New York” campaign (from 1977, but still with us today) was done pro-bono. Not sure if it counts as social change, but it sure did a lot of good for New York!
Posted on September 28, 2006
JMOCITY said:
tobias hit it right on the head, as did mr. manhatten with the I Love New York comment. A young designer (i turn 26 tuesday), i am curious about this whole designism talk. thank you to BADG i am now in the know. yeah, this whole designism thing seems very self-validating for the loud and the proud. design can be used to help good movements, but in and of itself… i hesitate to think so.
think about big changes in the design world: the swiss movement, david carson, the iPod. these big deals in design didn’t come from design as itself, but as fresh and innovative design that just so happened to be for something else. swiss = concert posters. carson = raygun, et al. the iPod = everything after the iPod. we’re designers, and whether glossy or gritty, we’re lubrication.
i think design is important, obviously. but i look at design the same way a pro athlete looks at his job: i get to play all day long and i’m getting paid for it. that is the joy we should take with us when we go to work, not a quasi-political-my-poster-will-change-the-world-viewpoint. and one more thing, as few of us designers know about designism, NOBODY outside has ever even heard of it. gonna be hard to change the world like that.
Posted on October 1, 2006
Al aka El Negro Magnifico said:
4. Avoid controversy. I think that’s pretty UNavoidable. Controversy and politics are familiar bedfellows.
I really dig that “designism” logo.
Posted on October 2, 2006
Tony said:
I myself have been doing design work for 12 years now and I consider myself more conservative than most conservatives I know. What I think of when I hear this word Designism is the book 1984. In the very first chapter the discription of the giant poster with the giant face looking down behind a dark mustach. Hitler had this down with his posters and swastika logo. I wish we could say that only the left in the 60’s and 70’s changed the world with their design, but that’s just bull. Design has always been a weapon. What I do see that troubles me about the new anti-war designs of our age is the hate with no posotive ideas. If the 60’s and 70’s brought us the love designism, it must be they now bring us the hate designism. I have never seen so much hate speak. In the 70’s the hippies wanted love and had ideas, those ideas failed and now it’s hate with no ideas. And as for the designism Logo, reminds me of the old nazi propaganda.
Posted on October 2, 2006
J. Jeffryes said:
If the movement’s goal was “just go do some good stuff, which is, er, whatever you feel like calling good” then I don’t think it would evoke much excitement. We’re all designers, we should know that appealing to everyone and remaining safe leads only to mediocrity. If the goal is to actually make something happen, then appealing to angry, extreme left designers seems like a pretty good strategy to me.
Posted on November 6, 2006