Task 5

Triangulation - First things First.

Ken Garlands original ‘First things First’ manifesto written in 1964 was a ‘plea for a shift in designers priorities away from the ‘high pitched scream of consumer selling’ into worthier forms of activity’. At the time it got some attention but didn’t necessarily get the publicity it aimed to get, so in 2000 Adbuster’s resurrected and rewrote it to make it more relevant to today’s society and design culture, titled First things First 2000 Manifesto.

Rick Poyner, whose signature was on the ‘First things First 2000 Manifesto’, wrote ‘A brief history’ of the manifesto. Before the audience even starts reading the piece, the fact that the author is Poyner, they can assume that however critical the view may be, it will ultimately be positive towards the manifesto. Throughout the ‘brief history’ Poyner gives a deeper insight into the reasons behind the manifesto and what it aims to do; ‘The critical distinction drawn by the manifesto was between design as communication and design as persuasion’, obviously reinforcing that persuasion is a negative form of design. Poyner closes his article with the line; ‘The escalating commercial takeover of everyday life make democratic resistance more vital than ever’, it is evident throughout the piece that he regards commercial design as a waste of time and effort and fully believes that designers should put their efforts into fighting against this.

Taking a slightly more critical approach is Matt Soar’s piece; ‘First things first: now more than ever’. He doesn’t particularly look at it negatively, however he does question it and raisse some issues with the manifesto for example he looks at the designers whose signatures are declared on it; as they are all ‘some of the most familiar names in design’, they can be seen as upper-class who are ‘speaking above the heads of, or merely down to, the rank and file’, provoking a ‘that’s-easy-for-them-to-say’ kind of response. Another opinion that it discusses is that of Richard Wilde, the chair of advertising and design departments at the School of Visual Arts who sees the manifesto as ‘totally idealistic’ and ‘unmanageable’ because they’re claiming that designers shouldn’t use their skills to promote unethical, commercial products but ‘virtually any product is unethical’ so if this was proven there would be nothing left to design for. Keeping a neutral stance, he states that the ‘First Things First 2000 deserves to be remembered - and sustained’ so regardless of how many things may be seen wrong in it, it shouldn’t be ignored.

The most in depth, critical look at the manifesto comes from Michael Bierut who almost dissect the rewritten manifesto and analyses lines from it. Interestingly, Bierut who is a graphic designer, wasn’t asked to sign the First Things First 2000 Manifesto and he states that cynics ‘might dismiss the impact of the manifesto as no more than that of witnessing a group of eunuchs take a vow of chastity’; these designers are simply signing a manifesto that they already follow apart from Milton Glaser, who ‘sticks out like a sore thumb’ but interestingly has made millions from ‘I Love New York’ graphics and can technically pick and choose his future work so may have just signed the manifesto to have his name on something that looks good. In the 2000 manifesto it proclaims that ‘to an extent we (graphic designers etc.) are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse’ but as Bieruts analysis explains, in todays society economic affluence allows people seek pleasure in the form of holidays etc. New York is a popular city break and Times Square is infamous for its bright lights and high billboards; people go their to experience this, not to be educated or see lots of information graphics as the manifesto is asking for. Lastly, he expresses his disappointment in realising that ‘this revolution is aimed at replacing mass manipulation for commercial ends with mass manipulation for cultural and political ends’. Bierut never states directly that the manifesto is wrong or ‘bad’ but he does pose questions and give facts that would make the audience think before completely agreeing with everything the manifesto asks for.

Taking into account all opinions presented, I largely agree with Wilde; I do think the manifesto is rather idealistic. Although it would be nice to think that every single graphic designer could produce work that communicates as apposed to persuading; work that contributes to education and a ‘better world’ but realistically, I don’t think this can happen and I don’t think there would ever be enough jobs. However, I don’t think this is a negative thing; similar to a question Bierut asks, If we need food to live, and that food is nicely packaged, what makes the packaging of that food any less important than a nicely designed museum catalogue?