Week 4

            Every time someone brings up the notion of “going green” I’ve always dismissed it with a mental rolling of the eyes and half-hearted interest. It has been my opinion that going green is a trend generated by the guilt of knowing that humans have a negative impact on the environment coupled with the apathy to not actually do anything more than buy a soy based t-shirt or grocery bag. Those are the images that pop into my head so when the term “green design” comes up I immediately associate it with these cutesy images of shirts with graphics of leafs on them and bags that proclaim to the world “go green”! However I am beginning to realize that my cynicism towards most things, in this case green design, is a direct result of ignorance. I judged only on what I saw and didn’t get the whole picture (as a designer perhaps that is a future problem I will have to take on but I digress).

            This week’s set of articles gave, to me at least, some substance to this issue of green design. One article in particular, the interview with Biologist Jainine Benyus written by David Krupfer, really stuck with me. The ideas that Benyus describes are ingenious, simplistic and most importantly numerous (so much in fact that Benyus confesses that one of the harder parts of her job is keeping up with all the projects that come in). With each idea I felt myself warming up to green design, I guess I just needed realize that there are people out there actually doing something and getting results. I also like this idea of learning from nature rather than taking from it because what better source of inspiration than a system that has gone through billions of years of trial and error.

            As for the other two articles I enjoy the evaluation of the Industrial Revolution that William McDonough and Michael Braungart give and their sensible criticism. Although they argue that for the most part the Industrial Revolution plowed forward without any consciousness for the damage they were doing to the environment they justify such thinking.  The Industrial Revolution came about so quickly and improved life so suddenly that people became lost in the invincible ideology of progress, so much so that they blinded themselves to the repercussions of such progress. The third article, by Buckminster Fuller’s, really didn’t give me as much as the other two. It may be because it promoted a solution through advancing already existing technology (I was already set on technology learning from nature) or maybe it was his over-use of hyphenated phrases that really made it confusing to read. I think that more than anything it was the fact that this article was written in 1981 and speaks of the necessity to become a sustainable society by 2000. Well it’s 2010 now so that didn’t really do anything to inspire me because already his argument feels like a lost cause (I personally have never seen a domed city).

            Although I thought these two articles were interesting to read and provided good points they didn’t deliver the same impact as the Benyus interview. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts I’m not satisfied with suggestions on how I should be living or thinking, I need solid examples and Benyus gave me that. You can explain to me the destruction of the environment and advise me to think green but until you show me a starting point I won’t do anything other than change my light bulbs to eco friendly ones and buy those soy-based shirts. The people and ideas that Benyus talks about are that starting point, I read about them and think to myself:

“Hey there’s this big movement that’s growing by the day with ideas that go beyond the wind farms and solar cells. They’re making things eco friendly on all levels. This is something that can actually happen.”

Speculative Prehistory of Humanity by Buckminster Fuller

·      Technology permits greater efficiency however it is retarded by a combination of public ignorance and upper class power control.

·      Effort is wasted on the weaponry instead of livingry.

·      A more efficient society is a happier society.

·      Current technologies are extremely inefficient and do more harm than good.

·      Money is not wealth. Wealth is the technological ability to support all needs of life.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery by David Krupfer

·      Jaines Benyus is a revolutionary Biologist working in the field of Biomimicry (a science that mimics nature to solve problems).

·      Biomimicry shows promise as the driving force behind more sustainable technologies.

·      Instead of taking from nature we should learn from it.

·      Nature is a master of using what it has to the fullest extent.

·      Biomimicry is a rapidly growing field that is being recognized by businesses around the world.

A Question of Design by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

·      The Industrial Revolution did more harm than good.

·      By focusing only on progress people did not concern themselves with its repercussions

·      The traditional belief was that the Earth could provide unlimited sustainability. This is not true.

·      Today we have to consider how our actions today affect the environment in the future.

·      We can’t keep supporting a system that thinks linearly from product to consumer to profit. 

Week 3

            Through some omniscient design I find a few answers to the problems I faced a few weeks back after reading the first set of articles (as if someone had preplanned this). I had lamented that as a designer I was no more than a tool to be used by some company to take advantage of mindless consumers but after reading this week's articles I’m a little embarrassed that I thought so closed-mindedly about design. What I didn’t realize, or chose not to think about, was that design is applied to more than just advertising and branding. Every man made object ever created was designed by some individual. Whether it’s a building, textbook, or street sign someone had to come up with a preliminary design for that object. I want my design to help the public not sell them junk they don’t need, but I also have to make a living. It’s a conflict between my needs and the needs of others.

             “The Responsibilities of the Design Profession”, “Ethical Design Education”, and “First Things First 200” all speak of the designer’s responsibility. They urge designers to use their talents to make the world a better place and while I don’t plan on doing anything as revolutionary as that I agree with their motives. I just want to make design that has a positive impact, but it’s not easy. If I wanted to shun all clients that take advantage of consumers I’d be working in a limited market and especially now in this recession I don’t know if I can take that chance. I feel that the writers of these articles and the designers they applaud are in a position where they can live comfortably and at the same time be able to choose their projects and clients. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions like Walter Gropious and William Morris who went against the grain and did amazing things its just that, like I said before, I don’t want to change the world I just want to be able to live with myself at the end of the day.

            These articles are inspiring but I don’t feel entirely persuaded by their arguments. Maybe it’s the result of being part of a cynical generation but there’s this voice in the back of my head asking: “well that’s great and all but what can I do?” They tell me that I should be a responsible designer but don’t really give me a starting point. I also feel that Herber Spencer (author of “The Responsibilities of Good Design”) and Max Bruinsma (author of “First Things First”) draw the world in black and white: either your going against the system or you’re a part of it. There are grey areas to everything including design and I never enjoyed the idea of revolution to create a radical change because I never whole-heartedly believe in the cause (which would require dividing the world between us and them, black and white). However despite all this there is a part of me that wants to contribute to society in a positive way, I just don’t know how I’ll do that. I suppose it’s just something I’ll have to figure out as I go along.

Ethical Design Education

• Young designers are cynical about their profession.
• History is filled with designers who fought system and did their own thing.
• The student began taking an interest in sustainability and other responsible design practices.

The Responsibilities of the Design Profession

• Designers today focus more on making money than using their design for the better good.
• This reflects the early 1960s when a group of individuals got together and wrote the design manifesto: “First Things First”
• Design can be used for more than just marketing.

Innovation and Exploitation – A Critique of American Apparel

• American Apparel may practice some commendable employee policies but hides a corrupt management and uses over sexualized imagery
• They become ethical in one aspect to hide their unethical practices.
• They are using sex as a cop out to gain consumers.

First Things First

• Group of designers/photographers/etc. gather together to write a manifesto that rejects conventional design
• They believed that design could be used for a broader and better purpose to the common good.
• They wanted to make a change.

First Things First 2000

• Not much has changed since creation of last manifesto.
• Designers are responsible for changing the world.
• The media has become too “saturated” with bad design.

Week 1-2

            There’s one thought that I keep coming back to as I read these articles and that’s my role in this marketing machine that appears to have dominated most aspects of our society. I want to work in design (or at least something related to it) and that means that I would become a part of the system. Even more so I would be driving the visual vocabulary (the billboards, book covers, and magazine ads) of our environment. That’s both impressive and scary at the same time and at first it feels empowering but after some thought I’ve come to realize that I really don’t hold much power at all. Sure I could create a design that is so well known it becomes a cultural icon but all I’ve really done is make an image. I’m more like a tool, or a medium, that channels the ideas of businesses to the masses; the real power still lies in those businesses. This leaves little room for personal ethics.

            Naomi Klein’s article “No Logo” explores the recent “trancendence” of companies who put more effort into indentifying their image (brand) than managing the factories that produce their goods (product). Before this shift a company would take pride in its factories and the goods they create there. Now companies are shutting down their factories and funneling much of their money into branding. They don’t own factories anymore, instead they outsource to other countries where it’s cheaper (at the cost of the workers). As a brand the company can then spread across many markets and pull in more profit more efficiently but of course it’s at someone else’s expense.

            As a graphic designer this should be good news because branding requires our talents however that also means I could be working for companies who’s tactics conflict with my morals. Would I really want to help drive a company that outsources to countries where children work for little or no pay? Would I have a choice? I suppose as a designer it would not be my concern, I’m just the tool. But such thinking sounds like the excuse that many corporations use when accused of selling products made by unfairly treated workers: “we don’t own the factories, it’s not our fault.”

            This is true of all of our products and it’s hard to escape unless doing anything short of discarding all of your possessions and running away to live in the wilderness. If it was just the outsourcing I would not feel so conflicted but there’s more to it than that. As a designer my job is to influence consumers by convincing them to buy a product. In today’s world people identify themselves through their material goods as Jane Pavitt explains in her article “Branding the Individual” which means that I play a direct hand in creating someone else’s indentity, I’d be selling an image. But just like with outsourcing I know I’ll be offered a job that I don’t agree with. Could I do anything if a client comes to me wanting a design for a line of sleazy children’s clothes? Would I do it? I don’t know. I want my designs to make a positive impact but I realize that its not always going to be the case.

“No Logo”

• Businesses have begun leaving behind the factories and instead focusing on branding.
• Outsourcing becomes the preferred method of production with many businesses employing contractors who own factories in other countries.
• The brand can span across multiple markets making it a powerful tool.
• The shutting down of factories leaves many unemployed and shifts the job market from production to design.

“Branding the Individual”

• Although we may not be fully aware of it our individuality is made up through the material goods we buy and surround ourselves with.
• What we buy and where we buy it says a lot about our personality as well as the image we want to project to others.
• It also says a lot about the culture we come from and the influence of our family.
• We live in a consumer culture where identity can be bought.