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.
No comments:
Post a Comment