OUGD501: Study task 5 - Triangulation.

OUGD501.
Study task 5 / triangulation.

'Using the texts Garland, K. 'The First Things First Manifesto (1964); Poyner, Lasn et al (2000) ' The First Things First Manifesto 2000'; Poyner, R. (2000) 'First Things First Revisited' and Beirut, M. (2007) 'Ten Footnotes to a Manifesto' write a triangulated critical analysis of two media images (works of graphic design / advert / TV commercial / publicity poster / magazine cover / news story). This analysis should discuss the ethical role of the designer, and ideally should compare one example of 'ethical' design with another 'unethical' one. 

Make sure that you compare the opinions of the four different writers and not simply quote but draw out subtle similartities and differences in their positions. Refer to the writing guide on eStudio for help constructing a triangulated written argument.'

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Many writers have contributed to and further enriched the long standing discussion of the ethical role of the designer, and, in consequence, their involvement in the rise of consumerist needs and advertising over improvement of our national welfare. This critical issue is heavily debated in the original First Things First manifesto written by Garland, and in three further additions written by ad busters, Poyner, and Beirut in which concerns raised originally are both recognised and to a certain degree, rejected.

All three editions of the First Things First manifesto and the Ten footnotes to a manifesto debate the use of a designers skills. Described mainly as a theme throughout is the normalcy of what heavy consumer advertising seems in the current age, opposing the heavy shriek between the whispers that it used to be. 'We have reached a saturation point  at which the high pitched scream of consumer selling is no more than sheer noise'. (Garland, K: 1964) This is particularly emphasised in the third edition written by Poyner, whom construes how those who have been raised within the climate of consumerist advertising find it difficult to see a world, outside of the one that they know. More so, he accentuates, how this issue is being magnified by those who have the ability to deny the issue, rather than aid its growth. 'Meanwhile, in the sensation-hungry design press, in the judging of design competitions, in policy statements from design organisations, in the words of design's senior figures and spokespeople and even in large sections of design education, we learn about very little other than the commecial uses of design.' (Poyner: 2000) And therefore, although we are aware of the issue no one, not even those with the assured power and voice to evoke change does so.   

In both the initial First things First manifesto and the first revised edition by Ad Busters, it is spoken about how designers should be imbuing their invaluable skills into design that envisions a more positive and beneficial outcome for the cultural and social aspects of society. 'There are pursuits more worthy of our problem solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crisis demand our attention.' (Ad Busters: 2000) Figure 1 is a striking example of what Garland, Ad Busters and Poyner describe to be a piece of design that has only increased on'es need to posses a trivial item instead of investing in the development of the oublics well being. The advert promotes a gratuitous purchase well beyond the realms of obsessive consuming. Pictured is the Lysol 'no touch' Hand soap system, in which customers are reassured that by owning the product they 'never have to touch a germy soap pump again!' A persuasive strap line that wil touch the hearts and souls of hygene driven consumers everywhere. However much purchasers will fail to interpret the ruse interjected into the advertisement by Lysol. In the same advert which they promote the product, Lysol, also render it useless, as the product released from the pump of a regular bottle of Lysol soap will kill the same amount of bacteria as the no touch, meaning it doesn't matter whether or not a 'germy' pump has been touched beforehand or not. 

Figure 2, an advertisement for the UHD Downtown University is a stark contrast to that seen above and would be very much looked at with admiration by Garland and Poyner. The advert suggests a bettering and improvment of national prosperity, as sending people into education, will better national growth, rather than hinder it. the advertisement also tackles, according to Poyner and Garland, issues on a larger scale. Although, it can be seen that the advertisement still uses the same persuasive skills as the one created by Lysol. Beirut questions whether in fact the use of the same tools for a different purpose trult makes the advertisement ethical. 'What a dissapointment to learn that this revolution is aimed at replacing mass manipulation for commerical ends with mass manipulation for cultural and political ends.' (Beirut : 2007) Beirut continues to question the idea of the ethical designer in Ten Footnotes of a Manifesto. He discusses the idea of designing for education, something that would be looked at with excitement and vitality by Garland, Poyner and Ad Busters. However he queries where one draws the line between what is ethical and what is not. One of Beirut's favourite clients is a non-profit organization in which supports the training of younger performers, and is looked upon as a cherised ornament by its surrounding neighborhood. Its purpose is much like that of the advertisement for the University of Downtown Houston (Figure 2) which advocates an investment in the improvement of society, by leading more people into education and supporting them throughout. Nonetheless the non-proit organisation is sponsered, as many are, but by the Phillip Morris company, a large supplier of tobacco products. And so Beirut poses the question, 'So am I supporting an admirable effort to bring the arts to new audiences? Am I helping to buff the public image of a corporation that sells things that cause cancer?' (Beirut: 2007) 

Thus as designers living and working in with the 21st century where the advent for ethical design is 'more urgent than ever; the situation it lamented incalculably more extreme' (Poyner:2000) we are pressured to ask ourselves, is it wrong to design for schemes which Garland and Poyner would label as a waste of skill and talent? or would rejecting this completely take all the fun out of design? Beirut focuses on a subect that could be considered by many designers more important than the question of striped toothpaste or science, e-cigarettes or education, but what is right and owed to the audience. 'They may not be the ones who pay us, nor the ones who give us our diplomas and degrees. But if they are to be the final recipients of our work, they're the ones who matter.' (Beirut: 2007) Although the idea of designing for meaningless commodities goes against the grain of anything perscribed by the previous three manifestos, we should more so learn to accept and focus on our critical role as a designer. To communicate effectively and clearly with our audience, whether this be for Lysol, or UHD downtown university.