Micah Wright (army ranger who fought in Panama) showed off old re-touched poster designs, contrasting Nazi Germany with recent US propaganda. LinkAmazing. He also gave personal accounts of what really happens behind the celluloid facade. Altogether, a well rounded show with Onion topping us off.

Anyone else in attendance?

How did my man David Rees fare?

he closed the show. hilarious.

You mean he motherfucking closed the fucking show?

From the AIGA: Sold Out discussion, my comment has more relevance here.

AIGA/NY:

How about also exploring "support" during a time of crisis and not only "dissent" during a time of crisis," as your lastest forum on May 28th will do.

Not all designers are against liberating Iraq. Sure it's hip to be opposed to Bush and I certainly agree with some of your points such as "how design can play a meaningful role in public debate." If this so called "freedom" (update: having to do with Freedom Fries, not actual freedom) chapter is going to pick a side in a political and social debate, then how about picking both sides? There will be no real "exploration" just preaching to the choir.

Next time, please don't lump.

I might add that Emily Oberman pointed out to me that AIGA NY wanted to have more designers involved in this event that were in favor of liberating Iraq, but none could be found.

Not true.

I think we're all in favor of "liberation". It all depends on what channel your "liberation information" comes from. I take it you were in attendance? Your personal thoughts?

In your opinion.

Unfortunately I was not in attendance. Anyone?

Not all designers are against liberating Iraq.

But all designers should be against bad marketing speak. ;o) ;o) ;o)

We're a bunch of peace mongering wimps, I guess. ;o)

I'd love a more in-depth look at the roles of marketing, graphic design, and other ways to influence and massage your message that our government administrations use on the public. We seem to understand to take marketing messages from Tommy Hilfiger and Nike with a grain of salt, but we seem to forget to apply that same rule to marketing messages coming from our elected officials.

Yeah I got some thoughts. I wasn't at the show, but my thoughts spring from these posters that Felix linked to.

These retouched posters are pretty symptomatic of the anti-war point of view: exaggerated, facile, and basically easy-target shots that do little to enlighten anyone. Plus they're ugly, imho, like bad graffitti on nice buildings. It's all well and good to show off your liberal colors (and your kickass Photoshop skillz), but making your side look dumb is a disservice. And making designers look dumb is, well, dumb.

But the war was pretty much like this, with the proponents of the various sides just saying the same old things. Pro-war, anti-war, anti-war-but-pro-troops, anti-terrorist-but-anti-Bush--it's all pretty easy when you give yourself the moral leeway to think whatever you want and rationalize with slogans afterward. And, frankly, it's all pretty easy when you're born feeling entitled to hard-won freedoms like, oh let's say, speech.

I don't find any of these posters particularly moving, clever, or helpful to the anti-war cause. What I would like to see is a poster showing the emtional and moral dilemma of a humane and peace-loving person who suddenly feels like their life is literally threatened if they ride the subway. Make that 7 million people. Or a poster defending the idea that if your own soil, your own capital is attacked and your citizens killed, it's right to do nothing (and back it up with historical examples--I'm sure there's just tons of them). Or a poster about the geopolitical (and moral) problem of a nation that is not in fact above any international law but is nevertheless looked to and called upon to be "special" for economic, military, and yes moral reasons,and who has a history of both committing reprehensible acts for immoral ends and also offering profound opportunity to the entire world. I mean, as long as we're talking about creating nice messages with pretty posters.

In a related note, why are these posters "amazing" and acceptable as design (whether you consider them parody, homage, appropriating, stealing, or whatever) when others are not? I'm talking about the hue and cry over the Open for Business poster. There are typographic crimes being committed by hacks here! Is it okay just because it's a comfortable and easily digested libera--strike that, anti-war pose? Just because you agree agree with something, does that make it okay?

GRUNT!!

good point. you (and Kiran) wouldve made it stick if you actually showed up last nite.

I'd give a play by play, but I dont want to lump.

In short, Milton showed off his Nation buttons which were easy to swallow and impersonal (Leave No CEO Behind, Dissent Protects Democracy, etc) while others like Micah gave personal precedance. Yes, Sam, maybe the posters needed kerning.. but we'll forgive him (did I mention he signed up for Army Corp and not Portfolio Center?)

Either extreme finds it way (or not) into the public psyche. Theres no dignity in Speaking Up without acting out.

If I were involved in the AIGA in more capacity I'd force the people who showed up for Nevile Brody/ Peter Saville (salad) to go to last nite's (meat), Hell No.

woops.. i just opened up a different can.

I know this event was probably more about the effect of design on social activism in time of war. But Kiran is right -- it's also about not so subtly condemning the action itself and preaching to the choir. I wasn't there, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd love to hear the perspective from an Afghan or Iraqi designer on this whole issue. It's their country, and their people that we fucking bombed in an attempt to liberate. A bunch of white guys sitting around discussing the evils of war on an oppressed people seems sanctimonious to me, and smacks of the great-White guilt.

I'm of Vietnamese heritage, so my background gives me a different perspective than most of you when it comes to America's political role in the world. To me, America's political actions in the Vietnam war was justified -- despite the enormous cost. No one can tell me how I was supposed to feel. They weren't there. They couldn't possibly know what it was like.

It's the same with the Serbians, the Afghanies, and the Iraquis. I'm not saying I condone the Iraqi war. I'm just saying that it's not so black and white as many have painted it. I have problems with political brainwashing and apathy, but I also have problems with Americans who are politically self-righteous and see themselves as peace emissaries for hapless victims of a repressed country. It's politically condescending and self-righteous.

I fucking hate being preached to as much as being lied to and misled by propaganda.

That's the same old can of AIGA, Felix.

I was under the impression that many people contributed posters on that site. I thoght I read some credits to other people; could be wrong. In any case, my question still stands---why is this an acceptable form of plagiarism/parody and Open for Business is not? Is it simply because the designer was a serviceman, (meaning, presumbaly, that he knows whereof he speaks--implying that the rest of us simply cannot)? And my main point, that the messages are facile in the face of an ambiguous and complex situation, most definitely still stands.

And speech is a form of action. Most definitely.

I wanted to contribute something to Another Poster for Peace until I remembered that I'm a designer, not a writer. The only smart thing I've heard come out of the anti-war design corner is "Preemptive War Is Terrorism." Everything else just sounds like tired sloganeering.

>why is this an acceptable form of plagiarism/parody and Open for Business is not?

I kind of agree with you Sam. Some of the posters are pretty shitty in terms of kerning and most importantly in terms of message. Some of them make little sense and little to no impact. We picked on "Open for business" because it got a lot more publicity than it deserved and it violated certain "rules" of parody that we all seemed to notice. We could pick apart at least half of these posters the same way we did posterbomber's but I think these are very inconsequential.

These posters are far from "amazing," they are quite obvious and a little infantile in my opinion. It's parody's version of giving the finger: it hurts the ego a bit but in the end it doesn't really matter. I guess when an ex-army dude shows them they have a little more meaning I just fail to see any relevance in terms of good parody. Sorry. Some of them are clever though, I just wouldn't take seriously a guy that refers to Bush as "Our Fearless Monkey Leader ." Although it sounds funny as shit it is, again, quite infantile.

Bad Kerning is Terrorism.

Designers often can lose perspective on things. And they can become full of themselves.

Look, just because I can design an annual report, it doesn't mean that I'm an expert on US-global economic foreign affairs. It doesn't mean I'm qualified to be a journalist, or an ambassador either. I'm just a public citizen trying to understand the world I'm in.

I enjoy Steven Heller's work and worship Glaser, but that doesn't mean I also value their political views and opinions. If I want a political opinion, I'll watch Henry Kissinger on Meet the Press.

It's fine to make posters if you want to voice an opinion. But let's not kid ourselves and give any more weight or substance to the work than they deserve. AIGA was wrong to be so involved.

While we're here, why don't we hear what Paula Sher has to say about abortion, or what Rudy Vanderlans has to say about the WTO and China. They're notable designers, so they must also be experts on world affairs and their opinions must matter.

gimme a fucking break.

>They're notable designers, so they must also be experts on world affairs and their opinions must matter.

It's just the way it goes. What about celebrities who opposed the war? Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and my God! the Dixie Chicks. They go on TV an express their political views because people will listen to them. Same with Milton, he says "dog" and we bark.

why is this an acceptable form of plagiarism/parody and Open for Business is not?

the golden rule i usually follow: dont steal from mouths or reputations. that is, make sure they are dead (and/or their kin dont own the rights)!

"Preemptive War Is Terrorism."

suprise: its a Glaser button available thru theNation.com

If I want a political opinion, I'll watch Henry Kissinger on Meet the Press.

Oh boy. Dont get started on Kissinger the Nobel prince of Darkness! Listen Tan, youre a designer- and I enjoy hearing your opinion (even tho it sucks in this case). Sting isnt a professional enviornmentalist but I like knowing he saves trees when I sing "in a material world".

As you suggest, maybe we should shut up prepare ourselves for the next CA Design Annual... where we belong!

They go on TV an express their political views because people will listen to them.

Exactly. This is nothing more than political grandstanding, and is just as bad, if not worse, than the media spin and political propaganda that everyone protests against.

I was actually quite moved by a few anti-war posters that I've seen. But this event, and this whole discussion that it spawned is damaging, not beneficial to the spirit of their creation in the first place.

AIGA is a smart organization -- they should've at least made more of an attempt at legitimizing or adding some relevance and substance to this event. Oberman's claim that they tried to find pro-war designers is a lame excuse.

I enjoy hearing your opinion (even tho it sucks in this case).

And I enjoy calling you on your bs, Felix. That's the beauty of an open forum. But most of the time, we bitch w/ each other about design and things we're more qualified to bitch about. I mean, do any of you care about what I think of capital punishment or why? Hell no.

I'm not saying 'let's just shut-up" -- I'm just asking for people to put things into perspective.

Brilliant Tan. Brilliant way of putting this all in context. The P.Scher / abortion and Tan / Capitol Punishment analogies...brilliant.

I agree. I think everyone is allowed their opinion (no one here is saying otherwise) - but I abhor when people "use" their fame/stature to garner attention to try and persuade. On the other hand I think it's great that a bunch of NY designers got together to cuddle up in their we -heart- world blanket. I think not one person in attendance would've opposed a "designers for the war" event. right? BUT AIGA is possibly a bit out of line by sponsoring such an event. It sounds like it was VOICE-lite anyway. I don't hold it against AIGA.

The designer as protestor I'm afraid generally comes off too....cutsey. Lot's of pretty pictures, clever adaptions of historical works, clever slogans. It's all to much like they're writing jingles while sipping lattes while 19 yo girls are getting ambushed in machine gun alley. Not that we don't have historic presedent; Francis Scott Key, anyone? I dunno, I value it - and their right to do it. But to me it came off very very cheesy.

I may think GWB is a monkey, but I can separate that from the fact that SH was a monster.

gimme a fucking break.

A big problem in the U.S., IMHO, is attitudes like this.

Don't forget that we live in a democracy. We *are* the government. We need more people, organizations, companies, groups, associations, etc. to express their political and social opinions in public. Few do.

Saying that only 'experts' in politics should express their opinions on it is not being a very good citizen.

Hell, look at Bush. He's not an expert on anything. And he's running the country. ;o)

I was actually quite moved by a few anti-war posters that I've seen. But this event, and this whole discussion that it spawned is damaging, not beneficial to the spirit of their creation in the first place.

Well, that's a good point. But I have a hunch that a lot of anti-war posters weren't necessarily made first and foremost to stop the war. I have a hunch (and I could be wrong) that a good chunk of what you see in the CA annual is stuff designed first and foremost to be submitted to the CA annual. ;o)

AIGA is a smart organization

Well, as smart as any particular group of volunteers that get together to put on an event.

I mean, do any of you care about what I think of capital punishment or why?

YES! I do! That's the whole problem in this country. We don't care what each other thinks. We frown upon open discussions of politics. And religion. And personal beliefs. (We talk about football.) We don't take time to learn different viewpoints. We just blindly elect people (well, roughly 40% of us do) and assume that they are more of an expert on any particular subject than we are (they usually aren't) and assume things are all hunky dory.

Haven't used 'hunky dory' in a while.

So, Tan, if I'm ever in your 'hood, I'd love to stop by and talk about he pros and cons of capital punishment with you.

but I abhor when people "use" their fame/stature to garner attention to try and persuade.

That is how our system works. Whether you are a politician or a Dixie Chick, your fame is what allows your opinion to be heard by the masses more than someone else's. We don't judge our leaders on their actual merits anymore than our sports players in terms of making decisions that affect our country. (It's just that the politician's opinions 'stick' while the basket ball players opinion matters little in real life.)

Our entire system is built on the power of persuation. Hell, that's what we as graphic designers *do*.

But I have a hunch that a lot of anti-war posters weren't necessarily made first and foremost to stop the war.

so true

also true: these are forms of real press. made and printed by and at the expense of real people, not papers owned by AOL time warner whose subscribers and editors object.

to clarify- earlier i said the posters were "amazing" to which some of you misplaced as "beautiful". my amazement was how similar our current administration's propaganda is to that of the third reich's- something which the meeting brought to light via slides. sorry I lost you...

AIGA is a smart organization -- they should've at least made more of an attempt at legitimizing or adding some relevance and substance to this event. Oberman's claim that they tried to find pro-war designers is a lame excuse.

I'm slightly offended at this statement. Would "legitimizing" it mean asking Debbie Millman (sorry Deb) to sit next to Glaser and wax war packaging if she happens to be "pro-war"?

gimme a fucking break.

That's the whole problem in this country. We don't care what each other thinks. We frown upon open discussions of politics. And religion. And personal beliefs. (We talk about football.) We don't take time to learn different viewpoints.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't appear that the AIGA event was a "discussion" or included "different viewpoints". Based on the participant list, it was a self-indulgent one sided presentation, no less propagandistic as the gov't they were criticizing.

Of course, we are all entitled to our opinion and should give it out freely. I agree there's not enough of that in America. But we should maintain a distinction between common opinion gleaned from casual familiarity with a subject and the opinion of those who focus on a given topic. What do most designers think when a client gives their opinion? "What the %$#@ does he know? I'm the expert here!"

I attended the "Hell, no" event yesterday, and I am glad to hear some of the voices in this forum. Here is what I thought of the presentation:

1. John Hockenberry was excellent as a moderator as he was able to engage the audience with his way of telling a story while he was pacing up and down the stage in his wheel chair like a rock star. And as so often, it's the small comments, that make a speech so much more interesting. Hockenberry works for NBC, a "company" owned by GE. Now many people think of the big news corporations as too liberal, yet all big networks couldn't wait to embed their journalists in the war and tell whatever the government thought was ok to report. Indeed, it is lame to say, the AIGA wanted to invite a few pro-war people, but I guess that would have been too controversial. Or maybe nobody dared to speak up.

2. Steve Heller was good as usual, because he knows what he is talking about. He showed anti-war posters and "art" that dates back to the 18th century. Some of those prints against war are actually on display at the MET right now.

3. Milton Glaser. I don't bark when he says dog. But he was, again, (and I have heard him speak many times) the only one, who had something profound to say that addressed the problem. One can be satirical about current issues, or use fuckin, mothefuckin' language, but it will not change anything in the public perception. It does not address the problem that the majority of people in this country do not care about governmental lies, disinformation, and the decision makers on Capitol Hill. Can he change the perception? Probably not, but no discussion was sparked that seriously addresses the problems. Laughter over Bush with a jerk-off hand is great, but the speakers talked forever, and there was only time for one question from the audience.

4. Micah Wright, army ranger now poster designer, reassembled old and known images into anti-war posters and presented a comparison of an old Nazi poster vs. an US army recruitment poster. I am sorry, but this is one of those short-sighted and wrong historical commentaries. What the Nazis tried to create was heroism in the sense of one strong race by eliminating all others, and, even if deep down some people may be ignorant enough to worship that, anybody with a right mind, will not even try to attempt to create that perception. First, I think that our governmental leaders are not idiots at all, and second, some graphic designers, including the one who created the army poster, may have absolutely no idea of the power of graphic images and just stole old stuff, because it came in handy. And we know how the approval process works at times.

And it wasn't even that close, besides a guy looking into the distance. What really annoyed me, was how the presenter hammered into the audience his experiences in killing people and parachuting over enemy lines. And how his book of posters will be released today. His line of arguments did not lead into the direction of the feeling of him being personally and utterly devastated and therefor grab on to much more drastic measurements to deliver those issues to the public, - instead of creating uninspiring posters. I don't care of they are badly kerned or badly designed. This can be become the new design style of tomorrow. These posters are just another form of mass production.

5. The Onion guys. I see the value of their work. I don't read the onion, because most of these issues are too serious for me to laugh at. I wish their work would be angrier. But, hey, whatever is necessary to uncover the blatant lies of weapons of mass-destruction, of who launched the attacks on 9/11, and what is being reported by the networks.

6. David Rees. Just listening to him uttering comments while getting the presentation system geared up was hilarious. He was comfortable on stage and he was comfortable getting angry through his comic strips. Too much foul language for my taste, but I enjoy the occasional "fuck". His way of showing his opinion through clip art and creating the type with a "joystick" is very sincere and does not try to be commercial. He seems to be a regular guy, who got angry and who needed an outlet. If more people would be like him, I would see some future in sense of people actually voting on election days, and people starting to not readily believe any information in print, on the web, or on TV.

The AIGA is about member participation, and that the AIGA somehow was not able to extend the allocated time in the New School Auditorium to have the audience ask questions, or rant, or yell, is very saddening. Voices not heard.

Thanks Michael, I think a good overview was missing for those of us who were not there.

I'm slightly offended at this statement.

Awesome... But seriously Felix -- I think "legitimate" to me would mean someone from Al Jezeera (sp?) or a political anthropologist, a press secretary, political columnist from the WSJ, someone actually from Iraq or has been there within the last 10 years. Someone whose opinions and credentials has a little more relevance than a bunch of New York designers that watch CNN. Oh, and an army veteran from Panama (?).

we don't care what each other thinks. We frown upon open discussions of politics. And religion. And personal beliefs.

No, I'll say this again. There's nothing wrong with discussing politics. But showing parodies of WWII posters is not a discussion. It's preaching.

Democracy by definition creates disagreement and discourse. Conversely, propaganda by definition seeks concensus, which kills dissent and prevents discourse. In holding an event that celebrates and recognizes uniformed anti-propaganda, anti-war materials, the AIGA in effect, took a stance and a seeked a concensus. Thus, no real relevance or discourse resulted.

Tan:

Good points.

Excellent list here -- I just got the link from AIGA.

Steven Heller's comments _were_ excellent but a repeat of his Hell No article in the last AIGA journal. I sense he has much more to say outside of his academic historian POV. And I'm interested in it! I want to know that people get charged and aren't afraid to say it.

I'm reminded of Charlie Chaplin and his resistance at first to use his popularity to make a social/political statement. I can see though how he must have found it difficult to separate his feelings from his art and because of it, he was exiled (to put it briefly).

I don't mind that the AIGA put on the event. I'm glad it was available by any means. I found it ironic that the public didn't get to voice their opinions due to the building closing especially after Hockenberry emphatically expressed that our voices would be heard. He also made several statements about how much we're lied to by those in control. Hmmm. (ok, I know, it wasn't his fault -- ironic though ; )

Also, I thought Glaser's closing comments about preaching to the choir were right on and snapped me out of my self-righteousness.

There's nothing wrong with discussing politics.

No, there isn't, except that in most forums — especially in the faceless environment of the web — the notion of discourse is lost, and everyone gets extremely personal and closed-minded. Besides, it's much easier to offer knee-jerk comments like "Bush is an idiot" than it is to articulate why you may think he is not offering the kind of leadership the U.S. and the world needs right now.

Despite Emily Oberman's excuse that no pro-war designers would step up, it would have been more responsible on AIGA's part to simply offer up both sides of the situation, whether they had an ardent proponent on hand or not. I don't care about AIGA's war stance — I don't really want them to focus on even taking a stance. What I would expect from them would be an honest discussion of design and its power to provoke either dissent or support in the face of conflict.

first of all, here is my original response to Kiran Max Weber’s comment:

The fact is, we would have loved to have had someone from the corporate side of the war speak, but no one volunteered - or returned our calls for that matter (and I would argue also, that you can see that side of design about the war/government everyday on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the like) also, this event is about what individuals can do, and most individuals who are PRO war do not feel like their voice is not being heard. (and also ALSO, it is certainly not that we are AGAINST liberating Iraq - but I think you know that) The "Hell No" event is meant to show people that individual voices are important and spark debate about that, whether you agree with the speakers or not.

That was written before the event and I think it holds true after the event.

it is not a lame excuse, it is just the truth.

I think "legitimate" to me would mean someone from Al Jezeera (sp?) or a political anthropologist, a press secretary, political columnist from the WSJ, someone actually from Iraq or has been there within the last 10 years. Someone whose opinions and credentials has a little more relevance than a bunch of New York designers that watch CNN. Oh, and an army veteran from Panama (?).

I need to note here that John Hockenberry HAS been to Iraq in the last 10 years. He is NOT a designer (though he is a fan of what design can do, which is why he volunteered to moderate the event) and he IS a war correspondent who works for a corporate giant.

The mood in the room seemed to be one of shared respect and admiration (not to mention that the whole thing was funny as hell). the speakers (Milton actually) addressed the "speaking to the converted" issue and discussed how we can get past that (should we so choose). David Rees, it turns out, is also putting his money where his mouth is. He is donating all the proceeds from his book ($40,000 to date) Get Your War On to landmine relief efforts in Afghanistan. The event was definitely about what we can do, could do, or care to do.

Also, of course we wanted a Q&A section (John Hockenberry said so in his opening remarks) but some of the speakers went on a little long and so we were not able, because of union rules, keep the theater open past 9pm, BUT all the speakers offered to stay and discuss things further outside AND in order to make up for it we have posted a forum on our website where people can ask questions and voice their opinions about anything they wanted to address. The speakers will be able to post responses (should they so choose).

We did this event to create discourse and it looks like we have. Again, I encourage you come to any and all events and see for yourselves.

>Despite Emily Oberman's excuse that no pro-war designers would step up, it would have been more responsible on AIGA's part to simply offer up both sides of the situation, whether they had an ardent proponent on hand or not. I don't care about AIGA's war stance ? I don't really want them to focus on even taking a stance. What I would expect from them would be an honest discussion of design and its power to provoke either dissent or support in the face of conflict.

Jonsel, perfectly stated.

>Also, I thought Glaser's closing comments about preaching to the choir were right on and snapped me out of my self-righteousness.

Jen, can you elaborate on Glaser's "preaching to the choir" closing comments?

>The fact is, we would have loved to have had someone from the corporate side of the war speak, but no one volunteered - or returned our calls for that matter (and I would argue also, that you can see that side of design about the war/government everyday on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the like) also, this event is about what individuals can do, and most individuals who are PRO war do not feel like their voice is not being heard. (and also ALSO, it is certainly not that we are AGAINST liberating Iraq - but I think you know that) The "Hell No" event is meant to show people that individual voices are important and spark debate about that, whether you agree with the speakers or not.

Thank you for posting this Emily, I intended to do the same but could not find your email. Definitely not a lame excuse, I don't know who said that.

he said, "It is fun to speak to members of your tribe in your tribe's language, but gaining the attention of a wider audience requires a different language."

I was there. This was a great event, with great speakers, great work and a great moderator. If you couldn't or didn't go, you missed out, whatever your political affiliation or point of view might be. To see this many people that are passionate about what they do is inspiring, no matter what. I felt lucky to be there.

Having been a member of the AIGA NY board, I know these events involve an incredible amount of time and energy on the part of the organizers, who are volunteers with jobs or studios to worry about. They (in this case Nicholas Blechman, with help from Steve Heller) do these things because they are driven to do so.

Were some speakers better than others? Maybe. Was some of the work more or less interesting than other work? Some people thought so. Are there other people in the world with other expertise or opinions who also could have spoken? Of course. But this event was a good one--look at the discussions it has caused.

Honestly, I don't understand why so many people on this board have so many issues with AIGA, or even what they might be or what could ever be done to address them. As we have seen in other previous discussions, no one can even articulate what their problem is, at least in a way that I have been able to understand.

Here's Armin from the "Listen Up" comments: "...this is completely a personal feeling, but there is something about the AIGA that ticks me off the wrong way. And I assure you it's nothing tangible, nothing of what we have discussed here. I don't hate anybody in the AIGA, I have great respect for them and their effort." Huh?

The AIGA is the closest thing we have to a government of the world of graphic design. As with the American government, some people support the current administration and their policies and others want to see someone else in power that might think more like they do. But the system in general is a damn good one.

I despise George W. Bush. I will fight every policy and idea his administration comes up with if it is the last thing I do. But I also believe in the concept of the Presidency and the Constitution and what our Republic stands for with all of my heart. And I have no problem having both of these opinions at the same time.

As for the AIGA (particularly the NY chapter, which put on the Hell No! event), I support the current "administration." I also support the system as a whole. But if you don't, you can change both the administration and the system by donating your own valuable time and energy, as so many others have done before you.

Post on their message boards. Attend more events. Volunteer at an event. Propose a new program. Nominate yourself or someone else to your chapter board. Decide to change things. Then, they will change. And if you're not interested in doing any of these things, then I'm not interested in hearing your grievances.

Dissent is good. And complaining about things is fun. But I don't like hearing people bitch about politics when they don't bother to vote. So if you care enough about a problem to make a stink about it, do something, just like the Hell No! speakers have. That's what the AIGA NY board has been doing all year.

I for one regret that this has become another discussion about the AIGA.

There is a problem in general with presenting viewpoints on the Iraq War, which is that there are too many. The war and its causes and agents are an irreducibly complicated and incestuous knot, and this very complexity and ambiguity serves, guess who, those in power. This layer of power sits on top of a culture that has very little ability to present, let alone sustain, contradictory ideas (with the exceptions of Steve Carsella and Scott, above) and so the public--you and me--is left "free" to be confused and ultimately exhausted, overloaded, oversaturated, beyond which there is only apathy. Low voter turn-out is not the cause of our current political woes, it's just a symptom.

Instead we have provincial debates such as who should be on the panel of a design discussion. I'm sorry but design takes a back seat to the real problems of the world. Design is my chosen profession and design questions matter to me personally a lot, but an issue like the Iraq War makes me feel like design doesn't matter one bit. At the moment (as I carefully qualify myself) I think that our abilities as graphic designers to shape meaning and formulate persuasive statements, yadda yadda yadda, are laughable. Maybe I should say "my abilities" instead of "our abilities." There was a big flap over Milton Glaser's "I Still Heart NY" logo having the smudge on it---it's a joke! It's a joke and Dick Cheney's laughing.

Great topic btw Felix.

I don't know how you do it, but you always somehow manage to find a hot button to push and start a brawl.

But I'm starting to see a trend.

Just mix any combination of these phrases in your topics, shake well, and let'er rip:

AIGA EVENT

FAMOUS DESIGNER

LEGITIMATE

FAVORITE

GOOD DESIGN

CORPORATE

BRANDING

ACCEPTED PRACTICE

NICE

DEBBIE MILLMAN

thanks Scott... and well stated, Sam.

Whoever you may be, its difficult to remain calm in this state. I feel like a big pussy for leaving NYC and acting the fool on this site from time to time but I need an outlet and things are slow.

But lets be optimistic.. Hell, I'm meeting Debbie Millman out for drinks right now (seriously!). We can get along, and win, if we keep talking... (and sometimes drinking)

We're praying for you, Debbie.

hee hee hee.

It is great that so many people are responding to the Hell No event.

As the co-chair with Nicholas Blechman I'd like to add a few comments.

I regret that time ran out for discussion, opposing or otherwise. Veronique Vienne is correct, 90 minutes is too short for concerns as meaningful as those addressed last night.

Hell No! was indeed a partisan event. The organizers felt that the government has had its media monopoly, and has brilliantly mangaged information and image. This has been one of the most seductive wars in my memory. And as a minor antidote, this event was designed to explore how dissent is practiced by various artists, designers, and writers, and how effective it has been today and in the past.

Balancing the views on the panel was seriously considered but I for one felt it best to have passionate opponents from one side express their views, realizing that there are other views in our fields.

We had planned that speakers would have limited time so that other ideas and opinions could be heard. While it was intentionally geared towards dissent, we truly wanted debate. Again, sorry we lost track of the time.

As for the issues: Every participant comes from a different background and base of knowledge and opinion. But artistic dissent, as practiced by the panel and shown by me in the brief history, is more emotion that knowledge. One of the lessons of any conflict is that when vital information is witheld, as the Bush administration has done so well, people, and especially artists, fall back on instinct and emotion. We need hard information to make informed decisions and only in the past week or two have reporters been truly able to report on the problems of Bush's policy and its aftermath -- which may or may not feed further, more informed dissent.

We purposely waited for some time to pass after the cessation of the hot war before convening this panel with the hope that as we got further from the emotional core, more facts would emerge that might support or deny the need to dissent . I think if we had a chance to further discuss the issues with the audience we might have spoken of our qualms, missgivings, and concerns.

Ultimately, I was pleased with this event because it showed how passion and concern translates into art and design. I was impressed by the honesty of the panelists. Each had a strongly held point of view that made me think about the efficacy of art and design (good and bad) in the entire political process. But I think its only part one of an ongoing discussion.

AT the risk of sounding pollyanna, in the wake of the event , people are arguing and debating. That is what the internet is here for (and mail order and auctions), and that's a good thing. I think.

I need to note here that John Hockenberry HAS been to Iraq in the last 10 years.

Thank you for the correction Emily. I've seen John at the last few conferences, and he is a skilled moderator and quite an accomplished speaker and journalist. His credentials make him quite "legitimate". But it was my understanding that John served as the moderator -- not as a panelist. As moderator, was his role to balance the discussion, or to simply give additional, supportive perspective when warranted? It sounds like it was more the latter.

But whatever the case, my point is that as Scott put it: "...this event was a good one-look at the discussions it has caused."

To recognize other's efforts in dissent is indeed valuable -- after all, it did spark this online debate. And I don't doubt your tremendous effort to balance the panel with what you term "corporate side of the war". But your inability to accomplish this balance ensured that the event would be a one-sided, emotionally-based (S.Heller's words) presentation from the collective panel. If this was the case, then I don't quite understand how a true (fruitful) dissenting discourse was expected to result from the event.

So that leads to my next question -- if discourse wasn't the goal, then why did AIGA hold the event? Which you answered:

The "Hell No" event is meant to show people that individual voices are important and spark debate about that, whether you agree with the speakers or not.

In this one-sided environment, I'm not sure how any of the audience would have the nerve to "debate" with the collective panel? How could anyone in the audience dare to question a trio of Steven Heller, Milton Glaser, and John Hockenberry -- not to mention risking getting ridiculed by Garden's razor-sharp wit? You have to admit that it's highly unlikely -- no matter how accessible the speakers made themselves.

I know that the term "preaching to the converted" was used lightly by Milton Glaser -- but it sounds like it was more than a little accurate in this case.

But I'll stop there.

As Steven Heller put quite eloquently, "Each (panelist) had a strongly held point of view that made me think about the efficacy of art and design (good and bad) in the entire political process. But I think its only part one of an ongoing discussion." Yes, I agree.

In that respect -- if that holds true, then AIGA did serve its role well. I'll look forward to reading more (and joining the debate) on the house forum site.

I know first-hand how much effort it takes to organize an AIGA event. And there is isn't a tougher, more opinionated crowd out there -- yours truly included. So I applaud and appreciate your participation in this blog.

It is a moot point, but had the discussion continued between panel and audience I'm certain that our fellow New Yorkers would have not been shy about confronting anyone on the stage. But I'm sure that civility would have reigned. I also don't believe we were preaching entirely to the converted. This war has been a difficult issue to either support or oppose in a definitive way. Memories of 9/11 have scarred and scared us all. And even some diehard opponents of war that I know fell silent once the first troops were sent into battle. As a CNN friend of mine (who was in Northern Iraq until the outbreak) said to me "Its the right war for the wrong reasons."

Had we continued we might have discussed how best to make opinions felt where it matters; how to inform and persuade the public; and how to make the best of our collective abilities in the political/social arena. We might have dicussed how George W Bush and his congress is dismantling liberalism and social welfare in this country.

BTW, the history of protest art and design that I presented is but one small method of redress. It was actually nonviolent civil disobedience that helped alter popular attitudes in the Sixties and convince a beleagured President Johnson not to seek reelection. It was massive protest in Washington and on campuses across the country that made President Nixon "crazy" enough to violate the law. Conversely it was a major demonstration in the same town that brought the civil rights struggles to the attention of America. Part of the goal of Hell No was to discuss options. Perhaps the next AIGA event devoted to issues will persue this further.

Finally, regarding well known people (and particularly entertainers) speaking out. Sure, sometimes the rhetoric seems simplistic, but often these are the only non-officials who get airtime in a media monopoly. And sometimes they risk a lot and are vilified for their vocal opinions. The of course, sometimes they are elected President of the USA (Ronald Reagan) or of the NRA (Charleton Heston).

Well said from both Darrel and Mr. Heller. Even if the event had a biased tone, it certainly was a bias that is underrepresented by the media. Both sides of an issue need not be shown to provoke good discussion. It isn't like the audience was held captive and programmed by the panelists. It's good to see people being respectful in a discussion like this.

The recurring AIGA issues here are giving me tired head.

>Here's Armin from the "Listen Up" comments: "...this is completely a personal feeling, but there is something about the AIGA that ticks me off the wrong way..." Huh?

Heeeey! I didn't even bring up the AIGA this time, I've been minding my business for the last 48 hours and haven't messed with the AIGA all that time. A personal record I guess. I don't want to turn this (again) into an AIGA thing but measures (on my part) are being considered (by me) on what I want to do or am going to do about my stance and statement — of which I stand behind and sustain until proven otherwise (by me again.) I'll stop bitching now and start doing something constructive. Just you wait.

*Steve: can't believe you caved in to the devilish lure of the forum. See? It's fun.

From this forum to that forum:

"The Roman Forum was not simply the core of an ancient city; for many it was the center of the universe."

One more observation deserving mention from Hell No were the attendees. Very few students. Many non-designers; I chatted it up with a filmaker from Californy, who brought his journalist wife and two other non-designers. Thats a good thing- spreading the AIGAs influence to a broader stage (that is, when the message isnt cloaked in black turtlenecks and white pants).

I've heard Heller has an interest in producing documentary material. Seeing this film yesterday I couldnt help but imagine how some of these polemic design discussions would translate and where they would manifest themselves. The Times and Discovery Channel have teamed up to produce worthy TV watching. Seen it?

Who knows maybe Heller will get a call from a guy in CA wanting to produce a "graphic design" (surely on cable) documentary- another reason these hellish AIGA functions are what (can) produce real change.

I wasn't at the Hell No event. After reading all this, I wish I had been.

As we are all writing this, most of the New York media is attending a funeral for a female reporter who was just killed in Iraq. I am not sure who posted it, but I agree with the stance that everything we are presented with by the government is "Hell Yes" and as participants of the media in some form (hell, we are communicators or at the very least facilitators of communication) it is perfectly legitimate for the AIGA to present a forum for ideas that open up a challenge to the views we are forced to listen to, witness and reluctantly abide by every day.

Felix: looking forward.

about John Hockenberry,

he was there to balance the discussion AND give his perspective, where warranted (which is admittedly liberal). He spoke at length about his insider views of the coverage and is a smart enough guy to understand that the whole situation was delicate. He diffused pomposity where it was needed and clarified issues that were muddy. He addressed the left leaning bias of the panel right out of the gate and stated that all opinions were welcomed and encouraged (my words, not his). He was smart, funny and well informed. I wish you all could have been there. Really.

one last thing wanted to say:

I am so glad there is this forum, even if I might not always agree with what is said (or if I might want to defend the actions and events of the AIGA/NY Board - which again, are always with the best intentions). Please know that we on the board hear you and bear your comments and viewpoints in mind as we are planning events. Really really.

about John Hockenberry,

he was there to balance the discussion AND give his perspective, where warranted (which is admittedly liberal). He spoke at length about his insider views of the coverage and is a smart enough guy to understand that the whole situation was delicate. He diffused pomposity where it was needed and clarified issues that were muddy. He addressed the left leaning bias of the panel right out of the gate and stated that all opinions were welcomed and encouraged (my words, not his). He was smart, funny and well informed. I wish you all could have been there. Really.

Emily, I agree, that John Hockenberry was excellent in moderating this panel. I think it is great that you were able to get somebody from a major network for this event. I am definitely sharing the liberal views, though they tend to be as biased as any other views. Having just read "Liberal Bias" by Bernard Goldberg - more to inform myself than to become a conservative -, I applaud his straightforwardness and clear opinions. We need more of these events. It should be the beginning of many discussions at the AIGA, not the end. Elections are around the corner, and work needs to be done.

And just in time, as it permeates the media today, Paul Wolfowitz, - probably without intending to do so -, has admitted in an interview in England, that the war against Iraq was launched for other reasons than the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any. The country needs more than posters against these crimes, but maybe this is where it starts.

Word. Hopefully Scott Peterson's mug will soon be replaced by Gonzalez Santorum & Rowe (sounds like an LLP, huh?) We'll see.

On another uplifting note regarding Hockenberry- and I dont know how he falls into contact here- but a young portfolio grad strolled into the studio here a few months back. I steered him into a gig designing the new Elvis CD, and he promtly left to join Bielenberg doing non-profit materials. Maybe I'm crazy here, but I think the older doogoody designers are affecting youngsters in a positive way nowadays. Lookout for Christian Helms- tomorrow's Scott Stowell.

Why do I always go away when the discussions that really interest me get started(and usually finished)? So rather than reiterate the "leftier" side of the debate(in full agreement with Felix, Darrel, Sam, Heller), I'd just like to add a couple of random things that haven't been addressed yet.

First of all, to those interested in Micah Wright, whose remixed war posters started the debate, there's an interesting interview with him streaming on democracynow.org. As for my opinion on him/his work. Personally I don't find the work that strong, humourous at times, but in all rather ineffective. However, the fact is he's a cartoonist, and an ex-ranger, not a graphic designer. If he had found a graphic designer to communicate the horror that he experienced/caused in panama and managed to get that published..... anyways I digress. Check out the interview, he's an interesting guy. And please, please, please for anyone interested check out democracynow. Two hours of well-articulated alternative news every weekday. To prove to the doubters that the left/anti-war contingent has intelligent, polyphonous and well-produced information that doesn't come across in the "Bush is an Idiot" posters. I think making posters for their programming might be more effective than the majority of anti-war posters out there.

As to the argument for rational objectivity, I think its getting a little tired. I'm glad the AIGA brought out their opiniated speakers. I'm glad they took a stand. Objectivity in North America is a lie. The fact of the matter is dissent is marginalised, its inherent in its definition. Giving voice to the marginalised is always a good thing. The structural support for the American propaganda machine is enormous. The resources of the AIGA, let alone "real" progressive organisations are piddly in comparison. The fact that they can even raise a discussion these days is amazing. Not to get overly dramatic, but how many of you are seeing what's going on in geneva right now? That's in the independent media centre over there, and that's the blood of journalists. Giving voice ain't easy, I'll take it however it comes.

"It is fun to speak to members of your tribe in your tribe's language, but gaining the attention of a wider audience requires a different language."

That is the toughest question right now for progressive designers. And I'm very encouraged to see it being raised. It's something I've been researching and working on for the last three years and there is definitely no easy answer. However, I'd like to highlight some of the work being done by the cactus network in the UK.

Finally, Bush is a moron, but he's also responsable for the death of countless innocent people. The civilian casualties in Iraq continue to grow, not to mention what's happening in Afghanistan. And for what cause, to stop "Terrorism", to get rid of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".... The proof is in the pudding. How many terror attacks have we had in the last month? What is the only nation to have ever used a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" on a civilain population? People are dying for no cause other than the political and economic greed of an elite few. I know its rhetorical, but how do you fit all the facts into a couple of lines on a poster? How do you get people to read History books, that's my question.

I just returned from Milton Glaser's Web site. If you have not seen it yet, they are encouraging locals to "Light up the Sky" in protest of the big upcoming Republican convention. A silent Bush-bash, if you will.

Curious to learn more about the political bent of other designers, I then Googled up a search for "Rudy VanderLans, abortion" (I had previously been reading an article on Emigre's site) to see if I could find anything Mr. VanderLans would have written on the subject, or something someone may have written about him. I didn't find a thing from Rudy, but I did find this discussion.

I emailed Mr. Glaser the following, and would like to hear other designer's opinions on expressing anger over war vs. expressing anger [or lack of anger] over abortion:

Is it not hypocritical to voice outrage over the war in Iraq, but stay silent as over 1 million innocent Americans are killed each year under the watch of John Kerry and like-minded Democrats? When will the Democratic party cease to endorse violence against the unborn?

Jeff, I'd suggest you also write your question in the more timely Hell, Maybe! review, which talks about Milton's proposal.

Thanks Armin. Just did.

First of all, to those interested in Micah Wright, whose remixed war posters started the debate .... the fact is he's a cartoonist, and an ex-ranger, not a graphic designer.

Actually, he's not an ex-Ranger. He's an admitted liar who falsely claimed to be an ex-Ranger in order to boost his non-existent credibility.

Just saying, that's all.