1. Both

2. Purely communicative? Isn't that what it is right now? Graphic Design, by definition, is the visual communication of information, isn't it?

3. I didn't quite understand this question. But, if I had to answer it: no, graphic design can't really change any social problem directly...it can only help communicate information to those that can facilitate the change.

1. I'm not sure that this question makes sense. But, I'll respond anyway--communication is a two-way street, so as long as the various sides are willing to work together, anything can happen. While the "source" of communications, that being advertisers and designers, needs to be conscious of what they're saying and how they say it, if they improve the quality then the "receiver" has to be open to that for change to occur. I think that people have to be willing to listen, and I personally have faith that they can--human beings are not shafts of wheat so easily bent by the wind, they're thinking entities capable of making decisions. Designers often have this power-trip fantasy that they "mold" people's minds but that's really not the case. The real question is, can designers improve the quality of their work and be honest in their messages while remaining profitable. I believe they can. And that they should.

2. Graphic design's ONLY function is communication. That's it. Communicating a message. Trust me.

3. This question is far too vague, its kind of like asking if I can win the Indy 500 by pressing the gas pedal and turning left. HOW would it be applied? And where? To what? What context? All those factors play a role. But perhaps the point is moot, because ultimately, design has little to do with poverty and crime. Poverty and crime are economic problems first, and social problems second. Design serves an economic function but you need to give a direct, concrete example of how you would apply it to poverty and crime.

because ultimately, design has little to do with poverty and crime

GRAPHIC design has little to do with it. (I know that's what you meant, but I find the lack of adjectives when using the term 'design' adds confusion to a discussions like this...yea, yea...my pet peeve... ;o)

Design serves an economic function but you need to give a direct, concrete example of how you would apply it to poverty and crime.

If someone where to see this icon and not brake in to a car in this neighborhood, would that not be an example of design impacting crime? I know that the design is nothing without the social conditioning related to the icon, but once the audience is conditioned it can be effective.

As Bradley said, communication is a two way street. I think I understand what you are getting at ('the conversation'), but doesn't the clearest communication happen directly between two points? I think if we are to look in the everyday for examples of the conversation, our filters invariably come up, and only the "loudest voice" gets heard/noticed.

And if I understand you, you are suggesting that our collective conditioning by mass media has given us a common visual language. I think this is untrue with a few conventional exceptions (restroom signs, etc..)

My other thought is that written/verbal communication attempts to bridge the complex, while visual communication attempts to simplify.

Perhaps the time has truly come where education and pure communication can occur via our vehicle.

I think that “education” (as the dumping of knowledge) and “communication” (as the transmission of ideas) have always been the product of design work. I think the question is: what kind of education and communication have been occurring? Education as the transfer or dumping of “knowledge” from one mind to another has occurred. True education, as a “drawing out”, has occurred to a much lesser extent; and persuasive design, by forcing in knowledge, may even have been a roadblock to true education. Communication as the transmission of ideas has occurred. But so far, “mass communication” has meant only that one idea can be more effectively transmitted to a wider audience. We haven’t, I think, seen an increase in mass conversation or dialogue or argumentation. We have developed these blogging systems and all, but the counter-effect of “mass communication” has grown along side of them.

There is the obvious question of the client, but perhaps the idea of mass communication, and not mass marketing is intriguing enough to explode us in a new direction. Even a beneficent direction.

I think I know what you are looking for when you speak of “mass communication”, and my own work has all been along the same lines. But I’m not sure that “mass communication” has historically meant what you seem to be meaning by it. Graphic design is almost automatically “mass communication”, as we have generally defined it. I think you would benefit from a look at the concept of the “public sphere” (Habermas). I imagine that this is more like what you envisage.

1. Has the conditioning that the public has been subject to over the last century created a mindset that allows for communication, or is the attitude towards design/advertising so negative (i.e. Adbusters) that the form cannot be manipulated to work in positive ways?

I think there are two different problematics in this question, and it isn’t a pure “or”. Let me explain what I mean by rewriting your questions: Has the conditioning that the public has been subject to over the last century created a mindset that allows for a public sphere, or has it been an force inhibiting the autonomy of the public sphere? Is the attitude towards design/advertising so negative (i.e. Adbusters) that the form cannot be manipulated to work in positive ways, or is there even such an attitude when we continually mistake “mass communication” for a true “public sphere”.

2. Do you think that graphic design has the power to function as a tool for purely communicative means? What are some ways that you could see this being done? Basically, what is the "more" that we can ask of the medium?

It’s hard to say, given that there is always some instrumentality, some dramaturgy, bound up in any communication. The question is both trivial and important. Obviously design is a tool for communication, but the main point of my comments here is that our ideal of “pure communication” is almost the antithesis of what we generally mean by “mass communication”, given “mass communication’s” inherent limitations (it’s links to power and money). Not everyone has the ability to mass communicate and argue their viewpoint. If they did, great, but they don’t, and it’s logically impossible for that to happen, though it is an ideal.

Not everyone has the ability to mass communicate and argue their viewpoint. If they did, great, but they don’t, and it’s logically impossible for that to happen, though it is an ideal.

Isn't that what the internet is all about? Mass communication for everyone?

Good question, Darrel. An article by Charles Ess in Landow's anthology "Hyper/Text/Theory" explores the claims of proponents of that idea: that the internet can be a tool for pure, universal communication. And he makes some suggestions on how our systems (like blogging systems) would have to change in order to come closer to that goal.

The fact is, though, that many people may read my writing here (and this is as "mass communicative" as I get) but that number is infinitesimal compared to the audiences that hear the message of huge network corporations. You are probably thinking why, or how, could we possibly have that kind of mass communication available to all? And that's what I'm saying when I said it was impossible, but an ideal.

You are probably thinking why, or how, could we possibly have that kind of mass communication available to all? And that's what I'm saying when I said it was impossible, but an ideal.

There's certainly the issue of big business effectigng the control over things like mass communication. Our run-away capitalism has certainly made that happen. The TV and Radio waves are no longer ours (rather, the FCC's to hand out to highest bidders) and most print distribution is controlled by a few big-guys.

That said, the net is still open for all. The big difference is that people need to try a tad harder to find the information they want, as opposed to sitting on their sofa waiting for it to bombard them.

TV still reigns supreme, but I think there are arguments that the internet is slowly surpassing radio as a key outlet. Same with mass media newsprint. An interesting topic, for sure, and probably worthy of it's own discussion down the road.

This post questions graphic design. Like most people commenting above, I'm not sure of the exact questions being asked, but I gather, Frank, that you're looking to identify problems, cite solutions, and make improvements---that's what a thesis is all about.

Communication is about delivering information. Sending it out to the audience is a one to one pattern. When the message circulates back and forth, from sender to receiver or from sender amongst receivers, a dialog happens. Marketing thrives on this when the message a client or company sends hits the streets, and people are talking to each other about the newest and "nowest" product. Or better yet, the audience talks back to the sender (client), delivering them praise and gratification for making their life better with the great product---a testimonial.

Communication is a behavioral science, and in order for graphic designers to maximize the effects of their visual communication, it's been suggested that we extend our knowledge base into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ethnology, and anatomy. You don't have to master these things. Instead, have enough understanding for the purposes of your problem or project at hand.

Mastering media won't make designers better, neither will mastering esoteric information from the "-ologies" above. However, the key to success comes in how you apply these things, combine them, and utilize them. Keep asking yourself, "What can't design do? What elements are available to aid my messaging and visual solutions?" Move beyond aesthetics.

I enjoyed reading your short essay "Is communication still a Viable Communication Method? I say if we want it to. In answer to your first question "Has the conditioning that the public has been subject to over the last century created a mindset that allows for communication, or is the attitude towards design/advertising so negative (i.e. Adbusters) that the form cannot be manipulated to work in positive ways?

Many people say its not due to this conditioning over the last several decades that people are desensitized and that visal communication no longer has that powerful effect it once had in the early 1940s. Ex - WWII Posters compelling women to work. Now look at society. But, I disagree. Yes, if we continue doing the same old things, then maybe we won't have such an impact. But I think its up to the designer and their attitude. Maybe it won't be a nation wide impact, but rather a personal impact. I mayself can think of several times when I have been influenced by the work of a visual communicator. For your second question - "Do you think that graphic design has the power to function as a tool for purely communicative means? What are some ways that you could see this being done? Basically, what is the "more" that we can ask of the medium?" I again say it depends. Much work in the design world really is for decorative purposes and the only think its communicating is "I am a can of coke" but visual communication/graphic design is much more than that. It just depends on how far we want to push the boundries and what we have to communicate. Its world full of many options. We don't just have to stop at print, we can us the web, video and audio to communicate powerful messages - if we have any. And for your last question - "If graphic design/visual communication is applied to problems such as crime, or poverty, can they function as tools for change in the facts, or simply changes in people’s attitudes?" I again say it depends on the designer. If we could cluster together and go in together and let people know who really has the power we could be very effective in changing society. I am reminded of the movie Newies and how the newies took control of their situation and made the changes they wanted to see rather than just putting up with what wasn't right. All you need is one voice who becomes a hundred and then a thousand and then a million and more. But its takes commitment and desire.

There seems to be some kind of assumption in these questions that "communication" is good but that "design" or perhaps "advertising" has been polluted to such an extent that it no longer "communicates," and that that is "bad." The assumption essentially makes the questions unanswerable.

Design always communicates something; even advertising is communication; not all communication is "good" (eg. for the benefit of society, or without malicious intent); if "pure communication" is communication without an advertising (sell) message, then I would suggest that the body of "pure communication" actually outweighs that other, less-pure communication.

Some people have a tainted opinion of advertising; some people cannot separate advertising from design; many people embrace advertising; many people would not use design with advertising separated only by a slash.

Both design and advertising often work in positive ways; your or my positive may not be his or her positive; constructive, positive design is subjective.

I think your questions are rather biased. And as much as we complain about low mass intelligence -- I think people are generally pretty savvy when it comes to media, as opposed to being "conditioned".

Look, one of the most innate need of our species is storytelling. Beyond primal communication (hot, cold, pain, hunger) -- the social need of our species is what created cave paintings, symbols, language, and yes, graphic design. That's why man creates art, writes books, invented blogs.

The internet is a conduit for the continued manifestation and evolution of this simple idea of social interaction/storytelling. Graphic communication is one discipline that's at the heart of that. So is advertising in all forms.

The growth of mass communication isn't linear either. It's exponential. It's not one thing replacing another, or a medium (advertising) disappearing. It will continue to grow and evolve as long as humans exist. And as subjects, we will evolve and adapt to the new media environments, just as our ancestors adapted to fire and new tools.

So, to answer:

1. Conditioning is irrelevant. Adbusters is irrelevant. Because as humans, our brains allow us to adapt to new environments. Little thing called Darwin's theory of evolution. So yes, design and advertising will continue to rule everything -- in positive and negative ways.

2. No one can predict the "more". Not even Bruce Sterling. Hey, no one predicted the internet. Not a single, freakin sci-fi futurist saw it coming till it was too late. And it's made dramatic changes in the way we communicate -- all in less than a decade no less. So who knows what else will come along that will make pivotal changes to graphic design and the way humans interact. Technology is one badass, unpredictable MF.

3. What?? Not sure I understand what you're asking here. The Bible, one of the first significant piece of graphic design, changed the world as we know it. Crime, punishment, poverty, everything can be traced back to visual communication in one way or another.

You can over-analyze the crap out of this. But what's the point? Why not just go with the flow?

> You can over-analyze the crap out of this. But what's the point? Why not just go with the flow?

That's the point of a thesis, to anlayze the crap out of anything.

I think I see where Frank is going with this and it is not exactly implying that humans are stupid, easily conditioned or quickly swayed by our powers of conviction. Yet, there is a lot to be said for mass communication not having the same effect it did thirty, twenty, even ten years ago. Heck, even 5 minutes ago mass communication was more effective than it is right now. People are getting accustomed to digesting, avoiding and selecting communication — if anything fails, TiVo let's you skip the commercials.

It takes a lot more to communicate appropriately; before, it used to be that companies all they had to do was get a commercial in the air during primetime, sit back and enjoy the revenues. Now, anybody can get on TV, on Radio and spew out any message they want. On a related note, there are some interesting points being made on Design Observer's latest poster discussion. Of relevance is the mention of the political poster as means of communication… how many political posters can one person see before s/he stops caring? Not many.

1. I think people are smarter about what they choose to acknowledge. The realization that advertising is not necessarily true has luckily been around for a long time now, so there will always be a certain skepticism towards it. As creatives, we are kind of biased for this question, because we sort of know what goes on behind the scenes.

2. Design, as stated before by Bradley, is in essence communication. What is the "more" that can be done? I think we are all trying to figure that out.

3. Design alone can't change facts. It can encourage and persuade people to do something so that the facts change. It is the spark that can change people's attitudes — but if you have nothing to say or offer, no design is going to do no good.

Thanks everyone for taking the time...in the light of the comments that Bradley, ol' sport, and marian and tam made I feel like I should further explain my point.

I am merely wondering if the medium we are all working in can be used for purely communicative purposes, not promoting marketing or sales driven messages. We know it can be employed to drive home an ideology (the Nazi's had a very effective and compelling identity) and that it can be used for disseminating a message (as in theTruth.com's marketing), but can it be used to enlighten people? Is design an effective tool for starting a conversation amongst people on a global level? If it can make people from New York to Tokyo buy Air Force One's can it make them discuss James Joyce?

I agree with all of you that people are smarter than they are given credit for. What I am trying to ask is: "Has the "conversation" of graphic design/visual communication/advertising progressed to such a point, and the general public become so fluent in its language, that we can now employ it to educate this same public, and spark a conversation among them?"

I think so.

How?

I am merely wondering if the medium we are all working in can be used for purely communicative purposes, not promoting marketing or sales driven messages.

Frank -

The wording of your first question, and the way you use the word 'communication' is a bit confusing. What I think you're asking is a question concerning semiotics -- the knowledge science of signs (Mihai Nadin).

American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce (pronounced like 'purse') defined the 'sign' as a process where an original idea -- the object -- is represented by a signifier -- the representamen -- which is then interpreted by the viewer, reader, etc. -- the interpretant.

The interpretant does not always reflect back to the original object. When this happens, a new object is established and a different sign process takes place -- and so on, and so on... This is known as an open semiosis.

To quote David Carson (now that's a first!): you cannot not communicate. Frank, your question is in the interpretation. If you'd like, more information on semiotics can be found http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/semiotics.html" target="_blank"> here.

Frank then asks:

Has the "conversation" of graphic design/visual communication/advertising progressed to such a point, and the general public become so fluent in its language, that we can now employ it to educate this same public, and spark a conversation among them?

If graphic design is a language, then perhaps music is a language too.

If music is a language, then maybe wine and cigars are languages also.

One can communicate tomorrow's weather in graphic design; but it's harder to do so with wine and cigars.

One can use graphic design to communicate what happens to a grape when you pick it, place it between straw mats, let it sit for a few months, and then make amarone -- but I'd rather understand the concept via wine.

(hic!)

Tomorrow's weather:

Smoky with a chance of merlot.

more later.

I am merely wondering if the medium we are all working in can be used for purely communicative purposes, not promoting marketing or sales driven messages.

Huh? Marketing promotion and sales message are communication. Aren't they?

but can it be used to enlighten people?

Well, sure. It's always been used that way. It seems as if you're over-thinking the question.

I agree with all of you that people are smarter than they are given credit for.

I agree and disagree with that. Again, this maybe a different conversation, but my wife informed me of something interesting this morning. She's hoping to get into the food service industry. In her research she discovered that any food marketed to 4 year olds and younger can not have fat content labelling. Why? Because the population has been so conditioned by 'low fat' marketing that they are afraid that fat labelling on young children's food would lead parents to erroneously buy low-fat food for their toddlers.

That doesn't make people dumb, but it does hint at the power our mass media truly has over us. I have a 2 year old and I'm amazed (and shocked) at the amount of mass marketing information he's exposed to and retains.

An interesting photography/art project that vividly shows the quantity of branding in our everyday lives:

">The untitled project

Aww crap. Let me try that link again.

>Has the "conversation" of graphic design/visual communication/advertising progressed to such a point, and the general public become so fluent in its language, that we can now employ it to educate this same public, and spark a conversation among them?"

That's Tan btw Frank -- Tam is my brother (really).

But back to your query.

We live in an age where visual language has become unavoidable. Media/branding/advertising not only influences our consumerism, but it affects, informs, and educates many facets of our culture. That includes the way we look at politics, religion, social needs, environmental concerns, and a thousand other things we interface in our daily lives.

The car you drive, the purchasing decisions you make, and the media you consume speaks volume about who you are. It's its own form of visual language -- defining your social "tribe" and environment. And yes, sparking conversation through the language of design/brand/advertising.

>there is a lot to be said for mass communication not having the same effect it did thirty, twenty, even ten years ago.

I contend that mass communication has become "more", not less. More immediate. More fleeting. More complex. More information. More content.

But maybe it's more accurate to say that there's also been more dilution.

One reason why this may be so is that there's more mass to communicate to. Population on this earth have risen a few billions in the last few decades. Along with a plethora of millions more media channels, magazines, brands, etc.

So it's difficult to isolate the message, the messenger, or the language that it's in -- and examine the growth or effect of that facet independently.

Have we forgotten the other side of the communication that we are attempting to create? After reading the comments listed above, I can only feel that the majority of the posts are regarding a monologue, as opposed to a dialogue between us (the designers) and the general populance.

If we continue this trend towards a communication monologue, how can our design become better informed in continuing the communication we so diligently strive after? If the markets we are trying to reach are just as interested in communicating backk with us as we are with them, then are we not cancelling the effectiveness of our communication by not listening to them?

I would recommend the Cluetrain Manifesto found at cluetrain.com for a rather lenghty approach to this general trend. Most importantly, I encourage everyone to do their best to listen for responses from those they are working to communicate with.

I think the answer to the question of whether or not graphic design can/should be used for non-commercial means lies in the original analogy.

The reason why people are getting bored with advertising is because, yes, it is a sort of conversation, but it is extremely one sided. We all have friends who go on and on and won't let us speak, we put up with them, but we don't really like them that much.

Advertising is much the same way. Not that I'm saying that we should make advertising more interactive than it is now but that it's just annoying and we have to put up with it.

regarding a monologue, as opposed to a dialogue between us (the designers) and the general populance

umm... excuse me, but you may not have noticed that designers design things -- then the audience experiences said design and either buys the product, votes for the candidate, wears the shoes, reads the book, eats the burger, etc.

the action or inaction of the audience certainly seems like a "dialogue" to me.

frank: have a look at this.

drop me a mail if you want more info.

So, a lot of ground was covered today. I want to stir this thing up again, this is a general response. I couldn't check the posts all day, and now I will try to respond to 15 at once...enjoy my scrambling.

First of all M Kingsley...of course cigars and wine are their own language. But, their "conversation" is a bit limited. The visual communication "chat" we're talking about is massive, and just about everyone with eyes is involved. That gives us (designers) and them (audience) the chance to communicate through sales (which I guess really fine smelling cigar could do) or through what I am trying to flush out...

The other thing I wanted to clarify with you is that I don't think I am speaking about semiotics. I am not talking about changing of symbols meanings, I am talking about changing the symbols themselves. If Nike can use the idea of competition and the human urge for action ("Just do it") for sales, why can't someone just reinforce the human urge for action. People are obviously interested in it. If a company like the Container Corporation of America uses fine art to advertise cardboard boxes (circa 1950) and be remembered for their ingenuity and sensitivity, why can't one just advertise fine art...not as a sales pitch, but as a way to promote beauty, which is a bit thin, or in order to make people think? (This gets to your "How?" Mr. Gleason). We have a huge audience who speaks our language. They help create the language via their responses. We can use the language to TALK about anything. I do not think this has been done very much, or very effectively. Graphic Design is communicative, of course, but very often it communicates a sales pitch.

Say some motivated soul was inspired to go around making posters reminding their neighbors of the golden rule ("Do unto others...") and this reminded evryone, "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to be a courteous guy." And then they tell a friend, and then the friend tells a friend, etc. Conversation, and just that, not sales...no marketing plan (although you might argue the sale of an opinion. Oh well, I'm damned if I do).

Anyway, these are some musings. Thanks all of you for your help.

And I'm sorry if I'm overanalyzing or thinking too much. I should just go watch some Friends, right?

>...of course cigars and wine are their own language. But, their "conversation" is a bit limited

Frank -

I was using metaphor to tell you exactly that. Your original question was if design could be used to 'educate the public' and 'spark a conversation among them'.

>The other thing I wanted to clarify with you is that I don't think I am speaking about semiotics. I am not talking about changing of symbols meanings, I am talking about changing the symbols themselves.

This is exactly a semiotic field of inquiry.

Changing the representamen changes the sign process; possibly resulting in a different interpretation, possibly not -- depends on context. In other words, changing the symbol changes the meaning.

>Graphic Design is communicative, of course, but very often it communicates a sales pitch.

Why keep such a narrow view of design? Textbooks, safety warnings on condoms, road signs, love letters, etc. -- all results of a design process. If you're trying to make some sort of point that design + big business = evil; frankly, it's been done. A lot.

It is important that you approach your subject in a neutral manner. Design for business, design for beauty, design for non-profits, and design for other designers are all simply design processes. The best criticism objectively defines, describes and contextualizes the subject.

>And I'm sorry if I'm overanalyzing or thinking too much. I should just go watch some Friends, right?

Well...

I initially misunderstood your angle, in the hope that it was like mine.

If you want to create communications that help people grow, and only have their benefit in mind, I say go for it. It would be wonderful. Other people would disagree with your messages and produce other communications. I don't know how this would happen exactly unless you can find a Container Corp. or a Benetton. Mass communication takes money---really.

I agree with Mr. Kingsley though, that neither your "problem" or "solution" can really be seen as new. Hopefully you can find your unique angle somewhere in all of this discussion. Or you may have had a unique angle at one point and forgotten about it. Keep writing and it will come.

I think you bring up some good points. But, I think much of your language is very confusing. As others have mentioned, design - for the most part - IS communication. Terms like 'conversation' and 'pure communication' tend to be vague.

I think you're posing a bit of a First Things First type of argument - using our power to communicate for 'good' and not 'evil' type of thing.

The issue you bring up about how we receive ads/communication today verus the past is a good point. Obviously you probably wouldn't have much success with the propaganda posters of WWI and WWII for rationing and buying war bonds and such, today as you did back then. I don't think you could be so obvious because people aren't as suseptable to that type of message.

But at the same time, I think that savvy perception could lead to intelligent design/communication, as long as there is a trust by the audience of the person/group delivering the message.

Again, you bring up some interesting points. I would try to tighten up the language and pose some more concrete examples. I don't think the argument is so much CAN design be used for 'communicative' forms (non commercial?), but SHOULD it - and CAN it - be further PUSHED for such purposes..

1. I think the "conditioning" has generally made the public better able to discern between meaningful and meaningless messages. (Witness the oft-mentioned popularity of Target and Apple.) Creative people will always be able manipulate the form is new ways; for both positive and negative ends.

2. Of course. Tufte is a great example of using design to make dense information digestable. This is another fine, topical example.

3. Since you mention "visual communication," I assume you're not talking about environmental changes, like landscaping and such. I believe those can make a difference (psychologically if nothing else). Visual design could best help by doing what I outline in the previous answer: Making data on rising poverty levels clear; easily outlining how to get food stamps; etc.

1. I can think of a couple examples of Federal initiatives, outside of the US, to increase public awareness for a non-commerical activity. For instance, Heritage Canada did a six month run of TV ads to remind the Canadian public to take pride in their history and "be a good neighbor." The campaign was very successful. This was the mid-80's. I don't know that in the US, today especially, or even elsewhere (Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, etc.) this kind of initiative would have the same impact. So, I asked a couple of my neighbors the question, as I'm perhaps too optimistic about these things. The consensus was that any messages communicated by any government, especially the US gov't, will be scrutinized and distrusted - regardless of what the message is. One suggestion was to stamp the message, sponsored by, or whatever, with a safe, and trustworthy independent and not-for-profit organization. For example, the Cancer Society. Maybe then, the public would less critical of the motivation for the message.

2. Honesty - if you can find a way to make anyone believe that you are acting in their best interest, without any hitches, you're onto something very special. John and Yoko did it in Times Square way back when. I can't remember anyone else getting away with it since.

3. I'm assuming you're asking if we'll see a statistical change in occurences of crime - and I think if attitudes change, there will necessarily be a change in frequency of crimes committed. Having the public care more - enough to make a phone call, be a little more suspicious of activity in their neighborhoods, watching out for each other - will certainly make a difference. Just being able to intimidate criminals is a good start. You should look at neighborhood watch sins, block parent signs, community partnetship messages, etc., and see if you can find statistics that prove that just by having a message posted in public view, if it directly impacts the occurence of crime in that immediate area. I'd think it would.

Q.1 Has the conditioning that the public has been subject to over the last century created a mindset that allows for communication, or is the attitude towards design/advertising so negative (i.e. Adbusters) that the form cannot be manipulated to work in positive ways?

A.1. Advertising has been completely bastardized by the corporate machine and is certainly not trusted by the general public. Have you ever wondered why respectable professional associations restrict the terms in which advertising can be done? For example, the Professional Engineering associations, in their definition of Professional Misconduct, include misleading advertisement and advertisement that criticizes another member of the profession. A practitioner could lose their license to offer services to the public. Imagine if those standards applied to the ads politicians place?

Q.2 Do you think that graphic design has the power to function as a tool for purely communicative means? What are some ways that you could see this being done? Basically, what is the "more" that we can ask of the medium?

A.2. The first part of this question is unclear to me because graphic design = communication. Whether it’s a Stop sign on the street or a menu at a Drive-Thru, every piece of graphic art is communicating something. The more that could be asked of the medium is to start performing an integrity check. Is it demeaning? Are we treating the public like a bunch of ignorant fools?

Q.3. If graphic design/visual communication is applied to problems such as crime, or poverty, can they function as tools for change in the facts, or simply changes in people’s attitudes?

A.3. Yes of course, if you follow the principle discussed in the first point above and perform the integrity check then people will slowly start to trust the medium. And… if all else fails, a good drunken head-butt to the face of offenders will solve all of the world’s problems.

Derose wrote--

>>...Graphic Design is communicative, of course, but very often it communicates a sales pitch.

Say some motivated soul was inspired to go around making posters reminding their neighbors of the golden rule ("Do unto others...") and this reminded evryone, "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to be a courteous guy." And then they tell a friend, and then the friend tells a friend, etc. Conversation, and just that, not sales...no marketing plan (although you might argue the sale of an opinion. ...>>

Based on the comments Derose wrote above,

and after reading much of this thread it seems that his thesis question should be something like --Can design communication be used to create a conversation that betters our societyor is the public so jaded by advertising is design no longer able to create positive communication (to create a better world in a bauhaus sense .)

I know when the issues of Colors magazine designed by Tibor Kalman came out- I was at first impressed as a designer at the strairght forward in your face communication design - but once I got it home and figured out it was sponsored by Beneton's -- I felt I was being duped by Benaton into believing they were a grass roots organization trying to help the world when really they were trying to get me to buy their brand. In my imagination I could see marketting people sitting around a table saying " how can we make Beneton into a lifestyle, a philosophy, something more than a brand"

I felt suspicious-- the same way I feel when Dupont airs commercials about all the good things they do for the environment-- which just makes me think about all the bad things they are trying to cover up.

So maybe what Derose is trying to get to in his thesis is-- Has design communication created so much mistrust that it can no longer be used for good?

I'm sure most people on this thread now this story but...

But if my memory serves me correctly

--- Ironically several years later - Colors and Beneton created a magazine and giant Bill boardsposters in NY that featured prisoners on Death row and there photos- Colors/Beneton did not get the releases and permission from the death row prisoners that they photographed and wrote about. The prisoners sued and Colours and Beneton were accused of exploiting death row prisoners to sell their expensive Euro- Swiss clothes.

So- more mistrust generated by graphic designers.

the function of graphic design to the role of mass communication.