I found a recent Design Observer discussion about speculative financial arrangements for graphic design to be frustrating, largely because graphic designers’ ethics discussions tend to be tribal—why designers should do work for whatever/whoever is politically correct and not for evil (“correct” and “evil” defined by the person writing, of course)—or self-serving—the ethical imperative that the world should be as comfortable as possible for graphic designers. Come to think of it, the second is probably strictly tribal, too, since discussions like the one on DO tend to include a lot of rhetoric about heroic-but-put-upon graphic designers and the hegemony of the conspiracy of clients.
Anyway, one of the more interesting parts of the discussion was when Kenneth FitzGerald noted that “The mistake that designers constantly make is that an expressed advocacy of design… means a respect for designers. They can be—and often have been/are—mutually exclusive.” I’m wondering why that should surprise anyone. Ideals, things, or work aren’t always regarded the same way as the people who deal with them for a living. I suspect at least a few people reading this would claim respect for law (or Law) and contempt for attorneys and legislators, for instance.
Discussions of Ellen Lupton’s D.I.Y: Design It Yourself often center around its possible effects on designer wealth and respect on graphic designers. I don’t spend time on shoe design blogs but I bet someone is whining that John Fluevog encouraging customers to submit sketches of the shoes they’d want is detrimental to the legitimate interests of slipper stylists.
Andrew Blauvelt was the keynote speaker for the AIGA “Schools of Thoughts” conference in 2002. During the Q&A he used the phrase “the interests of graphic design” several times. I asked what that meant. He seemed stunned by the question. He answered as if he were addressing a slow child but despite that deference to my cognitive deficiencies I still am not sure what the phrase means (generally or to him.)
When the AIGA refers to “advancing the value of design,” that could be cynically interpreted to mean increasing the price of design services but the furtherance of “excellence in design as a broadly-defined discipline, strategic tool for business and cultural force” seems to be about design rather than designers. Where does design start and designers end (or vice versa)? Are the interests of designers and the interests of design the same? What do we do as designers that is to the detriment of design? (Or, to reverse the Christian cliché, can you love the sin but hate the sinner?)
The ethics of design have changed subtly over the years. The designer’s traditional ethics were rule-based. You only had to do the best work possible – professionally speaking – to be an ethical designer. It didn’t matter if the client was morally, ecologically or criminally accountable. If anyone complained, the designer could claim he only made the best logo possible; it wasn’t his fault that the client invaded Poland and killed six million people.
This kind of rule-based ethics (a deonthology) effectively protect and enforce a middleman’s position. In this frame, the designer remains neutral, while the ethical onus is cast on the client.
Nowadays, when everybody can design – thanks to desktop publishing, &c. – a middleman’s ethics seem increasingly inadequate and incomplete, even for designers.
In a way, the recent discussions about the designer as author reflect this change. While the concept of author is commonly held to be related to originality, genius, &c. it can also mean a sort of accountability, of responsibility. Therefore, when the designer is recast from a middleman to an author, this entails necessarily a change in ethics.
Probably you should check a Villém Flusser text called “The ethics of industrial design?”
On Jun.18.2006 at 07:37 PM