Well, what more can be said? Armin and Marian’s reviews covered most of the conference quite thoroughly. Since I’m the last up — I’ll try not to beat any grounds that have already been well-covered, or unnecessarily re-open any freshly-healed wounds. So here goes.
First of all, I have to say that this conference was different. And different is usually a good thing.
I’ve been to a number of national AIGA gigs (this was my 6th), and the one thing they’ve all had in common was a sense of celebration in graphic design. A sense of self-indulgence, self-recognition — an affirmation that as a profession, we were a force that was making a positive impact on society and culture.
Then came Vancouver. This usual, smug sense of celebration was replaced by an overwhelming sense of undeniable guilt — coupled with a self-realization that as a profession, we have ignored a number of global and societal responsibilities that will not be denied. The tone was stern and seething.
It was like going to some sort of religious design revival. First, with fire and brimstone, Fritjof Capra showed us the inevitable path to global destruction unless we changed our ways. Then a succession of speakers like Mike Volkema (CEO of Herman Miller) and Susan Szanasy (EiC, Metropolis) marched on-stage to reiterate the sustainability message, pleading for the rest of us to heed the warnings and seek (design) salvation. Many, like Janine James of The Moderns, used diagrams and colorful models to show us their path to enlightenment. It was riveting, sobering, and powerful stuff.
Of course I’m generalizing here, but you get the idea. Like I said…it was different. And different is usually a good thing.
But wait, there’s more. There was a secondary theme, one that I found even more fascinating and unexpected: the Future (of design). Bruce Sterling opened the conference with his non-Utopian vision of the future — “one that had people in it,” to paraphrase. Bruce Mau and Andrew Zolli ended the conference by discussing the ethical and moral questions that design has yet to face and answer. Mau showed a (photo) featherless chicken, designed and bred to survive in third-world, hot climate conditions. Similar to bio-engineered corn, the mutant chicken was designed to solve a problem: starvation due to over-population and dwindling resources. But in doing so, the design solution resulted in a moral dilemma — to play God with nature, or to allow millions to starve? This was a moral decision that designers were never prepared to face. Mau warned that in our quest for design solutions, whether they were noble intentions or not, we would face many new and unexpected moral difficulties.
You might have heard mentioned in one of the other reviews that “brand bashing” was committed by a few speakers. I didn’t bring this up to start another WWF brand/Adbusters war. Rather, I brought it up because I think that this questioning of “the power of branding” is indeed one of these newly-formed, design moral dilemmas that Mau spoke of. Let’s face it — the science of brand marketing has become a formidable force. It has as much devotion as any religion. It’s as powerful as any cultural, political, or economic force. It shapes our future. But as a profession, are we morally or ethically prepared or justified in weilding such a powerful force?
So that’s where I left off — with questions unanswered, and an odd sense that I’d stepped into the wrong professional conference. Where was the eyecandy? Where was the smug, celebratory design carnival? Something’s different.
Interesting conference.
….
Just a quick note to recognize Terry Irwin, the national staff, and the volunteers. It was a superbly run conference. Amazingly efficient. I know there must have been a thousand problems back-stage — but it was seamless from where I was sitting.
And thank you to our gracious Canadian hosts — Matt Warburton, Rob Peters, and the rest of the GDC gang. You gave us good weather and even better beer.
Apparently, people must be tired of hearing about the conference.
Last to the party I suppose. I was, and still am, buried with work. *sigh*
But let's talk about this question of moral choices in design. I'm not talking about being judgemental, but let's talk about the moral decisions in graphic design. Or are there any?
We lament the loss of a shipping logo, discuss the loss of innocence when a candy bar gets re-wrapped, and argue about what constitutes "marketing". Aren't these debates more than just questions about design? Aren't these moral debates as well?
Let's be honest here.
On Nov.04.2003 at 11:09 AM