Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Hell, Maybe!

There has already been some discussion about the recent AIGA New York Chapter event, Hell Yes! Another Election Another Design Problem. And (hell!) yes, a lot of it was lame. But within the various tactics of the obvious and the rhetoric of the marginalized, there was an extremely valuable lesson in nuance.

First, for readers who weren’t there; a quick, off-the-cuff, and superficial rundown of the participants:

Steve Heller did his Steve Heller thing: an historical survey of American political graphics. Fabulous, but too short.

John Hockenberry acted as moderator (also fabulous) and opened with a lovely rant on how America gets its news from a defense contractor — NBC is owned by General Electric. That little bon mot was followed with the revelation that NBC’s news division’s total budget is approximately one sixth of the value of their contractual interests in Iraq’s rebuilding.

Next came the broad parody of Billionaires for Bush; which is more effective as street theater rather than the 3-song revue we politely sat through. Their inhabitation of the billionaire persona isn’t refined enough to be isolated on stage — a strange paradox for what seems to be a bunch of actors. The clothing is a thrift shop version of fancy ball dress, not the everyday khaki of a Bill Gates; they puff puff puff the cigars a bit too enthusiastically; and the rhetoric pretty much stops at their name. More caricature than anything else.

Liz Winstead presented a series of advertisements for Air America, superimposing the print ads designed by No. 17 with corresponding radio spots. The radio ads were typically inflammatory and the print ads have already been better covered by Michael Bierut on Design Observer. I really like the posters, but nothing new here.

A big disappointment was Rob Corddry, who showed a long clip of The Daily Show’s Super Tuesday coverage; the night John Kerry was tapped as Democratic party candidate. Other than a few sarcastic remarks on the panel, that was it. Now I like The Daily Show; watch it every night. But he wasn’t really there. Thanks for participating. Good night.

I’ve never been a big fan of Tom Tomorrow’s cartoons. The humor’s obvious, and the visual look is a watered-down detournment — the Situationists did it first, did it better — the result of his use of facts and quotes. One gets the feeling that his need to inform overpowers his abilities to transform the material; probably why I find his blog to be more compelling.

For myself and pretty much every other attendant I’ve spoken to, the best thing about the evening was Milton Glaser. Wise, sensitive, compelling — without rancor, without mindless rhetoric, without all the things that I’ve come to despise about American political discourse.

Starting with the I (heart) NY logo, he described how something he considered so undesigned, so null, became a cultural phenomena in spite of his offhanded disregard. Over the thirty years of the logo’s life, he gained the realization that sometimes you don’t really need graphic cleverness. (A shocking statement for Speak Up’s recliners of logo rage) He then presented some rather dull buttons done for The Nation.

all_buttons-1.jpg

No, not the most exciting graphics, but a couple of them are more thought provoking than these T-shirts from RNCnotwelcome.org:

t-shirts-1.jpg

The crude portrayal of the despised figure, the ironic appropriation of the symbolic object; we have all seen this. I admit to using extremes to make my point, but it’s extremes like this that describe why Air America, Tom Tomorrow, and Billionaires for Bush leave me tepid about political activism. And I’m an involved guy: President of the Condo Board, know all my elected officials, attend Community Board & City Council meetings, letters to City departments… you know the type. I’m just not a screamer.

And the one pervasive aspect of American political discourse is the screaming. Whether Ann Coulter or Janeane Garofalo, red state or blue state; once they hit shrill, I cringe. I’ll be dammed before I march with any of them; not because of their politics, but because of their damn smugness. The designers, illustrators & artists currently squirreled away in their studios, preparing for the Republican National Convention in NYC, are probably working on this very brand of marginalized agitprop. If you want to see the results, watch the news in September. When they show all the protesters, look in front of the oversized puppets.

As Milton said on Tuesday, the side that succeeds in lowering the rhetorical temperature stands a good chance of cutting through all the noise of protest. Basically, “it’s a design problem”.

Given the certainty of protests in New York City this summer, and given the possibility of bloody clashes between police and marchers; Milton unveiled a proposal for an alternative, non-confrontational protest: Light Up the Sky. It will make it’s public debut in an upcoming issue of The Nation and calls for all those opposed to the current administration to make a silent statement with light the evening of August 30: leaving lights on, gathering together in the streets with candles and flashlights, etc.

The thought of thousands of Diogenes, hoping for an honest man, instantly gave me chills. It is simple, elegant and repurposes the spontaneous displays in the streets of lower Manhattan immediately after 9/11. It avoids the issue of sanctioned protest areas (an idiotic euphemism), it is non-violent, and it speaks to community rather than divisiveness.

So, to all the designers preparing for the Republican National Convention, please consider a nuanced persuasion over expressionist screed, over sarcastic irony, over spat-out bile. One should avoid quoting Rumi, but in this case… Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment. Cleverness is mere opinion. Bewilderment brings intuitive knowledge.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 1980 FILED UNDER Critique
PUBLISHED ON Jun.11.2004 BY m. kingsley
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Eric deRuiter’s comment is:

I thought the event would have been better had the presentations been eliminated or shortened in favor of more Q and A. It seemed that most everyone there would be familiar with The Daily Show, Tom Tomorrow, and Air America and the overviews of their work was unnecessary. I would have preferred prepared comments that spoke specifically to the topic of the night. Milton Glaser's presentation on the other hand was very good.

Only one question from the audience was taken besides those on the cards. I was going to ask something along the line of this, but never got a chance:

I feel that it's not a matter of effective design or branding that has kept both parties so prominent but rather advertising and the media barrage of talking points. A campaign sign or bumper sticker for either is so similar in type / color / placement as to be indistinguishable except for the content, so I don't think there is any branding of either party to sell their party to the people. Is it possible for a third party with good (and different) design to become viable, or is this a fight that they will have to win by slugging away with ungodly amounts of money in advertising - something they don't seem able to do.

What will it take for a third party to bring change to the political climate? Is design enough to solve this problem, or is there more to it than that?

Also, a question for anyone that remembers:

Are Milton Glaser's 'W' pins available now or are they coming soon? I saw the other series on thenation.com's page but not those.

On Jun.11.2004 at 08:15 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> I thought the event would have been better had the presentations been eliminated or shortened in favor of more Q and A.

Funny. That was the same complaint from last year.

> sometimes you don’t really need graphic cleverness. (A shocking statement for Speak Up’s recliners of logo rage) He then presented some rather dull buttons done for The Nation.

As "dull" as the buttons are, they are better designed than most protest buttons. There may be no "graphic cleverness" but the design "touch" is obvious.

Great review Mark. Thanks for putting it together.

On Jun.11.2004 at 08:56 AM
Jeff J’s comment is:

I wish I could have been there.

Perhaps I would have been able to ask Mr. Glaser in person why so many designers from the Left can be so outraged over the Iraq war violence, yet remain silent (or even supportive) over the violence against 1 million+ unborn, innocent Americans every year in the US.

Am I the only one who sees this hypocrisy? Where are the posters and buttons and AIGA conventions and designers voicing outrage against abortion?

On Jun.11.2004 at 11:11 AM
M Kingsley’s comment is:

A — Thanks for the kick in the pants to write it.

It's funny Eric, I have the opposite opinion about questions from the audience. I've been attending AIGA events for almost (mumble) years and rarely have heard a valuable, or interesting, question. I was glad to have someone as intelligent as John Hockenberry acting as moderator. He's informed, well read and often had a contrary opinion; my favorite kind of person.

On Jun.11.2004 at 11:23 AM
Matt Waggner’s comment is:

JeffJ -- Your comment is fair, and in the context of examining hypocrisy, one could also ask why many of those who object to abortion support the war overseas, and the death penalty besides. Still, I would suggest that it's a unique (and uniquely non-secular) perspective that considers an embryo outside of viability a person in the fullest sense -- and as yet, I don't think any lawmaker has suggested that we bestow citizenship at the point of conception.

This is a generalization that will surely miss some, but it's my impression that "secular humanist" describes the great majority of graphic designers in America, be they Republicans or Democrats. Just my guess as to why one and not the other.

On Jun.11.2004 at 11:26 AM
Jeff J’s comment is:

Thanks Matt.

...one could also ask why many of those who object to abortion support the war overseas, and the death penalty besides.

I would argue that comparing abortion to the death penalty is no comparison at all. One is punishment of the innocent (American citizen or otherwise), the other is punishment of the guilty. And without punishment of the guilty there is no justice for the victim. Not to mention a society of chaos.

[ Side bar: I challenge all opposed to capital punishment to tell me what they think would be the appropriate discipline for those with no regard for human life, such as Hitler, or Bin Laden, or the men who purposely flew 767s into buildings -- if they were alive and on trial today. I think our conscience tells us the punishment must fit the crime.]

Regarding so-called support of the war overseas: Again, it has to do with justice. I think the reason why many pro-lifers who voted for President Bush are not opposed to the war overseas is because they trust this country's leadership. They trust the decisions that are being made, and that this war, if nothing else, is bringing justice to the Iraqi people.

...it's my impression that "secular humanist" describes the great majority of graphic designers in America, be they Republicans or Democrats.

That's an interesting observation. But wouldn't you agree that most designers who oppose the war are Democrats? I work in a small shop (less than 20 people) where I'd estimate 90% of employees would consider themselves "secular humanists", and are in fact voting Democrats.

On Jun.11.2004 at 12:36 PM
graham’s comment is:

jeff j:"I challenge all opposed to capital punishment to tell me what they think would be the appropriate discipline for those with no regard for human life, such as Hitler, or Bin Laden, or the men who purposely flew 767s into buildings -- if they were alive and on trial today. I think our conscience tells us the punishment must fit the crime."

where i live, life imprisonment (generally 16-20 years): personally, in the particular kinds of cases you cite, i'd add a requirement for absolute availability for psychological study for the full term of imprisonment.

i'll let the marquis de lafayette speak for my conscience:

"I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me."

a list of countries that still permit the death penalty:

* Afghanistan

* Antigua and Barbuda

* Bahamas

* Bahrain

* Bangladesh

* Barbados

* Belarus

* Belize

* Botswana

* Burundi

* Cameroon

* Chad

* China (People's Republic)

* Comoros

* Congo (Democratic Republic)

* Cuba

* Dominica

* Egypt

* Equatorial Guinea

* Eritrea

* Ethiopia

* Gabon

* Ghana

* Guatemala

* Guinea

* Guyana

* India

* Indonesia

* Iran

* Iraq

* Jamaica

* Japan

* Jordan

* Kazakhstan

* Korea, North

* Korea, South

* Kuwait

* Kyrgyzstan

* Laos

* Lebanon

* Lesotho

* Liberia

* Libya

* Malawi

* Malaysia

* Mongolia

* Morocco

* Myanmar

* Nigeria

* Oman

* Pakistan

* Palestinian Authority

* Philippines

* Qatar

* Rwanda

* St. Kitts and Nevis

* St. Lucia

* St. Vincent and the Grenadines

* Saudi Arabia

* Sierra Leone

* Singapore

* Somalia

* Sudan

* Swaziland

* Syria

* Taiwan

* Tajikistan

* Tanzania

* Thailand

* Trinidad and Tobago

* Uganda

* United Arab Emirates

* United States of America

* Uzbekistan

* Vietnam

* Yemen

* Zambia

* Zimbabwe

On Jun.11.2004 at 02:12 PM
Feluxe Socksmell’s comment is:

per the buttons, I rather like the Glaser offering. as well as:

On Jun.11.2004 at 04:18 PM
Feluxe Socksmell’s comment is:

but you cant degrade an honest picture, no matter how trivial or shocking

On Jun.11.2004 at 04:20 PM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

Hi Mr. Kingsley, just wanted to say a big thank you for the informative, well argued and thought provoking post on a subject close to my heart. I'll throw in some comments when the beer has worn off.

Great Stuff!

Oh and thanks for the list Graham.

And Jeff, I obviously hold very different opinions than you, especially on things like abortion, but as an honest question what does bringing justice to the Iraqi people mean?

On Jun.11.2004 at 05:51 PM
Jeff J’s comment is:

Kevin:

I'll answer that question if you'll answer mine. Why are you not outraged over the thousands of abortions occurring in our country every day?

On Jun.11.2004 at 06:29 PM
Matt’s comment is:

Wow, this got interesting real quick...I also would like to know what bringing justic to the Iraqi people means. I would also like to know if hypocrisy can exist when there have been thousands of innocent people killed over there as well.

Abortion is far different than any other issue concerning death. Its like apples and oranges. The issue of abortion will NEVER be settled because it is by far one of the most personal and intimate decisions an individual can make. If I could have it my way, I would take abortion completely off the political agenda. But thats only in a dream world. Maybe the government should start issuing birth certificates and SS cards as soon as you know you're pregnant. That'd be wild.

And as for capital punishment, it has never done a single thing to prevent crime, like many want to believe. People who have no regard for human life probably dont value their own that much either. How can killing someone in return be considered punishment for that kind of person? And as Graham said we're humans, we're not perfect. Thus our court system isn't perfect either.

On Jun.11.2004 at 06:58 PM
Bradley’s comment is:

The political spectrum has always been, and will always be, more of a circle than a line; opposities do exist, but any extreme measures end up resembling one another quite quickly. Ideology is ideology, above all else, those who vividly embrace an ideology are essentially searching for a sort of moral security.

I can't stand Bush, always found him to be a wretched leader incapable of dimensional thought, but worse than him are his damned supporters in the so-called "liberal media." Ann Coulter is typically aimless and ill-informed, too stupid and too scathing to really be taken seriously, Sean Hannity isn't much better but he gets more exposure on Fox News, the logical derivation of Josef Goebbels and other such "Ministries of Information." Its all dangerous, the whole notion of "you're either with us or against us" is extraordinarily frightening and not to be overlooked.

Beware, however, that such an attitude doesn't just come from the right-wingers, the Coulters, Limbaughs, Bushes, and Hannities of the world. It comes from bastions of leftist thinking as well, I see it all the time in Adbusters, I see it from some of the names mentioned above.

The Glaser buttons were fantastic, a perfect example of what'll be effective; from The Onion to Saturday Night Live, to the Daily Show and the tchotchkies aisle in bookstores and wherever else, the Bush-bashing has reaching a pinnacle, anyone can do it without too much thought or energy. None of those things are that effective anymore, they're so washed in ideological, agenda-based thinking that they can only preach to the choir. This is an election won or lost in tapping into the mindsets of the undecided and those beginning to wonder about Bush. I think subtle, but somewhat bizarre statements, could go along way to persuading, or more importantly, getting someone to think twice.

On Jun.11.2004 at 06:59 PM
Feluxe Socksmell’s comment is:

I'll take this one ...

Because Kevin fathered half of those children. When he isnt on Speak Up he hes gettin down to the Devil's business- be it in Canada or Slovakia.

The man loves pussy. God bless him.

What were we talkin about? Oh. Hell. Jesus.

On Jun.11.2004 at 07:00 PM
Matt’s comment is:

What will it take for a third party to bring change to the political climate? Is design enough to solve this problem, or is there more to it than that?

Design certainly wouldn't hurt any sort of third party. However the road to mass appreciation of well designed and clear understandable political messages is a long one. Our society likes things black and white. "You're either with us or against us" is the perfect example of this. Or just watch some television, particularly evening news shows with your favorite hosts, "Democrats this...Republicans that...". Half the time you just get two people on the opposites ends of the spectrum who just bitch at each other. Politics have become entertainment. I'm not sure what that means quite yet, but I'm sure its not very promising for any sort of modern progress.

On Jun.11.2004 at 07:19 PM
James Moening’s comment is:

hypocrisy. abortion. the (current) war.

everyone has their own cause. cultural equivalents of maslow's hierarchy of needs are difficult to define/recognize/evaluate. is everyone here familiar with the fact that an increased presence of freshwater (as a result of shrinking ice caps) could shut down the gulf stream entirely?

ethical snowballs are difficult to roll and dangerous to throw.

On Jun.11.2004 at 07:30 PM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

Oh man... I've been stirring the pot all week, Armin's going to kill me.

Jeff, I actually really didn't want to get into this one. We have different opinions and I can accept that. I was just sincerely curious about what you meant with your terminology because it could be read in different ways.

The short (and politically correct) answer, Felix speaks the truth (as usual).

For once, I'm going to say it, let's keep this to design....

I really liked Glaser's buttons (and the light up the sky project - which I'd have to say, is not necessarily an original idea, but is still a damn good one) as well, but I'm wondering if it's more because I love the man (yes, I can love men too, I'm all over the palce!) and his work or if it is because I see them as really effective pieces of design. I mean visually, they really aren't that intereesting. But then again I suppose its redundant to say that interesting isn't always effective.

As far as protest comics go I just finished reading Joe Sacco's Palestine and was incredibly moved by it. The drawings are gorgeous and the accounts horrific. I actually didn't find his storytelling that strong, and throughout the graphic novel falls there is a lot of repetition in actual events but also in the tone of voice. What's interesting however is that I felt that this apparent flaw actually helped to convey his message and make the accounts that much more human and dreadful, again and again and again without end.

For those that don't know sacco's work, I highly recommend it.

On Jun.11.2004 at 07:59 PM
Erik S’s comment is:

I'll weigh in with Jeff and say I wish I could've been there too.

In a career-field which seems to try (at least on the surface) to convey a sense of openness in the exchange of ideas and opinions, in reality I've personally found quite the opposite to be true. Maybe it's just me but the design culture as a whole seems to be pretty left-leaning pretty much across the board: anti-Bush, pro-abortion, anti-military, pro gay, ... the list goes on. Not really sure why that is- I'm sure there's many reasons. And that's fine... really! I don't necessarily have a huge problem with that per se. I do wish though that somehow it would be honestly admitted. Perhaps a formal proclamation from the AIGA announcing itself as yet another mouthpiece for the left. (kidding). In reality though, the burden though is really on ME then to offer a dissenting voice i.e. I don't ever want to object to anything if I'm not prepared to do something about it or offer alternative viewpoints and solutions.

So, if I haven't already, from hear on out and as time allows I hereby offer myself even more into design-related endeavors that will:

1. With grace and clarity, help educate and raise awareness about this country's 31 year old ongoing atrocity of killing unborn children. Over 38 million between 1973-2001, less than 1% of those for reasons of rape or incest. I've been firmly on both sides of the fence and I choose my words very carefully when I say it's nothing short of a holocaust.

2. Promote and illustrate the concept that the US Government is not an endless wellspring of tax dollars to fund fruitless social programs. For some strange reason I'm of the opinion that I'm better able to decide how to spend the money I earn than the government is. 30% of my income for taxes is too much. WAY too much.

3. Oh, and here's a big one: I will attempt to raise the awareness of the concept of personal "Responsibility" to at least on par with that of personal "Rights". Somehow we as a nation seem to have collectively lost that. BIG Oops. The exercise of one's rights without the responsibility to exercise those rights in wisdom is a recipe for "all things go" social chaos.

4. Promote the men and women of the US military and the service they provide. Given the opportunity, will also try to create the awareness that the military was never intended to be either a social experiment nor an equal opportunity employer. It's ENTIRELY about protecting the freedom, rights and responsibilities that give us such a forum as this.

5. I'll also gladly take on any project that promotes the marriage of (1) man and (1) woman... for life as a GOOD thing. No substitutes.

There. Those are just for starters. The design community has now officially been put on notice that an underground movement has now begun to stem the tide of radical liberalism and moral relativism within it's ranks.

Erik

*please know that, while serious, I write this in a true lighthearted spirit of grace and open-dialogue.

On Jun.11.2004 at 11:02 PM
Matt Waggner’s comment is:

Matt (2ndnature) -- I think that's what Glaser's trying to aim at, basically a hope and conviction that we don't like things black and white, that most are willing to rethink their convictions, and that making a moderate appeal will convince other rational human beings around us. I agree that many are polarized, but many/most believe that apart from revolution, elections and the direction of our society is moved forward by the great (however shrinking) middle.

At the same time, I'm very convinced by Kissinger's argument (quoted by Paul Krugman) about the nature of political power shifts:

Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, we find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane….But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.

My concern in all of this is that we base all of our daily life, our jobs, how we raise our kids, etcetera on a certain set of preconceptions about the contemporary or "modern" world. Rights and sovereignty reside within human beings. We lend governments our sovereignty to protect us, from the onslaught of foreign armies and the small number of people who prey upon the weak (and more recently, the indignity of ignorance, the infirmities of age, and the uncertainty of sudden injury or illness -- the social safety net and education). This is what I meant up above by "secular humanism," a long tradition upon which Americans were the first to built a government, and a tradition that is still alive and growing in democratic nations and institutions around the world. And every day brings evidence that many who control our government believe in very little to none of that tradition. That quote above wasn't written about Bush, by the way -- it was written by Kissinger (that bleeding heart liberal) to describe how Napoleon came to power.

I feel, as does Glaser, that the number of people who don't believe in this system are relatively few, and that we must appeal to the others in order to secure our (small d) democracy. From your post, as with conversations with many people I know, people can get tired of two parties hurling excrement at one another across the room, and his is one strategy to forward "progress" as we've known it since the renaissance. Yours, a partisan approach outside the current electoral realities of the US, I think is pretty valid as well (which is why I'm not as angry at Ralph Nader as so many are, whatever I think of him personally).

As designers, though, I think we have a more direct (or less suspect) line into our culture's heart than an avowed politician. Americans have been suspicous for ages of the textual catch-phrase, and done properly (but explicitly) we can ask people about these very values viscerally -- I think this is appropriate. (Jeff J, this goes for you too!) I personally think that Glaser's buttons are a bit pat, and perhaps too easily dismissed (I don't see how "OIL - WAR" is any more reasoned or persuasive than your average protest puppet.)

For example, and this is laying it on a bit thick, we could ask in the context of Christian tolerance why the Abu Ghraib abuses could happen at the hands of our society, especially as Christ himself was a captive at the mercy of a more powerful nation. Have we learned nothing? Are our leaders no better than Christ's tormentors? Now, this is the sort of thing that makes a fine editorial, but certainly it would be more powerful by far as a poster or what have you, because it could not only be direct and explicit, but in graphic form it's could directly escape associating a religious figure with a politcal message (if you tried, that is). Don't get me wrong, I think most protest graphics are cathartic for their makers. But if we're aiming for humanism, then let's forward it where we can. (Something more secular might be nice, and there are surely many possibilities that aren't atop my head, but since we're still waiting on the first agnostic president, it'll do for now.)

Maybe that means being a Democratic partisan for this election. But remember, they've gone from being fiscally irresponsible segregationists to their current state in less than a generation, so in the long run, adherance to principle counts for more than party loyalty.

(phew! that's quite long, I feel like I'm posting on a different genre of blog... sorry for taking so much space, though I tried to wait until the bustle died down before filing this one in...)

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:02 AM
Steven’s comment is:

The violence of war causes as many problems as it solves. And one country pre-emptively attacking another country under the guise of "defending freedom" or "bringing democracy to a people" is a frightening recipe for all-out global carnage, if not nuclear winter.

The death penalty neither deters the crime nor does it bring back the murdered. It's just eye-for-an-eye, old-world vindictiveness. Isn't it much more of a punishment to have a murderer spend the rest of his days in jail, staring at the wall, thinking of his crime, knowing that he'll never again be free?

And why is it that the "rights" of the unborn should supercede the freedoms of those already born? The moral judgement of abortion being good or bad is a personal choice, belonging to the pregnant woman, not to be decided by law or dogma.

Jeff, these three issues, while all dealing with the life and death, are completely different when it comes to context.

I think Glaser's "Light Up the Sky" protest is very compelling, even if it is a bit derivative of the anniversary spotlights. But then again, maybe his idea has greater significance because it takes that reference and bends it back on itself.

Well that, and the fact that it just happens to be taking place on my birthday. ;-)

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:28 AM
Jeff J’s comment is:

Matt wrote: If I could have it my way, I would take abortion completely off the political agenda.

Unfortunately abortion is and will remain a key political issue because of politicians like John Kerry...

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:55 AM
Jeff J’s comment is:

...and until the Democratic party awakens to the hypocrisy of the "no war, pro-abortion" philosophy.

On Jun.12.2004 at 12:59 AM
Jeff J’s comment is:

The moral judgement of abortion being good or bad is a personal choice, belonging to the pregnant woman

Stephen, I respectfully disagree. How can murder be a "personal choice?" There may be many reasons why abortion remains legal in this country, but the biggie is this: the victim has no voice. The systematic genocide of the unborn must stop.

P.S. You would honestly say putting Hitler or Bin Laden in a jail cell -- with a warm bed and three square meals a day -- is justice to his victims? That's outrageous.

On Jun.12.2004 at 01:18 AM
diana’s comment is:

Am I the only one who sees this hypocrisy? Where are the posters and buttons and AIGA conventions and designers voicing outrage against abortion?

Why don't we just temporarily sterilize everyone so that there won't be a need to ever terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Would-be parents could just go through an application process to reverse the treatment and some bureaucrat can decide whether or not these people meet the requirements (perhaps they can also do a credit check). That way, the more important factor, like the quality of the life of the child, will be positively impacted. I agree that abortion is ugly, violent, and painful, but not allowing individual women to choose for themselves punishes the child and the mother, and potentially our society. There are already so many children who need loving homes.

On Jun.12.2004 at 01:37 AM
Erik S’s comment is:

The violence of war causes as many problems as it solves. And one country pre-emptively attacking another country under the guise of "defending freedom" or "bringing democracy to a people" is a frightening recipe for all-out global carnage, if not nuclear winter.

Well, not really. War is horrific. However, because of the selfish decisions of man, it seems to be unavoidable. I'm not sure of what problems you're referring to but in the case of Iraq, if you were to hear from the numerous Iraqi citizens (as well as US troops) rather than nightly news, you'd get a radically different perspective of the "justness" of this war. And as far as "pre-emptively attacking"- they were given more opportunities than I can count to adhere to and come clean on the UN resolutions from the FIRST gulf war and never did. There was nothing preemptive about this war. Ironically, 9/11 didn't have as much to do with Iraq as folks would like to believe.

The death penalty neither deters the crime nor does it bring back the murdered. It's just eye-for-an-eye, old-world vindictiveness. Isn't it much more of a punishment to have a murderer spend the rest of his days in jail, staring at the wall, thinking of his crime, knowing that he'll never again be free?

In this, you are absolutely right. The death penalty in this country does little, if any, to deter violent crime. The reason: because of our legal system and the appeals process, capital punishment (when actually followed through on) is never handled quickly. Inmates are left to languish for years on end, their sentence itself having long lost any value of deterence. For an accurate picture on cause and effect between capital punishment and violent crime, a better idea is to look at rates of countries like Singapore, Thailand, UAE, etc.

And why is it that the "rights" of the unborn should supercede the freedoms of those already born? The moral judgement of abortion being good or bad is a personal choice, belonging to the pregnant woman, not to be decided by law or dogma.

I agree, the "rights" of the unborn shouldn't automatically supercede the "rights" of those already born, any more than my rights would supercede yours. Our rights are equal- none being more legitimate than the other. As far as "choice" goes, I also am very pro-choice: I know most women (well into the high 90% range) have a CHOICE to have sex and risk the results. Other than the less than 1% of abortions performed because of rape or incest, the VAST majority of abortions are performed on babies who's mother had the CHOICE to become pregnant. You used the word "rights" above but left out the accompanying "responsibility".

Whatever the case, I have yet to ever receive a clear and persuasive argument reconciling a pro-choice stance (which results in a death of innocent) and an anti-death penalty (resulting in the death of guilty).

On Jun.12.2004 at 02:23 AM
debbie millman’s comment is:

Try reading this.

On Jun.12.2004 at 03:00 AM
Erik S’s comment is:

I did. You're point????

On Jun.12.2004 at 03:26 AM
debbie millman’s comment is:

I was simply offering up a link with a point-of-view.

Here is another one, in case you are interested.

On Jun.12.2004 at 03:39 AM
Rob’s comment is:

1. With grace and clarity, help educate and raise awareness about this country's 31 year old ongoing atrocity of killing unborn children. Over 38 million between 1973-2001, less than 1% of those for reasons of rape or incest. I've been firmly on both sides of the fence and I choose my words very carefully when I say it's nothing short of a holocaust.

While I applaud your goals to use design to help further your poliitcal views, I think that this whole conversation which started out as a review/discussion of an AIGA event and the use of design to further politlcal messages, was purposely turned in a non-design direction by Jeff J's post.

Perhaps I would have been able to ask Mr. Glaser in person why so many designers from the Left can be so outraged over the Iraq war violence, yet remain silent (or even supportive) over the violence against 1 million+ unborn, innocent Americans every year in the US.

Really, what was the point of this loaded question so blatently snuck in as relating to design? Look, personally I could care less where any of us stand on politics, religion, etc. What you CHOOSE to think, believe, etc...is your CHOICE. I really don't want to see SPEAK-UP become a center for arguments that have nothing at all to do with DESIGN and everything to do with inflaming people's personal views on things that really don't have any impact on our work as designers.

I'm not saying that the pro-choice/anti-abortion issue isn't important but I don't think this is the place to be discussing it. I come here to read and learn about design not to get pissed reading people's misguided political views.

And let's face it, with issues as volatile as the one presented here, there's going to be on consensus and no agreement. You want to discuss the design merits of anti-abortion posters which tend to rely on over-blown graphic imagery and sans serif type—to send their message. Of course my personal reaction aside, most of them are poorly designed and their only goal is not so much to inform or educate, but to intimidate or create false impressions.

That's it. I'm off my soap box. Now, let's get back to design and leave the politics to Andrew Sullivan's Blog and Glenn Reynold's Blog.

On Jun.12.2004 at 05:28 PM
Matt’s comment is:

Jeff...no offense, but I believe that was a rather artless response. It is sentiment such as the kind you displayed that attempts to simplify an issue into a "this-or-that" proclivity.

Matt (Waggner)...appreciate the pretty well written response. However, I did not claim to have a partisan approach. I was simply making an observation of American culture and how tendencies of the majority are preyed upon in different mediums. I do, however, have opinions that may be considered "leftist" or, perhaps, what a Democrat might support. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm a loyalist to the Dems either.

I completely agree with you when you suggest "adherance to principle" is more important than party loyalty. Basic founding principles are so far from sight these days it sickens me. The fact that anyone can claim to know whats right and wrong/good and bad for every single person in this country outside of those basic principles is something too authoritarian for humans, being the overly concious animals that we are.

On Jun.12.2004 at 07:06 PM
Matt Waggner’s comment is:

(2ndNature) Matt—sorry if I misrepresented what you said, I was just thinking when you mentioned "third parties" that Americans are more likely to listen to Nader or Perot than Granny D because their aims are simple – "make me president" – and we know that acting on our sympathies towards a candidate doesn't require a huge investment of our time—we just vote.

It's that same tendency – evaluating our required investment – that encourages us to approach an image, because we don't expect complexity from them. (Chris Ware's comics and the Beatkit project are great examples of design that can be complex and subversive within a familiar language.) I think that's how complex "political" or otherwise social messages function best these days, for better or worse.

On Jun.13.2004 at 03:54 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

As Milton said on Tuesday, the side that succeeds in lowering the rhetorical temperature stands a good chance of cutting through all the noise of protest. Basically, “it’s a design problem”.

Ah, but rhetoric is what sells. And what sells is what people want in the media. The reality is the current parties prefere rhetoric. It's easier to produce, sell, and digest. Why complicate things by going after the current non-voting population with engaging and open discussion of issues? ;o)

What will it take for a third party to bring change to the political climate? Is design enough to solve this problem, or is there more to it than that?

We need to redesign our current voting and electoral system. Until then, 3rd parties will always be in the minority.

Am I the only one who sees this hypocrisy?

No...you are not the only one that boils complex issues down into simple, opinion-laden rhetoric where one can then toss out 'hypocrite' to prove nothing. ;o)

I feel, as does Glaser, that the number of people who don't believe in this system are relatively few

Then how does one explain our pathetic voter turnouts? Perhaps these people don't think the system is broken, but they seem to have on incentive to vote.

As for light up the sky, well, more power to him, though I'm seeing that as more rhetoric than anything. Really no different than talking about putting Reagan on the $10 bill. It's a symbol of something much more complex than most of us (myself included) really understand. Just like Arbortion is an oversimplified issue in politics that folks like Jeff (and many politicians) refuse to discuss via any POV other than that of a fundamentalist.

On Jun.14.2004 at 12:43 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

but they seem to have on incentive to vote.

Er...DON'T have AN incentive...

On Jun.14.2004 at 01:18 PM
Eric deRuiter’s comment is:

Ah, but rhetoric is what sells. And what sells is what people want in the media. The reality is the current parties prefer rhetoric. It's easier to produce, sell, and digest. Why complicate things by going after the current non-voting population with engaging and open discussion of issues? ;o)

Yes, rhetoric does sell. But sometimes design does. Sometimes the high road does work. There is a lot of noise to contend with to get your message out there, much less accepted and embraced. And once it's out there the Karl Rove will have a field day with it.

I look at it using an analogy of Microsoft and Linux or Apple. Linux or Apple is a better alternative, but Microsoft is perceived a being the best choice because it's the biggest. Notice how Microsoft has only gotten worse as it grows, just like the two parties.

Perhaps before anything we have to find what to design. It's not going to just be a good design that will be necessary, but something and someone behind that. A bold vision. A leader. Someone with ideas worth backing up with design to brand them as a change worth getting behind. But who will that person be, and when? Certainly not this election, as the lesser of two evils mentality is at a fever pitch, as well it should be.

We need to redesign our current voting and electoral system. Until then, 3rd parties will always be in the minority.

I agree completely. Unfortunately the electoral college won't be going away anytime soon as the majority of states would loose power if they were to make this change. At this stage in the game I would be happy with some assurances that the voting won't be rigged this fall.

As for light up the sky, well, more power to him, though I'm seeing that as more rhetoric than anything...

I think the feel of Light Up The Sky will lend a more solemn and serious feel to the protest. The typical view people have of protesters (hippies with puppets chanting horrifically bad slogans) doesn't lend an air of credence to the whole affair. There is a view that protest is un-American, when in reality we want the same thing for America (security) as the Republicans. It's a matter of how to achieve that in where our views are opposed, and this seems to be a step in the right direction of getting that message across. That John said NBC probably wouldn't cover it was very disheartening.

This looks to be another solution that is well designed:

http://www.signalorange.net/

I came across that link here, which unfortunately isn't accepting members or else I would link to Light Up The Sky there:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33677

On Jun.14.2004 at 02:37 PM
Jeff J’s comment is:

this whole conversation which started out as a review/discussion of an AIGA event and the use of design to further politlcal messages, was purposely turned in a non-design direction by Jeff J's post.

Rob, the issue of abortion is an important one. Mr. Glaser (a designer who uses his profession to further political messages) is promoting a project that reminds me of the hypocrisy many designers within the democratic party share.

Yes, death in war is awful. But the systematic killing of the unborn in this country is far worse. Thousands upon thousands dead in the name of "personal choice."

And what do these hypocrite designers do? They design posters and buttons to campaign against candidates who oppose death-on-demand abortion. Then they vote for politicians like John Kerry who actively support giving mothers this option of killing their unborn children. That, my fellow designers, is a tragedy.

I've said enough. I won't interrupt the discussion any more.

On Jun.14.2004 at 03:05 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

Rob, the issue of abortion is an important one.

To you? Yes. But to this thread?

reminds me of the hypocrisy many designers within the democratic party share.

Again, you are using the term 'hypocrisy' in a way that is way to vague. Your are over simplifying the issues, and neglecting to point out that, at that level, hypocrisy is prevalent everywhere regardless of party affiliation.

You are part of the problem. Not the solution.

That's not meant to be a insult, either. I'm simply pointing out that rhetoric (which I partake in as well) gets us no where. But that's what people like (as your posts so eloquently proved).

On Jun.14.2004 at 05:03 PM