Ken Garland's 1964 manifesto entitled First Things First, stated that creative designers were wasting their talents on meaningless things like selling cigarettes and dog biscuits. He suggested a "proposal of reversed priorities" and that it was unethical for designers to 'waste' their talent.
This was somewhat forgotten about until 2000 when Adbusters, an anti-capitalist magazine published the First things first manifesto of 2000. This was a political group who did things like tear down McDonald's billboards and replace them with spoofs, of change the ESSO logo to read E$$O in hope to crush the adverting world. This to we seems to me like a group of wanna-be rebels reacting and the events of Tyler Durdens 'Project Mayhem' in David Fincher's 1999 film: Fight Club. Quotes from this manifesto like "manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best" mirror Quotes from the film (based on Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 book, adapted by screenwriter Jim Uhls) like "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."
Fight Club uses a very strong outlook on society that its full of the average Joe who "buys things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like." Fight club also contains a very negative view on consumerism and that society deems rich people somehow superior to others. "You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank.
You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet.
You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap
of the world." This I feel displays the idea that the whole country following this regime of capitalism and with such a strong divide in rich and poor created bitter, angry, pissed off Tyler Durden, who claims to be "Free in every way that you are not." This was, because he accepted that this system was unfair, and decided not to be a part of it. He though losing all hope is freedom, as "It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything." "He had a plan. And it started to make sense in a Tyler sort of way. No
fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter
truly slide." Its my opinion that a character like Tyler Durden and the film Fight Club is the very perfect way in film of describing the useless and entrapment of consumerism, and the effects on the poor. "We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession... The things you own, end up owning you." These powerful words seem to make more sense than politicians do these days.
Coming back to the Manifesto, this designed based call also stated "Charitable causes and other information designed based projects urgently require our expertise and help." This is a factor I agree with, if designers, or at least the more wealthy ones, could devote money and time into producing advertising and other campaigns to help the less fortunate this would be a fantastic ideal. However, to state that and advertiser producing work, for ethical or unethical products, is doing and unethical thing by accepting the consumer based and capitalist system is unfair, which this manifesto seems to portray. As starting out student at work they don't have a luxury of choosing jobs and bosses, and simply are trying to begin their career in the industry and pay their bills. I feel its the experienced and wealthy who should devote to projects like this, as the some signatures belong to millionaires who should not and not look down upon those less wealthy to be doing it too.Companies who employ sweat shops to make products like Primark should not be allowed to do so, their should be laws against it, but this doesn't mean poor people in Britain should be looked down upon for shopping there, as it is the brands and laws at fault.
Victor Papanek stated "Most things are designed not for the needs of people but for the needs of the manufacturers to sell people." For example, he made a radio run by elephant dung, which is a product that the poor people in Africa could actually use. His book "Design for the real world" - 1971 though made excellent points and came up with good idea was written in a somewhat condescending manner that offended some young designers and I feel somewhat rejected an audience.Some General rules for ethics have been suggested by philosophers such as:
Subjective Relativism
This was the idea that people should decide for themselves what is ethical, but this theory can easily lead to social anarchy.
Cultural Relativism
This was that what is and isn't ethical was determined by time and place. For example: This images show cultural differences in what is acceptable to wear determined by society in a cartoon. Even women seem to be fine to be seen wearing bikinis if its by a pool or beach, but if they were in their underwear in the street it would be horrifyingly humiliating, even though its the same amount of clothing. This is because different public places even have a sense of whats acceptable and cultural relativism. Divine and Command Theory
This was the that good and bad is determined by religion and god, and that the holy book decides what is ethical and unethical. This I feel clearly can't work as the only method in the world as wars have been started over religion and terrorism happens from the misinterpretation holy books. This I think is a theory already surrounded by death and therefore is not suitable alone. Not that I disagree with religious people, I just feel as a rule for order and ethics it isn't suited.
Kantanism
The final theory was by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), a philosopher who thought actions and will should be based on moral rules. This was called Categorical Imperative. These were two main points to think about before acting to decide if your action is ethical.1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time Universalize. This was essentially about exacting maxim, if you could see the truth in your actions, and if every one could behave in this way would it be okay? If the over all reaction would be positive, then it would be an ethical action, and vise-versa.
2. Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends to themselves, and never only as means to an end. This explained that you should not use people only to benefit yourself.
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill thought that if you do something, you must see a broad positive outcome to that action for it to be ethical. Essentially, he thought that acting ethical means sacrificing utility.
Social Contract Theory
The final theory was by philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1603 - 1679) and Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778.) This was that an agreement between individuals that held together by a common interest was ethical. This of course would have to require many individuals to be successful such as a society of people, as apposed to two who could just want one person dead and claim it ethical.
I found this lecture interesting and thought provoking but did strongly disagree with our lecturer who refuses to give to charities because he believes "its the worlds problems that cause poverty, and it should not be relied on by the donations of the hard working citizens to fix it." I think this is absurd as charities like Cancer Research, and Help for Heroes could help many people, even people close to you and if you're out drinking, or at a restaurant, and a volunteer in their spare time is gathering as much donations as they can then if your out socializing spending money on luxuries then you can afford a pound to help less fortunate people. Its not about fixing the whole problem alone, its about everybody chipping in and doing what they can afford to cure things like cancer. Yes the goverment could do more, but rather than leaving it up to someone else to deal with we could all together help by doing even the smallest things, like giving a pound to that volunteer if you're out.
No comments:
Post a Comment