Second Group of Readings

In the second group of readings, the theme, obviously the ethics of design, was determining the proper approach to design. There was a divergence from what the 1964 manifesto preached, which was made clear through the "dead grotty" film clip. Design was focused on enticing the masses, rather than on the passion that had been present in design and print during the 18th century, where the mechanical production of such things was not, at the time, present. Designers and print masters took pride in their craftsmanship, rather than, later in the 19th century, where international conformity had grown. As Herbert Spencer says, typefaces grew fatter, and rather than being inventive, design and print was simply focused on competition. This relates well to the 60's manifesto, and the more current one written in response to it. The menial task of creating appeal through image, in other words, beauty and indulgence rather than beauty and tasteful, innovative visual language, was demeaning the work and profession of design. Although it is not completely tolerant, yet somewhat ignorant, of the need for design on unworthy products such as toothpaste. Average packages need a design of their own, however, to such elitist designers like the ones who gathered in the name of the First Things First manifesto, they seem to forget the necessity of throw-away design focusing on appeal and looking to stomp the competitor. Although, tasks such as designing a shampoo bottle can be left for the average "designer's designer," while things such as identity, and "sustainable" design shall be given to the more established and renowned designers in the field. As for ethical design, which is a transparent subject because the ethics of Susan Szenasy differ from those of the manifesto in that one discusses the objective of design, while the other expresses it's sustainability, it seems that there can be no actual determination of the subject. As for American Eagle, they claim to be sustainable in their own right, but does their purpose derive from product appeal, but rather can they prove themselves constant in the market, or is what they're doing really imperative to fashion and the era. In a sense, they do make sense because it seems this era is about competition and marketing and they do that very well considering the brand's popularity, but are they just another meaningless entry in the contest of lasting design? Therefore, the ethics of design lie in what each label stands for; by label, I mean the design firm and its intention. There are those who are focused on out-appealing the competitor, and there are those who strive to take design, and its purpose of message, to another, greater level. All things though, be they graphic, fashion, industrial, or furniture, need a designer, so the ethics of each are determined by, not what, but who is producing them.

Entry for first group of readings.

As we saw in Frasier, there is a difference between individual fancies, which also leads to a difference in individual consumption. Not consumption as in food but consumption in terms of what people purchase and what they look for.  In "Branding the Individual," the article speaks of how people can define who they are through what they buy, allowing the brand to speak for themselves. Like in Frasier, his father takes pride in his old, tattered, but still as comfortable than the day he bought it Barcalounger. Frasier, on the other hand, attempts to boast his "Wassily" chair and Eames Lounger, but his father, with concern for comfort rather than brand, is not impressed, nor does he even take notice of what Frasier is trying to tell him.  This is the concern for design that most people associated with presenting themselves as modern and professional have.  While someone like Frasier's father, a retired police officer, takes pride in alluding to his hard working man mantra; a guy who just wants to come home and sit in his favorite chair after a long day's work. This type of person is certainly not apprehensive about what the label says, as long as it does the job. Now, for someone like Frasier, with an interest in surrounding himself with righteous goods, will look for that designer brand, whether or not it actually does the job right or not, for instance, the Wassily chair didn't look too comfortable, however, it's modernist design, bearing all the essentials to a chair, but bending them in a stylistic and sheik way, caught Frasier's attention.  But it seems that it wasn't so much the actual visual and dimensional qualities of the chair that attracted Frasier, the reason he put it in his living room was because of it's brand.
In "No Logo," we see how the branding business works.  It is because, as Frasier has exemplified, people will go blindly for the brand without putting any thought towards primary importance of the jacket or sneaker.  This type of consumerism has led companies, such as Nike, the one mentioned throughout "No Logo," to divert the majority of their budgets to the brand name.  As this article was less about design, and more like an outcry for jobless American factory workers, it does relate to the same aspects of the the Eames lounger article as "Branding the Individual." It reinforces how the brand has become such a strong force in the market of nearly anything, that companies have sought out cheaper labor overseas, Therefore allowing them to spend more money on advertising and developing the brand.
This is much like the success of Fabien.  Calvin Klein goes to him for the photo shoot of his new underwear line for his well crafted, "oxygen" added, touch, but also the name Baron Fabien is also due to his name, and essentially, his brand if you will.

-"The Eames Lounge" compares the different types of success the a modernist designer piece of furniture with a more blue collar, practical purpose of the Barcalounger. Referrencing the same things Frasier has to say about the people who value labels as opposed to those who value comfort and accessability.

-"No Logo" makes note of the success of brand names, mainly Nike, and how that affects the budget scheme of such companies. Saying they sell out their domestic production facilities to cheaper overseas factories that will do the same work for less money with no regard for patriotism or countrymen with honest jobs.

-"Branding the Individual" is about how consumers rely on the brands they are partial to in order to present a certain image of themselves. Basically saying that the brand defines the Individual.

-"Bing! It's Fabien!" is a report on the vivacious designer Baron Fabien and how he works and who he works with. Basically giving a daily agenda and a quite humorous account of a Calvin Klein photo shoot with Marky Mark and Kate Moss.

seminar in D sign