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.