Ken Garland - 1964, Manifesto
Signed by a bunch of famous creatives and politicians.
Produced in the boom of consumerism.
Designers were becoming angry that many other designers were wasting their talents working on projects which did not mean any thing, selling dog biscuits etc.
It is unethical to waste talent to profit other people.
Replaced the 1964 manifesto.
Re-published and re-drafted by adbusters in 2000.
A journal of the mental environment.
The re-draft meant the tone changed slightly, it became much more critical and venomous.
It is aimed more at advertising.
Design is ultimately about getting paid and getting a job.
They talk about graphic designers and advertisers as if they are the same which they are not.
All we do is make people buy things that they do not need.
Accusing us of being complicit in a system of global exploitation.
Encouraging people to become involved with things which will make them get into a life of debt (credit cards)
How do we judge what is worthy?
The tone of this text is becoming very preachy.
if you work to market or advertise companies who make any sort of consumer items in some way we are being unethical - we are perpetuating consumerism.
We should be using our talents to smash capitalism and start a revolution.
Use of visual communitive talents to combat captialism.
Appropiate adverts to tell a funny message
In favour of visual communication as politics
Meme warfare - What happens if we try and do something really great with someones talent.
Just because we are working for a specific company it does not mean that individual people are unethical.
It is easy to be ethical if you have money.
The designers who signed the manifesto do not need to worry about money or living. They have successful design studios and companies.
To be an ethical designer is to do more with our talents than just take a job.
Adbusters is a lightweight version of a lot of theories which came out in the 1970's.
Theorise the way in which vista communication could save the world.
Victor Papnek - not an academic. He writes very passionately, too passionately.
He book Design for the Real World - most design was wasteful and exploitative
he sees a grander purpose for us, he wants people to use their skills and do something for meaningful.
He has a flamboyant tone.
Concept for a car bumper made out of beer cans and planks of wood. This was made for an American company like Ford. The company did not change it because they would have to add $500 ontop of the price. He designed the bumper and drove his car into the senate building which got him arrested. His idea is not just that peoples talents are being wasted but that people are ignoring their design solutions.
According to Papanek - there are a whole rack of problems in society which need attention. It is essentially a cry for ethics. We are just touching the surface when there are more important things to be looking at.
We cannot escape capitalism. As designers and creatives we are going to have to work in this capitalist system.
Subjective relativism - No one can tell me what is right or wrong, I will just go on in life thinking I am right.
We have got to have some framework to decide what is right and wrong.
Cultural relativism - it depends on the place/time
This is flawed.
No all cultural relevances are the same.
We must have a set of global shared values because we all have to live on the same planet.
The society which we live in will have a series of shared values.
Devine Command Theory - Defined by God.
It is not based on reason it is based on a person being given a set of rules.
Following these rules means that they are ethical.
One of the first people to try and formulate what is ethical and what is not.
A maxim - a statement about what the act we are doing really means.
If we can take that maxim and say 'if everyone did what I did' would that be ok?
It is logical not emotional.
If we don't give to charity the maxim becomes that 'I will never give to charity' if everyone thought the same then charity would become redundant.
Kant said that this is unethical.
It is against reason.
If we use other people (lie or manipulate) that is not moral
The use that our actions have for society.
Ethical if it increases social happiness.
Sometimes we could do something bad and everyone would benefit
If everyone did what ever they want would leave us with something similar to nature.
To have a society we must have the social contract - we all agree on laws regulations for the sake of the stability of the world.
Comes from a logic or reasoning
If we can look at ourselves and say that what we are doing is socially and ecologically responsible we are ethical.
He was about design fro benefitting all.
A radio which he designed which was made from rubbish in Africa.
Powered on Elephant dung.
He did not like how educated designers went into the third world thinking they are experts and know what to do.
He made a proposal of a product which is not for profit it is for the greater gain.
Tithe - old term for something which is given away for free.
We should devote 10% of our time to worthwhile ethical causes.
If everyone did that then the whole world will be improved.
Stefan Sagmeister does this for one year at a time.
