This is the progress I have made on 'Chapter Two: Context and Themes' so far, I still have a few more theorists to add before I go back through and make sure it is all written and referenced properly. At the moment this is just what has come out of my head and I understand it can and will be written a lot better.
George Boas takes the fair approach that although people may have the same label of profession or practice, their intentions, moral and attitudes can differ greatly and they can present very different problems to society on a range of levels (1947 : 270). In relation to responsibility, Boas uses the analogy that it is not that one person is making sounds and another is making pictures, it is about the ‘kinds’ of sounds and pictures that they presented to society. This moves the focus away from the media and tools of the creative process and leaves the focus on the intentions of the individual, inherently making the sense of social responsibility a very personal thing. Another issue raised in ‘The Social Responsibility of the Artist’ is that the purpose of an artwork does not remain the same forever. It is also possible that it will be appreciated for a different purpose or reason entirely, for example appreciating artwork for its pure aesthetic and not for its deeper message is totally understandable. It is unknown whether this shift in judgement will be positive or a negative but one thing is for sure, that the artist is not in control of the interpretations of his work: ‘as soon as one lives, breathes, speaks, acts, one runs the risk of being misunderstood.’ [RELATE TO BARTHES?]
However, Boas goes on to describe the concept of the interpretation being entirely dependent on the thoughts of the interpreter as being ‘sheer nonsense’ because the physical contents image itself limits the concepts that a viewer can draw from it. This leads to the belief that the responsibility for artwork lies somewhere between the creator and the receiver, and where the mark lies on this scale is dependent on the thoughts and actions of both parties.
This is where Milton Glaser’s ‘Road to Hell’ becomes relevant. The Road to Hell is a list of eleven questions which ask designers to what levels they would go to to deceive their audience. The questions become increasingly difficult with the first being about making a package seem bigger than it actually is and the last being designing an ad for a product which could eventually cause the user’s death. It forces creatives to think about their morals in relation to their practice and the various stages of difficulty in answering the questions shows that a sense of social responsibility is not a black and white concept. It is a scale which creatives have their place within.
Milton Glaser’s approach to this topic is that being lied to is an all too common occurrence in today’s consumer society ( ). We are lied to so often that we are becoming immune to it and are starting to accept it as normality. In his essay ‘Ambiguity and Truth’ he gives examples and analogies of how we are deceived by advertising and states that as a society ‘we can no longer recognise them as lies’ and ‘the assault has changed our brains and our view of reality and truth.’ In relation to social responsibility, it is clear that the people running these campaigns either do not feel a sense of responsibility to their audience or they are not acting on it. It gives the impression that there are heroes and villains of design, those who care and those who don’t, but the truth is that there is no distinctive line between the two.
Glaser advises in this interview not to ‘get stuck in your own belief system’ (2009) which suggests that you have to venture outside what you believe in to explore other viewpoints. This could be taken in two ways, either going against your beliefs and actively seeking the opposing viewpoint or it could just mean venturing into new and unknown territories. In relation to social responsibility, only working for causes within your belief system can provide you with a strong moral grounding, but maybe it results in missing out on exploring your full creative potential.
Tibor Kalman’s manifesto (1998) takes the approach that creative people nowadays are working to serve the corporate committees and as a result are creating work void of passion or real thought. 'Our culture is corporate culture.' It used to be the opposite of this, but the commercial potential of culture was recognised and taken advantage of. He does provide some hope that there are some entrepreneurs who 'understand that culture and design are not about fatter wallets, but about creating a future.' These individuals are described as lunatics which tells us that this a very small minority of people who are willing to go against the standard procedures of corporate committees. The manifesto advises to 'use their money to change the world' which implies that creatives need to make the most of the situation they are in by still still working for corporations but using the projects to create the best possible outcome for society. In comparison to similar manifestos by Ken Garland (1964) and Adbusters (2000), this seems to be the most realistic and reasonable proposal of a solution.
‘First Things First’ (Garland, 1964) does not seem to acknowledge that contributing to society through their work can be as much of a gimmick for selling products as generic advertising and it gives the impression that a wholly ethical and moral practice is achievable in the industry.
Adbusters’ renewed manifesto seems to say that as soon as you tackle a social issue rather than directly using your skills just to sell a product, your moral conscious as a creative is somehow clearer and your skills are being put to better use. The manifesto lists 'cultural interventions and social marketing campaigns' as examples of 'more worthy' uses for their skills, yet there is no mention of the potential moral controversy of producing work for these causes. 'Commercial work has always paid the bills' tells us that this is the main source of work for creatives and advertising is one of the more stable areas of the creative industries to be involved in. It also suggests that at the end of the day, the priority for individuals is to make money which is understandable as this is a job. However, as they want the focus to shift, the question needs to be asked whether they would be willing to compromise profit for stronger moral grounding.
1,053 words
No comments:
Post a Comment