Manifesto Analysis

We analysed these manifestos in level five but I can see a relevance to my context of practice topic for this year so I am going to analyse them again on more specific grounds, trying to relate my findings back to my argument. 

First Things First - Ken Garland

They want a 'reversal of priorities in favour of the more useful and more lasting forms of communication.' They go on to say that they hope that the public 'will tire of gimmick merchants, status salesmen and hidden persuaders' which could be considered quite a naïve approach to how the industry functions. The manifesto does not seem to acknowledge that contributing to society through their work can also be a gimmick for selling products and it gives the impression that a wholly ethical and moral practice is achievable in the industry. 

There is a sense of the blame being placed elsewhere for this as the manifesto speaks of how they were taught and how they have 'persistently' been told that advertising was the best place for them. There is mention of 'worthwhile purposes' which require their skills but there is no mention of what these purposes may be, and because of this, it seems little thought has gone into the potential corruption of these supposedly more valued causes. 

First Things First 2000 - Adbusters

This 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. 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. 

The manifesto states that 'consumerism is running uncontested' and says something needs to be done to challenge it, it suggests a 'reversal of priorities'. Does this mean that the would be willing to see morals as a priority over money, and if not, maybe it would be more appropriate to suggest a change of approach instead.

Fuck Committees - Tibor Kalman

This manifesto 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. 

This manifesto 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. This seems to be the most realistic and reasonable proposal out of all three of these manifestos.