Design – A moral dilema
This article follows a blog by David Quay on the first things first manifesto in 2000, which I read on the Grafik blog. The manifesto argues that designers are using their skills entirely from commercial or advertising benefites. Basically, to sell products. It suggests that designers should take more of a moral stand on this issue. An excerpt featured in the Grafik article is below…
“We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, photographers and students who have been brought up in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable means of using our talents. We have been bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work of those who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as: cat food, stomach powders, detergent, hair restorer, striped toothpaste, aftershave lotion, before shave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodorants, fizzy water, cigarettes, roll-ons, pull-ons, and slip-ons. By far the greatest time and effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.”
The idea of morals in graphics is one that has always interested me. I suppose I have always thought of graphic design, or the vast amount of graphic design as being an immoral profession. Essentailly it is the same as marketing and advertising as trying to sell something. Trying to persuade someone they need something they probably don’t in a bid for them to part from the cash. I suppose I always hang on to the thought that design is about communication. It is about the getting a message across in the purest fashion. That somehow makes it seem more pure, surely communication is a good thing. The fact remains though that it is still communicating messages to sell. After all, even advertising for charities often aims to encourage donations by installing feelings of guilt, or shock. Obviously the cause is not for profit and therefore more moral but the technique and the goal is much the same.
I remember in college, learning about the theories behind many advertising campaigns. It consisted of selling mini eutopias to people who are unfulfilled. Creating needs by exploiting peoples insecurities. Obviously these sound horrendously immoral, but to be honest, as design usually follows either marketing or advertising, it falls into the same boat.
The Grafik article by David Quay also argues that there is little difference when distinguising between graphics for a museum or art gallery and graphics on consumer packaging and advertising. This again I found interesting and probably correct. Quay argues that often museums and art galleries charge for entrance, so what makes this so moral. Again the goal is the same and what is the difference between this and selling consumer products?
Also there is the question of practicality. It is all very well for people who are well established designers, who can pick and choose their work, but many can’t. The fact is the majority of the work that pays the bills will be for a cause of proffit. After all, it is this profit that pays for the designers in the first place. Obviously we would all like a profession that helps humanity in a profound and meaningful way, but it is not always possible to do just this. Instead we make a choice to take work on to support ourselves and our family instead which is still a moral reason.
Obviously I agree that there are some causes that require a moral standpoint. Tobacco advertising or something that can really harm your fellow man is a cause worth standing up for. But against all consumerism? surely that is impossible.
So what do you think? where do you think a designer should draw a moral line as to what he or she will or will not design for? Any opinions welcome.























