FTF revisited

I went to the AIB (Arts Institute at Bournemouth) last week, to give a short talk about Eye and the commissioning and production processes that go on behind the magazine. This was followed by a general discussion that ranged in subject matter from technology to the cult of star designers. However the really hot topic was ethics in design in general, and the First Things First 2000 manifesto in particular.

The renewed interest in Ken Garland’s original 1964 manifesto was prompted in part by Andrew Howard’s article ‘There is such a thing as society’ in Eye no. 13. The article is now available to read in full on the Eye website. But there’s plenty more to be said. The manifesto may be a little gauche and confusing in places (did UK designers get butt toner?), but the idea that ‘Designers . . . are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse’ continues to strike a chord: are graphic designers part of the problem or part of the solution?

In the light of last November’s Eye Forum, and a ‘Being good’ piece by Lucienne Roberts in the forthcoming issue of Eye (no. 63 vol. 16), please treat this little blog as an opportunity to continue the debate. JLW

Comments

[Ole Ostring]

I think the manifesto is a valuable and necessary addition to the theory used in teaching graphic design students. It is, as Ken Garland has stated, a polemic, and it is not asking anyone to quit their current jobs. What it does, however, is create a debate.

As a student myself, I think the forthcoming graphic designers too easily accepts the status quo, much because the lack of debate in the Design business.

[Maria S. Garcia]

I am in disagreement with the thoughts expressed in the manifesto. While I understand that some designers may find its logic endearing, the actions called for must come within oneself in order for its ethics to matter or make a difference. There are personal intuitions that play a gigantic role as to whether the manifesto is taken as meaningful or a mere forgetful pep talk to the recipient. The designer is better off applying their efforts to the routine if they truly do not believe in the views expressed. And it’s not a matter as to whether the designer has to be completely immersed in the take charge, do or die mindset the manifesto asks for, simple actions within one's own community can be taken to make a change.

To me the manifesto is belittling and necessary to designers as needing mother’s advice to differentiate what’s good or bad in the world.