There were a number of threads of discussion in this area that came from discussing the idea of the union or a standardised body. We struggled with (and probably will through this exercise) to identify the one area that would make for good ethical standing in design. For Ben this was ‘honesty’. I find this really interesting as I completely agree in ethical terms, however I cannot see how this would ever be possible when ‘design’ by its very nature is subjective and a universally accepted understanding of images/culture would be needed.
Here are two videos showing a specific example (as discussed) of how deception occurs in advertising in very blatant ways and in my opinion proves that honesty can never be anything but a subjective matter. for the simple fact that not everyone will be aware that the images portrayed are a dishonest representation of the subject and the false promise made by the manufacturer. It is interesting to me that if ‘honesty’ is the agreed criteria of moral practice, that we shall need forge a more detailed mode of operation later on should we decide to pursue our own manifesto.
Paired with the “homogenisation of design because of advertising”. Design made by designers for designers. Graphic design is no substitute for good quality products.
Dove animation for retouching
Emily mentioned that ads in Marie Claire claim to have a restriction on their retouching, but that they had no responsible for 3rd party content, for example; all of the ads within the mag that are highly retouched. This leads onto advertising guidelines, is there a legal obligation to only have a certain percentage of the magazine as advertising space?
Also of particular interest to me was the recent Citroën Lennon ad. This is an example of the translation of imagery internationally and our emotional/culture values. Interesting that the French had enough knowledge of the faces to read the images enough to get the message and make assumptions, however meaning was stronger and therefore out of balanced for the average british person, who were outraged at the distortion of the image for the sale of an unrelated product. Toscani comes to mind as using emotionalhere though did the same except his images did not have socially specific history. His images too though were arbitrary to the product.
Is there a need to distinguise between design and advertising? Are they the same thing?
Comments
I do think that it is still possible to make a distinction between advertising and design even though with many pieces of visual communication it isn’t always clear cut. There are still some areas (although an ever decreasing amount) of visual communication that aren’t trying to sell you something. Many of these items have a fairly mundane functional existence for example, instruction manuals, timetables, forms and public service information. If visual communication was shown as a scale with informing at one end and persuading at another these examples would be nearer the informing end. Although I think that it is incredibly difficult to find examples of design that aren’t trying to guide the user in some way so they could still be considered persuasive to an extent. However I think a lot of the areas that weren’t traditionally considered a form of advertising now are, as Emily mentioned book covers and also cigarette packaging is the only legal form of cigarette ‘advertising’ left in this country. So not all design is advertising whereas a lot of advertising is designed.
Just as the number of areas of visual communication that are utilised as advertising space is growing there is a growing area of advertising that are not ‘designed’ by designers in the traditional sense. For instance campaigns that employ word of mouth promotion, viral distribution and social media and ones that engage the public in creating the adverts for them like Oxo’s ‘The Oxo Factor’.
I agree with what you say Eleanor. I particularly like the idea of a visual communication continuüm with the purely functional (and possibly rational at one end) and the persuasive, selling (possibly dubious) work at the other with lots of shades of grey in between. These shades of grey are, of course, where most of the design we encounter and work on sits.
I guess we all probably felt the examples given by TDC about their experience in Dubai and the excessive desire of the client to place branding everywhere were pretty shocking and beyond what we would like in our own environment. Despite this a trend does some to be developing throughout the world and I wouldn’t rule out seeing it in this country too. Our union or professional body might have political aims such as a policy to support measures to avoid these outcomes. i’m not necessarily saying that i think it should but it’s worth throwing the thought out there as to whether our organisation should have any stated objectives outside of a code of conduct spelt out in the manifesto.
It is interesting that Marie Claire have taken the step to ensure none of their models are retouched; they are obviously aware of the media savvy nature of their readership. It’s a cunning means of differentiating themselves from the competition, and it will be interesting to see if other publications follow suit.
It would be interesting to see a DOGME 95 type manifesto applied to a fashion magazine, all the models in natural lighting, no constructed sets, shot with hand held cameras, and all other ‘artificial’ elements removed from the construction of the image.
Is there something paradoxical about trying to remove artifice from the fashion industry, when artifice is one of its defining themes?
Yes, at present for me this is the main interest of this whole area of discussion, that we are trying to find order and regulation in an industry that relies on a certain degree of deception, or more mildly putting it ‘manipulation’. I think that Ben’s description of the Continuüm is perhaps the best method by which to measure whether design output is morally neutral.