In order to better discern this convergence of the public and private, towards and through branding, I will attempt to discern a common logic, paradoxically, that we can summarise in the following way:
through standardisation and singularisation.
For a local authority, as for a commercial company, the first goal is to be singular, to stand out from others to exist in a competitive context – this is what makes Bourdieu say that “to exist is to differ”.
A brand is exclusive. Yet at the same time the brand has to unite, standardise, build itself in the image of the public’s idealised expecta-tions of seduction and comfort, which brings us back to Berkeley’s tree that I mentioned above, “to exist is to be perceived”. A brand is inclu-sive. Singularisation leads to renunciation but also, paradoxically, to the necessity of a consensus. Behind a consensus, everything is for the best. These last years have seen a rhetoric of virtue and authenticity develop: procedures are responsible, sustainable and fair, the green-washing of private businesses which become green and virtuous, as do local authorities who use their energy to tell us that they save it – both reassure us about our environment.
This endemic contradiction can only result in lukewarm graphic design, a visual ecumenism, here where design should be interrogating and giving value to a variety of viewpoints and to a critical approach.
The standardisation and the convergence of a high number of commer-cial and institutional brands are taking place in shared spaces – as seen in the inter-changeable branding of towns dreaming of becoming as international as Amsterdam, Lyon or Madrid. To give shape is also to abide by the rules. To be perceived, to exist for others, this consensual design finds its formal determiners in the stereotypes that it natural-ises, and its functional motivations in the order of things and the authorised discourse that it wants to renew.
The consensus is also a ratification of dominant models, as
Umberto Eco reminds us, conveying Foucault’s notion of disseminated
Three city brands: Amsterdam, Lyon, Madrid: Kessel Krammer, I Amsterdam, 2004. © Kessel Krammer. Jump Agency, OnlyLyon, 2007. © Jump Agency, 2007. Cros & Machín, MADrid about you, 2005. © D. R.
28 Number of signatories at the end of December 2013.
29 Adrien Zammit, interview with Pierre Bernard, 2008.
Vivien Philizot 42 Graphic Design and Metamorphoses of the Spectacle 43 power, in a text from 1979, to analyse the utopic forms of resistance
to power. “Never created by an arbitrary, top-level decision, power lives thanks to thousands of forms of minute or ‘molecular’ consensus.”
As an example: “it takes thousands of fathers, mothers and children who recognise themselves in the family structure before a power can base itself on the family ethic as institution.” 30
We also find this idea in the work of political philosopher Chantal Mouffe, for whom part of what is at stake for current demo-cratic societies consists in “neutralis[ing] the potential antagonism which exists in human relations” through the search for a rational consensus. 31 She pleads instead for recognition of dissensus, which is not the negation of consensus but its democratic extension. Dissensus is not to be taken literally as antonymic to consensus, i.e. as a disagree-ment, but rather as a coexistence of singular opinions that are not necessarily opposed, which have to agree on the points of disagree-ment. In this there is a very Wittgensteinian idea according to which all disagreement requires an a priori common space, a “form of life”, the precondition of a linguistic agreement.
If graphics through the prism of design reflect (in the sense of referring to an image) a world in which the difficulties of the human condition could be solved through visual communication, we might ask to what extent the problem would disappear with, or be obscured by, the simple fact of communicating the solution. When can the resolu-tion of the problem by design, or that which we show to be the soluresolu-tion, remove a form of antagonism necessary to the establishment of a critical discourse?
In Praise of Dissensus
The search for a consensus in design seems to be built on an obsession to resolve problems and conflicts. Is the resolution of problems by design a social act? On this subject, Daniel Van der Velden interrogates the use of the term “problem solver”. “Many designers still use the term ‘problem solving’ as a non-defined description of their task.
But what is the problem? Is it scientific? Is it social? Is it aesthetic?
Is the problem the list of prerequisites? Or is the problem the fact that there is no problem? 32 If the billboard has been a privileged site of expression since May 1968, not as a sheet of paper stuck on a wall but as a space of conflict, what is at stake now crystallises the surface of the screen, with the exception that it allows for a form of response, a healthy contradiction – a huge difference. Instead of scholastic responses to types of demands by types of answers which conceal their authoritarianism through standard forms, it is perhaps in considering the questions asked by Van der Velden as a whole that the designer can redefine his field of action, ready to accept, when necessary, that there is no problem to solve or that the resolution of the problem doesn’t have to be through design.
We have seen that the opposition between “commercial” and
“cultural” on which the “First Things First” manifesto was entirely founded no longer works. It now seems that we could substitute it for another distinction, between consensual and dissensual design.
It is perhaps in this light that we should read what the signatories of the manifesto were claiming – a “new kind of meaning”, or rather, to get closer to the etymology of the term dissensus, a sense of the plurality of the potential of a design.
With the idea of shedding more light on the designers who have defined this research, we went on to conduct three interviews with, firstly, Michael Bierut, followed by Pierre Bernard and ruedi Baur.
All three express, each in their own way, singular positions on these questions, whilst agreeing on certain essential points. →
30 Umberto Eco, Faith in Fakes: Travels in Hyperreality, Random House, London, 1998, p. 175.
31 Chantal Mouffe,
“La ‘Fin du politique’ et le défi du populisme de droite”, MAUSS, 2002 / 2, no 20.
32 Daniel Van der Velden,
“Research & Destroy: Graphic Design as Investigation”, dans Metropolis M, 2006.
Vivien Philizot 44 Graphic Design and Metamorphoses of the Spectacle 45 V. P. As you say in your text “Ten Footnotes”,
there is not always a clear border between information and persuasion, or at least, the nature of this distinction isn’t relevant. Do you think, neverthe-less, that one can establish criteria to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
design? What is, according to you, the line that designers should never cross?
You ended up signing the manifesto but you have a very critical take on it. What, for you, is relevant for today in this manifesto?
Michael Bierut
Designers, like doctors, should first do no harm. For me that means, among other things, not working with clients who have goals that one disapproves of, nor knowingly lying on their behalf or creating material that contrib-utes to the environmental, visual, or psychic pollution of the world we all share. (i personally find it really hard to work with people i don’t like who have goals i don’t respect, so avoiding them makes life easier for me all round.)
of course the key thing is knowing that you have the strength to say no. This means keeping yourself as unencumbered as possible as a designer, so that you never have to make a decision just for the money.
i have nothing against marketing in and of itself. Effective marketing is effective communication. We recently did a campaign to persuade new Yorkers to look both ways when crossing the street, and for drivers and cyclists to look out for pedestrians. We did a campaign that used exactly the same kind of “commercial rhetoric” one would use to sell any product. i see nothing wrong with that.
i signed the manifesto for one reason: in my opinion, and despite all its flaws, it single handedly succeeded in drawing attention to social issues in graphic design, something that is now commonplace. The debate it launched
— to which i contributed — continues to this day. That’s an impressive achievement, and the manifesto and its writers and its signatories deserve nothing but respect for that. ¶
V. P. The recent trends in visual commu- nication show that the borders between cultural, commercial and institutional domains are far from clear-cut. What are the distinctions that we can observe in contemporary graphic design?
We are aware that a certain number of institutions borrow tools and rhetoric from the world of advertising to commu-nicate in the public sphere, not in
an authoritarian and direct way, but by consensus, by taking “green and virtuous” positions. Do you think these messages use marketing strategies precisely because they are underpinned by existing power relations rather than by a real will to open a space of dialogue and creation?
Ruedi Baur
The separation between culture, commerce and the institution sadly no longer really corre-sponds to reality, if we consider the situation from the perspective of the quality of demand.
We find the same bad-mouthing, the same mediocrity and the same strategies directly inspired by marketing in any communications department, be it for a town, a ministry, a large cultural institution or a business. This single model, based on competition, the short term, visual populism and disrespect of the receiver, profoundly affects our society. it’s an obstacle to the quality and generosity that is necessary to design. luckily, there are exceptions, places where the will to do good, for and with the user, whether he be citizen or consumer, goes beyond the immediate and self-centred inter-ests of the client. Even more luckily, real desire to change continues and resurges, while firm and honest positions are chosen and stood by.
it’s on this fertile ground that real design can act, creating an affinity and overcoming differences between designer and client.
“re-examining” the notion of commissions and confronting problems that the subject at hand asks, both of which i insist on for quality design, doesn’t mean the client is the enemy but rather, that both sides work towards
a common objective. Then come the important differences that we shouldn’t play down: those that exist between convincing and informing, seducing and orientating, imposing and sharing, between private and public interests, but also between citizen and consumer, culture and entertainment. The loss of these distinc-tions does nothing to improve the designer’s conceptual approach, nor society. Disorienta-tion follows – this impression of disappropria-tion and of social insecurity that we can feel in our country.
But let’s return to the defining lines within contemporary graphic design. i would say that they are multiple and porous. The field of visual communication is vast and niche inter-ests, or even disinterinter-ests, have developed that don’t always correspond to real needs.
At the École nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, we have tried to revalue certain areas with the objective of linking up
approaches to types of research from outside our discipline. Publishing, for example, can be considered in relation to narration, or visual identity to systemic thought, typography to the culture of signs, etc. of course, no sectors want to be sealed off; indeed, it seems to me that today it’s all about cultivating the richness of different skills and approaches within this broad discipline. it’s at the edges rather than the centre that we will find renewal and links with society’s multiple and diverse needs.
The conceptual questions linked to meaning and systems theory seem to me today mas-sively undervalued unlike what i would call
“graphic effects”. This undervaluation gives a very limited and superficial image of graphic design. At the same time, it incites the use of simplified, purely formal models, often with no link to their context and based on the basic repetition of what is also shared by propa-ganda and advertising. graphic design deserves better than this. it has to reinvent itself based on our society’s enormous need for information, which is complex and frequently obscure. To make something readable is to make it accessible to the largest possible number.
Today, qualitative graphic design,
as we know and love it, seems to struggle to represent an important part of society’s visual messages, including those of the cultural sector. it misses out on almost all the cine-matographic sector, for example, and it is no longer possible to distinguish an experimental film from hollywood fare, judged solely from their posters. This means that certain semantic fields no longer correspond to graphic produc-tion, which limits its influence on a number of sectors. This also means that a large part of visual production escapes the reaches of experimental designers, tending, as a result, to become tacky. Certain politicians for example became aware of this prejudice which acts on industry in the same way. not all sectors are affected. i would insist however that the French State has been directly affected by this move towards tackiness, which discred-its it in the eyes of other States and discred-its own citizens. The recovery work to be done is enormous and it will begin with education.
For the first twenty years of their lives, our children are plunged in a supermarket aes-thetic. And those are the ones who are making an effort. look at the State’s school textbooks:
a visual disaster, and therefore a cultural disaster. note how public authorities speak to us. Can we feel respected faced with this visual mediocrity, and these consumerist dishwasher product strategies? i don’t think so. The civic contract, i dare say it, is broken by these representative bodies that represent them-selves in such a neglectful way. it’s not by painting signs green or by making them more interactive that we will manage to change things. The fatal error, common to French industry and to public administration is to have believed that marketing could replace design.
That the first should have the second at its service. We can see today the extent to which this domination has profoundly dismantled the spirit of companies and public institutions.
With a few exceptions, they have, in numerous cases, lost their identity.
Faced with this disaster, design is scarcely the miracle solution. it’s going to have to act
Vivien Philizot 46 Graphic Design and Metamorphoses of the Spectacle 47 the whole of the creative arts in 1987 to
reflect and act through the general Estates of Culture.³ it was already a question of commercial exploitation then, and graphic designers declared: “[…] When the transfer of knowledge and social and cultural exchange concern the greatest number, obligatory media coverage will no longer be that of the “mass media white noise”, and cheerful normalisa-tion. We believe in a humanist alternative.
The choice of communication is philosophical, moral and political, it’s a natural choice for society.”
i learnt from the graphic designer henryk Tomaszewski, in 1985, in Poland (and i’ve stood by it ever since!) that visual communication is only a source of pleasure and humanity when it’s free and built on veracity, honesty and confidence in individual relationships. it is here that graphic design is most comparable to an artistic act. The act of graphic design is for everyone when it is addressed to everyone.
like the architect, the graphic designer is in charge of a socially formulated commission from a client or commissioner (call him what you will!). he will therefore have to put together a visual proposal directed towards and benefiting an identified public, but this is most often only defined by a few statistical assertions or rebuttals. Without knowing it therefore, it will be for the graphic designer and his “commissioner-client” to be united and hopefully find affinities with each other, to imagine this proposal and to associate with it a soul or at least the right sensibility and intelligence for this moment of exchange.
Because the impact of the resulting graphic design will consolidate the respect between them, this subjective evaluation has, at all costs, to be inscribed in a progressive philoso-phy. We will have to hope for it ardently because wanting to communicate is probably more fundamental, high-risk and necessary than a shared enthusiasm for culture.
modestly, avoid using stunts or effects, work hard facing up to the particularity of the context, and above all link the work of trans-forming the real to its representation. it would be good to live in an honest society, where things are what they are and where we are able to work simply to improve them in the interest of all, while taking into account particularities, and having the desire to experiment, as well as the right to make mistakes and to do better thereafter. Design could be based on this definition. The reality of the discipline is not always so modest or humanist. ¶
V. P. in the definition of the graphic designer from 1987,¹ we find examples of adver-tising-type slogans, used for public institutions: “we move with the post”,
“we vibrate with la Villette”, which are still very current. one form of com-munication that prevailed from then on, and that married marketing to a certain advertising imagery has maintained and reinforced its influence, as witnessed by Vincent Perrottet’s recent appeal.² if the distinction between cultural and commercial, which the manifesto is based on, is no longer relevant, is it possible to find a real alternative to these forms of communication in a democratic space? is the dearth of certain visual forms due to the lack of graphic design culture on the side of the clients or the fact that the relation with the image and the sign in public space is as a general rule a competitive one, and therefore indexed on “market-ing culture”?
Pierre Bernard
let’s protest! “First Things First 2000” (the version that appeared in Adbusters) based its critique on the opposition between “com-merce” and “culture”. At the risk of shocking and inciting incomprehension, i would say that the distinction between “commercial graphic design” and “cultural graphic design” should
not in the slightest affect the value of these two thriving practices at the heart of a single profession. The visual incentive for a cultural and / or commercial exchange deserves in any case to be formalised in a way that assures quality.
nevertheless, since its beginnings, commerce has been a social practice the development and deployment of which have structured the cultural entities that it came into contact with and in so doing, in reply
nevertheless, since its beginnings, commerce has been a social practice the development and deployment of which have structured the cultural entities that it came into contact with and in so doing, in reply