Speak Up Archive: The Power of Election Design?

Somewhere embedded in all the comments about the Potential of Design was a tidbit of a topic. The writer of one of the responses mentioned that the big name designers who created blue-sky campaign posters for the Democratic candidates in the New York Times Magazine this past Sunday did very little to raise the bar or effectively promote the candidates who they were assigned to elevate into public consciousness. The topic of discussion is not whether or not big name designers have or can ever do this job effectively but whether or not design is the best tool in general for getting the message out or specifically unseating George W. Bush.

Let’s start by stating the obvious: Buttons, bumper stickers, placards, and banners (even foam fingers) are ancillary to the real job of propagating the virtues of a candidate. These items are certainly a million times less effective - no matter how well they are designed - than one acerbic TV commercial aired just once during Survivor, Friends, or the premiere of “A Simple Life.” In fact, the only thing that really makes one of these ephemeral items sing is the tag or slogan, which is a function of good writing not good design. George Lois’ contribution was not about typography, it was about the ring-a-ding-ding in the brain that one hears when a slogan hits the cerebral cortex. Sure, the design should not obliterate the slogan, but other than that it can be presented in any number of ways.

Printed campaign materials are routinely formulaic. Perhaps that is their charm. Perhaps that is their fate. Perhaps that’s all the public can accept. Decades ago I produced a fantastic brochure designed to increase voter interest in George McGovern in traditionally low-turnout neighborhoods of NYC. Boy, was it beautifully typeset and the images were clever and I was proud (and taken with myself) until the campaign chief said NO! His rationale was that it was TOO DESIGNED. Yes, he said, all the information was there, but the signal was all wrong. So, I went back to the drawing board and produced a piece that followed all the tested conventions. I have no idea how well it did (McGovern lost, afterall) but it was acceptable to the campaign. Conversely, Herb Lubalin edited a now-famous broadsheet newspaper called McGraphic, which was indeed beautiful, witty, and smart. Everything that I wanted in my piece. And he paid for it to be published, and it got into the design shows, and it made a bunch of NY designers and illustrators happy, and McGovern still lost.

I’m not saying that good design is irrelevant. I’m just proposing that it is insignificant compared to the other armaments in the propagandist’s arsenal. To rid the nation of Bush (particularly at a time when the economy is growing and more and more graphic designers who have bemoaned the past three years will start getting work again - perhaps) and his rightwing agenda, and elect a more liberal or moderate secular alternative, the potential does not rest with graphic design but is dependent first on a FANTASTIC candidate (who might that be?) who can articulate policy without gaffs and guffaws, and then a massive media bombardment that will build that intelligence into the biggest buzz this country’s ever heard.

If the posters, buttons, and foam fingers are nice, that’s a bonus. But even the BEST of the BEST candidate will doubtless end up with some variation of stars and stripes no matter how hard the biggest name designers try to do otherwise. Good design and conventional politics are restless bedfellows.

I think that's well put. It makes me think of a couple points. First, is the goal of any designed promotion for a candidate to inform? Or does it seek to persuade? I think there's a big difference. An old McCann Erickson slogan to sum up good advertising was 'The truth well told'. It's a bit naive now, because it implies that the virtues of the product will speak for themselves in good simple creative. But we know all to well that there are too many inferior products (or parity, at best) that are being marketed with - at least superficially - nice creative work.

You see a lot of marketing consultancies talk about helping companies create their brand. To me, I want to communicate a company's brand. I want them to know what they stand for, why they are different, and why they are great. Then I will communicate these attributes. Spread the word, as it were. Again, naive, but that's the ideal.

To the point of Steven Heller's commentary, most 'brands' are built by good PR (not PR gimmicks, but in the sense of objective testimonials), and reinforced/sustained by good design and advertising. The same is all to true for political candidates. All the design/advertising efforts can do is reinforce the virtues of the candidate. If the candidate cannot deliver on the PR front (i.e. deliver on their 'brand promise' in their actions, the way a company actually has to provide great customer service if their brand is based on providing superior customer service), then the marketing/advertising/designing will be worthless. The right candidate, in an ideal world, would just need the truth well told.

On Dec.03.2003 at 01:35 PM

The difference between marketing a product and a person is that a person talks and can either do more or undo all the marketing that was previously done, just by showing up to a debate or being interviewed.

In politics there is also "the opposition." Although Coke and Pepsi may take to a mild-mannered mudslinging now and then, it is nothing compared to the all-out fisticuffs of political campaigns. So advertising and marketing is always important, but image is built by the product--the polititian--and by the product's competitors.

It's an interesting question: what does design have to say when the product speaks for itself?

On Dec.03.2003 at 01:51 PM

If you take the concept of design a bit laterally and shift away from the pure aesthetics of the next campaign, I'd say Hillary has a leg up on her opponents and she's not even running yet. I have not read her book, but would imagine that her philosophy and life story found resonance with a lot of people that a poster could not achieve. As a side note, I also found it very interesting to compare wire images of W. and Hillary in Iraq over the US Thanksgiving. W. serving a turkey - looking for a photo op, while in comparison Hillary was looking like the commander in chief in the field with a military officer.

From the posters in the magazine, my eyes were drawn to Julia Hasting's poster of Clark the most. I also liked her rational. With all that said, I'm looking from the outside since I'm Canadian...

On Dec.03.2003 at 02:14 PM

A further musing: In virtually every presidential campaign there is that ah ha visual that forever embeds itself in the conscious. The classic example is the Johnson election Daisy commercial (shown only once before it was pulled for being too scarry). For Reagan there was the Willy Horton revolving door image. And there are others. But with only one exception (Kennedy's smiling 3/4 view on buttons and posters - I still own mine) I do not remember a single poster that has crystalized a candidate's persona. Is this because they avoid being trapped in crystal? If Bush were so captured he should have lost on persona alone, but now he has an arsenal of heroic pix in war planes, war ships, and holding turkeys. That's where image manipulation (call it design or what have you) is an art.

On Dec.03.2003 at 02:52 PM

I thnk what's important for Kennedy's profile working so well to crystalizing his persona is that the superficial elements of his picture equate metaphorically to much of what he stood for or what made him appealling. His youth and his (relative to typically presidential candidates - particularly Nixon) good looks, respectively.

This doesn't work for other candidates if what they stand for can't translate metaphorically to their picture. (thus it doesn't 'crystalize'). What's interesting is that in the NY Times posters, the one where this might apply is Moseley Baun's, because, like Kennedy, much of what she stands for or makes her unique can be metaphorically equated to what you would see in her picture (race, gender). Like youth and looks equating to deeper attributes (real or imagined) such as new ideas, a new direction, etc.

The other instances where a profile was being used - such as Kucinich's poster, or Leiberman's Dylan inspired poster - it's more forced because what he stands for can't equate metaphorically to how he looks (even when embellished), so it doesn't crystalize.

On Dec.03.2003 at 03:29 PM

I am a Canadian, but I think themes touched upon here are true of any political system at the present. I think it is the mass media (newpaper, radio and especially television) that largely drives the public's perception of a candidate -- not design. I don't think an election is influenced by the type or style of campaign material that a candidate produces (unless it becomes a controversial).

Our Prime Minister, who is now retiring, won a huge majority government the first time he was elected because he was attacked on two points: for a physical defect and his grasp of the english language. Chretien has a facial paralysis that makes one side of his face drop. A large print and TV campaign featured images of him emphasizing this defect and asked whether he was fit to be a leader. The controversy reduced the former governing party, who produced the campaign, to 2 seats in the House of Commons. This is where design and marketing has the potential to have a positive or negative effect on a candidate. Fortunately this is a style of campaigning that most are not interested in engaging because it has been shown to backfire in most cases.

I think where design has real power is to raise awareness of the issues. Poverty, health care, opposition to war and so on. Unfortunately, these things don't pay as well as a candidate asking you to create campaign material.

On Dec.03.2003 at 03:37 PM

Thanks for posting this, Steven. I've been thinking about the posters in the magazine since the weekend and trying to get my thoughts together on them. On one hand, it was nice to see what the world of political imagery could be. On the other, graphics will never solve the issue of a candidate that simply cannot say something interesting.

I also found it interesting that two of the designers chose to base their posters on existing Milton Glaser imagery while Milton himself contributed something original.

For the last few years, a group of candidates in Hoboken, NJ has run together under the banner of Hoboken United. All ads were designed in the same style and boldly typographic in nature — loads of big Hoefler Ziggurat. Hoboken, and Hudson County, have a long tradition of inbred political machines, so I don't know if these ads truly affected their successful outcomes, but it was nice to see a designed effort to rise above the usual scattershot approach to candidate advertising.

On Dec.03.2003 at 03:41 PM

an arsenal of heroic pix in war planes, war ships

Bush in his flight suit worked (or probably will next year), while Dukakis in a tank was a disaster.

On Dec.03.2003 at 03:44 PM

As a side note, I also found it very interesting to compare wire images of W. and Hillary in Iraq over the US Thanksgiving. W. serving a turkey - looking for a photo op, while in comparison Hillary was looking like the commander in chief in the field with a military officer.

It's funny how people view images and/or how the press edits through their personal beliefs and experiences. Which goes back to what Bradley was discussing, in the Potential of Design thread, about communicating to "people as whole beings, not as generalized demographics and psychographics, or worse yet a lump that you have to put up with. The individual is too easily lost because we judge them by their position and feelings on the big things, the news stories and the like. Individuals are a lot smarter than usually given credit for, yet we place blame on "people," refer to them as "stupid," and its typically launched against some abstract group so as to avoid the responsibility of being specific."

I saw those contrasting images as President Bush supporting and boosting the morale of the troops he has always paid the highest respect vs. a focus group driven Senator Clinton seeking to gain political ground in an area she and her husband have been known not to respect, which is the U.S. military.

Also, what I found interesting in the poster series was that none of them communicated any message about the country or issues, but just branding the person vs. President Bush. What, about any of these posters, is going to convince anyone who hasn't already decided to even consider one of these candidates? I found them lacking in content.

I've often thought political campaigns could benefit from quality brand identity communication even at the smallest community levels. It seems ripe for attention - like annual reports before Cahan, old school vernacular before Anderson, graphic design books before Heller.

And just to balance out the political mud-slinging, I'm hoping and expecting this country to continue moving forward with a true leader like George W. Bush at the helm.

On Dec.03.2003 at 05:17 PM

Okay, I don't own this but its gotta be perpetuated:

Tom Tomorrow, writer of This Modern World, before the 2000 election (and during his insane constant promotion of Nader, when he got progressively more unfunny), drew a frighteningly accurate comparison between Dub-Ya and and Alfred E. Neuman--better known as the Mad Magazine mascot. Do you REALLY want that guy as your leader? Gagh.

That's a start--but not a good one because it very much goes with the "any other whore in '04" mentality, a sort of concession that anyone is better than the current doofus. That's not enough; the more optimistic candidate wins, and voting for a negative won't build enough momentum.

I think what these posters demonstrated was a lack of distinct identity on the part of...any of the candidates--they're all different, sure, but its like the difference between vanilla and french vanilla. At least, that's the perception because the reality is obviously a little more complicated. Some were stronger than others, and some were more interesting--the one for Edwards looked like the designer simply gave up, and I didn't get the Kucinich piece at all. In fact, without the wordy explanations, the only one I would ever remotely comprehend is the Gep+Heart. The Clark deal was...fine...but...eh...big whoop. I'm not sure a "shift" key really resonates--I mean, maybe if you did something with how it can change a 4 to a $, or make puny little lowercase letters into big shouting uppercase ones. I just felt like it was about half way there, that's all.

I suppose that out of all the candidates I lean towards Dean, so I'd be more inclined to design a poster for him--or, let's be creative here, go beyond a poster and suitably follow the innovation that's already manifested in his on-line fundraising tactics. Don't know what that is yet. But if I thought about this guy in terms of identity and what he stands for, "punk rock bassist" comes to mind. Maybe that's too youthful and off-the-wall, but then again, maybe there's a concert-venue, musical, ludicrously aggressive visual style waiting to happen with him. That doesn't smell like MTV. No, "God Save the Queen" won't be his campaign theme song but at the same time I see little benefit in deviating from his notorious anger which has thus far defined him. Use that equity. Hell, you could use a bursting, boiling, breaking thermometer as his little icon because he raises the temperature--honestly, I don't know, but I'm interested in this enough to talk about it.

Bottomline, I think that communications can play a significant role in dislodging Bush, but it's not going to come down to just one thing--as has been chatted about here over the past couple of days, its more than PR, more than advertising, more than posters.

On Dec.03.2003 at 06:40 PM

I'm hoping and expecting this country to continue moving forward with a true leader like George W. Bush at the helm.

Tom,

It's interesting how there's this very quiet, usually unspoken assumption that all designers are liberal--it's popped up in First Things First, and I remember Sean Adams telling me before the Voice Conference in '02 that he was concerned there would only be left-wing voices among the speakers. And, if memory serves, he was right.

The "other side" is always refreshing.

But as to your specific comments, in order for the democrats to succeed they have to show that their chosen candidate is a leader and not an antidote. A positive, not a negative. If you position the candidate as a sort of medicine, you essentially say "he's temporary" because no one tries to cure their health. If W. has succeeded in anything, its been establishing a long-term vision--of course, he's had Karl Rove and Roger Ailes pitching in quite a bit here and there, and I'm not sure how well-defined it is.

On Dec.03.2003 at 06:46 PM

Tom is absolutely correct when he says "Also, what I found interesting in the poster series was that none of them communicated any message about the country or issues..."

Posters are at best mnemonics. They perpetuate the name (and sometimes the face). They do not make statements. Tom hit it on the head and since these posters were blue sky why not take the opportunity to make a statement of fact. Why not state in no uncertain terms that George W. Bush will abolish a Woman's Right To Chose (and has already started the ball rolling). Why not state that George W. Bush is dismantling all the New Deal and Great Society programs that will throw many in this nation back to the stoneage. What's wrong with saying social welfare is the product of a generous society and that without it we are less righteous than we claim.

If designers are to create effective graphic art they most present information in a clear and meaningful way. Wouldn't it have been great if all the designers did charts showing how George W. Bush is dismantling a truly great society in favor of corporate interests. BUT not just say it as a slogan or jingle but show the facts. Show how his administration is indeed leading us back in time to fundamentalist short-sightedness. Billboards should be posted throughtout America, regardless of who the candidate is, showing these facts.

Wouldn't it have been great if each designer asked to design the posters put the ISSUES ahead of the candidate's brand. Rather than VOTE FOR ME, each poster should have had the reason spelled out why Bush should be defeated and a tag line that reads, "paid for by all the Democratic candidates."

The problem with many designers is the take the problem at face value without seeing the larger picture. This was not an excercise in how to brand one or another politician, it was really an excercise to see if designers could invent a new way of defeating an incumbent.

On Dec.03.2003 at 07:13 PM

whether or not design is the best tool in general for getting the message out

The best tool is $$$. Lots and lots of $$$.

That or finding smart, intelligent, informed voters who really look at the issues and candidates in detail and what to actively be a part of the process.

But it's usually easier to just find lots of $$$.

As for 'good design', don't forget that good design can be completely ugly. If it gets the message across, then it's done its job.

On Dec.03.2003 at 08:37 PM

It's interesting how there's this very quiet, usually unspoken assumption that all designers are liberal

I know, but I appreciate the dialogue. I am really not well versed in politics, but cherish the opportunity to vote my opinion at the polls and in the public square.

If designers are to create effective graphic art they must present information in a clear and meaningful way.

Yes! I forgot to mention earlier that I don't believe the conservative right or Republicans(whatever label you choose) communicate that well either.

The problem with many designers is the take the problem at face value without seeing the larger picture.

Great point. Take the opportunity to do something bigger and better than just the tactic at hand.

Along the theme of wouldn't it be great, I wish that graphic designers would take the opportunity to not only promote the protection of the innocent unborn, but also promote helping and ministering to the physical and emotional needs of the young unwed mothers and troubled pregnancy families. And wouldn't it be great if graphic designers used their talents to communicate how individuals and private sector corporations can reach out and help their poor neighbors or the homeless without relying on bereucratic, redtaped government programs. While the New Deal initially worked because of a country united against the Great Depression(along with brilliant posters from Lester Beall), now promotes a free ride mentality that is permeating our younger generations and rarely genuinely helps anyone out of their circumstances.

I'll tell you what is great though, is discussing the power of design. Thanks Steve.

On Dec.03.2003 at 09:24 PM

This was not an excercise in how to brand one or another politician, it was really an excercise to see if designers could invent a new way of defeating an incumbent.

Well, yeah. Design in and of itself won't solve anything, but I believe that communications as a whole will--its often been said that FDR would never be elected in this day and age because he was bound to a wheelchair and that's an accurate assessment, no matter how unfortunate. We all know that for better or for worse, perception is often reality.

When I look at the democratic candidates I don't see anyone with a strong, well-defined identity--like the one Clinton had in '92. He was amazingly optimistic and offered a lot of glowing promises that he never really delivered on specifically, but his overall outlook went beyond much of the stereotypical babblespeak (and quickly invented a NEW stereotype). He was also very personal and personable, instead of targeting all the blame directly on Bush, he just said "it's the economy, stupid" and left it at that more or less. Maybe he was blue sky, but he also had practical solutions--or rather, proposed practical solutions. He was someone to rally behind for a lot of people and thus far, I'm not seeing the same sort of connections in any of the current contenders.

That's not to say they're bad candidates. Any of them would be better than Bush in my opinion but I'd hate to see the next year turn into a mired attempt at merely outlining the foolish things he's done and the myriad of lies he's told. Not that they aren't relevant, but perhaps where design CAN play a role is MAKING them relevant to individuals. You can demonstrate the problems all you want, but unless it hooks someone in an intimate way, I don't think much will come of it.

In the last election, I felt like people either voted for Bush or just voted against him--and that's what really hurt, because it was like trying to rally around a negative. Look what happened--while many of Nader's supporters no doubt considered the general welfare of the people at large, casting a vote for a lost cause didn't help that any.

Talking about what Bush can't do and the ostensibly bad things that he could do won't cut it. Reagan was an optimist, and he won twice. Clinton was too, and he won twice. If Bush comes off as the optimist, he too will win twice.

I think what you're talking about is quite smart and clearly inventive--but I also see it as part of a process, and I have no problems "branding" the candidates so long as it fits in with an overall objective. I mean, when a guy like Tom Hanks is talking about "his brand," I think its a relevant part of the equation. It's an opportunity to talk about the issues and then present a concrete plan for what Bush's opponent can do for the individual. I think design can play a role in bridging that gap.

Ultimately, Bush faces one guy in the final round. If that guy is essentially anonymous until he walks into the ring, I'm afraid he won't stand much of a chance.

On Dec.04.2003 at 12:34 AM

Funny, Tom.... I viewed the thanksgiving visits [by clinton and bus] in the exact opposite light. Bush looked almost as out of place in Iraq as he did in the flight suit back in april (remember - when the war was over?).

Tom Tomorrow was kinda cool back in the day, but around the time he began to fall off, Ted Rall picked up the ball and ran... This week he has an article about this Anyone But Bush syndrome (here).

Though I would happily vote for a pile a feces before Bush (as it would do less harm, and may be slightly more intelligent), this other guy campaign that the pack of Dems have going is pretty whack and more or less ineffective. Just look at Rick Lazio's "Vote for me! I'm not Hillary Clinton" campaign in 2000.

Hopefully things will shape up after the primary though.

On Dec.04.2003 at 05:25 AM

Tom's comment: "While the New Deal initially worked because of a country united against the Great Depression(along with brilliant posters from Lester Beall), now promotes a free ride mentality that is permeating our younger generations and rarely genuinely helps anyone out of their circumstances" begins as perceptive. But his conclusion is not altogether accurate. There is always going to be fraudualent practice in a bureaucratic system, but the "free ride" red herring has been propagandistically blown out of proportion for decades now (although it started during FDR's tenure). There are indeed many people in need who will suffer from the blanket dismantling of social welfare. But that is another longer conversation. Getting back to design. . .

Thanks for mentioning Lester Beall's posters. Add to that Brad Thompson, Leo Lionni, Jean Carlu and many lesser known graphic artists and designers who contributed intelligent (and eye-catching) images to the campaign for social justice. Back in those days, when modernism was fresh, the design vocabulary served two purposes - information and elevation. Modern design not only presented messages in a memorable way, it signalled change (and by extension a youthful evolution). The most effective (shall we say powerful?) graphic programs of the 20th century were harbingers of something new. Russian Revolutionary graphics, New Deal imagery, even, dare I say it, Italian Fascist design (which in part targeted youth as the future of that social system). Given the latter example one can feel the cut of a double edged sword, and we must be wary about the manipulative power of images. But what the posters in the Times mag and that which is currently done on the campaign scene prove: there is no real vision of change in design quarters.

Again, I return to the idea that designers should at least try to re-define the problems they are given. Often this is thwarted (and is not what the client wants), but sometimes - BANG - it works and things do change. We've all seen it happen.

Back to politics as usual. Bradley is correct that the current field of Dems is pretty lackluster and what I suggest (from my perch on the mount) is that whomever runs these individual campaigns really tries something DIFFERENT. Make a brand that is more startling that ANY other. And back it up with the power of truth. Present REAL information not sound bites with which an electorate can make a real informed decision. Designers can help in this along with other communications "folk." It was done for the New Deal, The Vietnam War, The Civil Rights movement, and can happen now.

To the extent that Bush's handlers know how to position him in the "frame" and get those frozen heroic moments into the public's consciousness, they are doing a fine PR job. Having the Republican National Convention in NYC at Ground Zero on the anniversary of a national tragedy is genius. Cynical but genius.

HOW can the Dems trump that with a more effect, less cyncial, decidedly honest expression? Maybe that's the topic of discussion? Or if you support the other side, how can Bush be transformed into a real symbol of leadership (perish the thought)?

On Dec.04.2003 at 06:29 AM

Cowardly too...

But all that aside, can anyone really invision a HIP ad campaign for old rich white guys that is supposed to reach 18-100 yr olds from miami beach to provo, utah? Seriously?

When any pres. hopeful tries to sounds even kinda like they're with it they just seem like the rappin' grandma in "The Wedding Singer." Clinton was the only politican I could see reaching my generation (for better or worse - remember him on MTVs ROCK THE VOTE? kids loved him! and he could talk about drugs as sex without sounding like your old man). The only thing worse when a politician tries to speak spanish... they ALL sound like assholes then (something I know too well, being from new mexico - crusty new englanders (and don't fool yourself, the Bushes of Conn. ARE yankees) throwing on a cowboy hat and boots and spitting out a cacophonous "Gracias mi gente").

MoveOn.org archived all of the commercials from the 2000 election (spanish commericals in NM, Lee Iacocca car commercials in MI, etc) to show some sort of demographic profiling, but I think it's more or less impossible to make something edgy/interesting/useful when you have to satisfy an entire country... everything ends up being similarly bland... red and blue backgrounds with buzzword catch phrases -reminds me of the art in a Hyatt - completely unoffensive (and uninteresting) in every way.

maybe they could get that guy who did Target's Halloween ad campaign to do the election...

On Dec.04.2003 at 06:35 AM

Present REAL information not sound bites with which an electorate can make a real informed decision. Designers can help in this along with other communications "folk."

Absolutely. Sounds good. So, let's get started. What issues should be attacked, and what form would these missives take? You had mentioned billboards on one occasion, that makes sense, but what else is there? What other opportunities? There's plenty of data out there waiting to be turned into information, where's the best place to find it?

This is fun, because its about more than posters and buttons...my day is pretty light fortunately so I should have a chance to chew on this for awhile...but I definitely think the best course of action is to start doing, asap.

On Dec.04.2003 at 09:16 AM

> What issues should be attacked, and what form would these missives take? You had mentioned billboards on one occasion, that makes sense, but what else is there? What other opportunities?

A web site always helps. Billboards can point to that web site. It should be a good domain name though to be effective. I know, this is kind of a lame and obvious contribution but hey, something's better than nuthin'.

On Dec.04.2003 at 09:33 AM

Moveon.com is a good source and resource. BUT I think whatever is done it must be a concerted effort. The election was trashed in 2000 because Nadar divided the enough of the electorate to allow for the squeaker. Let the candidates audition for a while longer, but then mount a real D-Day invasion. Bush has his beachhead (sorry, I just watched Patton) secure in NYC in Sept. That's when the media must do its job and that job is rebutting all the myths propagated by the incumbancy.

On Dec.04.2003 at 10:05 AM

Ah yes, who controls the communication and how is it communicated? Through the channels of education, media, courts, entertainment, churches, civic orgs, design blogs, grass roots...

The election was trashed in 2000 because Nadar divided the enough of the electorate to allow for the squeaker.

Like Perot in '92.

That's when the media must do its job and that job is rebutting all the myths propagated by the incumbancy.

So the media should promote the democratic candidate? If I remember correctly from my glorious years at the Grady School of Journalism, the job of the media is to rebut the myths from both sides.

OK, you guys take the edgy, youthful - change feels good approach, you know - wealth distribution, higher taxes and the like, and we'll promote war and men only in the work place and no women can obtain higher education. Armin, good idea about the website. I'll try to get www.richwhiteguys.com(public disclaimer: this was all said in good fun, except the part about Bush 2004)

Ready? Go!

On Dec.04.2003 at 10:27 AM

newspapers in switzerland today report that the turkey in the bush visit photos was decoration only to stage good photoshoots. the article went on to state that the fighter jet for the picture in march had to be turned before pictures were taken so people could not see that the ship was so close to the coast that a helicopter ride would have been sufficient (remember they claimed it was too far from the coast for that). plus it mentioned how a year ago, the white house rented expensive floating spotlights so that the statue of liberty was perfectly visible behind bush during an evening speech.

not that all this is news, we are well aware, but still interesting that it made the front page.

On Dec.04.2003 at 10:39 AM

"www.richwhiteguys.com"

Haha! I think you are out of luck Tom, George Soros already purchased that domain and gave it to the Hollywood ACLU Chapter in hopes of an equal rights outlet for the Beverly Hills downtrodden. (As well stated in good fun)

On Dec.04.2003 at 10:44 AM

Tom's: "So the media should promote the democratic candidate? If I remember correctly from my glorious years at the Grady School of Journalism, the job of the media is to rebut the myths from both sides.' "

Touche: Too much unbriddled zeal. The news media must indeed remain objective. Too bad most media organizations have biases (not all of them liberal).

Nonetheless for design to have any impact on public opinion clarity is essential. Cleverness is good to keep our attention. If one despairs of the diabolical genius Karl Rove's persistant manipulative machinations it becomes clear that a righteous genius is needed in the opposition camp.

On Dec.04.2003 at 11:01 AM

ps, there was an article at washingtonpost.com mentioning the same thing today.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but people are not as gullible as they once were in terms of imagery comparing real life to a made up set. My gut feeling is that people do see through it, and perhaps ads to the publics cynicism towards politicians and media. One of these made up sets could backfire.

Though W.'s focus group ratings went up, so what do I know?

On Dec.04.2003 at 11:06 AM

I know I'm a little bit late to the discussion, so I'll just throw in a few random, maybe unrelated, thoughts on this.

I am bit known for my lack of interest in politics, which doesn't mean I don't have an opinion (Bush is and idiot) or preferences (Bush should not be in power), it just means I don't follow politics a lot and discuss them less. But when we pair graphic design and politics then I am more interested in the discussion.

I am constantly amazed at the lack of originality in campaigns, except for a few clever tag lines here and there. On the other hand this is one of those instances when it might be better to just leave it undesigned; much like the Strand bookstore in NY (which Heller covered a while back in Step by Step, or was it critique?): bad design works. Point being that some things work regardless of how they look. In the case of campaigns, as long as you have a few stars some red-white-and-blue and a black and white picture of the candidate you are set. It's been working for ages and I'm skeptical of people reacting to well-designed campaigns.

After seeing the posters in NYT magazine I realized that this issue indeed requires a different approach — one that does not rely on internal references to our profession just for the sake of it but one that addresses the needs of the candidates. Like Bradley, I think Geoff's identity for Gepheardt is excellent, it's memorable and it lights up your day when you realize the meaning of it all. Victore's piece was terrible — for the record, I love anything he does — in that graphically it gave a really bad message: kinda dirty, rugged, dangerous with a bow. Oberman and Siegler's entry was very discouraging; I know that this NYT mag article was kind of for the fun of it, but their entry seemed immature and just a joke for those few designers that would get the joke. I mean, how many people will actually get the reference to this "amazing piece of culture"? None really and more importantly it gives the message that Lieberman is a down-right hippie who does drugs and thinks his hair is made out of the US flag. I dunno, maybe I'm just being an ass.

I am usually all for the let's make shit look really fucking cool, but in this case I definitely saw design making a candidate's image worse. I know this is just make-believe, but still.

On Dec.04.2003 at 01:40 PM

Armin, everything is potentially real and every opportunity should be taken to raise the bar, push the envelope, jack out of the box. Its a shame that there were so few viable alternatives. What does this say about designers? Forget that its election related. Here was a problem that needed solving and if it left you cold what about the people who think graphic design is akin to flower arranging?

On Dec.04.2003 at 01:57 PM

Like Bradley, I think Geoff's identity for Gepheardt is excellent, it's memorable and it lights up your day when you realize the meaning of it all.

What? the meaning of it all? C'mon Armin, even Geoff says this design is about making the unappealing appealing. That Gephardt is such a politician(constantly wavering) that there is NO MESSAGE. Does the poster mean that Gephardt loves himself being in "exclamation" power over all the states?

from the designer:

''Graphically presenting Gephardt's ideas is daunting, because he is a man who has made a career on playing politics and almost has to be vague now in his campaign. One of the things design does well, though, is fill an unappealing void with a more appealing one. This is what I wanted to do, graphically fill this vacancy with something fun, something that felt that it was getting away from the world of politics.''

Of all the entries, I liked Michael Bierut's approach of trying to personalize the candidate. Not crazy about the execution, but the idea has some legs.

On Dec.04.2003 at 02:01 PM

> What? the meaning of it all? C'mon Armin, even Geoff says this design is about making the unappealing appealing.

Damn it Tom! You are right, I had read that yesterday but I forgot. Still� that's part of our job isn't it? Making things that maybe are not the best look their best? Think about it dude.

Also, I do agree, Bierut's proposal was very sound and very cool in concept, but the background is very distracting to let the scripty writing take center-stage.

> Here was a problem that needed solving and if it left you cold what about the people who think graphic design is akin to flower arranging?

Exactly! This was the same case with the article on Matthew Carter's redrawing of the MoMA logo; it got huge coverage in the newspaper and what did it say to anybody who wasn't a designer? Same message.

Plus, from reading some of the blurbs, it seems like many of the designers went through a lot to do this — including talking to the candidates. So I know what you are saying Steve, about this being an opportunity to do something different, but given the circumstances (I am sure this was done after-hours and after client stuff was done) I wouldn't have expected a revolutionary approach to campaigning. A better-looking one though? Yes.

On Dec.04.2003 at 03:04 PM

Still� that's part of our job isn't it? Making things that maybe are not the best look their best?

You mean make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

Politics aside, when we say look their best, we've lost the big picture thinking of making the project bigger in thought, reason and meaning therefore, better designed vs. a prettier/cooler/stylish/edgy decoration mentality. Branding a candidate or anything is mere decoration unless there is a meaningful message communicated.

I realize this was, as you said, probably an after hours gig, but I know I am never satisfied with a project unless I spend a lot of time up front digging down to find the simple message that will make an impact and explore all the communication possibilities that message can achieve.

On Dec.04.2003 at 03:36 PM

> when we say look their best, we've lost the big picture thinking of making the project bigger in thought, reason and meaning therefore, better designed vs. a prettier/cooler/stylish/edgy decoration mentality. Branding a candidate or anything is mere decoration unless there is a meaningful message communicated.

I am afraid I will have to open up a can of worms. I don't want to, but the whole 30-minute-subway-ride home I was thinking about this. I may trip over my own thoughts and veer a little off-topic, so bear with me.

This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately; as a graphic designer I always try to figure out what the fuck it is I do; am I a decorator? Because I sure as hell love making stuff look very cool, I'm good at picking typefaces for any project, I can use the black and red combo as good as anybody and I can specify the baddest-assed paper in the country. All this, of course, has some meaning and reasoning behind it; if it's a financially inclined project I'll use Bodoni and some stark black/white photography which exudes seriousness and commitment to money, if it's a boutiquey client I'll go crazy and set the type in Clarendon with some light-hearted illustrations which radiates fun and freedom and love. I finish a project (logo, brochure, package, whatever), it looks awesome, client's happy as a clam, I get awards, I get a raise, I get a better apartment, my cats love it. Hundreds, no, make that thousands of graphic designers do that day-in and day-out; some of the leaders in our proffession do this. For example, James Victore, he is one of the best in communicating an emotion, shooting a message through your eyes and into your heart and making you react but should he be designing a political candidate's camping? Hell no, he should be as far away as possible.

Now to the other end of the spectrum: Making a difference. What kind of difference? Big, big ideas, big thinking, like Tom said big picture thinking and making the project bigger in thought. And for some reason it is understood by many designers that one needs to leave style behind in order to achieve this. There is this misconception that informative/powerful/useful design can be excused and, pardon my subjectivity, look bad. Another example I can cite here, and a very succesful one I might add is the work Sagmeister did for "Move our money"; it was very effective in that it raised awareness — clearly, concisely and even attractively — for an issue that would be next to impossible to explain on a regular conversation.

Like I said, I might leave some loose ends and go a bit in circles. One of the points I am trying to slowly and painfully make is that there seems to be a new divide between graphic designers: those who like to make stuff look cool and those who like to make stuff important. With the latter very much looking down on the former. When the hell did this happen? Why is it so damn sinful to make things look their best? I am not saying it is right or wrong, good or bad, but I am very confused by this whole new mentality that bringing out the best, visually, in a company is being a bad, irresponsible graphic designer.

Don't get me wrong, I see and practice the importance of thinking beyond looks but, if my education serves me correctly, graphic design for the past 50-60 years has been about visually improving the message and appearance of a product or a service. I also understand that our profession is shifting and mutating into some new inbred version of itself where pretty colors, arresting images and good typefaces seem to be inconsequential — taking a step back to the bottom-line and the bigger picture. Again, I am not saying if this is for the better or for the worse of our profession.

Should we start thinking about separating one batch of designers from the other? So that those who just want to make cool-looking stuff can just do it with no remorse of missing the big picture. And those who want to change the world (don't kid yourselves, you think about it that way) can just focus on revolutionary ideas with only Helvetica and a blue PMS in hand so they don't have to worry about how their work will look — because in the end it's all about the message and not the delivery, right?

I don't know. I want to be somewhere in between, I don't think I should have to choose, but it's becoming very obvious that it is either one or the other. If graphic designers will never be able to change the world if they are concerned with the way it looks, then what the hell are we doing?

I know I am contradicting myself with some of my previous comments, but that's one of the points of talking about it, I guess.

In short, is it just me or is the profession wanting to be something it is not or that it wishes it could be? I could very possibly be wrong, but I'd rather say what I'm thinking.

Whew, I gave Bradley and Design Maven a run for their money at least.

On Dec.04.2003 at 09:58 PM

In response to Steve Heller's worry that design is irrelevant in politics...

In response to Armin's meditation on decoration vs. making a difference...

In response to John Kerry's appearance on the Tonight Show -- dressed in a leather jacket, jeans and boots...

In response to Shrub (small bush) playing dress up in a flight suit...

In response to the impending apocalypse if gay marriages are allowed...

In response to 'I hate the war, but support our troops'...

In response to The New York Times Magazine annual design issue...

...I cryptically suggest Robert Ashley's (the greatest living composer) opera Improvement and a section that discusses what he calls the Offering of Images:

The Offering of Images, as a spiritual activity,

Replaces the impulse to find a personal vision, an icon.

As a spiritual activity it distracts the individual from

The task of finding and recognizing a singular, true path.

The Offering of Images categorizes human activity and offers

The sum of the categories as a sum of possibilities and

Alternatives, each one of which must be equally good and

Equally valid, else the system of categories breaks down.

Like Modernism, Science and Theater as we know it, the

Offering of Images and Protestantism, hand in hand,

are egalitarian, democratic and communistic.

The Offering of Images is a secular spiritual activity...

and it goes on from there -- catchy isn't it?

Design is irrelevant IN politics because the politics Americans are given infantilize the discourse. Noam Chomsky observed that the average American could analyze that stats and history of a sports team with remarkable insight -- yet political discourse is derailed with issuettes and soundbites like gay marriage, weapons of mass distraction, and 'you're either with us or against us'. Oh for the clearer days of 'War is not healthy for children and other living things'.

And Armin -- You're thinking too hard, but props for it. You're not doing your job unless you are full of contradictions; otherwise you're an automaton. Design should be both 'decoration' and attempt to 'make a difference'. Developing awareness about the difference between the two, understanding one's role in numerous contexts, and then finding a balance is part of the process of self-discovery and growth.

Finally, The New York Times Magazine annual design ghetto...

...nah! ...too tired.

On Dec.05.2003 at 12:29 AM

Armin's: "...because in the end it's all about the message and not the delivery, right?" is but one of many interesting questions. But I've only the energy to deal with one. Especially after Robert Ashley's (the greatest living composer) quote sums up so much.

Its about BOTH. We are designers not philosophers and not politicians. At best we are expected to be good citizens who use our abilities (and talents) to frame (and sometimes author) messages in such a way that we touch (as Sagmeister says) another person's heart (and mind).

The marriage of form and content is necessary in this task. As Paul Rand once said "if there is no form there is no content. If there is no content there is no form." As simplistic as this sounds, he's right. Even decoration SAYS something because STYLE indicates or signals something meaningful. While we can frame trivial or bad ideas that is still form underscoring content.

Election graphics are timid applications of form to convey the safest (and most simple) messages. What we seem to be arguing is that as designers we should contribute to framing (and possibly composing) smarter more meaningful messages. Ta Da. That's it.

Rather than parrot the same old same old, perhaps we should use our abilities to push the discussion further. This is not profound, but it is a choice we have. Instead of silly designer-jokes we can make a small but meaningful contribution (which with luck might make a difference). In the end, however, it comes down to one thing. A smart candidate (come back Bill or Jimmy) with a vision. Its much easier to design great things when there is a great thing to build upon.

On Dec.05.2003 at 04:27 AM

Cockles of the heart? And they get warm? Dubious metaphor.

> What we seem to be arguing is that as designers we should contribute to framing (and possibly composing) smarter more meaningful messages. Ta Da. That's it.

I think that's one of the things indeed: designers wanting to do more than the decorating. But are we really prepared to do more? I do think so, but it's hard to convince clients of such a thing. I can't remember which thread it was or who said it around here but designers do work in a certain way that allows for bigger thinking and holistic approaches to a "problem." So, yeah, going in full circle again, we want this responsibility but we also have this innate urge to make things look good.

Mark, thanks for the quote. Interesting.

On Dec.05.2003 at 09:24 AM

Design should be both 'decoration' and attempt to 'make a difference'.

as designers we should contribute to framing (and possibly composing) smarter more meaningful messages.

Good answers.

Where I struggle with this contradiction as a fledgling studio is in positioning myself for clients and growth with the constant battle of personal decision; i.e. decoration is easy, feels good and takes less effort, but pushing for "smarter more meaningful messages" developed across a strategic brand platform(hgh... that smacks of corp speak) takes a lot more discipline, but can be rewarded with great results, financially, creatively and personally.

Shrub

A smart candidate (come back Bill or Jimmy) with a vision.

You guys crack me up!

On Dec.05.2003 at 09:42 AM

Just because we are called designers or art directors does not mean we are not thinkers, producers, authors or integral to any part of a holistic process. The fact is that while a client may have the core idea (i.e. Edison's telephone) it was Ladislav Sutnar that concieved concretized the area code. (OK its a leap of decades but allow me the leeway). When the telephone company asked Sutnar to help them organize the new numerical configuration it required as phone service increased throughout the US, it was Sutnar who literally separate the numerals into groups of three and four and included periods between them (which turned into dashes). This was not decoration. It was the coining of a graphic language.

Many designers are called upon to contribute in MAJOR ways from actually naming the entity to fine tuing the useability factors. Some designers invent from whole cloth. This is nothing new. Hey, some designers even direct films, write novels, open restaurants, and contribute to political platforms.

So my good friends, don't sell yourselves and the rest of us too short. We do a job, but many of you are much MORE than your jobs. And if you know the design language but have other skills too, you're ahead of the game.

Getting back to politics. A smart campaign will get smart designers to work on integral aspects, not simply decorate or fill a page with typeset names.

As for cracking Tom up: It's all in a days work.

On Dec.05.2003 at 10:41 AM

The Sutnar catalog is splendid to look at and if you can read Czech you're ahead of the game. I think they're supposed to publish in English as well.

On Dec.05.2003 at 11:35 AM

Bierut's proposal was very sound and very cool in concept, but the background is very distracting to let the scripty writing take center-stage.

Armin, you got me. The minute I saw the thing I did for Dean printed in the Times I realized I got it wrong, for exactly the reason you say.

My excuse, if you want one, is that we had to wait until the last minute to get Dean's actual handwriting to work with. While we waited, I kept fiddling with the background, just to keep myself occupied I suppose. The minute we got the actual handwriting in we rushed it to the paper. If I would have thought about it one minute more, I would have just trusted the idea and put the handwriting on a black (okay, dark blue -- we may as well be realistic) background. Oh well.

All that said, I have to admit I found this very hard to do. I don't thrive on "let's pretend" assignments anyway, and in this case the more I thought about it, the more trouble I had isolating the actual "problem" to be solved, particularly when a subtext of that problem is not just "get your guy elected" (which I agree may not be effectively done with typefaces and PMS colors) but instead "how do we demonstrate how graphic design works to the readers of the New York Times?" I'm not sure if the fact I like Dean made it easier or harder.

Interestingly, there is an article in today's New York Times Magazine that is very relevant to this thread. Titled "When Political Art Mattered," it makes this claim: "Only once in the 20th century did plays and posters and other creative works really change the consciousness and the policies of the country: the 80's, in response to the AIDS epidemic. How? And why?" You can find the article here.

On Dec.07.2003 at 04:06 PM

Today's article in the Times mag that Bierut cites is an important piece of history. The mobilization of graphic artists in the service of AIDS awareness was and is extraordinary. Not since the ND symbol was a created in the early 50s has a graphic mark so quickly and profoundly invaded the consciousness. But the claim of this article: "Only once in the 20th century did plays and posters and other creative works really change the consciousness and the policies of the country. . ." is incorrect. What about Nuclear disarmament, Vietnam, and Civil Rights? Each of these movements benefited and were in part defined by the graphics that underscored them. As citizens we were made aware of the issues in large part because of these images. And as Tom pointed out earlier the WPA also provided graphic fire power. In all these cases the crises were clear and the artist/designers responded smartly and immediately to the call. Perhaps as more revelatory material emerges about the administration's not-so-hidden agenda (see the Times editorial on the new EPA Secretary's first official art and the OpEd by Lucian Truscott on Iraq) acerbic graphic statements may just equal the gravity of the political threats facing us today.

On Dec.07.2003 at 04:51 PM

I'm not taking politcal sides here, but in 2000 the one thing I remember is a speech Bush gave over the summer. He said, "I don't know why Al Gore says he invented the internet, when every web address starts with W.W.W." I still believe, or want to believe that a campaign is successful on what people remember about the candidate and they usually remember the slogan, or something they said. I believe there's room for good design in politics, but there doesn't seem much room to grow from the stars and stripes, red, white, and blue, bold faced type size 9000 billboard screaming out a name at you. I wonder how many faceless people have been elected to office?

On Dec.12.2003 at 11:03 AM

What is up w/ this election this year. u cant really tell if we are trying to vote for president of the U.S. of or president of some school project. Bush is sitting there promising us the same stuff he did when he was running against Gore and we know how that turned out. Wait, actually we dont b/c he hasnt done any of it yet, but mabye he is just waiting to get realected b4 he decides to do what he was supposed to do last realection. its just going down hill. health care has gone up not down. the enconamy is not getting better. all of that was a lie. And Kerry is just there saying vote for me. but i think we would actually be a better president for the U.S., basicly b/c he is vocusing on say "our country". not another country but our country, whose econamy could really use some help. i know alot of americans who dont have jobs, but i see alot of imigrants who are getting not only jobs, but getting paid to come over here to work. Kerry might have lied about his medals but, really do u think somebody becomes president of the U.S by being honest. we all know how much scheming goes on in the gov. How do you think managers get their jobs? And why shouldnt gays get married? if someone could give me an actual answer that didnt involve religion or discrimination then i would like to here it. i dont really like gays but i do like american rights. The goverment is not a church group. not everything is wrong or evil. u arent a satanist for being different or wearing black or having sex. in fact there arnt many religious churches any more. they all seem money hungery or out for world domination. its like "if u dont join us then u will be dawned. but we can save u. all u have to do is completly change ur lifestyle and give us some money."

On Sep.08.2004 at 09:57 PM