I guess it really should have happened sooner. The notion that design is a particular filter through which one can see the world is pretty well established. And the recognition that all acts are political acts is an old Marxist chestnut.
So it only seems inevitable someone would come up with the term designism.
Traipsing through Wikipedia, one learns that usage of the suffix –ism denotes beliefs, idiologies or practices — as opposed to –logy, which indicates a field of study or discipline. In this light, designism is an apt description for how the world is being remade through mass media.
Where is the mass medium? Is it the newspaper advertisement, is it the TV broadcast, is it the polo shirt? Here we have not one but two, three, perhaps more mass media, acting through different channels. The media have multiplied, but some of them act as media of media, or in other words media squared. And at this point who is sending the message? The manufacturer of the polo shirt? its wearer? The person who talks about it on the TV screen? Who is the producer of ideology? Because it’s a question of ideology: You have only to analyze the implications of the phenomenon, what the polo-shirt manufacturer wants to say, and what its wearer wants to say, and the person who talks about it. But according to the channel under consideration, in a certain sense the meaning of the message changes, and perhaps also its ideological weight. There is no longer Authority, all on its own (and how consoling it was!). Shall we perhaps identify with Authority the designer who had the idea of inventing a new polo-shirt design, or the manufacturer (perhaps in the provinces) who decided to sell it, and to sell it on a wide scale, to make money, as is only right, and to avoid having to fire his employees? Or those who legitimately agree to wear it, and to advertise an image of youth and heedlessness, or happiness? Or the TV director, who to characterize a generation has one of his young actors wear the polo shirt? Or the singer, who, to cover his expenses, agrees to sponsor the polo shirt? All are in it, and all are outside it; Power is elusive, and there is no longer any telling where the “plan” comes from. Because there is, of course, a plan, but it is no longer intentional, and therefore it cannot be criticized with the traditional criticism of intentions. — Umberto Eco, “The Multiplication of the Media,” 1983
I remember reading something by Tibor Kalman in which he suggested since there was so much good design done by good designers, one could think of it all as mediocre. Perhaps this is designism — or at least late capitalism. In any sense, the word describes both the dissemination of design awareness (Target ads, Project Runway, Martha Stewart in K-Mart) and the continual refinement of mass media technique.
Designism was coined by Milton Glaser; one of the more visible and socially conscious designers. He, along with George Lois, James Victore, Jessica Helfand, Tony Hendra and Kurt Andersen will appear on a panel to further discuss his neologism on September 21, at The Art Directors Club in New York City. Steve Heller will moderate.
Mark, how is the term 'designism' any different than the already well-fleshed out term 'aetheticism'? Do you mean to say that designism refers to the field of study of graphic design, or do you apply it broadly to designiness (my preferred description of our current aestheticized moment, when everything's crap but in a pretty color--I'm looking at you, Target).
Personally, I say nice try but no dice. Aestheticism is what's happening. Calling it designism is just another case of we lowly graphic designers trying to get a seat at the table. But I just wanted to see you split some verbal hairs.
On Sep.08.2006 at 10:24 AM