Do we always have to say what we think we should, or does it make more sense to be honest? Is it possible that there’s a difference between how people react to a message and how they think they’d react, and how they think others would react? Why do most “aspirational” messages sound like lies? Since when do category descriptors like “edgy,” “sophisticated,” “rugged,” or “preppy” encompass all human traits? Who comes up with terms like “hipster” and “metrosexual”? Who made you a commodity? Why did you allow it to happen? Does marketing manufacture desire and create attitudes, or does it just reflect what already exists? Do stereotypes come from a subtle yet true characteristic, or are they just rooted in anomalies that make for more interesting stories? What’s the point in believing what’s convenient, what seems to make sense, instead of what’s true? Why is complacency okay?
Who knew? Graphic designers are commuicators. Maybe if we—gasp! focus on WHAT WE DO—if we take a harder look at who we talk to, what we say, and how we say it, we can make a real difference. Look at it this way: people typically judge another’s intelligence based on their hairstyle, clothing, car, house, and profession. That’s why so many people assume—unconsciously, perhaps—that a plumber or construction worker isn’t as smart as a lawyer or banker. How did this happen and what do you want to do about it?
With the aging of the baby boomers, corporations are spending more money marketing to people over the age of 50; most of these individuals complain that the messages targeted to them are stereotypical and condescending. Age has just recently become as confounding a category as ethnicity, gender, and income bracket. Up until 1930, Italians were considered a race which sounds very strange, yet we still consider Hispanics, blacks, and Asians to be races as well. People pegged into one of these “groups” understand the marketing messages sent their way but rarely do they trust them, nor do they like them.
And its the assumptions made about each “group” that lead to the stupid messages that people choose to ignore and automatically dislike. But as much as people might hate something, that doesn’t stop it from playing a significant role in the fabric of our culture; the messages out there may not reflect how we think about ourselves and others, but they also don’t leave much room to imagine much else.
There’s a reason people hate branding and advertising, and the skepticism hanging like barnacles on the two is well-deserved. But maybe if we start talking to human beings like human beings, maybe if we address people as individuals and not as members of a group, maybe we’ll get somewhere. Commerce isn’t going to vanish because a few high-minded folks think its stupid and immoral; running away from it won’t help anything either. There’s a clear and present challenge out there known as indifference, and I’m wondering who wants to fight it.
Sometimes its good to play with fire. You might cause an explosion. And explosions are interesting.
A couple of things motivated me to initiate discussion about this topic. The first was the talk from a couple weeks ago about the absense of women on Speak Up and the occasional references to sexism and the like. I mean, seriously, anyone who's spent three weeks working in this industry hears someone assuming that women only respond to pastels and pictures of puppies and babies. But pretty much anyone these days, even the usually immune "white male," gets stuffed into a silo too. It's like, if something "new" happens, or enough people behave in an unexpected manner, there will be an intense rush to define a category and analyze it. I don't blame this on business or marketing departments or focus groups; its not about blame. Its about the simple fact that human beings very frequently perceive things based on previously established assumptions.
Now, obviously, those perceptions aren't set in stone but there's also a tendency to think that they are. It's a proven fact that people change their minds, even on big important issues (how else could you go from the Clinton administration to what we've got now?).
What's unfortunate is that perceptions and stereotypes and assumptions perpetuate themselves because few people are willing to step in and say "no, not this time." Without presenting distinct, humanized messages soaked with intelligence, you'll never get anyone to think about anything. If people don't think about things, well, they don't stretch and life as we know it carves a deeper and deeper rut.
The second thing that compelled me to talk about this was all the renewed chatter about "The Power of Design," brought back to life by Helfand, Drentell, and Irwin. Among others.
My immediate reaction to everything they were saying was not terribly inspired, and even a little annoyed. Just a lot more talk about "making things better," or "building a sustainable future," and of course, "improving the quality of life." We can bitch and moan about the completely generalized approach in any of those arguments--and I will continue to, to a certain degree--but you can either be a whetstone or an angry hammer, and I'm not resigned to bludgeoning efforts at change.
Because fundamentally, they're a good thing. But the intentions alone aren't enough, and they're even less valuable when the focus just doesn't exist.
Look, there are TONS of different types of design out there, and a designer should be able to think about how anything can serve a purpose that advances an idea, sells goods & services, or clarifies information. One specialty is not superior to another one.
But what remains very clear to me, is that AIGA designers and the vast majority of people on this site specialize in COMMUNICATING. We design communications--annual reports, brochures, posters, packages, ads (am I the only one?), whatever. There's no logical limit to the communicative potential of anything, and I think we've done a pretty good job on this site discussing how to put more and more helium into the Balloon of Boundaries. I still can't help but feel that a lot of confusion and indecision lingers in people's minds after this conference. I wasn't there, so I should keep my comments in check, but if you attend a conference organized by a graphic design organization and talk about making spoons and cities and whatever highly theoretical academic intellectualized ramblings are cool this month, I'd be a little confused.
So maybe, just maybe, its time to talk about how we communicate. Maybe we should examine how we think about the people in this world, our audiences, learn what real human beings talk about and think about and worry about, and see if there's a route worth taking or building.
For all the talk of "improving lives," I hear almost no discussion of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. None. What I've gleaned lately from some of the more so-called "intellectual" designers is that they too, just like the marketing departments, think about and refer to human beings as members of some giant, anonymous, generalized group. I'm sure its not intentional, but we've got to start thinking in terms of individuals and not demographics and psychographics.
On Nov.16.2003 at 07:33 PM