Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Graphic Design as Weapon of Territorial Terror
By Steven McCarthy

I just got back from Belfast, Northern Ireland, where I participated in an international academic conference titled Politics of Design. Numerous trips to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland over the years could not prepare me for the uneasy peace that’s broadcast graphically throughout this city. Protestants and Catholics stake out their geographic and ideological territories by painting murals that demarcate their neighborhoods in no uncertain terms. Loyalists (loyal to the British crown) and Republicans (supporting a unified Ireland on the island) are other terms to respectively describe the sectarian fractions, which are also political in nature. Both aggressively use image, text, symbol and heraldry to advance, or defend, their historical positions by painting large murals on the sides of houses. The shootings and bombings between the sides seem to have abated for now, so that’s reason for cautious optimism.

(Click on images for larger view)

SteveM_hotel_bud_sm.jpg I had put together a panel called—deep breath here— “Kicking the Edge to Nudge the Center: How North American Designers use Media at the Margins to Affect Political Change”. The panelists were Colette Gaiter of Columbia College in Chicago (“See it Loud! Emory Douglas: The Black Panther Party’s Minister of Culture and Image Architect”), Michael Longford of Montréal’s Concordia University (“ZED: Open Source Television in Canada”), and my University of Minnesota colleague James Boyd-Brent (“The Graphic Personality of Politics”). Another UM colleague, Daniel Jasper, gave a presentation titled “Art War. The Everyday as Battleground for Autonomy, Authenticity and Authority”. In all, our sessions went well with the requisite applause and polite follow-up questions. Daniel distributed his activist posters, as he had done the week before at the Republican National Convention in New York.

The binary political relationship in the USA—“red states versus blue states”—is but a simplification device for dramatizing differences at the expense of explaining complexities (1). The “orange” and “green” of the Protestants and Catholics really signifies graphically where one’s margin is: Shankill Road is not to be mistaken for Falls Road. And yet, as with most issues, paradox abounds. Supposedly, a favorite soccer team of the Republicans is Manchester United, a British team. I noticed Guinness signs outside Loyalist pubs. The Linen Hall Library’s “Northern Ireland Political Collection, the definitive archive of the recent troubles” has 250,000 items representing both sides of The Troubles. A toy action figure kit in a shop window featured a black clad terrorist about to shoot a kneeling counter-terrorist, who was wearing an army jacket and jeans; the lack of any signifying colors, words or symbols makes me believe that the roles (and sides) are interchangeable. Only terror wins the game.

SteveM_cromwell_hell_sm.jpg On the last day of the conference, Daniel, Michael, Martin Schmidl (a professor from Munich) and I rented a cab to tour the murals, so we could take some photos. Supposedly, many cab drivers will do one neighborhood or another, but not both. Our fellow did do both sides, with historical accuracy, insightful anecdotes and a lack of bias, and for this we were grateful. His son was the victim of sectarian violence, a survivor now with a rebuilt jaw and full dentures.

The Loyalist murals featured the red and white of the English flag, and with blue the Union Jack, the recurring “red hand” symbol, paramilitary troops wielding AK-47’s, and block or Roman capital lettering. They often invoked historical events, like Oliver Cromwell’s crusade, the Queen’s Golden Jubilee or the 1690 Battle of the Boyne.

Republican murals often featured the uncial typefaces that reference Ninth Century Celtic typography, and some were in the Gaelic language, which is being revived in parts of Ireland. They often depicted the martyrs of the Republican resistance: hunger strike victims (even painted with people like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi), or victims of “Bloody Sunday”. Some Republican areas flew the Palestinian flag, to show camaraderie with their struggle, and a few murals aligned with other efforts for independence, like the Catalonia region of Spain.

Supposedly the muralists do not consider themselves artists, even though most murals were competently painted, with good attention to technique, color, and visual narrative. Both sides are willing to paint over their murals when the time comes to tell another story or depict a different image. Although the rhetorical tone of the murals is provocative, even incendiary, perhaps they serve as a kind of dialog.

SteveM_bigots-beer_sm.jpg My city-center hotel, the Europa, having been bombed forty-some times by the IRA (but not while Bill Clinton was there), featured a ten-story Budweiser ad on one wall. The bottle top extends invitingly, with the familiar printed word: Bud. “Let’s be friends, buddy. We can put our religious and political differences aside and enjoy the benefits of global consumerism!” However, the actual “buddy” campaign underway at Northern Ireland’s institutions of higher learning, which encourages students to set aside their prejudices, is a fictitious beer brand called Bigots.

Notes
(1) see Harper’s Magazine from April 2004 for a great article on this topic:
“Lie Down for America: How the Republican Party sows ruin on the Great Plains”
by Baffler editor Thomas Frank.

Steven McCarthy, (MFA 1985, Stanford University) is an Associate Professor of Graphic Design at the University of Minnesota. Besides Belfast, Steven has lectured at academic conferences in New York, Boston, Montréal, London and Istanbul. Steven’s recent creative production includes having a poster juried into “I Profess”, and having an 8-page spread in Kenneth FitzGerald’s “News of the Whirled 4”. He was pleasantly surprised recently to find himself cited in Rick Poynor’s No More Rules: Graphic Design and Postmodernism on the topic of design authorship. To learn more about Steven’s work, visit his web site: www.episodic-design.com.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2087 FILED UNDER Essays
PUBLISHED ON Sep.23.2004 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
marian’s comment is:

What a great article. I'm fascinated with the concept of "fighting" with graphics. As undesirable as it sounds, if only wars could be fought as benignly as stating your opinion/case/history/protest in opposing graphic displays. These are, of course, also territorial pissing: graphics as demarcation lines ... something that would be useful in many urban areas: overt visual displays of the territory you are in.

It's also interesting that their cases are stated in these historical/allegorical/mythological contexts, instead of just writing "Kill all brits" or some other predictably explosive statement, the murals seem to go deeper. More of a "This is why" statement: historical support for their cause.

Thanks for this, it was all news to me.

On Sep.24.2004 at 09:52 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Very nice/interesting post.

On Sep.24.2004 at 09:55 AM
Marco Acevedo’s comment is:

It seems that where there is a disconnect between traditional media/communications sources and the day-to- day reality faced by a community, folks take things into their own hands. This reminds me of the large street murals I've seen in areas of NYC blighted by drug- and gang-related violence, only these tend to be "after the fact," memorials for local victims. How to encompass a single kid's life, farewells from their pals, and community hopes rooted in the collective cultural/ethnic past? It takes a whole brick wall, sometimes.

On Sep.24.2004 at 12:13 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

I noticed Guinness signs outside Loyalist pubs

I believe that the Guinness family is protestant (as are many of the rich in the Republic of Ireland.)

Cromwell as hero (Irish history records him as a ruthless butcher)

If the British won the War of 1812 or the Cherokee won the Indian Wars, Andy Jackson wouldn’t be on the $20 bill.

This reminds me of the large street murals I've seen in areas of NYC blighted by drug- and gang-related violence

Aren’t these murals functionally more like the graffiti that declares a block to be, say, Rolling 60s Crips turf?

On Sep.24.2004 at 01:17 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Interesting essay. But having read it, I can't tell if the author is condoning the work, questioning the work, or justifying the work.

Or is the author just neutrally exploring the cause, existence, and effectiveness of the murals and its context?

>Aren’t these murals functionally more like the graffiti that declares a block to be, say, Rolling 60s Crips turf?

I know the kind of murals Marco is referring to. They're becoming more common in inner city neighborhoods all over the US. Yes, they're territorial markers, but their original purpose is as a memorial/tribute to gang members from the neighborhood that have died in the line of duty.

But while the neighborhoods generally have accepted them, there are members in the community, some who are clergy, who think that those murals serve little purpose than to glamourize the deaths and ongoing war of retribution between warring factions.

These types of blood feuds are nothing new. Neither is this method of storytelling. The murals are there to remind subsequent generations that they can never forget the sacrifices committed and the ensuing hate. These murals are not there to mock the senselessness and stupidity of violence.

Yes, it is a form of dialog — but to what ends? Ultimately, does the work do more harm, or more good? I think it's the former.

On Sep.24.2004 at 03:09 PM
Ben Wexlar’s comment is:

This is a clear example of how images — I won't say graphic design — can enter the political realm with no apparent agenda, rendering it almost more destructive to the society. Since the bombings have subsided in the last couple of years, the propaganda continues to point out differences. Just when you think that newer generations would be exempt from centuries-old conflicts, they are fueled by the older generations.

This happens all the time in America, too. Even though the Civil Rights Movements were in full swing about forty years ago, the residual angst can be found in the imagery surrounding popular music cultures as well as in the homes of many Americans. Racism is passed on graphically through music videos and tend to point out the differences between us instead of what the Civil Rights Movements were about: our similarities.

All in all, I would love to live in a society where graphic design can be political, where it can take a stance, and actually have a solution to a problem, not just pointing them out. So, if you're going to design around an issue, think about what you're doing. If political issue design only perpetuates a problem, is it really helping anyone at all?

On Sep.24.2004 at 03:12 PM
Chris Rugen’s comment is:

"This is a clear example of how images — I won't say graphic design — can enter the political realm with no apparent agenda, rendering it almost more destructive to the society."

I agree. The abstraction and simplification of reality and life becomes more important than the life they claim to portray. That's when people's actions really start to lose purpose and reason, serving only to prove how right the images they uphold are.

On Sep.24.2004 at 04:19 PM
ian’s comment is:

"gang members from the neighborhood that have died in the line of duty."

what? marines, soldiers and airmen die in the line of duty, not gang members. this is a horrible choice of words.

This is a clear example of how images — I won't say graphic design — can enter the political realm with no apparent agenda, rendering it almost more destructive to the society.

i agree these murals can be viewed as destructive to the society (as they continue to promote segregation, rather than a solution), but do you really believe there is no agenda behind these? what is behind them, are they bored and want to paint a pretty mural for neighborhood to enjoy?

On Sep.24.2004 at 05:24 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>this is a horrible choice of words.

Gang members see themselves as soldiers in their own army, and see everyone else as civilians. I don't condone the practice or the lifestyle — and agree with you that it's horrible — but my choice of words in this case is wholely accurate and fitting.

On Sep.24.2004 at 05:30 PM
ian’s comment is:

okay, okay. i'll apologize on my line of duty comment. i took it out of context. unfortunately, gang members do view thier actions as a duty and line of duty is appropriate in discussiong how they view themselves. as a former marine i take line of duty a little too serious, i can't help it.

On Sep.24.2004 at 05:46 PM
Tan’s comment is:

I don't blame you Ian.

I think it'd be even more offensive to cops. But I have a good friend who's an officer in an Asian youth gang task force — and both sides consider each other as soldiers in opposing armies. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

Sorry for the tangent. Back to our regular programming.

Semper Fi, Ian.

On Sep.24.2004 at 05:53 PM
ian’s comment is:

actually this touches on the orignial article. both the loyalists and the republicans strongly believe they are right, so right in fact, that they see no middle ground. that is the hardest thing about resolving conflicts like this. the only resolution for them is their resolution. the murals are a visual representation of this. each mural strongly supports the creators cause, rather than an attempt towards a mutual understanding. it's propaganda.

On Sep.24.2004 at 07:02 PM
Tom B’s comment is:

As a British person, and an atheist, I have always felt very uneasy when talking about the troubles in Northern Ireland.

I'm sure I'm not wrong in saying that most people in the UK would prefer to ignore the problems and hope they go away. But it goes much deeper than a squabble between two rival gangs.

The animosity between Catholics and Protestants is an age-old conflict, which has torn the continent to pieces for hundreds of years. The reformation of the church started as a political idea (taking power away from autority and giving it to the people) but has turned into a tribal battle.

Unfortunately, it looks as though we are likely to continue this cycle again and again. If we're not careful, relations between the islamic world and the capitalist world could very easliy follow the same pattern.

This idea fills me with dread. And the only way we can overcome this scenario is by education: well-informed, open-minded and communicative.

Murals such as those in Belfast carry at their heart a genuine, serious concern to educate: to pull the wool from people's eyes.

Oliver Cromwell is revered in England as a hero, the founder of democracy (we have a statue of him outside the houses of Parliament). But he was also a bloodthirsty megalomaniac, guilty of numerous crimes against humanity.

The trouble is: how do we judge our own history? Should we revere Cromwell or Detest him? Should we ignore the past or should we make sure nobody forgets it?

I think we need to learn to see both sides of any story. Easy for me to say, I know - I haven't been personally affected by an act of hateful terrorism - but until we overcome our tribal, xenopobic tendancies, all the efforts of the people of Belfast will have been in vain.

On Sep.24.2004 at 07:04 PM
Marco Acevedo’s comment is:

Yes, they're territorial markers, but their original purpose is as a memorial/tribute to gang members from the neighborhood that have died in the line of duty.

I believe in most cases you're right, But I think some are memorials to innocent victims (a classmates intitiative, say) so I didn't want to tar them all with the same brush. But what's interesting is the apparent need, which all the muralists share, to perpetuate communal identity through a history/myth/folklore/propaganda (take your pick based on your point of view). What I'm saying is that—in the age of the soundbite and "reality TV", when a protest by thousands can evaporate into the ether if it goes unreported—deeply emotional social content will find some form of visual expression, however right or wrong its agenda is, precisely as a reaction to the homogenizing, sedating effect of major media.

The Civil Rights Movement did try to emphasize our similarities, but I'm afraid that humanity's history of oppression and neglect, on all sides, has resulted in most people being afraid of losing what sets them apart.

On Sep.24.2004 at 10:02 PM
marian’s comment is:

Hmmm, I can't speak on this with any authority as I have never been to Ireland, and we do not—to the best of my knowledge—have gangs in Vancouver with this kind of sway over neighbourhoods. It's all foreign to me.

But forgive me if I think that to say that they are just proaganda inciting divisiveness seems simplistic to me. This is basically saying "Why can't we all just get along?" Of course. Why not? But obviously, as noted, it's an age old conflict. It's one I don't and will never understand (coming, politically, from the "why can't we all just get along" perspective). But it seems to be a fact that they can't just all get along, and this kind of graphic flag-waving seems more of a benign release to me. They're stating their case through art, and they give their own community something to be proud of. I don't think it's destructive at all. I think for the community it must be some form of catharsis.

As Marco stated, the graphics set them apart, they say "this is what we, in this neighbourhood, are about." WE, as outsiders might say "you should not be apart, you should be together," but that's an arrogant outsider's perspective (speaking strictly as an arrogant outsider). They ARE apart, I think they will always be apart, but if they can learn to take pride in their otherness without killing each other, that would be ideal.

I would much prefer that people state their otherness in graphics and culture than try to assimilate or obliterate each other with weapons.

If you think this is "destructive" would you propose that these displays of opinion/culture be removed or banned? I can already imagine the consequences.

Marco put it much more eloquently than I:

deeply emotional social content will find some form of visual expression, however right or wrong its agenda is, precisely as a reaction to the homogenizing ...

On Sep.24.2004 at 11:27 PM
M Kingsley’s comment is:

> This is a clear example of how images — I won't say graphic design — can enter the political realm with no apparent agenda, rendering it almost more destructive to the society. Since the bombings have subsided in the last couple of years, the propaganda continues to point out differences. Just when you think that newer generations would be exempt from centuries-old conflicts, they are fueled by the older generations.

Whether it's done by someone with a computer and a BFA or someone with pigment at the end of a furry stick; if the intention is to convince, motivate, inform, etc. then it is graphic design.

And we shouldn't be so quick to pejoratively judge the motivations behind these walls. You could say the same about the cross, turbans, magen davids, or my personal peeve: "we will never forget" graphics.

Since Language is a result of defining "difference" (man/woman, up/down, in/out, cat/dog, etc.), all symbols — whether they be jeans in the boardroom or turbans in a French school — point out differences.

> This happens all the time in America, too. Even though the Civil Rights Movements were in full swing about forty years ago, the residual angst can be found in the imagery surrounding popular music cultures as well as in the homes of many Americans. Racism is passed on graphically through music videos and tend to point out the differences between us instead of what the Civil Rights Movements were about: our similarities .

This is a nice way of thinking of it, but you could also say that the Civil Rights Movement was also about difference between the rights of African-Americans and the rights of White America: who could sit where on a bus, who could go to what school, etc.

> each mural strongly supports the creators cause, rather than an attempt towards a mutual understanding. it's propaganda.

Like I said, we all do it. That is unless you never slapped a band sticker on a notebook, wore all black, or uttered the phrase "...but I support our troops". We all digest and spew propaganda in varying degrees.

> The Civil Rights Movement did try to emphasize our similarities , but I'm afraid that humanity's history of oppression and neglect, on all sides, has resulted in most people being afraid of losing what sets them apart .

Marco, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Aren't the qualities that 'set them apart' the same thing that makes up 'identity'?

On Sep.24.2004 at 11:45 PM
Marco Acevedo’s comment is:

Aren't the qualities that 'set them apart' the same thing that makes up 'identity'?

Yup. That's exactly it. People tend to get more vocal and dig into their positions the more they feel their particular values (read: identity) are threatened, not only by a specific local "adversary" (e.g. Protestant vs. Catholic), but increasingly by a perceived greater "them". In the US, it seems, groups are drawing their wagon trains into tighter and tighter circles against... who? To paraphrase to make the point: "rich people who are going to send your kids off to war to protect their oil interests"... "gays who are making a mockery of the institution of marriage"..."fascists who want to undermine the Bill of Rights"...on and on and back and forth. Everyone feels that the stakes are terribly high. There's never been a greater need to promote our simirarities and common good... but it's never been harder.

I just came across this news item on Netscape News: the RNC apparently acknowledged that it distributed campaign literature in West Virginia and Arkansas warning voters that "liberals want to ban the Bible... the literature shows a Bible with with the word 'BANNED' across it. It also shows a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word 'ALLOWED,' a reference to same-sex marriage." Another really good example of "graphic design as a weapon of territorial terror," the power of word and image. [http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20040924/1938217778.htm&photoid=20040806NY376]

I'm not trying to sound defeatist or alarmist... but news items like this and articles like Steven's do kind of put graphic design into a humbling perspective.

On Sep.25.2004 at 09:39 AM
szkat’s comment is:

i wouldn't say it puts design into a humbling perspective...

i'd say it makes me terrified and full of rage that people deliberately use their skills to lie and cheat their way into the public opinion. the article you mentioned didn't include any information about the consequences of the distribution. do you know if any action being taken against the RNC?

back to the original topic, i'm with Marian's opening statement, that these murals and grafitti are less propaganda and more a statement of beliefs (not all, of course, but many). in this sense, the RNC move would align with the murals in that it's producing a reminder of what's being fought for... but... i forget who, a comedian once said "it's only funny to make fun of yourself. i don't make fun of others."

likewise, i think propoganda should express personal beliefs and not redicule or tear down the opposition. when something is straightforward, well thought out, and truthful, it is usually a powerful statement. and that, i think, makes for a humbling graphic design experience.

On Sep.27.2004 at 11:11 AM
Kate O’s comment is:

Designers use their art in many different ways, some to promote, others use it to make people aware which is what these murals are most likely meant for.

Like Tom B. said "I'm sure I'm not wrong in saying that most people in the UK would prefer to ignore the problems and hope they go away. But it goes much deeper than a squabble between two rival gangs."

But you can't ignore the murals, they are there for everyone to see, and that's what gets the point across so good. The author is right too, that they are a divided land. I know from personal experience having been to Northern Ireland that different neighborhoods don't mix back and forth and share things like grocery stores. Stopping in the wrong neighborhood could get you in a scuffle if you say the wrong thing or are wearing an inappropriate t-shirt. Most people want to ignore it and avoid it to help them believe that it's not really like that. But maybe the artists are just saying, "Hey this is real and it's right here."

On Sep.28.2004 at 06:18 PM
Ross Ciaramitaro’s comment is:

I am all for polital upheaval...I like the Ireland beer logo and brand Biggot, it's edgy and in my eyes cause for no cotroversy...designers of this logo had sales in mind and thats it. Studentsd would buy the beer if it wasn't ficticious...

On Oct.27.2004 at 04:17 PM