Design Beyond Materialism

The article "Good Citizenship" by Katherine McCoy shed light on graphic design and how it is a platform for liberation. She mentioned past examples of how design has influenced social and political commentary and that this motivation of design needs to be encouraged and expand. McCoy's strong belief is that students of design, along with current designers, have the responsibility to be the voice of social and political movements. She rejects the commercial role designers usually fill, materialism, and under-whleming art projects current schools are assigning. She is asking students of design to become proactive, express themselves in unique ways, and become involved in current social and political forces.

I do agree with McCoy that students have the capability to grow a new voice. I agree that it is uncommon for students to deter from the expected investment of time and energy into materialistic or commercial ideals. She asks designers to bare the load of social and political responsibility, which I feel is responsible for ALL students, and well, everyone. A student has the capability to gain knowledge, have new perspective, and think creatively and passionately about global or national issues, but this is the responsibility of all students not just designers. The article was written in 1995 which is leading up to 2001 and the war in Iraq. This is an interesting gateway to the next decade of political involvement. Her call for activism in 1995 may be responding to a dull scene of graphic design. I see her argument as being more of a call to be active and not really responding to a particular issue or movement at that time. She did not want to see students rest on the media or marketing venues and become safe designers. I see this article as a warning I suppose and a critique towards the young generation giving zero effort to think actively about how they can influence change.

I would say this article can ring true in any decade and during any political or social movement. McCoy wants students to engage. period. Think creatively.

First Things First

I have always been aware of the vast difference between fine art and graphic design. Before coming to USF, and really before I decided on being a design major, I was always very bias towards fine art. I saw graphic design as being unmoving, and having no relationship to the viewer. Graphic design was two dimensional and therefore not as tangible as fine art can be. I saw fine art having a better relationship with not only the viewer, but with the artist as well. Fine art is a hands on skill that requires a physical pull from the artist. Graphic design is not like that anymore. It used to be more interactive before computer programs changed graphic design and the direction it was going into for good. So, I was very wary of the role graphic designed played other than advertisement, signage, packaging, and brand development. It seemed less personal and having less of an impact to the art world. I really had no idea what I was talking about before my introduction to graphic design at this university.

Both fine art and graphic design share the quality of being able to communicate anything in any platform or medium. Graphic design has had huge influences on its audience not only in a social context, but politically and historically. Although fine arts has a longer history, graphic design has evolved more dramatically than fine arts since the introduction of the internet and online media. Pertaining to the First Things First 1964 a manifesto, this is when graphic designers have demanded to have a different platform other than social media and advertisement. This manifesto calls for a new look towards graphic design and rejects the point of view I originally had.

I feel this manifesto calls for a revolution of graphic design artists. Graphic design is art, and the people creating it are artists. Fine art and graphic design have worked together in our history to call for social change. Without either platform, public voice would be very lost.