Manifesto-me

MANIFESTO - ME MANIFES MANIFESTO MAN - ME - ME MANIFESTO ME MANIFE MANIFESTO - MEMANIFE MANIFESTO - ME -MANIFESTO MEMANIFESTO ME ME MAN MANIFESTO MANIFES ME ME ME ME - ME PROJECTO DE COMUNICAÇÃO FBA - UL DC V’ 11 3º ANO PEDRO SILVA 5023

PROJECTO DE COMUNICAÇÃO FBA - UL DC V’ 11 3º ANO PEDRO SILVA 5023

M M -M -M -M -M -M -M -M -M

MANIFESTO MANIFESTO MANIFE MANIFESTO ME -MANIFESTO ME -MANIFESTO ME -MANIFESTO MEMANIFESTO MANIFES ME -MANIFESTO ME MAN MANIFESTO ME -MANIFESTO ME- ME MANIFE ME ME MANIFESTO -MANIFESTO ME MANIFEST ME -MANIFESTO ME MANIFEST ME MANIFES -MANIFESTO ME - ME MAN -MANIFESTO ME - ME - MEMAN - ME

THE WORLD IS CHANGING NOT FOR BETTER

Vários foram os designers que se pronunciaram sobre o real significado dos manifestos e no âmbito daquilo que pretendiam defender, criaram o seu próprio manifesto.

Ellen Lupton e Julia Lupton, falam do manifesto como sendo um curto documento, no qual o cidadão “manifesta” uma série de ideias e objectivos.

Segundo as autoras um Manifesto é passional, pessoal e vivido. Consideram que tais apelos a acção saiu de moda durante meados do século 20 sendo substituído por declarações com propósitos e princípios orientadas ao negócio.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

Rick Poynor em seu livro ‘Obey the Giant/Life in the Image World’, fala sobre o manifesto First Things First,onde relata que ao longo da década de 1990, reagindo à ressaca da pósmodernidade e ao fantasma da globalização, uma geração de novos críticos, construíram uma espécie de mainstream alternativo que operou uma intensa leitura ideológica do design. A reedição do manifesto First Things First, escrito pelo designer britânico Ken Garland nos anos 1960, foi um marco simbólico de uma nova orientação politizada (ligada a um pensamento socialista ora mais ora menos liberal) do design.

The question of value-free design has been continually contested in the graphic design community between those who are concerned about the need for values in design and those who believe it should be valuefree. Those who believe that design can be free from values reject the idea that graphic designers should concern themselves with underlying political questions. Those who are concerned about values believe that designers should be critical and take a stand in their choice of work, for instance by not promoting industries and products perceived to be harmful. Examples of projects that might be classified as unacceptable include many forms of advertising and designs for cigarette manufacturers, arms companies and so on. Adbusters has been a significant outlet for these ideas, especially in its commitment to detournement and culture jamming.

When Ken Garland published his First Things First manifesto in London 1964, he threw down a challenge to graphic designers and other visual communicators that refuse to go away. As the twenty-first century begins, this brief message, dashed off in the heat of the moment, and signed by twenty-one of his colleagues, is more urgent than ever; the situation it lamented incalculably more extreme.

It is no exaggeration to say that designers are engaged in nothing less than the manufacture of contemporary realty. Today, we live and breathe design. Few of the experiences we value at home, at leisure, in the city or the mall are free of its alchemical touch. We have absorbed design so deeply into ourselves that we no longer recognise the myriad ways in which it prompts, cajoles, disturbs and excite us. It’s completely natural.

It’s just the way things are.

We imagine that we engaged directly with the ‘content´ of the magazine, the TV commercial, the pasta sauce or perfume, but the content is always mediated by design and it is design that helps direct how we perceive it and how it makes us feel. The brand-meisters and marketing gurus understand this only too well. The product may be little different in real terms from its rivals. What seduces us its ‘image’. The image reaches it must become an idea. This is the tremendous power of design.

That First Things First struck a never is clear. It arrived at a moment when design was taking off

FIRST THINGS FIRST FIRST THINGS FIRST FIRST THINGS FIRST

FIRST THINGS FIRST FIRST THINGS FIRST FIRST THINGS FIRST

as a confident, professionalised activity. The rapid growth of the affluent consumer society meant there were many opportunities for talented visual communicators in advertising, promotion and packaging. The advertising business itself had experienced a so-called ‘creative revolution’ in New York, and several influential American exponents of the new ideas-based graphic design were working for London agencies in the early 1960s. A sense of glamour and excitement surrounded this well-paid line of work. From the late 1950s onwards, a few sceptical designers began to ask publicly what this non-stop tide of froth had to do with the wider needs and problems of society. To some, it seemed that the awards with which their colleagues liked to flatters themselves attracted and celebrated only the shallowest and most ephemeral forms of design. For Garland and the other concerned signatories of First Things First, design was in danger of forgetting its responsibility to struggle for a better life for all.

The British designer Jock Kinneir (not a signatory) agreed: ‘Designers oriented in this direction are concerned less with persuasion and more with information, less with income brackets and more with physiology, less with taste and more with efficiency, less with fashion and more with amenity.

They are concerned in helping people to find their way, to understand what is required of them, to grasp new processes and to use instruments and machines more easily.’

ALL DESIGN IS POLITICAL

Designer and educator Victor Papanek (1927-99) was a strong advocate of the design of products and tools that were socially and ecologically ‘responsible’. He identified a tendency in Western cultures to produce products that are potentially harmful, extravagant, or just plain useless.

Although in his lifetime he was often lampooned by those he criticized, many of his ideas have come to be viewed favorably. Papanek, for example, criticized our over-reliance on cars and excessive use of massive and ecologically unsound aircraft, instead proposing the development of a new generation of airships.

In more recent years there has been a revival in interest in these, particularly for use as alternatives to satellites (for telecommunications in cities and for anti-terrorist radar platforms, for example).

Papanek wrote about the loss of vision in design education, and believed that this began in schools that prized surface details over functionality. Papanek famously designed a radio that could be made from an old tin can, powered by burning a wick in fat.

Intended for use in developing countries, it was to be made for, and adapted by, the people who used it. The idea was derided on aesthetic rather than technical grounds – proving his point exactly. Arguably, the design may have failed to catch on due to the commercial pressures involved to produce something more sophisticated.

Teach Sustainability Early In 1987 the World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) prepared a document entitled Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland report, after the coordinator of the commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland . It was the first occasion on which the concept of sustainable development was introduced.

Its definition says in a few words the following: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987).

Our Common Future is an historically relevant document for two reasons. First , it brought into international debate the aforementioned definitive imposition of the idea about responsibility for the future. Second , which in the end might be more important, was the venture to question the ideas of development: an idea that has so far been indisputable. Today, the concept of sustainable development has its stable place not only in the official language and documents of all international organisations, but also among all social actors, economic as well as institutional ones.But great siccess on a communicative level has not brought any significant changes. Moreover, it seems that the very expression sustainable development has lost its original force.

1 f

1000 Words: A Manifesto for Sustainability in Design

By Allan Chochinov Hippocratic Before Socratic Stop Making Crap

Systems Before Artifacts Teach Sustainability Early Screws Better Than Glues

“First do no harm” is a good starting point for everyone, but it’s an especially good starting point for designers. For a group of people who pride themselves on “problem solving” and improving people’s lives, we sure have done our fair share of the converse. We have to remember that industrial design equals mass production, and that every move, every decision, every curve we specify is multiplied— sometimes by the thousands and often by the millions. And that every one of those everys has a price.

We think that we’re in the artifact business, but we’re not; we’re in the consequence business.

And that means that we have to stop making crap. It’s really as simple as that. We are suffocating, drowning, and poisoning ourselves with the stuff we produce, abrading, out-gassing, and seeping into our air, our water, our land, our food—and basically those are the only things we have to look after before there’s no we in that sentence. It gets into our bodies, of course, and it certainly gets into our minds. And designers are feeding and feeding this cycle, helping to turn everyone and everything into either a consumer or a consumable. And when you think about it, this is kind of grotesque. “Consumer” isn’t a dirty word exactly, but it probably oughta be.

Before we design anything new, we should examine how we can use what already exists to better ends.

We need to think systems before artifacts, services before products, adopting Thackara’s use/not own principles at every step. And when new products are needed, they’ll be obvious and appropriate, and then can we conscientiously pump up fossil fuels and start polymerizing them. Product design should be part of a set of tools we have for solving problems and celebrating life. It is a means, not an end.

Design education is at a crossroads, with many schools understanding the potentials, opportunities, and obligations of design, while others continue to teach students how to churn out pretty pieces of garbage. Institutions that stress sustainability, social responsibility, cultural adaptation, ethnography, and systems thinking are leading the way. But soon they will come to define what industrial design means. (A relief to those constantly trying to define the discipline today!) This doesn’t mean no aesthetics. It just means a keener eye on costs and benefits.

This is lifted directly from the Owner’s Manifesto, which addresses how the people who own things and the people who make them are in a kind of partnership. But it’s a partnership that’s broken down, since almost all of the products we produce cannot be opened or repaired, are designed as subassemblies to be discarded upon failure or obsolescence, and conceal their workings in a kind of solid-state prison.

This results in a population less and less confident in their abilities to use their hands for anything other than pushing buttons and mice, of course. But it also results in people fundamentally not understanding the workings of their built artifacts and environments, and, more importantly, not understanding the role and impact that those built artifacts and environments have on the world. In the same way that we can’t expect people to understand the benefits of a water filter when they can’t see the gunk inside it, we can’t expect people to sympathize with greener products if they can’t appreciate the consequences of any products at all.

Design for Impermanence In his Masters Thesis, "The Paradox of Weakness: Embracing Vulnerability in Product Design," my student Robert Blinn argues that we are the only species who designs for permanence—for longevity—rather than for an ecosystem in which everything is recycled into everything else. Designers are complicit in this over-engineering of everything we produce (we are terrified of, and often legally risk-averse to, failure), but it is patently obvious that our ways and means are completely antithetical to how planet earth manufactures, tools, and recycles things. We choose inorganic materials precisely because biological organisms cannot consume them, while the natural world uses the same building blocks over and over again. It is indeed Cradle-to-Cradle or cradle-to-grave, I'm afraid.

Balance Before Talents The proportion of a solution needs to balance with its problem: we don't need a battery-powered pooper scooper to pick up dog poop, and we don't need a car that gets 17 MPG to, well, we don't need that car, period. We have to start balancing our ability to be clever with our ability to be smart. They're two different things.

Metrics Before Magic Metrics do not get in the way of being creative. Almost everything is quantifiable, and just the exercise of trying to frame up ecological and labor impacts can be surprisingly instructive. So on your next project, if you've determined that it may be impossible to quantify the consequences of a material or process or assembly in a design you're considering, maybe it's not such a good material or process or assembly to begin with. There are more and more people out there in the business of helping you to find these things out, by the way; you just have to call them.

Climates Before Primates This is the a priori, self-evident truth. If we have any hope of staying here, we need to look after our home. And our anthropocentric worldview is literally killing us. "Design serves people"? Well, I think we've got bigger problems right now.

Context Before Absolutely Everything Understanding that all design happens within a context is the first (and arguably the only) stop to make on your way to becoming a good designer.

You can be a bad designer after that, of course, but you don't stand a chance of being a good one if you don't first consider context. It's everything: In graphics, communication, interaction, architecture, product, service, you name it—if it doesn't take context into account, it's crap. And you already promised not to make anymore of that.

So there’s my manifesto. A little stern perhaps, but that’s what editing down to 1000 words will get you. The power of design is an amazing thing. Let’s wield it wisely.

Allan Chochinov

Although sustainability often is marked by environmental causes and protest campaigns, its values represent a broad context of issues that have spread underground in all sectors of society throughout the world.

Andres R. Edwards

REFERÊNCIAS BALDWIN, Jonathan e LUCIENE Roberts (2006); Visual Communication: from Theory to Practice; Lausanne: Ava Publishing.

OBEY THE GIANT / LIFE IN THE IMAGE WORLD / RICK POYNOR POYNOR, Rick (2001); Obey the Giant: Life in The Image World; Berlin: Birkhäuser KLEIN, Naomi (2002); No Logo: O Poder das Marcas; Lisboa: Relógio D’Àgua VEZZOLI, Carlo e EZIO Manzini (2008); Design For Environmental Sustainability; London: Springer

REFERÊNCIAS ONLINE

http://www.core77.com/reactor/04.07_chochinov.asp http://www.core77.com/design2.0/allan_chochinov.asp http://reactor-reactor.blogspot.com/2010/03/sensacao-estranha-uma-reflexao-sobre.html http://www.manifestos.net/titles/ http://www.eyemagazine.com/review.php?id=2&rid=7&set=3