What is the love affair that design has with the ideological declaration? What is it about design (and art) that spawns these impassioned, strong manifestos? And how do we understand manifestos (or public declarations in general) as tools for shaping our field? Are they merely self-indulgent or are they important galvanizing tools? Or possibly both?
Looking back at the history and scope of these ideological declarations can be an important way to frame a contemporary discourse in graphic design. Where are we going? What do we expect from the field? From ourselves? Design as a community depends on a strong historical consciousness—not as a lens into which to view something separate from our current condition, but as a method for interpreting and molding our contemporary ideals. A rejection of the past is not necessary to move forward. But a historical glance back in design history might have us believe otherwise. The Futurists embrace of all things machine-like was a clear rejection of the craft movement. The same could be said of the Bauhaus. More recently the First Things First Manifeso (2000) was a rejection of the trajectory that a few, well-connected and prominent designers felt necessary to take a stand against. How much did that change our field? And, 10 years late, is it still relevant? Which also begs the question, is the power of manifesto in its impassioned rejections of some sort?
This is obviously more questions that answers. I’m writing it to accomplish two goals. (1) Consider how we might set up the context under which we’re asking people to engage in this discourse and (2) to consider my own critical perspective, which I will try to outline more clearly below:
(1) I think an examination of the context under which manifestos/ideological declarations are written is an important lens through which to look at these documents, and consider their impact. The Bruce Mau example is a good one.
(2) I think an examination (evaluation) of how historical manifestos have shaped each other and our current field is interesting and important (where can we see common thoughts between very different ideologies)
(3) I think manifestos—written by groups and as an attempt to shape the field less than express a personal ideology—are more important for the community in which we practice and live (so, First Things First vs Bruce Mau)
Hello.
First off, I love the idea of having a manifesto “lounge” and think that it will prove to be a nice community space for gathering or realizing at the symposium but other than the huggable/punchable pillows there seems to be a disconnect from the actual project to this area. Sure people can sit on the couches and read the wall but they have to physically get up to input their thoughts on the computer. What if you had an extension of this project in paper/pencil form so that an individual or better yet a group of them could have a conversation about this and record their ideas without having to get up (yes, this is coming from lazy ‘ol me). The written sheets could later be added to the instillation by taping them or even they could just be view as coffee table book form from sitting.
Second, less is more. 12 manifestos is a LOT, why not have less manifestos and provide more information to get a better understanding of them rather then having more general explanations of them.
Third, the path this investigation has taken is very interesting and overall I think that it will be a wonderful piece and add a lot to the conversation at the symposium.