Is design more about communication or advertising? The debate started exactly 50 years ago and remains unresolved. Which is more important,a crocodile on a T-shirt coveted the world over or a universally understood nuclear hazard sign? The paint job of a Ferrari or the tiny green and red dots on packaging that tell us whats veg and what isnt? Exactly half a century ago,questions of that sort had begun to bother British graphic designers. It sounds like ancient history but it was only November 1963. The UK had just about recovered from the privations of a world war and the loss of India. Dr No,the first Bond film,was in London theatres,the Beatles had just debuted with Please Please Me,but the tipping point of sex,drugs and rock-and-roll was still half a decade away. Modcons like washing machines and packaged foods were entering British homes,and with them came the now-familiar carpet bombing with logos,advertising and commercial communications,speaking the wordlessly compelling language of graphic design. Design is a discipline as old as the first cave art,or the aniconic depictions of divinity that predated religion. In modern times,it is pervasive,informing everything that we see,both consciously and subliminally. We like to believe that when we look at a road sign,a poster or a book,we have direct access to the content,but the communication is conditioned by the wrapper,which is design (Whats the difference between blue and green road signs,say,and why is it intuitive?). Indeed,design itself is a form of content; it is not a mere container or pipe for delivering a payload of textual information. The iconic Ken Garland,who earned his place in design history with his posters for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,was disturbed by the sharp turn that design had taken towards commerce. Indeed,even now,it is almost congruent with advertising. Sub-disciplines like product design are big in institutions like the National Institute of Design,Ahmedabad,but deeply underappreciated in everyday life,and fontography would be a lost art but for the efforts of individual fans all over the world. The reliably boring Times New Roman and Arial would have had to suffice for almost all communications. In November 1963,Garland scribbled up a little protest note,complaining that the best creative minds of Oxcam were being wasted in the arts of selling. We,the undersigned, it said,are graphic designers,photographers and students who have been brought up in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative,effective and desirable means of using our talents. By December,it had grown into a manifesto titled First Things First and signed by 22 designers,including big names. In January,the Labour MP Tony Benn reproduced it in its entirety in The Guardian,a slew of design journals picked it up and the BBC wanted to know what the excitement was all about. First Things First could be the most influential design manifesto ever,encouraging the creators and users of design (thats us) to look beyond advertising to the core function of design: communication. It sought to establish that street signs are more important than logos,that airline safety guides must be more lucidly designed than fast food menus. It disparaged designers who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as: cat food,stomach powders,detergent,hair restorer,striped toothpaste,aftershave lotion,beforeshave lotion,slimming diets,fattening diets,deodorants,fizzy water,cigarettes,roll-ons,pull-ons and slip-ons. In 2000,the design community updated the manifesto. Two major changes were visible. We the undersigned were now teched up as graphic designers,art directors and visual communicators. And the goods and services peddled by advertising were now: dog biscuits,designer coffee,diamonds,detergents,hair gel,cigarettes,credit cards,sneakers,butt toners,light beer and heavy-duty recreational vehicles. But the spirit of the thing had endured: Commercial work has always paid the bills,but many graphic designers have now let it become,in large measure,what graphic designers do. This,in turn,is how the world perceives design. The professions time and energy is used up manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best. Perhaps,it is suicidal for a journalist,whose profession depends on advertising revenues,to think on these lines. Yet,it is entertaining to wonder how different the world would have been if design had been energetically deployed for non-commercial ends. Definitely,humanity would have been better educated. You learn quicker from intelligently designed books,retain their content longer and use it more creatively. Perhaps,to design better hair gels and butt toners? Sorry for a momentary lapse of optimism,but its 50 years after First Things First and very little has changed.
