First Things First

Okay, before I spend another 3 hours here avoiding actually writing about this stuff, let me take a quick moment to talk about the 1964 and 2000 First Things First Manifestos.

When I talk to people about being a digital arts major, I'm generally met with confused stares. It makes sense, "Digital Arts" is such a vague term that it seems to carry no inflection of what I do. In many ways I'm really thankful for this fact, since it also carries with it few restrictions on what I can focus on. When I was still in community college I leapt from Computer Engineering into Graphic Design because I felt that design would allow me a more meaningful means of interaction/communication. Like engineering though, pure design seemed to be missing something as well, sure I now had a means to engage people, but I had no substance to engage them with. After I transferred though, I found a means to backslide a bit, into a sort of middle ground between engineering/innovation and the tools of communication. So when asked what it is I want to do after college, I try to explain to people what it is I do now. Most think about this for a second, blink, and come back with "ok, but how do you want to use that after college." Not having the words to explain it in terms better than "I want to engage people" I start to talk about how it can be used for things such as marketing. Is this the noblest cause? Depends on the product or service really. But in any case it pays, and for many people what they really seem to be asking is "how will this secure you an income."

The First Things First manifestos are both declarations to use artistic/design skills for purposes other than mass marketing. What I find interesting is that the only difference between the two publications seems to be the suggested alternatives:

1964 There are signs for streets and buildings, books and periodicals, catalogues, instructional manuals, industrial photography, educational aids, films, television features, scientific and industrial publications and all the other media through which we promote our trade, our education, our culture and our greater awareness of the world.

2000 There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills. Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention. Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require our expertise and help.

If you compare the two the alternatives to advertising suggested in 2000 seem almost purely...I have no word for it other than noble causes. "Social Marketing," "educational tools," "charitable causes"...

I'm not scoffing at these suggestions, they're certainly positive things. What I find odd/unfortunate is the things they left off from 1964 like "signs for streets and buildings," "scientific and industrial publications," "and all the other media through which we promote our trade, our education, our culture and our greater awareness of the world." (I really like that last bit.)

The focus between 1964 and 2000 seems to shift from using design meaningfully to using design nobly. Noble is good, but meaningful is far more relevant.

Meaningfulness vs Nobility aside though, I feel like First Things First miss one important problem, especially when ending the 2000 manifesto with "Today, we renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades will pass before it is taken to heart." I refuse to believe that there's a shortage of artists/designers out there who are uninterested in fulfilling more meaningful purposes. What I do believe is that there's a market shortage of demand, ie: people willing to pay, for them to do it. Most of the initiatives they offer as alternatives in the 2000 manifesto are things typically done by designers as pro-bono work, and while pro-bono work is vital to the soul, doing it exclusively can be troublesome for the landlord.