
Last week, #DesignTwitter launched into a classic ethics question: Is it possible to separate an artist from their work? Designers might face this question when selecting clients; if a client is a known predator, then the decision not to work with them is a simple one. Educator and design critic Brian LaRossa asked Design Twitter a slightly less cut-and-dry question, though: How do personal ethics factor in the design decision-making process?
Tonight in my type class we talked about how you cannot separate an artist from their work, and more broadly about how ethics must factor into design decisions. I shared that I choose not to use Eric Gill’s typefaces as an example of the former.
— Brian LaRossa (@LaRossa) February 4, 2020
It’s very easy not to use type designer and child molester Eric Gill’s most famous typeface; there are plenty other early 20th-century humanistic sans’ to choose from. But educator Silas Munro was quick to point out that we must be alert to cancel culture’s potential for historical erasure:
It may seem so cut and dry with Gill. But does this mean I can’t watch Kill Bill again? (Weinstein) look at a Chuck Close painting, cite the MIT media lab (Epstein) or walk into the Getty (Meier)? This seem like another from of cancel culture or erasure
— N Silas Munro (@siborg81) February 4, 2020
Until 1989, biographies failed to mention that Gill was an abuser and pedophile. When design students are taught Adolf Loos’ “Ornament and Crime,” what often gets left out is that he was convicted as a pedophile for exploiting girls under 10 from poor families. Context matters. Educator Paul Soulellis brought further nuance to the Twitter thread, emphasizing the importance of learning and understanding how an individual or institution has done wrong, rather than only focusing on cultural achievements:
Will I go out of my way to pay to see a new Woody Allen film? Definitely not. But when I re-watch old ones they’re totally different now. Has my impression of Media Lab shifted? Absolutely. This isn’t cancel culture, it’s being aware of how things are made.
— Paul Soulellis (@soulellis) February 4, 2020
Another important part of this conversation is considering who reaps monetary benefit and royalties—we don’t want our dollars supporting a predator. And when it comes to historical examples, teaching history in a way that is properly contextualized is vital.
Meaningful discussions like these are Design Twitter at its best. Also nice: finding solace in others’ experiences of the creative processes. Perhaps this internal dialogue sounds familiar…
My creative process:
nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope oh there you are.
— Mitch Goldstein (@mgoldst) February 10, 2020
Certainly seems to have struck a (good) chord.
I feel so seen
— Åsk Dabitch (@dabitch) February 10, 2020
As did this Tweet from our protégé, who pulled back the curtains to reveal the process behind a rebranding Nike Air.
Last year I got to work on a project that’s starting to make its way into the world. This is probably one of the few times since graduating 6.5 years ago that I’m actually excited to share work. It started with a lofty goal—to rebrand Nike’s most loved innovation: Nike Air. pic.twitter.com/Gwwkbr40yI
— Yung AIGA (@urboib) February 10, 2020
It’s a nice breakdown of the project start to finish, with some internal details that lend that voyeuristic pleasure of being a fly on the wall of design team meetings for a large-scale project.
Then I got really into trying to push a modular atom logo with the earlier skeleton. Definitely made things far too complex vs the simplicity consumers need, but was a fun place to play. pic.twitter.com/AzZN85Wszb
— Yung AIGA (@urboib) February 10, 2020
Plus, some early concepts.
Another concept in the mix was an information system with varying breakpoints, the most simple resulting in what I tried to push as the ‘mark’. My favorite thing was trying to introduce a modular atom that built the mark + grid, which could change per benefit (see at :38) pic.twitter.com/BifjUWfkX5
— Yung AIGA (@urboib) February 10, 2020
And fire animations!
More fun stuff: We had More and More do some animations, using the logo to play around with possible product benefits. The fire was a fun one in meetings. pic.twitter.com/lC8msgrq1j
— Yung AIGA (@urboib) February 10, 2020
But not all sneaker rebrands were as eagerly received this week. Reebok’s “redesign” was quickly called to task by designers weighing in on both the lack of effort as well as the attempt to make it “less awful.”
lol pic.twitter.com/lo9UTMpTNp
— ཊལབསརངཧ (@David_Rudnick) February 8, 2020
Wonder if the brief was shared via video? This is apparently a popular (read: horrifying) way for clients to communicate with their designers.
New client sent me a video of himself explaining the brief / discovery.
Is this the future? Freaked me the fuck out tbf.
–
“If you accept this project, this message with self destruct in 5.4.3..”
— ● Mike (@miksullivan) January 30, 2020
Makes us wistful for simpler times…
what twitter could have looked like pic.twitter.com/xwJsSkO92x
— 🐟 (@elliottsphone) February 9, 2020