Hours after the events of 11 September, Web designers all across the world published URLs to express their disbelief and their sympathy to the victims, asking people to donate to the Red Cross via the website www.surfstation.lu/ 00_dropbox/content/TB/05/
On this occasion, designers did put themselves as arbiters of morality and righteousness; taking the stance that mass-murdering people was amoral.
Years ago during the apartheid regime in South Africa, designers and artists across the world published posters to express disbelief and their sympathy to Nelson Mandela and the black population, asking people to fight apartheid (anyone remembers the call to boycott Outspan oranges?).
In this occasion, designers did put themselves as arbiters of morality and righteousness; taking the stance that apartheid was amoral. Does Solidarnosc ring a bell in this country?
So where do Alex Cameron and Kelly Al-Saleh (Letters DW 15 November) get the idea that self-expression ‘should not be part of the gamut of graphic designers’? What makes them think that designers are only allowed to express other people’s ideas?
If they are unable to have any idea to communicate, they should take their ‘contractual obligation to communicate the ideas of others in the best and most effective way’ to people in the business of righteousness?
I agree that the role of graphic design (in the UK) is not in the business of moral fulfillment. As it stands. But why make it a duty to prevent any attempt to change this role? Is it not a personal choice?