Matthew Soar's 'The First Things First Manifesto and the politics of culture jamming'

Main points of Soar’s article
1. Commercialism and advertising have taken graphic design to a slave/subordinate status level. The oppression of graphic design by advertising.

2. This oppression has effected the compromising or loss of values and purposes in the graphic design industry. Graphic design being used to promote consumer-capitalism, a means/tool used to push the “eyeballs” (audience) (p. 224 of reader, 577 of article) into buying non-essential products: social (ir)responsibility.

3. Graphic designers are largely unhappy with this social function; they do not identify with persuading people into consumerism (p. 224 of reader, 577 of article) – such persuasion is referred to as “sinning” (p. 223 of reader, 576 of article and 226 of reader, 579 of article). Designers are calling for a renewal of design’s values – a reintroduction of the First Things First Manifesto, seeking an ethical revolution.

4. Somewhere in the middle of the discussion Soar downplays the enemy status of advertising by voicing its side of the story: he interviews Richard Wilde, an “ad man” who mentions that advertising pays for many public service announcements (p. 226 of reader, 579 of article). Soar also points out that advertising is powered by societal values to begin with, and this is a running theme throughout the article. It is touched on that “Helfand thought that ‘intrinsically there’s nothing wrong with advertising’ – although she did feel that ‘marketing might be [the enemy]’.” e.g. “market research, focus groups and brand-building.” (p. 227 of reader, 580 of article). Soar also suggests that while graphic designers are uneasy about the ethics of their commercial work, this commercial work does provide for non-commercial and personal/expressive work.

5. This last point turns around into graphic designers having some degree of power in influencing/changing these societal values that can be used to 'clean out the cycle' and allow for graphic design to be put to 'better' use, e.g. “‘Consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives expressed, in part, through the visual languages and resource of design’.” (p. 219 of reader, 572 of article). Ideal instances of where this could take place are nominated in the Manifesto, "Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films, charitable causes and other information design projects" (p. 239 of reader, 592 of article).

6. Education as an arena for manifestation/experimentation of the implications of the Manifesto (p. 229 of reader, 582 of article).

What was missing from Soar’s article
1. More voices from advertising’s side of the argument. Many “ad men” are also all about community benefits, charitable causes, the greater good, and so on; although, I suppose they’re not of the commercial variety, which is Soar’s and the Manifesto’s/designers’ target.

2. The choice designers have re: who they work for. Statistics perhaps. How and why has design gained this alleged synonymity with advertising? It takes two to tango. e.g. the Manifesto (p. 239 of reader, 592 of article) reads, “Commercial work has always paid the bills, but many new graphic designers have now let it become, in large measure, what graphic designers do.” – how did it come to be this way?

3. Not only do “ad men” provide charitable ads but also, for example, Ronald McDonald House, Channel 9 Appealathon, Channel 7 Telethon, etc. Commercial advertising can be promoting charities too. Soar does not address this.

Tutorial questions from unit guide (answered with reference to Soar's article)
Is there space to resist the top-down domination of cultural capital?
Not really, but graphic designers will make room to do so.

If people are going to be reduced, in part, to a logo, they should have some agency in (re)designing those images.
Yes – this is implicit in designers’ attempts to renew standards: the Manifesto is their logo.

Does culture jamming succeed as a voice/platform of resistance?
Yes. e.g. “When power and control are foremost, moral purpose is reduced to whatever is popular . . . rather than to what is right.” (p. 219 in reader/572 in article) – culture jamming is aimed at realigning graphic design/advertising with what is right rather than (and so resisting against) what is popular. (Relates to Socratic philosophy.) Also, “graphic design ‘is a true guerilla art form’” (p. 227 of reader, 580 of article).

What does the controversy around the revival of the First Things First Manifesto say about the advertising and graphic design industry?
Industry or industries? This revival indicates that there are different and conflicting ideologies/sets of values in play. The advertising industry is allegedly socially irresponsible (although perhaps the finger should be pointed at marketing, not advertising per se).

Is there a relationship between digital activism such as culture jamming and face to face activism such as crowds protesting?
Naturally. The latter can be thought of as inspiring the former: face to face activism includes writing, signing and reviving the manifesto; digital activism includes the Adbusters’ 46ft billboard, insistence on putting graphic design to non-commercial use. Also “the promotion of activities such as Buy Nothing Day and TV TurnOff Week” (p. 219 of reader, 572 of article) .

Does the fact that culture jamming relies on the news media as a source mean that these forms will always be reactionary, never proactive?
That’s a chicken/egg question: Which came first? They’re both reactionary – to each other.

Other key quotes:
“Personal and non-commercial projects, often indirectly funded by income from business clients, appear to provide a more reliable means to creative fulfillment.” (p. 218 of reader, 571 of article)

“the manifesto proper and Adbusters’ framing of both First Things First and culture jamming . . . identify designers in particular as potent agents of positive social change.” (p. 219 of reader, 572 of article)

“‘[graphic design] is not an industry in which you need to purify the practice, but there might be some basic understandings, some general context in which we can define the values we bring to our work’.” (p. 222 of reader, 575 of article)

“‘there is an area of ambiguity about what is harmful, what is not, and so on’.” (p. 223 of reader, 576 of article)

“Bierut praised Adbusters in particular for ‘see[ing] design as an active tool in creating social change’.” (p. 224 of reader, 577 of article)

“it is through this kind of realization [of their role as mediators] that designers can come to a more grounded epiphany about the potential harm – or good – they can effect through their work practices.” (p. 225 of reader, 578 of article)

“[Kevin Lyons’] work is ‘informed by culture and politics’.” (p. 227 of reader, 580 of article)

“if graphics, ads and commercials are often so abundant in ideological cant, why not pay attention to the activities and beliefs of the highly skilled group that created them – the cultural intermediaries – with the ultimate aim of training and using such talent more responsibly . . . ?” (p. 233 of reader, 586 of article)

“cultural economy . . . holds the premise of opening up a critical space in which to further develop our understanding of the intermediaries and, by extension, contemporary culture.” (p. 233 of reader, 586 of article)

Related links:
1. Adbusters, http://adbusters.org/home/

2. Culture Jamming, http://www.levity.com/markdery/culturjam.html