Multiple sources have discussed the ethical
role of the designer in advertising. The
First Things First Manifesto, The First Things First Manifesto 2000 and First
Things First Revisited had all highlighted how unethical practice has become
commonplace amongst designers. The First Things First Manifesto describes the
work of advertisers as ‘trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to
our national prosperity’. A point, which is echoed in the (2000) version; ‘the
profession’s time and energy is used up manufacturing things that are
inessential at best’. This is applicable when the adverts are for something
that is not essential to life, such as designer clothing, as seen in the
American Apparel advert. Here the advert is selling an unimportant item to
anyone who sees the advert. In this respect the advert is unethical as it
promotes an item that is not a matter of survival.
This is supported by Poynor where he
describes what designers do as ‘nothing less than the manufacture of
contemporary reality’. This backs up both the Manifestos, especially the point
that they are ‘trivial purposes’. As previously stated this is perfectly
applicable to adverts that are selling products that aren’t commodities but
just surplus products that are supposed to make your life better. This does
not, however, apply when the advert is promoting something positive, such as
this charitywater.org. In the case of charity adverts they are used to promote
a good cause and ask for help rather than to try and sell you a product that
you don’t need.
The counter argument against charity
adverts is that they still aim to make you feel better about yourself and
believe you are a better person, make you believe you can become this superior
person by donating. So, in this respect they are not very different to an
advert selling you the Dior Spring/Summer Collection or the new D&G eau de
toilette.
No comments:
Post a Comment