I was deeply surprised at the end of last year when I heard the news that one of the blandest packages I have ever designed, had been chosen to go on exhibition at a Design Biennial here in Brazil. After all, if the creator didn’t consider it very beautiful, you can imagine what others would think. Had the exhibition’s curators created the “worst designs of 2010” category and I was about to get ready for public humiliation?
Unfortunately no. Yes, unfortunately . Because reality was even more somber: the selection had been based on merit, because the design had “green” elements. And the theme of the event—which in theory promised to be very comprehensive —was, of course, sustainability. There were several other designs alongside mine, equally uninteresting, parading claims of being “organic”, with handwritten typography and recycled paper. They were all posing as natural products, adorned by packaging that pretended to be nothing.
Even though I have been bothered for quite some time now about how discussions on packaging design have become increasingly shallow—to the point where they cannot even be considered discussions, but rather boring monologues—the shock was unparalleled. After all, the need to be aware of the environmental consequences and impact of what we produce is one thing. Reducing an arena that should discuss design in its broadest sense into a politically correct pamphlet is another entirely . As if sustainability were the only issue for design today.
And, I must confess, these kinds of categorizations frighten me. One dimensional, monothematic. Supposedly guided by a noble, “historical destiny” that is impossible to deny. They should frighten you as well. A brief, retrospective look at similar moments in history is sufficient to see the damage a group of people can cause when they believe they have been anointed.
If, as the saying goes, consumption is the great enemy; when packaging that wastes material is all ordered by the same client (Hell’s marketing department), what is left to us, as designers, but to make amends for our guilt by restricting our profession to the search for solutions that minimize the environmental impact of the evil we cause? “It’s not my fault.” “I’m doing my part.” “Look, look: I’m a packaging designer, but I also ride a bicycle!” And that’s it.
That’s it?
Well now, isn’t there another recurring cliché in present day monologues that says we should replace “consumers” with “humanity”? Let’s do that then. We don’t even have to stop pretending we don’t know that a great part of the movement towards sustainability is fed by greater profit margins and not through social engagement. Nor do we have to go into details about the “purity” that existed in past ideologies, also considered “noble” in their time. Let’s just discuss “humanity” in all its complexity.
For example: is it possible to consider the cultural aspect of design as irrelevant? To not speak of esthetics as if they were synonymous with futility? To not be ashamed of discussing beauty, a superficial matter in the face of such important issues, such as global warming? Apparently not. And that’s what replacing “consumer” with “humanity” means? Oh, okay. Then let’s begin by renouncing all those who wasted their lives on superficial matters? Yes, those futile ones. Turner, with his sterile landscapes of boats at sea, while others lived in hunger. Flaubert, concerned about provincial bourgeois boredom and adultery in Pont L’Evéque while the planet perished. Michelangelo, selling his talent to the powerful papacy rather than painting the social themes that surrounded him. The list is long, very long. And it includes designers as well. All empty beings. Not like us. We have a historic mission; we have a collective consciousness. We only speak of serious things. We all talk about the same things as we ride our bicycles to buy fruit without preservatives at the corner grocer.
The human being needs more than organs functioning perfectly in order to live. Otherwise, we would need only doctors and dentists and we would go through existence happy as could be. The same occurs at a collective level. If the environmental issue is an undeniable component of our times, it is not the only one. Monothematic speeches tend to engender people blinded by what they consider their “historical destiny”. From there to burning enemies at the stake is but a short step. Whether the enemy is packaging that wastes material or a book. Or a person. The object changes according to the times, but the attitude is the same. Identical. To the heretics, the fire. The idea of being collectively united by a mission that justified the elimination of its “enemies” was responsible for many of the bleakest periods in the history of mankind. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because of each period’s cultural differences, past examples are odd. (Unless, of course, you believe they had their reasons.)
Is green a colour? Yes. But there are others. Many others. So, let’s get back to talking about all of them.
The Author is a in mold label designer and a printed shrink sleeves designer located in Washingon State.
No comments:
Post a Comment