Visibility and why women aren't as prominent in design as men is something I've been considering for a while. By a while I mean 4-6 paragraphs of my essay. Why are the most well known designers male?
Lets do a quick exercise, I want you to get a stop watch, set it to a minute, now list as many designers as you can. (I’m assuming you’re in the design industry, if you’re not, here’s a link to a Wikipedia list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graphic_designers just play along and spend the minute copying down names instead) Go. Okay, stop. Look at your list.
Vignelli, Sagmiester, Ollins, Willer, Müller-Brockmann, Lubalin, Scher, Hyland, Pearce, Brody, Shaughnessy, Hunter, Aicher.
Very good, some nice names, both classic and contempary, top marks. Now, I didn’t have to search hard for these names. These are the sorts of ‘intro to design’ names, the ones you learn on your first day at design school, in the first hour of the first lecture of the first term. They are virtually ‘household names’ in the industry, so why do only three of them (Marina Willer, Paula Scher and Nat Hunter) have a uterus? Triggs makes a good comparison with a journalist’s network and how that “is often limited to who they already know - and, as such, for expediency, it tends to propagate the use of the same names highlighted in design publications." Much like, associative memory; Cordelia Fine explores this in her book ‘Delusions of Gender’. “The principle behind learning in associative memory is as simple as its name suggests, what is picked up are associations in the environment" It seem this is a recurring theme in most of these interviews: the issue of visibility. To quote Sarah Maple quoting a feminist: "you can't be what you can't see". Triggs continues to say how she "often get asked for names of women working in design! Sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, you have to dig a little harder.”
Graphic Design is an industry which is hidden, we're the sub-conscious image fairies, the elves of subliminal visuals who make signs legible, adverts clever and typography beautiful, all the while the shoemaker sleeps. Despite this appalling metaphor, what I'm getting at is: we aren't always seen, and arguably, nor are we meant to be. Triggs says "graphic design isn’t usually ‘noticed’– unless, of course, it doesn’t work or make sense to the general public." She goes onto give the example of the London 2012 logo and brand. Being such a high profile project everyone had a opinion, but how many know the studio and designers behind it? 20 internet points if you can name them without Googling."There are many other examples, but if graphic design isn’t being recognised as a profession, I would suggest the struggle for women and our position in the public’s eye will continue to be a challenge" Agreed, when an entire industry is almost invisible, what hope do we have for minorities within it? How are we meant to find role models without the need of an industrial-strength shovel to dig deeper?
Nevertheless, there's a lot we can do, Triggs suggests that "the greatest thing that can happen is to ensure that the specific issues facing women in design don’t get buried." Right in that case I'm keeping the aforementioned shovel. "We need to keep talking and keep the issues out there…lobbying professional organisations to be more aware of being inclusive in the selection of juries and conference panels; and including politically-inspired campaigns which not only raise awareness, but also suggest solutions" There's a bunch of collectives and groups doing just that, and there's plenty of room for more. Lots more. We may not have gender equality in design now but if we keep talking, typing, trying, surely its only a matter of time?
No comments:
Post a Comment