bruinsma writes in cultural catalysts, cultural agency that "design as cultural agency surpasses the one-dimensional messages of advertising and the false claims to objectivity of "problem solving", by enriching which ever message or product it touches with a wealth of cultural and social connotations."
does this mean the entire world becomes the designer's responsibility, in an attempt to control and activate the context for every communication?
blauvelt writes in towards critical autonomy; or, can graphic design save itself? "rather graphic design must be seen as a discipline capable of generating meaning out of its own intrinsic resources without reliance on commissions, functions, or specific materials or means. such actions should demonstrate self-awareness and reflexivity; a capacity to manipulate the system of graphic design."
doesn't design implicitly need means/materials/etc? it needs a problem to solve, and unfortunately for society, the designer must make enough money to support himself, or he will not be able to design at all, for good or ill. is autonomy attainable in the first place? would it be so good, if we could attain it?
mau writes in the intro to massive change that "there is a proposal integrated into massive change for a right-angle shift in the axis of discourse defined by right and left, socialism and capitalism. the new axis is defined by advanced and retrograde, forward and reverse."
is it just me, or does this feel like a revolutionary manifesto? does it put designers in the place of the ones who will inherit the ruling class?
