Forgot your username or password?
Perhaps I am overly sensitive, even squeamish, when it
comes to using racial and ethnic stereotypes in design projects. Yet it
strikes me that the current Art Directors Club call for entries
is toeing a thin line to make a humorous point. In a desire to tap into
popular black culture to make ironic commentary about branding, the
piece has slid into an offensive place. Even given the tenuous
conceptual connection between the prestigious ADC gold medal, hip-hop’s
extravagant bling, and the slogan “Ain’t No Such Thing As Too Much Gold”
appearing under a shiny ADC cube, this piece is 14-karat tactlessness.
The “Pimp My Brand” bling necklace, a headline for the call for entries,
is presumably a self-effacing jab at what designers do for a living.
And there is nothing inherently objectionable about such inward-facing
ridicule. In fact, it is possible that this is a critical poke at how
white mass media exploit contemporary black stereotypes to sell
products. And since “branding” has become such an overwrought mantra
these days, it is even refreshing to see one of the leading professional
associations joke about branding’s ubiquity and superfluity.
Yet, despite its potential power, it misses its mark.
If the call for entries is indeed a sly commentary on branding in
general, the real perpetrators of mainstream commercial branding
(ostensibly white-run corporations and advertising agencies) are not
directly addressed. If irony is being used to critique how blacks are
exploited, combining a hip-hop aesthetic with a send up of McDonald’s—a
company famously known for targeting minorities and the poor through its
advertising campaigns—paradoxically reinforces the stereotype. “From my
perspective, it seems ridiculous,” says Maurice Woods, the author of Envisioning Blackness in American Graphic Design
(a MA graduate thesis). “The associations of ”pimp my brand” and the
black guy as Ronald MacDonald does not connect with me because I am
distracted by the absurdity of the brother wearing that ridiculous suit!
Ultimately, I feel most black people might feel the poster is
ridiculous because we don't want to be seen this way. I know I don't.”
Strident satire must often be distasteful and offend. When effective,
satire is a finely tuned art that hits a target with accuracy–and
intelligence. But who is the target here? The depiction suggests
something more dubious–and sinister–than mere comic commentary against
the oligarchy of global branding. It plays to a stereotype of hip-hop as
nasty, tastelessly extravagant and, ultimately, foolish. “This image is
misplaced,” continues Woods, “ I would never associate this type of
black man with anything pimped out. It doesn't fit. Therefore when
discussing the ‘stereotypical’ image, this depiction, for me, places
black men under the same group. We all are pimped out and gold
Context is everything. When cynically or arrogantly employed, a comic
statement can easily be misconstrued. If this image were the cover of a
hip-hop CD that critiqued rap language or gangsta style, then perhaps
the message would be more palatable, or at least more understandable.
After all, in the ‘70s, Blacksploitation films, featuring exaggerated
anti-heroes such as Shaft, proffered new and curiously empowering
stereotypes for blacks. Even parodies of this genre, like the movie “I’m
Gonna Get You Sucka,” addressed the mixed messages in these films. In
the late ‘80s, Public Enemy’s famous video “Burn Hollywood Burn,” was a
ferocious attack on the legacy of racial stereotyping in ‘30s, ‘40s and
‘50s Hollywood when white producers routinely made legitimate black
actors such as Steppin Fetchit play servile and powerless Negro clowns.
Hip-hop has indeed created its own stereotypes that are fair game for
parody and critique, but this call for entries is not the right venue.
There is also something denigrating about the language used. Under the
panel of judges a notation reads, “Made up of the big dogs of the
business,” and in the credits section the headline says “Shout Outs to;”
these are decidedly hip-hop idioms that seem disingenuous here.
What is this piece saying? Is ADC suggesting that graphic and
advertising styles are actually changing? Are they addressing the flux
within pop culture generally and design specifically? Or is this merely
gratuitous ridicule of a streetwise style that would rarely if ever get
voted into an ADC competition? Nonetheless, Woods believes the piece
raises questions that belong in the current design discourse because
mainstream design and advertising “fail to give an accurate perception
of the full spectrum of black life in America.” He adds, “Through
mainstream media in particular, many corporations have defined black
males as hardcore, Ebonics-talking, chain-wearing, athletic gangster
thugs. I don't mind that to some degree. It is who we are as a people.
It is what makes us different and intriguing to others. But it is not
all. As black people, we are much more than this.”
Racy comedy has a place in design, but benign racism does not. Often
designers find manipulating (and exploiting) recognizable cultural
stereotypes is an effective lure for certain constituencies–and
advertising is replete with caricatured types and sub-types, ridiculous,
comic and heroic. Working them in, however, requires understanding of
the line that, once crossed, moves a piece like the ADC call for entries
into territory where motives become questionable. Humor and especially
parody are the effective ways to comment, educate and alter public
opinion. But designers should not have the license to use emotionally
charged stereotypes unwisely–lest they backfire. The consequence, rather
than tickling a funny bone or appealing to an audience’s sympathies,
can instead alienate. “Pimp My Brand” may trigger some embarrassed
chuckles, but one needn’t be overly squeamish to be offended by its
mixed message. As one recipient of the call for entries told me, “This
is just an incredibly bad idea!”
When I started out, I worked for a designer who told me that there was a
little regret in every job. At the time, I thought this was a negative
But now I realize that if you don’t see that there are things that
you could do differently or better, you won’t keep striving to improve.
who aren’t afraid to question themselves and their work are the ones
who ultimately get better and succeed.
Section: Inspiration -
mentoring, advice, emerging designers, students
Because in-house designers regularly collaborate with different departments, they can develop a well-rounded view of needs and opportunities within their organization. By applying their unique design thinking skills to non-design problems, in-house designers have the ability to effect positive change from within.
Section: Tools and Resources
East London Comics and Arts Festival
Posted by Mark Sinclair
4 days ago from
However, following the now-infamous “UC logo controversy," the logo was shelved. In typical spirit, @UofCalifornia moved forward. #AIGAcased
27 minutes ago
Tall Tales From a Large Man at UMBC
March 26, 2015
Skillshare Subscriptions Giveaways to Student Ink & Pixels Attendees
March 23, 2015
Peter Arkle News Issue Number 56