Forgot your username or password?
In the January 30 issue of The Wall Street Journal,
a paper I frequently work for, the editor of its op-ed page with the
evocative name of Tunku Varadarajan wrote an article called “Just Where Does an Illustrator Draw the Line?” [sic] for the Friday “Taste” section.
In it he describes his difficulty in getting a certain illustrator
(who he refers to in the opening paragraph as a “pompous little
artichoke”) to accept an assignment without first reading it to see if
he agreed with its political proposition. The illustrator, who is
left-leaning, was evidently not comfortable with blindly accepting the
assignment from an editorial page that generally leans towards the
right. Mr. Varadarajan found this response professionally unacceptable
and after characterizing his new found nemesis as having a voice that
“oozed a certain kind of metropolitan smugness” (what is this code for?)
compares the illustrator’s request, somewhat hyperbolically, to the
editor being mugged at deadline time. He also informs us that the
illustrator will never work for the paper again. Shades of the Bush
Later in the piece, Mr. Varadarajan expresses some concern for his
own behavior and calls a number of illustrators who already work for the
Journal to canvass their opinions.
Not surprisingly, they unanimously agree that Mr. Varadarajan is
completely right and conclude that the real problem is getting the work
done on time. Finally the column decides that the illustrator must be
“(1) very young, (2) very rich or (3) very silly.” Which in translation
means: (1) too young and innocent to understand what the world is really
like; (2) only money permits you to behave according to your beliefs;
(3) a dismissive subset of #1 omitting the young part.
I found the spirit and content of this article chilling for several
reasons. First was the bullying tone of derision and contempt that the
author expresses for an artist who wishes to be true to his personal
beliefs, and not simply “follow orders.” Ever since the Nuremberg
Trials, “following orders” is not an acceptable position to explain
personal or professional behavior. I still remember those brutal clods
on the witness stand trying to justify their activities during the war.
The issue has a larger compass that affects all of us in the
communication practice. To what degree are we willing to participate in
transmitting ideas to a public that we personally believe might be
harmful? Mr. Varadarajan makes it clear what the economic consequences
of such uncooperative behavior might be: “I was convinced now that the
man has no future on our page.”
Money is a powerful tool to insure compliance.
The totalitarian impulses behind the Journal article should
not be ignored. It is certainly not as egregious as outing a government
agent because her husband was critical of the government’s policies but
it reflects an atmospheric change about the nature of our democracy. In
a healthy democracy, Steve Brodner, the illustrator in question, would
be celebrated, not ridiculed, for his desire to act according to his
Can we afford to continue offering design curricula that move from the simple to the complex, when contemporary design problems are all about relationships? Can we afford to continue emphasizing individual achievement for a practice based increasingly on collaboration?
AIGA Connecticut is excited to announce it's new 2014 Board of Directors.
A client asked about the meaning of color, so we set out to find scientific evidence to explain why fast food restaurants use orange and red, why donate buttons are red, and why most people's favorite color is blue. The reasons are more subjective than
Thinking Theo Ballmer. 09 29 1902
Posted by aswin sadha
THINKINGFORMTHINKINGFORM | THINKINGFORM
A Rather Novel Collection
How Your Desk Has Evolved Over The Past 35 Years http://t.co/yJOYp0FaLd #Design
8 minutes ago
Keep Off the Grass
Volume Inc., San Francisco
No Guts, No Glory: Design Slam Competition
September 29, 2014
An Inspiring Evening with Randy Hunt
Design for Democracy
Handle with care