Those interested in truth rather than misguided ideology know that the responsible science on issues of climate change is clear and in direct conflict with the perverted versions made most public for purposes of anarchist propaganda and political demagoguery.
O, and I was enjoying reading this blog. My past experience in the scientific publishing industry has taught me that (1) the scientific community is overwhelmingly at a consensus over global warming and the effects industry has on it, and (2) that friendsofscience.org and co2science.org are not leaders of the pack in peer-reviewed science. Frankly, it reminds me of those scientists who try to claim that the issue of evolution is still up in the air.
But I initially agreed with the author's response to smashLAB's project. Unfortunately, by the time I reached the end of his post, I realized that my reasons were the polar opposite: designers don't "drive and define conversations" nor do they "determine the impact of specific messages". Designers have the talent and skill to create a clear and properly balanced message. They can steer your eyes to a specific element of the message. And maybe they can even help the client to galvanize their message, but at the end of the day, the message must be bought by the client.
Example: If a designer believes in the evils of sweatshops and understands that Nike is contracting their work out to South East Asian factories with poor working conditions, that message will never get into an magazine spread for Air Jordans.
I believe in the power of design, but I believe that it's a tool used, more often than not, by others.
No comments:
Post a Comment