250 words summarising and paraphrasing.

In the revisit of First Things First, Rick Poynor in his review of the manifesto (1964-2000) stated that designers should be doing more to communicate social and political issues rather than advertising for money. ‘Distinction drawn by the manifesto was between design as communication (giving people necessary information) and design as persuasion (trying to get them to buy things.)’Poynor,4,2000. The manifesto was ignored by designers for that reason; they wanted money and didn’t give a thought to the more ethical reasons ‘Most preferred to keep their heads down.’ Poynor,4,2000. The designers would rather produce work for the more exciting corporate brands e.g. Nike compared to CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament.)  ‘The vast majority of design projects and certainly the most lavishly funded and widely disseminated- address corporate needs…’ Poynor,4,2000.

Artists and designers coming out of art school were and still are working for more corporate projects because of the money. ‘For many art and design schools, they are obsessed with how cool an advert looks, rather than with what it is really saying…’ Poynor,4,2000. The main message made in the original manifesto and the one in 2000 is that nothing has changed during these 35 years. Katherine McCoy when she states that’ Designers who have grown up in a commercial climate often find this hard to believe. That feels political or social concerns are either extraneous to our work or inappropriate.’ McCoy,5,2000  Even though this article does centre on advertisement, illustrators’ still have these same problems. As illustrators we have the skill of communicating key ideas in a way anyone can understand why don’t we use them to question and challenge political and social issues more? However if commercial work gets you established as a popular designer then you chose to show work demonstrating your opinion of issues, then would the work have more of an impact?