Im Gespräch mit Ruben Pater wollen wir herausfinden, welche Handlungsspielräume Designer:innen haben, um sich aus bestehenden Macht- und Marktstrukturen zu lösen – ohne sich dabei selbst auszubeuten.
Wie kann eine Gestaltung aussehen, die zur Entkommerzialisierung beiträgt und gesellschaftlichen Wandel anstößt? Wir sprechen mit ihm über neue visuelle Sprachen, die abstrakte Informationen emotionaler erfahrbar machen können, sowie über die Frage, wie sich antikapitalistische Designpraktiken in einem kapitalistischen System überhaupt finanzieren lassen. Schließlich interessiert uns, wie Designer:innen bestehende Systeme – etwa in Bildung oder Politik – von innen heraus mitgestalten und reformieren können.
Wie kann eine Gestaltung aussehen, die zur Entkommerzialisierung beiträgt und gesellschaftlichen Wandel anstößt? Wir sprechen mit ihm über neue visuelle Sprachen, die abstrakte Informationen emotionaler erfahrbar machen können, sowie über die Frage, wie sich antikapitalistische Designpraktiken in einem kapitalistischen System überhaupt finanzieren lassen. Schließlich interessiert uns, wie Designer:innen bestehende Systeme – etwa in Bildung oder Politik – von innen heraus mitgestalten und reformieren können.
Aus einem Interview mit dem Designaktivisten Ruben Pater
Ruben Pater ist niederländischer Autor und Designaktivist und beschäftigt sich in seiner Arbeit intensiv mit den Verflechtungen von Gestaltung, Gesellschaft und Politik.
In seinen Publikationen hinterfragt er die Rolle von Gestalter:innen im kapitalistischen System.
Er beschreibt sich selbst als Anarchist, dem es wichtig ist, wachstumskritische Perspektiven im Design zu stärken.
Ruben Pater ist niederländischer Autor und Designaktivist und beschäftigt sich in seiner Arbeit intensiv mit den Verflechtungen von Gestaltung, Gesellschaft und Politik.
In seinen Publikationen hinterfragt er die Rolle von Gestalter:innen im kapitalistischen System.
Er beschreibt sich selbst als Anarchist, dem es wichtig ist, wachstumskritische Perspektiven im Design zu stärken.
WORKING ON DECOMODIFICATION
AND EXPANDING THE PRACTICE
AND EXPANDING THE PRACTICE
It’s important to understand that the profession of graphic design – not visual communication but the profession by that exact name – dates back to the early 1900s, when those who had previously been artists or printers were asked to train in the direction of mass-produced printed work. That was when design education began, at least in Europe and the US, first as advertising schools and later as communication design. So we are both educated and culturally trained to work in the context of and for capitalist mass production.
For me, it starts with separating what we are taught to do as graphic designers; which is branding, commodification and selling, with the kind of design that society needs; which is clear access to information and an honest artistic interpretation of that information. For example, perhaps we may be asked by a museum or a public institution such as a hospital for a brand, a logo. If these are public institutions without a profit motive, why should they have to compete in a market as brands? What function does the logo even have when we can all find these spaces?
»Most designers don’t like many of their clients and what they demand, but if we don’t work together and show solidarity, we won’t be able to change how clients think or approach us.«
If we automatically assume that everything needs branding, we reduce all visual communication to a market logic, when maybe a museum needs better access to its archive (through a better online accessible archive) and maybe a hospital needs better floor signage. The question is whether clients would be open to this, but my point is that designers love to turn every moment of communication into branding, because it is easier than knowing what people actually need.
In short, besides less focus on selling and commodifying everything, there is also more collective organisation in design and less individual competition.
We all benefit from working together and supporting each other instead of always competing, lowering prices and even working for free.
If we want to stop working for the fossil fuel industry, it would be more effective if all designers in Germany signed this petition, instead of just a handful. Most designers don’t like many of their clients and what they demand, but if we don’t work together and show solidarity, we won’t be able to change how clients think or approach us.
WHY NEWNESS SHOULD NOT
ALWAYS BE THE GOAL
ALWAYS BE THE GOAL
Newness, novelty and trendy graphic languages are adopted by capitalist ideas to feed the market with new ideas and products. I just think that economic information such as annual reports, excel sheets and budgets should always be contextualised with the social realities of this information as much as possible, and made accessible if it is meant for a wide audience. For example, I barely understand the Dutch tax forms, and I have a master’s degree. This is because they are produced by people with a financial legal background. If you’re not literate or don’t speak the language well, you can’t fill it in without help. I find it very strange that a tax system that is meant for everyone can only be understood by the most educated. It is difficult from a legal point of view, but these kinds of barriers also mean that the wealthy can pay for accountants and lawyers and get more tax exemptions and tax breaks than the people who really need them: the poor.
»We can also ask ourselves as designers:what am I willing to sacrifice or change in order to save the planet and its ecosystem from imminent collapse?«
WORKING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE
OF A CAPITALIST SYSTEM
OF A CAPITALIST SYSTEM
We live in a capitalist society, so we have to work under capitalist conditions in order to pay our rent and survive. If we say, I can’t change anything until the whole system is changed, we get caught in a chicken-or-egg paradox, which leads to either cynicism (nothing I do matters anyway) or just ignoring it altogether. We can also ask ourselves as designers: what am I willing to sacrifice or change in order to save the planet and its ecosystem from imminent collapse?
The same goes for you as a citizen. You have to do what you can to pursue the ideals you want to see realised. This is different for everyone. I just don’t think ›there’s nothing I can do except vote every few years‹ is a solid answer anymore, because then we can just watch ourselves destroy the planet and pretend we can’t do anything about it. There are lots of people doing amazing things with smart and small actions that can help people on a small scale, and that is more important than you think. If we continue to believe that change only works on a large scale, we actually internalised capitalist logic. According to capitalism, only the best idea deserves to win. If a majority disagrees, it must be a bad product or idea, but in fact many changes, like the end of child labour or women’s suffrage, all started as fringe movements.
The same goes for you as a citizen. You have to do what you can to pursue the ideals you want to see realised. This is different for everyone. I just don’t think ›there’s nothing I can do except vote every few years‹ is a solid answer anymore, because then we can just watch ourselves destroy the planet and pretend we can’t do anything about it. There are lots of people doing amazing things with smart and small actions that can help people on a small scale, and that is more important than you think. If we continue to believe that change only works on a large scale, we actually internalised capitalist logic. According to capitalism, only the best idea deserves to win. If a majority disagrees, it must be a bad product or idea, but in fact many changes, like the end of child labour or women’s suffrage, all started as fringe movements.