Reading I
Introduction
Reading I, Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice by Sofia
24 Sept 2021
Nowadays it's common to hear that everything has already been invented, that nothing is completely new and in many ways I believe this to be true. In the text “Authority, Ownership, Originality”, Andrew Bennett talks about how during ancient Greek culture and the oral epic tradition, there wasn’t one original author or performer. The stories which were told were inherited, based on tradition and repeated over time, but at the same time, every repetition generated a new interpretation of that story, making it unique in its own way.
I’m currently reading a book called “What Are You Lookin At? 150 Years of Modern Art in the Blink of an Eye” which talks about the history of different artistic movements in modern art. I’ve been intrigued how each movement builds upon each other and has a set of characteristics that determines the aesthetics of the work of art, but at the same time produces unique paintings depending on the artist, just like the performers of the epic poems.
​
The same happens with design. We are constantly in the lookout for inspiration, searching for new trends, identifying referents, etc. and we use these tools, as well as others such as typography, adobe programs, pictures, and collaborations, in order to create our works. In this sense, I take what is said about the ‘author’ during the Greek classical period in “Authority, ownership, originality” and apply it to the designer, who I believe is not “the solitary figure of a genius” but he is both an individual and the history/tradition of design. In relation to this, I agree with Michael’s Rock proposition made in “Designer as Author” to discard the concept of authorship in design and think of designer as translator, designer as performer and designer as director. After all, what is it really we are looking for when having ‘authorship’? Is it economical? Is it pride? Is it fame? Is it protection from others using our work?
During our orientation week class of Introduction to Media, we were told to work around the word presence and while reading both of these texts I was reminded of my idea of presence. When we discussed within my group our perception of presence, I thought about it in terms of design. I said that because in design there is precisely an idea of ‘authorship’ pretty diffuse, where you just don’t ‘sign’ the logo you did; a way to show your presence in your designs is through a particular style. This is something that is also said in “Designer as Author” when Rock mentions the auteur theory applied in the film industry and he mentions that one of the ‘requisites’ is stylistic signature.
​
In the text “Authority, Ownership, Originality”, Bennett talks about inventing the author, how “the real Shakespeare doesn’t exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition of social desire”. I relate this with the lecture we had in the Visual Narratives class where Merja Polvinen talked about the implied author, the figure of the author you create from the text you read. This happens in design as well, where from the style of the design, content, and your context you create the implied designer. So in other words, each reader, person, observer of the design creates their image of the author, and in a sense a kind of authorship is generated. Is that enough?
I was intrigued by the exhibition Rock mentions in “Designer as Author”. The exhibition’s name was “Designer as Author: Voices and Visions” so I wondered if it was related to the title of the article. I did a little research and found a webpage where they talk about the exhibit and they mention another definition for authorship: “authorship takes place whenever the individual voice/vision of the designer is considered a crucial part of the semantic process”. I’m both troubled and identified with this definition. I’m troubled because it’s a definition coined for an exhibit that showcased ‘self-authored’ works of design, so authorship only takes place if it's done outside the commercial medium? On the other hand, if we take the definition out of its context, it sounds to me like a good definition for what authorship is. Even in the commercial context, the designer’s voice can, and most frequently is, a crucial voice of the semantic process.
​
Nonetheless, connecting with what I said above, through voice is enough to form an ‘implied designer’ and in this way we don’t perpetuate the idea of a “genius creator [where the] esteem or status of the man frames the work and imbues it with some mythical value”. I believe it's important to give power to the reader so that the message is at the center of attention, not the voice or the ‘genius’ behind it.
Introduction
Reading I, Discourse
and Authorship in Design Practice by Anna
24 Sept 2021
Michael Rock, Designer As Author (1996)
The word author brings to mind an individual genius, a writer or a film director, someone in total creative control of the content, with a clear vision. It is rare a designer would get to decide the content when working for a client. Michael Rock writes some designers would want to be seen as more than ”faceless facilitators” or problem solvers, but instead being able to critique the message being designed, or having a say what the message is. I think many of us connect with these thoughts and with the difficulties of bringing that into real life. Rock writes how it’s hard to de-centre a message in a client relationship, when the client pays the designer to convey a specific message and emotions. Or how hard it is to incorporate theory into the methods of productions, its hard for me to understand what this means. I took it to mean that it is hard to implement theory in your work and methods of working, it is hard to find clients who pay for that or are willing to challenge the client/designer relationship, it is hard to make a living in the first place or change the structures of work.
​
To have more influence in the work designers do, do we have to become authors? I think a designers practice can be fluid, they can be a designer, an author or a combination of different things they do and are. But when Rock talks about auteur theory in cinema, I start to feel alienated from this definition of authorship. Why is design being compared to film directors and literature? Both fields are known for celebrating the individual genius, even when there might be hundreds of people behind the actual work. Where does this desire to be compared to these fields come from? If the work was meaningful, paid and sustainable, would it be ok for the designer to just be a designer? Could a designers work be compared to that of for example a hairdresser?
​
Rock also questions if celebrating the individual really takes us forward, and says we already have a lot of examples of famous ”star” designers. As an alternative Rock suggests designers being compared to translators, directors or performers, transforming and guiding the content from one form to another. I also really enjoyed how Andrew Bennett describes ancient poets as makers and rhapsodes (weavers of songs). The original material is not the poet’s own, but the performance brings new meaning to it. Not comparing designers to poets, but it was fun thinking how designers can also ”weave” material when designing.
Andrew Bennett, The Author: Authority, Ownership , Originality (2005)
In this text it was harder to find links to design, but here are some things that stuck. For me it was interesting that when printing and writing authorized books started to become common it was seen somewhat vulgar, because it democratized who could write and read. The first ones embracing writing despite the stigma were 16th and 17th century poets, who wanted to explore the possibilities in poetry. I always find it funny to learn what inventions and professions in history were first shunned and then accepted, celebrated. What would be something ”un-cool” in graphic design at the moment?
​
Mass production and the passionate poets led me to think about design, and how there are some modern designers embracing techniques that require a lot of time but bring little financial security. Book binding, risography, serigraphy, I think people dive into these for the love of process, materiality and tactility? The work cannot be copied and distributed in the same way much of design is. I connect these techniques into autonomous work initiated by the designer, or selling prints / books to a limited amount of clients. Making physical objects requires special equipment, physical space and time for the craft. All of this makes the work feel special, where the designer is the author of their work.
I would really enjoy discussing these ideas of authorlessness in Bennett’s text, though I couldn’t link it to design yet. The greek poet performing material where the origin is unknown and the poem and its origin is created in each performance.. Or the medieval manuscripts where the author was also unknown, and writing was more social, because when text was copied and passed along, commentaries and corrections were added.
Introduction
Reading I, Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice by Pinja
24 Sept 2021
The texts in this session were quite different from each other, Andrew Bennetts text “Authority, ownership, originality” was a lot more difficult to understand but had interesting points of view. Michael Rocks text “Designer as author” was a bit easier to read but had quite a lot of twists in it. These thoughts however were really interesting from a graphic designers point of view and definitely raises questions that can be puzzling to figure out. Questions such as, does a designer have to have their own visibly clear and strong style? Or is it better to be good at adapting into different kinds of styles and practices. Maybe a designer can perhaps do both of them.
​
First in his text Michael Rock goes through the recent history of cases about authorship, which reflect the question “what is an author”. He points out one of Foucault’s observations that the earliest sacred texts were authorless and only later in time were scientific texts qualified with a writer’s name. A writer’s name brought validation to the text, which now appears more frequently in literature. I find the same kind of recognition of value with name and success in the field of graphic design. What often seems to happen as a designer is that often we can only be successful if we build a value around our name. Becoming visible only as an individual. Could graphic design be seen as a group work or through collectives that work together? Do we need one author? Although, in large scale corporations’ designers can often feel like they are more invisible.
​
What comes to my mind from authorship is ownership. Is it possible to be an owner of a certain design or way of designing? Directors are often seen as authors of a film and are the only name behind the whole production. Which makes it seems like they own the film alone, even when there are so many people working behind the scenes. It seems like audiences are attracted to these kinds of unique authors which have a famous name and a recognizable face attached to their product. Rock also brings up the differences between the film itself and a poster that is made for the film. Is there an author in a film poster? Or is the poster just a reflection of the film or the film director with no authorship of a designer? Later in his text Rock compares the designer to a director and draws similar characteristics between the two. Highlighting the fact that the graphic designer is at the same time the director of communication and visual elements.
​
Andrew Bennetts writes more about authors from the perspective of ownership. This type of ownership is due to development of the printing press, property laws and rights for booksellers over the books they printed and sold. In his text he brings up Mark Roses “Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright” (1993) about authors owning their creations as property in a unique way. Not only as property, but of ‘intellectual property’. Bennetts notes that:” Mark Roses argues that the invention of authorship in the modern sense is ‘inseparable from the commodification of literature’, and that the ‘distinguishing characteristic’ of the modern author is ‘proprietorship’.”
​
It is interesting when we compare how these developments show up in graphic design today. The designers products are made to be consumed by consumers, but for graphic designers this shows up in a slightly different light. The authorship of the designers products can often be visible without a name to the audience. The style or signature of the author might be easily recognizable to the designers peers, but not so much for the public.
​
“As Rose and others have argued, the question of the legal status of literary property in the eighteenth century can be seen not only as a legal and commercial question, of the ownership of the work, but also as a contest over the very conception of authorship itself.”
Introduction
Reading I, Discourse
and Authorship in Design Practice by Anjori
24 Sept 2021
In all the constant back and forth of trying to answer - 'who was the first author?’, it’s clear that an inanimate object (like the novel) is easy categorise but the ‘author’ is albeit a harder label to put in any boxes because anything humane comes with many parallel dimensions—there’s many things to consider. If we fail to consider any particular dimension, the answer to this question (or any other similar ones that try to quantify, segregate or categorise a human being in some way) remains incomplete.
​
Bennett goes on to explore the notion of authorship in four larger categories which is primarily talking from a euro-centric approach and the whole text only comments about the European literary tradition. It's nevertheless great food for thought, but it’s good to keep in mind the text’s larger limitation because the notion of authorship can be explored through many other literary traditions.
The idea of authorship within oral traditions is very striking because of it’s ever-changing nature. I’m intrigued by the idea of no ‘original’ author and how dissatisfying it’s ever-changing phenomenon could seem just because we can’t reify the text or the author. Especially because our generation hasn’t exactly grown up with many oral traditions and there’s a constant reliance on ‘stable text’ (as was mentioned in the reading). As designers we tend to work majorly with that. But the possibility of a text evolving as it sifts through time and comes in contact with different individuals is a great starting point and a design inspiration.
In the text there were also comments about our ‘desire for transcendent original unity’, how we make it a necessity for ourselves to ascribe an author to a text. This is definitely challenged in the digital age especially in terms of design. The overflow of images and information makes us lose the idea of what is ‘original’ and we don’t even question at times who the original author of a certain piece is.
Authorship in medieval times comes across as very rigid, authoritative and male-centric. It feels like a slightly dangerous idea to give an unquestionable dominion to an author. It feels foreign because it’s contrasting with the modern idea of an author who’s texts we read or experience as only their subjective ideas of truth. I like the proposal of a ‘modern’ author as an originator, and not dependent on tradition. This brings in important questions for designers as well. Even when we think or believe we are ‘original’ in our work—how sure can we really be? Design is inspired and influenced by anything and everything around us. We take design practices (or traditions) in almost an unquestionable way. Will that not reflect in our work? I feel somewhere we are dependent on traditions even when trying to break away from them. In fact, the very act of breaking away from a tradition can be performed in a traditional way. A big question that crosses my mind at this point is—can an author (given that we see the term ‘author’ as an originator and not a literary author only) really ever be original?
​
The shift from manuscript culture to print culture is interesting. I think I did not think of any written text of any form to be unstable (as is manuscript). It’s also interesting how print culture was part of a discourse at a point in time and made the relationship between author and text more concrete because in current times it feels like we’re a part of a discourse from print culture and these specific definitions of an ‘author’ itself.
​
The idea of authorship and its relation to economics is a burning question for all of us even today, in our design practice. “Profession of authorship, that authorship as a profession”, who’s a so-called ‘professional’ and who’s an ‘amateur’? I’m not sure how we can answer that, but a bigger question for me would be are we required to answer this at all? The title of ‘laureate’ poets being given to people who embrace a specific way of putting out their work (that can be fully appreciated after their death) is especially noteworthy to me. The tension between modern and romantic authorship is interesting and points to the same war between commercial versus aesthetic ideology.
​
It’s refreshing to realise how some authorless ancient texts are so widely accepted and considered legitimate, like the Vedas, I can almost trace it back to my home country (India) and how deeply the ideology of this text is embedded in our culture and daily life, despite the fact that we don’t know who wrote it.
I really enjoyed our meeting as a group, getting to know one another. :) Reading each others introductions opened up the texts a lot more, and gave inspiration on how to write about a complex and abstract theme.
What stuck with me this time were the thoughts about the identity of the designer. We thought about famous designers, and how competitions make some designers and work visible, while the vast majority of the work remains invisible. We were critical of the idea of authorship if it meant glorifying the individual. It was easier to connect with the idea of ”designer as translator”, or the ancient greek poet reciting existing poems, creating something new from tradition.
At one point we discussed anonymity, what if we didn’t know the designer? One example that came up was fashion house Maison Margiela, where the identity is ”hidden”, the designer and founder Martin Margiela staying out of the spotlight. Does the occulting of the identity make us focus more on the ideas, or does it create even more of a cult following around an individual?
Then again so much of design work is ”anonymous” already, where the message of the work is more important than the designers personal style. The ability to choose your projects and show your personal style can be a privilege, as it is a privilege to be having these conversations about authorship in design. Still, we thought that the designer doesn’t completely disappear even in the more invisible design work, since each designer has their own approach and influences.
Summary
Reading I, Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice by Anna
26 Sept 2021
Summary
Reading I, Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice by Sofia
26 Sept 2021
While reading the introductions of the other group members, what striked me the most was that even though each one of us had different interesting ideas, questions, and proposals, we all related the role of the designer to the figure of the author during greek culture with the oral epic poems and questioned the necessity of authorship in design (in the sense of the word that we use and apply nowadays). Talking over this was how we started our discussion.
When designing we are constantly inspired by what surrounds us. We agreed that as designers we are also like performers who give different meaning to the tradition through our designs and weave different works into our own. In this sense, it's hard for something to be completely “original” and therefore we don’t really see the point of having to have a name behind a design. Reflecting on my own, I wonder if we all agree on this point because we are young, students (who have worked but still students nonetheless), who don’t have their own studio/agency/etc., and a bit romantic, who believe that design is enough and should speak for itself. Maybe the importance behind authorship is purely economical, to get your name out there, receive more commissions and make a comfortable living out of this profession.
We also discussed competitions, and how collectives or small-time designers rarely win them and it's always the famous ones, the ones who have made a name for themselves, who take the first prize home. It makes us wonder whether it's the design or the name who wins the prize. This reminded us of the work of art “Artist’s Shit” by Piero Manzoni. The artist made 90 cans which supposedly, according to the label, contained shit. Manzoni’s work is a critique of the art market where people are willing to pay thousands of euros for shit, literally, just because it’s signed by a renowned artist. We then talked about a complete opposite example, that of Maison Margiela. The creator of this fashion house, Martin Margiela, decided to remain faceless, just like Banksy, always backstage. We wondered whether this is a designer letting the work speak for itself or if it creates mystery around the brand and in a sense confirms its authorship?
Regarding the main question of authorship in design, we concluded that we shouldn’t compare ourselves with individualistic and traditionally genius fields such as the movie or literary industry and simply design, having our work out there making an impact on the world. During the discussion, the Crystal Goblet was mentioned, something I didn’t know about. Basically what this “theory” says is that the purpose of print is to convey a message and therefore it should be “transparent” like a crystal goblet, and not attract attention nor to itself or the author so as to not distract the reader from understanding the message. If you want to build a brand and a name that’s okay but there should also be room for the “invisible” designer or the collectives. After all, in general, we are all “invisible” in the eyes of the “reader”. People seldomly ask themselves “oh, who designed this?”. Between designers we may know who made what, but for many “consumers” most of us are “invisible”, even the “big names”. Maybe authorship in design only exists in the bubble of designers.
Nonetheless, a question that arose was that if something is “authorless” can you believe it? We then discussed the Vedas and how even today, people believe so vehemently in something written thousands of years ago by who knows who. Then I guess there is still hope for us as well :)
Summary
Reading I, Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice by Pinja
26 Sept 2021
The first meeting went great. It was nice to get to know each other while having a closer look into our subject. Soon we discovered that we had many themes and thoughts in common. The question about necessity of an author brought up a lot of ponder. What is it that we want to achieve with authorship? We also discussed about the meaning of an own style and the pressure that comes with creating that. One theme that we also talked about was our image of a graphic designer.
As our discussion continued, we soon figured out that we did not have answers to our questions, instead we discovered new ones. The whole concept of an author is very wide and hard to understand. Often being an author is connected to a name or fame, which perhaps might help create design work that is closer to the style of the author themself. An interesting factor was the appearance of a faceless author. Many famous artists and designers have a very strong position as authors, but they tend to work anonymously.
Most graphic designers work as invisible creators. We pondered during our discussion if it would be better to see designers more from this point of view. Not so much from the perspective of an author or a famous designer, but from the perspective of a small still important graphic designer. The other topic was about the possibility of choosing what to do. For a lot of graphic designers, it is not always possible to say no to a work offer, usually because of financial questions. Many well-known graphic designers seem to have the opportunity to decline an offer, which gives them more freedom to express themselves in the way they want to.
A graphic designer having their own style was yet again a hot topic in our discussion. The pressure to have your own style is familiar to us and we thought about the meaning it has in the field of graphic design. Having a strong style is often the reason consumers ask you to specifically design for them. On the other hand, it can be good to be able to adapt into different styles. We also ended up thinking about the idea that everything that we do is not new and often already done by someone else. As designers, we are often inspired by the work of others, making already existing work into a new version with our own creativity.
Many of our questions were still left open, but our discussion was very fulfilling in the end.
Summary
Reading I, Discourse
and Authorship in Design Practice by Anjori
26 Sept 2021
Our discussion made me realise how fruitful it can be to share ideas in a group setting. We started with the realisation that many points in our individual introductions were actually overlapping.
We attempted to question the role of authorship in design. Design, unlike static literature, isn’t established in solitude. It’s similar to oral culture where there’s many people and inspirations involved. We use softwares or typefaces designed by other people, get influenced by culture or design trends, learn and borrow from established designers and in many cases work in a setting where many people are involved in the outcome of a project. We are individuals but we build on other people’s works.
There are designers who are prominent and have made a name for themselves. In such cases authorship is established clearly. However, there are also designers who may choose to work in relative anonymity-that doesn’t make them any less of an author. Their work is still out there interacting in various environments and making it’s impact, being in use. This made us question how important it is for us to be ‘known’ or ‘established’. Designers who choose to remain faceless become an idea of a person. How do we then know if the author was actually the author? But also, does it really matter if we know or not?
We questioned if the relation of the author with their work matters or only the work and its impact in the world is what counts. After all, does a regular person ever look at a piece of design and wonder who may have made it? In my opinion, mostly not. But the person does interact with the design and experience it in their life.
Another very interesting point that arose in the discussion was - why do we feel the need to discover the idea of discourse in design via prestigious professions like literature. Can we not compare it to a mundane profession like a hairdresser? Are we doing a huge disservice to ‘invisible designers’?
Despite these questions we also realised that to be a successful designer (in the traditional sense of the word) there is a need for individuality. Capitalism demands us to be specialised, niche and recognised.
Self authored projects may not necessarily fall in the category of art. The designer has a say even in projects that are commercial. We induce our individuality and point of view in everything we do.
We acknowledged the role of capitalism in our work and life. Independent, self authored projects are creatively satisfying but also represent a certain privilege.
We ended our discussion by questioning if an authorless work can be fully credible. After all, strong ideas can find their way into our lives and influence it in innumerable ways whether we are ignorant of the author or not.
​
​