Comments on: visual communicators: innately responsible? http://thoughtbubble.org/current-issues/visual-communicators-innately-responsible Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:54:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://thoughtbubble.org/current-issues/visual-communicators-innately-responsible/comment-page-1#comment-25 Mokokoma Mokhonoana Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:22:55 +0000 http://thoughtbubble.org/?p=206#comment-25 <b>"...It is not the scientists who have failed, it is the communicators, the ones who wield the mediums that carry these messages."</b> While I share the sentiment that our expertise as visual communicators can be used far efficiently than playing puppet to commercialization, I disagree with the extract I quoted above. A designer's responsibility is to use design to present content, an instruction or a message. The message is unfortunately dictated by what the client wants to communicate. Therefore, blaming visual communicators would be nothing but crucifying the messenger. “…It is not the scientists who have failed, it is the communicators, the ones who wield the mediums that carry these messages.”

While I share the sentiment that our expertise as visual communicators can be used far efficiently than playing puppet to commercialization, I disagree with the extract I quoted above.

A designer’s responsibility is to use design to present content, an instruction or a message. The message is unfortunately dictated by what the client wants to communicate.

Therefore, blaming visual communicators would be nothing but crucifying the messenger.

]]> By: Larry http://thoughtbubble.org/current-issues/visual-communicators-innately-responsible/comment-page-1#comment-24 Larry Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:01:18 +0000 http://thoughtbubble.org/?p=206#comment-24 I completely agree with the wording of the argument, but fail to rally to the cause due to one misstep. I have found that, in my experience, morality is subjective. That is, it changes from person to person. I do not believe that people are simply more or less moral than one another, but that people can have very different morals. This is not as prevalent when dealing only with people from the same culture, as cultures are left functional by instilling morality as uniform as possible. However, when dealing with radically different cultures, or even the evolution of a single culture, it becomes very obvious. Take peoples views on murder. Every culture I can think of, save a few 'extreme' pacifist cultures (this is as a comparison to other cultures, and is more a compliment to the virtue of said cultures rather than an insult), agree that murder is alright under certain conditions. Most of them would agree that self-defense is a reasonable condition. The protection of our own culture is another common one (in other words, a war on the defensive side is ok). Many people in the United States believe it's ok to go to war and kill people just because those people are dangerous, even if they don't necessarily pose an immediate threat. Many terrorists - from any culture - believe it's ok to kill people if it will serve their cause. In the past European society agreed it was ok to kill and even torture people if they might have been witches. If we go back to biblical times, adultery was grounds for murder. I don't think any one of these examples lacked a strong grounds for their beliefs. I firmly believe that all of them had reasons they believed what they did, and that they were not simply less moral than our own culture. These people have convictions, some of varying strengths, but for the overwhelming majority people from each group had very strong convictions. Those convictions have more than an intensity, however, but also a direction. People have different morals. In the case of the responsibility of the media, it is true that we must think more about what we are putting on the air. The problem is that we can't leave judgement up to somebody's morals. Even if we simply aim to have each television station focus solely on their morals, we would have stations around the world causing an uproar when the airwaves of somebody who is morally reprehensible to some broadcasting into the homes of families. It creates a very similar problem (though I must admit, one easier to control). I completely agree with the wording of the argument, but fail to rally to the cause due to one misstep. I have found that, in my experience, morality is subjective. That is, it changes from person to person. I do not believe that people are simply more or less moral than one another, but that people can have very different morals. This is not as prevalent when dealing only with people from the same culture, as cultures are left functional by instilling morality as uniform as possible. However, when dealing with radically different cultures, or even the evolution of a single culture, it becomes very obvious.
Take peoples views on murder. Every culture I can think of, save a few ‘extreme’ pacifist cultures (this is as a comparison to other cultures, and is more a compliment to the virtue of said cultures rather than an insult), agree that murder is alright under certain conditions. Most of them would agree that self-defense is a reasonable condition. The protection of our own culture is another common one (in other words, a war on the defensive side is ok). Many people in the United States believe it’s ok to go to war and kill people just because those people are dangerous, even if they don’t necessarily pose an immediate threat. Many terrorists – from any culture – believe it’s ok to kill people if it will serve their cause. In the past European society agreed it was ok to kill and even torture people if they might have been witches. If we go back to biblical times, adultery was grounds for murder.
I don’t think any one of these examples lacked a strong grounds for their beliefs. I firmly believe that all of them had reasons they believed what they did, and that they were not simply less moral than our own culture. These people have convictions, some of varying strengths, but for the overwhelming majority people from each group had very strong convictions. Those convictions have more than an intensity, however, but also a direction. People have different morals.
In the case of the responsibility of the media, it is true that we must think more about what we are putting on the air. The problem is that we can’t leave judgement up to somebody’s morals. Even if we simply aim to have each television station focus solely on their morals, we would have stations around the world causing an uproar when the airwaves of somebody who is morally reprehensible to some broadcasting into the homes of families. It creates a very similar problem (though I must admit, one easier to control).

]]> By: warren http://thoughtbubble.org/current-issues/visual-communicators-innately-responsible/comment-page-1#comment-23 warren Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:17:12 +0000 http://thoughtbubble.org/?p=206#comment-23 yes, i agree with this 100%... all communicators, and visual ones as you specifically point out, should be responsible for bridging the awareness gap. i imagine there are often people who desire to be socially aware, but simply don't have easy access to the right kind of information. but youtube and thought bubble make it pretty easy. i could see this thing becoming the next medium for all news on major social issues. yes, i agree with this 100%… all communicators, and visual ones as you specifically point out, should be responsible for bridging the awareness gap. i imagine there are often people who desire to be socially aware, but simply don’t have easy access to the right kind of information.

but youtube and thought bubble make it pretty easy.

i could see this thing becoming the next medium for all news on major social issues.

]]>