Kinda funny, kinda sad: Rob Walker's screed on design's purported role in Obama's campaign

Mr. Walker goes for the jugular here:

The key quote comes from the founder of Notcot, who says:

By placing such an emphasis on building a visually appealing brand, Obama is validating the importance of design in communication. This in turn builds support from the design community, who might feel that a design-conscious candidate best represents their personal beliefs. [...]

But, seriously: What? Can it really, possibly be true that anybody is supporting Obama because he’s the most “design-conscious candidate”?
[...]
But I have to admit the glowing critiques of Obama campaign design are seeming little over the top to me. Here, an expert explains how Obama’s typeface is “inspiring, not threatening,” etc. Other design praise here and here. Here, someone offers the inevitable pairing of the designer-beloved (and in my opinion, drastically overrated) Obama logo with the inescapable customization trend, in a “create your own custom Obama logo” tool. And so on.

That’s all fine, and harmless. But what would it say about a theoretical voting bloc that its key “personal beliefs” concern “the importance of design in communication”? On the list of personal beliefs one might hold, I would say that’s a pretty trivial one. And as a practical matter, I’m looking for policy changes under the next president — not better typography.

Moreover, the importance of design in communication is something that’s been routinely embraced by, you know, totalitarian regimes. Thus the history of propaganda is visually thrilling — and ideologically depressing. Pleasing design can be used on behalf of an policy or regime or idea, good or bad. It’s a tool.

 Rob, I know you're considering it, but please don't shut down your blog!

Comments

[dep]

Miss your updates!