Image from Wikimedia commons
We started our day by listening to Nicholas Blechman, the art director for the New York Times Book Review, and Pete Favat, CCO at Arnold Worldwide, discuss the “Obama effect.” The talk never quite clarified what exactly the “Obama effect” is, but examined several “guerilla marketing” campaigns that may reflect the widespread success of Fairey’s poster.
The talk began with a discussion of political “graphics” from various eras, beginning with the Roman Empire’s SPQR and laurel leaves and progressing to the swastika, a representation of peace and hope twisted forever by its association with Nazism. Favat mentioned the peace symbol as a simple but effective symbol of a political movement, while Blechman offered up mai 68 as another example of political symbolism in art—as well as perhaps the first instance of modern street art, credited to studios rather than individuals, and created for political reasons.
Image from Wikipedia
Blechman described a New York Times show of artists’ renderings of Obama, describing a general “need to draw Obama” among artists, motivated by the historical nature of his candidacy and win. Showing a few slides of the drawings from the show, Blechman noted that many artists chose to depict Obama from behind, a choice that—notwithstanding Farat’s suggestion that our president just looks good from behind—may appeal to our need for a leader, someone we can literally “get behind” and follow on a journey into the future.
In regard to using photography in design, Blechman mentioned the New York Times’ creation of a Facebook “gift” that fans of the paper could give one another on inauguration day. The image was designed by Christoph Niemann from an existing photograph. The difference between this situation and Fairey's? The Times actually gets permissions for the photographs it uses.
Blechman also discussed the “Forecast” issue of his magazine Nozone, which predicts an apocalyptic future for our global warming-wracked world, often in designs that parody corporate logos or use an everyday need—water—to represent how our future will change. It may take the revamping of such familiar icons in different contexts to make the future concrete; Blechman suggested that we have been “anesthetized to the future” because of its remote unimaginability. By proffering an image of the future couched in the familiar design alphabets of advertising and the everyday, Nozone’s Forecast succeeds in giving us a clear, if ominous, image of what we might become.
Alberto Korda photograph; image from Wikipedia
At the end of the talk, Favat reiterated the need for positioning artistic movements in the appropriate context: “Symbols will mean nothing unless the desire for change is inherent in the social context.” This brought home the main point of the talk: that Fairey’s poster would be irrelevant without the social response it received, which in turn would have been impossible without the correct social climate. The success of design, then, has nearly as much to do with its context as its content.
Tomorrow, we discuss Iron Fists: Branding the 20th-Century Totalitarian State, and Something Borrowed, Something True, in a further attempt to understand Shepard Fairey's borrowing practices.
I've never thought about it that much, but design definitely plays a huge role in political campaigns. I studied psychology in college and I'm sure you could design some pretty interesting psychological studies to prove this point.