The point is that the industry is inextricably dependent on capitalism. We can’t all work for the degrowth society. An attitude adjustment doesn’t fix the fundamental dynamics of the situation.
Don’t work for the advertising industry.
Work for the education industry
Work for the entertainment industry
Work for the Wayfinding industry
Work for the Immersive Experience industry
Sure there is always an element of commercialism and sure there is a HUGE amount of competition in any of those fields, but if the pure sell of capitalism roils your harmony, one can sometimes find a way out with hard work and perseverance (and talent…a lot of talent)
If you stay in this job and make The Sell happen, I don’t want to hear it about how The Sell is ruining the Earth. Saying an attitude adjustment won’t fix the dynamics means you may as well pack it all in for good old Earth cuz that is exactly what is needed. Not just one person’s attitude, not just one industry. Everyone’s attitude. But like B said, not gonna happen and like bacteria the human race will eventually die drowned in its own poisons. Barring some space being breaking the Prime Directive.
You wrote that “It isn’t capitalism that needs to change, it’s that attitude.” which implies that capitalism can be sustainable with the right attitude. If it is possible to have some pared-down or severely regulated version of capitalism the result for the design industry would still be devastating.
Art isn’t tied to capitalism, commercial art is.
Since all of this has gone way off topic, I think it might be time to lock this one…ya know?
I don’t bow to the idea that consumerism, which drives capitalism, has to be wasteful and Earth-wrecking. The design industry would survive. Trust me. Those new products all have to be sold too. As well as convincing a self-absorbed public that it’s a good idea to change.
It’s all about supply and demand. And it is more the demand that drives the waste. If we demanded better quality, longer lasting, less or no plastic, sustainable harvesting, less dramatic depletion of resources maybe something would change. But I doubt it.
As for off topic…it happens. So far this hasn’t been a spam magnet and we’ve been very civil on a touchy topic, which is rather refreshing, actually. This isn’t some little discord chat room where people get all horrified and militant if you stray off the channel hashtag. Sometimes discussions go far afield, just like in real life. Once the question has been addressed, one can stop reading if one likes.
Heh, I like it when threads turn tangential, and never really understood any aversion to it. Topics should evolve and shift. That’s how active human minds work. The next person to reply is 100% free to steer it back toward the original topic, or not. I get locking threads when they devolve into pointlessness, but my threshold of tolerance in that area is rarely reached.
Agreed. It can and should happen.
I doubt it also, because a large part of the population, and the most powerful part of the population, would undoubtedly demand efficiency, cheapness, and predictability. Therefore, the only way to achieve what you propose would be government regulation. How do you feel about that?
My “feelings” on that ever happening, even if it were “mandated by the people,” is that it will never happen because the government is bought lock, stock and barrel by the very same powerful people you mention. Until you get that money and influence out of politics you got nuthin to stand on there.
But I’m told boycotts work. Do they?
I say it calls for a wholesale re-education of a generation (or two) before the idea even begins to catch on. Remote, yes, but worth a thought.
Well I’m no economist, but there’s also a lot of devils in the details. Is anyone familiar with the Samuel Vimes “Boots” Economic Theory from Terry Pratchett’s Men at Arms?
If you’re not, I’ll link it. But in short, most people would like to invest in higher quality products, but have to go for the cheap and easy just to get by, and get stuck in that cycle. Boycotting a product, service, or business only works if you can survive without it.
There’s some infographics I’ve seen in the past that explain some of the other traps in the systems that be pretty well, but I’d have to dig those out since they don’t have snappy names I can easily google and trying to repeat them from memory is a great way to put my foot in my mouth.
Graphic design supports efforts in branding, marketing, and advertising. Generally speaking, these activities are persuasive in nature and strategic. In branding/advertising, for instance, the basic strategy is to target a particular sector of the market and appeal to their:
A. Logic and reason
B. Values and beliefs
Identifying and engaging the target audience is important in marketing. However, rather than assuming the audience is logical, reasonable, and motivated by values and beliefs, I’ve found it more persuasive to engage their emotions than their intellect.
When asked, people will come up will all kinds of seemingly logical reasons why they chose this over that. They will even believe they acted as logically as they claim. In reality, though, people tend to buy (or buy into) things because they like them. They make choices based on what will best provide positive emotional reinforcements.
Target audience logic and reasoning primarily come into play as a means to rationalize decisions that were driven more by subconscious emotional appeal than intellect.
Thank you. 
Are you always so enigmatic?
I was specifically responding to your marketing comments, but yes, on most things, people don’t realize how much of their intellect is used to satisfy and justify their emotional needs.
Even so, some people are more prone to being nudged by illogical emotional predilections and group dynamics than others.
I’m just gonna leave this here…
1 Like
And yet we all have values and beliefs. I asked PrintDriver how (s)he ‘felt’ about government regulation. PrintDriver may have complex and nuanced knowledge, beliefs, and feelings about it, but despite all of that there’s a general feeling or subconscious general assessment, which could be generally positive, neutral, or negative. Whatever that general assessment is, it may indicate, and just to be clear I say indicate, a political leaning.
I don’t disagree with that, but it does concern me that “political leaning” has become as perceptually important as it appears. We should be very cautious about mistaking Right and Left, as they are defined for us this moment, for any sort of constants, or a reliable basis of evaluation.
We should be wary of all our biases.
1 Like
No, it’s kind of a funny situation though, in that I know you’re intimately familiar with the things (advertising, branding, etc.) I’ve mentioned, more so than I am in fact. I guess the difference is that I believe the conscious rational mind is running the show to a lesser degree than you do.
I suspect that’s where our viewpoints coincide more than they differ. I’m not even sure there’s such a thing as free will, but explaining my views on that would take me off on a tedious tangent.
Heading back to my response to your comment about political leanings, I didn’t go into any detail. But I was referring to the current polarized political climate in the United States that seems to cast almost every issue in the political light of being in one camp or the other.
Your comment came across to me as though you were trying to pigeonhole and categorize someone. In hindsight, I was probably wrong about your motives. My response was a statement about how many of us — biases and all — mix and match our opinions in ways that don’t coincide with the myopic groupthink of either camp.