The London Olympics Posters were not really ‘posters’ at all. Same for Paul Smith's pose for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
My initial reaction to the news that British artists – rather than graphic designers – would be commissioned to design the official posters of the cultural Olympiad for 2012 was like many other graphic designers and design writers.
I cannot have been alone in offering judgement on the (yet unrealised) efforts of artists such as Tracey Emin, who, it appears is already being promoted as the ‘poster-girl’ for the event.
Emin is one of twelve artists who have been commissioned by the London Organising Committee to design a series of posters that will go on sale in the run-up to the main event – an exhibition at Tate Britain next June to celebrate the London 2012 Festival – the finale of the Cultural Olympiad. Alongside Emin’s we will see posters by: Fiona Banner, Michael Craig-Martin, Martin Creed, Anthea Hamilton, Howard Hodgkin, Gary Hume, Sarah Morris, Chris Ofili, Bridget Riley, Bob and Roberta Smith and Rachel Whiteread. Not one graphic designer is on the list.
Graphic design writers and practitioners quickly vented their anger in response to the Olympics news through zines and private blogs (though the Design Council website had no mention of it) and the overwhelming majority displayed a sense of resignation, of an opportunity lost.
The reaction prompted me to consider the importance of the poster among design practitioners and students. Isn’t our contemporary perception of the poster’s potential – and its place in the graphic design arsenal – contradictory?
The ‘post-technological’ generation of graphic design practitioners now coming out of art schools still look to the poster, in times of crisis at least. In ‘Help’, a recent article on the Eye blog, Alexander Ecob asked why the poster was central to campaigns to raise awareness the crisis in Japan. The volume and tone of the online reaction illustrated the depth of feeling, a belief in the power and relevance of the poster among students and young designers.
This seemed very much at odds with the current generation of practitioners. Rick Poynor, in his Critique of posters made for the 2009 London Design Festival, wrote, ‘The first thing they showed, though, is that lack of practice has taken an inevitable, perhaps irreversible toll. Many of these designs aren’t posters by any traditional definition. They are morsels of graphic playfulness stretched unusually large.’
Margaret Timmers, in her book A Century of Olympic Posters argued: ‘For the modern Olympic Games, posters have been a prime means of visual communication since the early part of the century.’ Timmers’ ‘prime means’ illustrates the way the ‘poster’ commission and exhibition for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games is a break with the past; the poster has become something quite different. It is not a question of whether it's designed by an artist, graphic designer, or came about through commission or competition. The point for the graphic design industry is that the 2012 Olympic posters are nothing to do with promoting or selling the Games or indeed graphic design in any real sense.
Commissioning fine artists for the 2012 posters is not a return to the Olympic ideal of putting culture at the centre of the Olympics, nor is it a rejection of graphic design per se, but it says that the poster is no longer the preserve of designers. The poster has become an art object with cultural clout but little meaningful relationship with graphic design, either professionally, or commercially.
Of course, the poster will still play a role in graphic communication, but one more diminished than in its past – it will never be the communication powerhouse it once was.
+ +
September 2011 saw the release of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a star-studded British film based on the John le Carré thriller about Cold War paranoia at the British intelligence service.
What caught the imagination of the design community was the production of four limited-edition ‘posters’ from the studio of British fashion designer Paul Smith (who also worked as a visual consultant in the early stages of the movie).
By contrast the official studio posters designed by Ego Communications didn’t even merit a mention – never mind a critique.
This oversight deserves a broader response from Eye readers and the design community. It is an opportunity to illuminate the difference between the two approaches and, in turn, the role of graphic design.
The Ego Communications posters sit squarely in the poster tradition of mass communication. Smith’s screen prints belong more to the art world. The studio posters attempt to inform, cajole and excite the public by illuminating the content of the film.
Smith’s are collectable objects, with the dual intention of personal aesthetic satisfaction and raising money for Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres. While the descriptive forms of both seem indistinguishable, their context and intent are worlds apart. Though Smith’s prints adopt the language of design, these ‘posters’ have more in common with the work by British artists for next year’s Cultural Olympiad that have caused so much controversy among designers.
By setting the Paul Smith prints alongside the Ego Communications posters we might clarify the role of the poster in contemporary design. Through such a critique we might prove our worth, rather than hoping that the attention given to Smith’s work might somehow rub off on graphic design.
Alex Cameron (2011 + 2011)
Originally published on www.eyemagazine.com
Comments