Design View meets Political View, Andy Rutledge style
So many people admire Andy Rutledge and his insightful articles at Design View; but that seems to have changed overnight with his latest offering, USA.gov Redux.
It’s a thoughtful look into the redesign of the USA.gov website, but what has got people irked—primarily in 140 characters or less—is the deliberate sprinkling of provocative political views against Barack Obama and his brand of “Change”, from start to finish. It’s present even in the final mockup.
I’m not sure if the article was written in all seriousness, or hilarity, or satire, which makes me hesitant in even asking, was Andy right to mix design and politics in such a sour tone? We certainly have seen it work well in a hopeful context.
But we can’t try to pretend that design is pure and free from any sort of intent—whether at the hands of a designer manipulating the vision of his client into what he deems fit, or a designer who sees eye to eye with his client one-hundred percent. It seems the latter is impossible, but the former should not be laced with malicious agenda.
Related reading:
A good question to ask, Sophia - should politics and design mix? Well, why should politics be above scrutiny in any way shape or form?
Rutledge’s opinion may be out of favour with the majority of liberal web users, but he is doing what he does best - communicating ideas through design. Judging by the debate you’re pointing to, he’s certainly making people think and talk, isn’t he?
Being European, I have no opinion of what he’s saying about Obama, but I love his presentation. Definitely his most controversial design redux to date!
By Gerard on September 25, 2008 9:14 pm
Although his design skills can’t be put into question really his style of writing is often a little on the arrogant side and full of self importance. I want to respect someone who is obviously a talented designer but I am always at odds against a tone that indicates an elitest viewpoint. While I feel there is no problem with self confidence when you shut your eyes and ears to other viewpoints you become stale and on a downward slide.
While it could be said politics should have a place, in this context where it is about promoting a clear design plan for a visual and user interaction improvement where is the need to focus on the politics?
It smacks of a personal agenda removed from the educational aspect of the article in the first place.
By RayM on September 26, 2008 11:54 pm
I was actually shocked because, as I was reading the article, I sent links to it to a few friends due to the hilarity of Andy’s mocking of ridiculous right-wing “OMG COMMUNISM!!!” ad hominem and red herring talking points… only to find out that he wasn’t mocking them, but actually endorsing and legitimizing them.
By Mark Chandler on October 4, 2008 3:20 am
Personally I am really disappointed in his post, I don’t mind his political leaning but it’s the rank hypocracy that winds me up. If you look back at a few of his old posts you see him lambasting design observer and I quote “With its latest article, Design Observer shirks its responsibility to readers in favor of senselessly indulging its own political agenda”. Isn’t that exactly what Andy is doing?
Also, more recently, he gets on his soap box to declare he knows all about what it takes to be a design proffesional. Sadly I think this is no longer the case.
By Matt Mitchell on October 7, 2008 7:26 pm
I agree with RayM and Matt Mitchell.
@Gerard In my opinion, when you want to air a political rant, do so. And if you want to post something educational, then please do so. But this was like fascist / communist / whatever propaganda in a school book - people expect to find serious information and are confronted with something completely different (without any warning).
By Nel on October 8, 2008 8:50 pm
Now, he is using his homepage to digitally deface the American flag by presenting it upside down. Poor guy needs a shot of tequila or something.
By Colin on November 6, 2008 1:25 pm
Mark Chandler: I don’t see the hypocrisy link. I think there is a definitive difference between Design Observer and Rutledges site: The former is a genuine publication, with editors, columnists and contributors. The site wants to be a collective for designers everywhere. The latter - Andy Rutledges site - is a personal site, designed to give him a channel for his own views on design or politics, or whatever he sees fit.
What annoys Rutledge, as it annoys me, is the complacency and rather ugly consensus in the design “community”, whether in the Design Observer, Eye Magazine or national organisations, that all designers are liberal, and that “we” laugh at conservatives. For a publication designed to reach all designers, that is a rather stigmatic position to take. And a bit frustrating if you are a conservative designer to always feel that your arenas for disussion is tainted with political bias that you don’t agree with.
Personally I believe that discussion is good only when opposing views are represented (and a civil tone is maintained, but that’s another story), and designers should be challenged, and like challenges. It should after all be every designers method; to challenge, question and find new ways of doing things.
Sten E. Moe, Arendal, Norway
By Sten E. Moe on November 11, 2008 10:33 pm