In one of the annotations to my design manifesto, "Me, The Undersigned," I wrote somewhat sarcastically of the seriousness with which some of us view our profession by noting, "Design is probably not going to kill you if it falls on your head." (Screen: Essays on Graphic Design, New Media and Visual Culture, page 22.) A recent story by Tad Friend in The New Yorker has made me want to reconsider this proposition.
Turns out one of the principal reasons why San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge remains one of the nation's premier suicide spots is due to the fact that no real barrier exists to prevent jumpers from carrying out a death wish. As Friend recounts, the controversy over erecting such a barrier has everything to do with nostalgia: "Matchless in its Art Deco splendor," he writes, "the Golden Gate is also unrivalled as a symbol: it is a threshold that presides over the end of the continent and a gangway to the void beyond." But it is also a design issue, with concerned members of a 19-member board citing reservations about the look of a fence against the legendary icon. "The most plausible reason for the board's resistance," notes Friend, "is aesthetics."
So maybe design isn't going to kill you if it falls on your head. But if YOU fall, design is not exactly going to save you, either.
Comments [18]
10.30.03
10:58
10.30.03
11:43
Remeber this?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18696
10.30.03
01:46
http://www.designobserver.com/images/deathwish.jpg
10.30.03
05:57
10.31.03
12:29
http://brushstroke.tv/helfand/helfand.html
And to Jessica and William, a big, warm welcome to the blogosphere!
11.03.03
12:59
11.03.03
08:53
I just gave a presentation called "Professional Suicide" at the Design/Refine conference so this talk of design and death is rather bemusing to me. And I mention Tufte in it.
Not the most profound of postings but I just wanted to say Hello.
11.03.03
10:03
11.03.03
11:07
Professional Suicide
What is the ultimate goal of graphic design education, criticism, and perhaps, design itself? As currently expressed, the objective is to create a class of expert professional practitioners with high social standing (architects being the archetype). However, while ostensibly desiring awareness of and recognition for its activity, design deliberately makes little real substantive effort to reach out to non-designers -- except to argue design professionals should be given more work. And while an elevated status would benefit practitioners, a coterie of design specialists may not be the best condition for culture or society. My presentation will propose that a broader and deeper appreciation of design can -- and should -- only lead to its demise as a specialist profession and outline the implications for education and criticism.
The lecture will reference design's fascination with and scorn for the vernacular; Gunnar Swanson's essay "Graphic Design as a Liberal Art"; the abortive movement for design certification; Michael Bierut's tongue-in-cheek (?) call to genetically-engineer ideal clients; Andrew Blauvelt's observation that "design authorship" was paradoxically promoted by citing "the death of the author"; and Richard Hollis concluding his new edition of "Graphic Design: A Concise History" by pointing toward a design without designers. And more.
11.03.03
03:36
Aside from being moved by the article in its entirety as both a designer and fellow human, I was especially moved by the phrase, 'I'm going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.' I was reminded of the importance of being friendly.
11.03.03
05:15
11.04.03
10:54
What if someone who believed in the importance of a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge was also a person who understood the aesthetic prerequisites that must be satisfied to make it a reality? I am certain that an open competition among leading architects, industrial designers, and graphic designers to design a barrier would generate a number of visually pleasing (perhaps even monumental) solutions acceptable to the Bridge Authority. How often do we have the chance to create a monument to beauty, to those lost, and to life, all at the same time?
Design CAN killby its absence. And it can save.
11.04.03
03:39
11.05.03
12:40
"A familiar argument against a barrier is that thwarted jumpers will simply go elsewhere. In 1953, a bridge supervisor named Mervin Lewis rejected an early proposal for a barrier by saying it was preferable that suicides jump into the Bay than dive off a building "and maybe kill somebody else." (It's a public-safety issue.) Although this belief makes intuitive sense, it is demonstrably untrue. Dr. Seiden's study, "Where Are They Now?," published in 1978, followed up on five hundred and fifteen people who were prevented from attempting suicide at the bridge between 1937 and 1971. After, on average, more than twenty-six years, ninety-four per cent of the would-be suicides were either still alive or had died of natural causes. "The findings confirm previous observations that suicidal behavior is crisis-oriented and acute in nature," Seiden concluded; if you can get a suicidal person through his crisisSeiden put the high-risk period at ninety dayschances are extremely good that he won't kill himself later."
There's a good chance that ninety-four percent of the lives of would-be jumpers could be saved by a barrier. What's your point again?
11.05.03
11:00
11.05.03
11:11
If, indeed, the bottom line issue for those responsible for managing the bridge is finding a balance between public safety, budget, and aesthetics, good design thinking can address the latter two points. The issue of public safety should be a given, supported by scientific research. The results of a design-driven campaign to build the barrier could be overwhelmingly compelling evidence of design's power. And thousands would see the evidence as they cross the bridge every day.
11.05.03
11:28
CBK
11.11.03
12:32