I found the tone of the First things first manifesto 2000 to be very proper and almost elitist. The authors are strangers to me, which made me question the validity and importance of the manifesto itself. I don’t know of these people or their designs, are their arguments still valid or void? Who are they to tell me what kind of design is un-worthy just because it isn’t beneficial to society in a cultural or political manner, deemed appropriate by them.
At first, I somewhat agreed with the argument that designers use their skills more for inessential things rather than problem solving for important projects that could be more beneficial to society. I agreed with this because it had me thinking about how consumerism is everywhere and I myself, barely see projects that benefit society in a cultural, environmental or political way.
Bierut’s criticisms made me re-think my position on the manifesto and changed my thoughts toward what I initially felt like I agreed with. I think his points are fair, intelligent and reasonable, although sometimes emotional, I especially resonate with one of the last sentences where he puts forward the idea that everybody deserves good design, no matter how trivial it may seem.
References
Bierut, M. (2007). Ten Footnotes to a Manifesto. In M. Bierut (2007), 79 short essays on design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
Emigre 51. (1999). First Things First Manifesto 2000. Retrieved from http://www.emigre.com/Editorial.php?sect=1&id=14
Type S 