Critique of Tibor Kalman and DK Holland

by Dyske Suematsu  •  November 9, 2003

For me, the controversial graphic designer Tibor Kalman and the ethical writer/designer DK Holland typify graphic designers’ inability to create something out of nothing. What they do is always in reaction to the needs or actions of others whether it is their clients or any other evil-doers of the world.

When I first saw the controversial Benetton ads featuring politically and morally charged photographs (such as photographs of prisoners in death row), I was disturbed not because of the issues they were addressing nor because of the moral and political implications of the photos, but because of the use of political and moral values for the purpose of advertising, that is, for the purpose of selling more products and making more money. These days, the concept of cause and effect has no relevance since a cause is a cause in itself and an effect is an effect in itself. What appears on the facade to be kind, generous, righteous, brave, caring, or heroic, has a variety of ulterior motives. We do not know what or who to trust. For me, the Benetton ads kicked this up a notch.

Tibor Kalman defended this type of advertising practice as a way of compromising, similar in vein to Robin Hood, but I argue that it undermines the very goal it is trying to achieve. Let me give you an example. When Michael Jackson called the Sony Music chairman Tommy Mottola a racist, some black musicians and activists objected to his use of racism as a way to regain power and popularity. Their concern was that Jackson’s claim could taint the legitimate efforts of other black musicians and activists. The same goes for the Benetton ads. Using the abolition of capital punishment as a tool for marketing taints the legitimate efforts, doing disservice to the very cause it pretends to support. The only thing it would achieve is to influence those impressionable fashion victims. That is, it turns political awareness into a fashion trend. These are the same victims that people like Tibor Kalman have always manipulated whether for a good cause or for a bad cause.

Kalman admitted that he had done some design work for a cigarette company. (Interview on AdBuster.com) He explained that as he succeeded in his business, he ran into his own conscience. That is, it took him years before he realized what he had done. Many of us, even in our 20s, were perfectly aware of the implications of designing for a cigarette company. Kalman later realized the implications, and went on to wage a war against the cigarette industry. For me, there is a lack of credibility here. Why would I want to listen to someone who lacked the simple insight to see the implications of working for a cigarette company, just because he changed his mind later? If he harmed the world by designing a cigarette box, and remedied the situation by reversing his position later, then the sum total of his contribution to the world would be zero. It appears that if the time he spent on preaching to other people was spent on questioning his own unawareness and lack of insight, the world would have been that much better off.

Even though I do not smoke and I have never wished to, I have always appreciated designs on cigarette boxes. I would design one if I were given the opportunity. I embrace vice as well as virtue, just as we should not attempt to eliminate germs and viruses from our environment. Both vice and virtue have their own places in the world. Without vices, the world would not only be a sterile, boring place, but also be devoid of virtues.

D.K. Holland wrote an essay called “The Impact of Brands on Society” where she elaborated and expanded on Kalman’s philosophy. Reading this gives me a feeling similar to the feeling I get when I listen to a tirade by a drug addict about how evil drugs are. That is, the writer herself is the very victim of what she criticizes. In her view, not being able to control your own desire to own brand-name goods is a fault of the manufacturers and the advertisers. The fact that you have no control of your own desire is given, an immutable fact of nature. Anyone who exploits this human nature, in her view, is “evil”. This is a common view drug addicts take about drugs; they take uncontrollability of drugs as given, and blame it on drugs.

This simplistic view is quite dangerous. It is equivalent to eliminating germs and viruses from our environment just because they cause illness. The fact that germs exist is part of the design of nature. The fact that we have vices and weaknesses also is part of the design of human nature. Finger pointing is pointless in this. Where there are no vices, there are no virtues. For me, such a sterile world would be unbearable. You can see a glimpse into this world by looking at the cigarette boxes Kalman designed after he decided that cigarettes are evil.

The strategy that Kalman and Holland embrace to create this sterile world is the same exact strategy the advertising industry employs. Kalman said in his New York Times Op-Ed piece, “I’m a designer. I’ve worked all my life to make different products (including cigarettes) cool. Now I’m thinking about how to make smoking uncool.” Their strategy relies on the impressionability of their audience, i.e., the lack of control for their own desire. Just as it was out of their control that they were lured by Kalman’s original design of the cigarette box, it is also out of their control that they are convinced by Kalman’s fashionable rhetoric. They are just putting flowers in a dirty bathroom, so to speak.

But if being out of control is given, how do we socially deal with our sexual desires? If a guy cannot help grabbing a girl’s butt, is that a fault of the girl for wearing a tight skirt? In many ways, our sexual desires are much greater than our desires for consuming brand-name products. If being in control of the latter were impossible, then how would the former be possible?

Holland equates brands with religions, but this is logically inconsistent. She postulates that brands provide “fallacious sense of belonging” and that they are “the false idols that the Bible warns against.” It is quite rare that you see a bunch of teenagers running up towards the executives of Nike for autographs. A brand cannot effectively function as a force to center and stabilize otherwise chaotic state of our emotions and spirits because a brand relies on you as much as you rely on it. Just as Holland points out in her essay, brand managers and marketers conduct extensive researches to learn and listen to what their consumers want. Unlike churches with a set of moral codes, brands do not have a means to center and stabilize the chaotic, irrational natures of human beings. Despite how it may appear to us as consumers, the brand managers are no more in control of the situation than we are. There are many cases where these multi-million dollar researches miserably fail. It would not be accurate to take only the success stories.

Brands cannot effectively function as religions, though they do share similar qualities. We buy into brands to differentiate ourselves from others as much as to associate ourselves with others. That is, it is as much about exclusion as it is about inclusion. Brands function as a symbolic device of differentiation. Some people may choose a religion for this purpose, but I would say it is not the main motive. They choose religions to bring order into their chaotic lives. It is more likely for a rock band to be a religion than for a brand to a religion. A brand is a tool for your identity. A religion is a tool for your soul. Identity and soul are not the same thing. So, the tools associated with them function quite differently as well.

Holland accuses Nike of making their products desirable and of over-pricing them, but being desirable and being expensive go hand in hand; it is desirable because it is expensive, and it is expensive because it is desirable. Since differentiation is brands’ primary function, the price of brand-name goods is a significant part of the meaning and the effectiveness of brands. The more expensive they are, the more distinct they are. It is independent of how much money you pour into advertising them. Brands associated with parity products, like K-Mart, Radio Shack, Office Depot, and Lysol, pour millions of dollars a year into advertising their brands. Many of highly desired brands, such as Porsche, Rolex, and Georgio Armani, spend significantly less than they do. A large part of why a person desires a Porsche more than he does a Honda is because the former is more expensive, not because the former pours more money into making their products desirable by advertising. The price alone is valuable in differentiating yourself from others.

Holland consistently views consumers to be utterly powerless, and corporations to be ominously powerful. Throughout her essay, she speaks of consumers as victims and corporations as victimizers. She criticizes abuse of power by corporations, but endorses wielding of power by consumers. She says, “Don’t underestimate your own power.” The problem with this equation is that as long as you feel you are powerless, you always feel you are a victim, and therefore entitled to do whatever you want with the power you have. This mentality of being a victim is often the very cause of the abuse of power. No matter how powerful you become, you forever see yourself to be powerless, and end up abusing your own power without being aware of it. This victim mentality runs rampant among drug addicts also.

What troubles me the most about Kalman and Holland’s arguments is that they view democracy as freedom to influence and change others to their own beliefs. Let me make a distinction here: Fighting for your own rights is not the same as changing and influencing other people for your rights. I voice my opinions not because I believe that other people should believe in the same things I do. I voice my opinions simply because I want to let other people know what I think. This does not mean that I think they should agree with me. If the majority of the people do not agree with me, and the laws change against my wish, I do not have any problem with accepting them. This is part of the deal of being in a democratic society that respects the notion of social contract.

Nothing can ever be proven absolutely right or wrong. Differences in opinions are part of human nature. Persuading others to believe in what you believe in, makes sense only if it is absolutely right. It is pointless to say something like: “You should agree that this is evil, because it is possible that I am right about this.” If it is not absolutely right, such a directive is meaningless. There is no need for persuading. Just let other people know what you believe in, and no more. Kalman and Holland take the position of the Old West: If you don’t kill them, they’ll kill you. In their views, you are either a persuader or a persuaded. She offers her advice in her essay for how to be an ethical designer: “Ethical thinking requires discipline and a raised consciousness. The trick is to not get blindly sucked into the churn, dazzled by the allure of fame and fortune.” In other words, don’t let your guard down, and attack before they attack you.

Throughout her essay, she outlines for the readers what is good and what is evil. The Japanese outerwear brand “Bitch Skateboards” is evil, because it has an image of a boy pointing a gun to a girl’s head. Joe Camel is evil because his head looks like a penis. Guess, the clothing company, is evil because it uses a 14 year-old girl as a model, which contributes to a higher number of rape cases among teenagers. I have no interest in arguing against her accusations. Perhaps what she is saying is true for me as well, but the distinction of good and evil is quite subjective. Some people believe that Princess Diana and Mother Theresa were evil, and they provide arguments that are worthy of a discussion. Holland does not frame her arguments conditionally. She does not say, “If you believe this is evil, here is how you can deal with it.” Instead, her formulation is, “Here is something evil, and here are different ways you can deal with it.” She is quite convinced that what she deems evil is absolute, and therefore in her mind, she is entitled to influence the minds of others by whatever means necessary. That is, even if that means to employ the same strategy used by her enemies to persuade the impressionables. She commands: “Remember that what you think as a designer and as a human being makes an enormous difference. Your opinion is our secret weapon to affect change.”

Asked what concerned him most in the exploitation of brands, Kalman replied, “If a religious fanatic became the head of Disney. Now that would be scary.” I am not sure if that would be any scarier than if Kalman himself had become the head of Disney. In my mind, what is troublesome about a religious fanatic is his conviction of what is absolutely right and wrong, and his determination to force his views on others by whatever means necessary. I do not see the difference between what Kalman did and what a religious fanatic would.