Introduction: Reading 1 (Authorship, Designers as Authors) by Talvikki 21.9.2020
The chapter called Authority, Ownership and Originality established a connection between the author and originality. The question of whether authors are only authors if they are the inventors or first to bring up an idea, was argued through numerous examples, such as poems, songs, and other forms of speech. It seemed that authorship emerges from originality; something new and yet unseen or unheard of. Therefore, citations or references to earlier work, whether literature or music would be considered not authentic or original and thus, not carry with them the title of ‘author’. A distinction was made between written and oral speech, which shed light onto what is original and thus could be considered the trace of an author. Whilst an author’s written speech is (or back in the times of the examples mentioned in the text) unique and only once documented, oral speech can be reiterated by multiple performers. The following question was posed: Is only the first performer of an oral speech the author or will the author be re-defined with each performance? Or does perhaps each performance enable its own author?
Individuals considered authors, as was discussed, have had to be geniuses, culturally and perhaps politically marginalized and in touch with higher, non-human wisdom to be able to come up with authentic and original work. Whereas their circumstances enabled them to see things from a different perspective, there was the risk of them crossing the boundaries of morality and social norms and thus, even be considered irresponsible.
Authorship, as said underwent a re-definition when technologies emerged that enabled printing and copying. When i.e. texts started to be mass-printed they themselves became standardized and uniformed. Industrialization then increased the desire to stand out as an individual and gain authenticity and therefore, the necessity to re-define what makes an author.
The article called Designer as Author discussed the role of designers as authors. In here, authorship was not considered a position only from which to create content, but rather a ‘tool’ that designers should use in rethinking their process and to expand their methods.
Authorship was discussed by drawing onto what the previous text called originality. In this text it was a form of ‘truth’ that was referred to. Comparing the fields of science and literature it was made clear in how far their ‘practitioner’ could embody authorship. Whilst scientist would re-iterate scientific findings and test them through experiments, in literature writers would invent new content such as through ideas. Therefore, in the 18th century literature gained pre-dominantly the right to authorship. Citing Foucault, “literature was authored, and science became the product of anonymous objectivity.”
This article drew onto the notion of designers as authors. It was said that designers should consider themselves authors. However, as multifaceted and complex the role of the designer is, the more difficult it seems to state whether a designer is an author or has the capabilities to deserve authorship. In many circumstances, designers, I would claim are a combination of authors and facilitators. Often, employed and working in multidisciplinary teams, designers have a clear framework within which they can operate. Designers, whether graphic, service or product oriented, are wished to be creative and innovative and ideally disrupt the industry with revolutionary ideas, yet all their action should conform to the given environment. The environment would most often be considered the office or the target audience. Referencing to the article called Authority, Ownership and Originality, as long as designers are ‘only’ recognized as value-adders, no originality can be expected nor delivered. In reverse, this way designers are exempt from the responsibility of their actions as they are not fully in charge of their contribution. Whether that is a relief, or a constraint is up to the reader, however from the perspective of designers it is a question of power, and thus, a constraint.
It is evident that designers often stay superficial and float from one subject to the next, “scattering fragments of quotations across the surface of their “authored” posters and book covers” (Designer as Author), as their skills are considered exactly and only that: problem solving. With a generic job title and skill set called ‘problem solving’, designers do not distinguish themselves from other professions. Because how many professions do not solve problems? In other words, designers are in a way neutral until they are assigned a task to untangle. Whether a designer is employed or runs their own office, they tackle issues based on the demand. Therefore, more often than not the client determines the tasks of the designer and above all the necessity and essence of a designer’s significance.
It needs to be the wish and determination of the designer to want authority, until they can work towards achieving that goal. This gives freedom to experiment and lead oneself, and if successful the chance to disrupt the field and contribute with authentic ideas and yet it makes the designer responsible for their actions.
