The Wall of Respect was an outdoor mural created in 1967 on the South Side of Chicago by a group of visual artists from the Organization of Black American Culture. It was a time when African Americans were virtually absent from the mainstream media. The initial theme of the mural was ‘Black Heros.’ Some sections of the Wall were later repainted by artists with scenes that responded to current events in the Civil Rights Movement.

As a focal point within its community, the Wall became a catalyst of the redevelopment of Chicago’s South Side and of the Black Power Movement. It became a place to meet and rally, notably of two large gatherings: the August 1967 rally organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the October 1967 “black festival of creativity” organized by the 43rd Street Community Organization.

The Wall quickly drew national attention and inspired the Community Mural Movement. The Wall inspired black pride murals in Detroit, Boston, St. Louis, and Philadelphia, as well as Latino/a and Asian American community murals.

It also drew the attention of the FBI’s COINTELPRO which sent anonymous threats to the Organization of Black American Culture and participating artists. The organization disbanded shortly after the completion of the wall.

In 1971, the building was damaged by fire and subsequently demolished.

Northwestern’s Wall of Respect Web site features photos and essays about the Wall, Quicktime interviews, lesson plans, and poems about the Wall by Gwendolyn Brooks and Don L. Lee.

Christopher DeWolf has a nice little editorial on posters and the political struggles around them in a couple of Canadian cities:

“Posters are the city. For community groups, musicians, activists, small businesses, and hell, even people who’ve lost their cat, they’re often the only way to get a message out. They cover lampposts, service doors, construction hoardings and blank walls, livening up grey and depressing winters and turning underused spaces into interactive bulletin boards where the city’s goings-on are announced to anyone who might be interested. Despite their importance to civic and cultural life however, posters are an all-too-easy target for municipal politicians and bureaucrats who want their city streets as bland and orderly as a Lego metropolis. Posters might seem innocuous, but they are in fact a sign of a city’s vitality and diversity — how municipalities deal with postering is a measure of just how willing they are to accommodate that vibrancy.”

DeWolf privileges “freedom of expression” and a “diversity” of voices but I would take it further and say that this is a matter of democracy itself — of ownership of the means of communication and the of the physical space of our communities, of building community and political power.

Via Visual Resistence I found this call for entries:

“SAW (Street Art Workers) is seeking posters for an international street art campaign about land and the effects of globalization. We want you to design and submit posters that will be printed and wheatpasted in cities across Europe and North America. The strongest designs will be published as a mass produced, newsprint poster collection. This will be a 24 page, 2-color newspaper which will include up to 30 posters. SAW will pay for the printing, and volunteers will distribute the posters. The majority of posters will be wheatpasted in public by participating artists and folks who just want to paste up their city.

Based in the U.S., SAW is a network of printmakers, stencil artists, graffiti writers and painters who use the streets for art and activism. We are taking back our cities and towns from the businessmen, cops and politicians who define public space for their own benefit. As a volunteer-run group, we make street art for political campaigns and post each other’s work across North America. Since 2001, our projects have talked about prisons, the mass media and utopian ideas for the future.

We want posters that build connections between international struggles and actual organized projects with high profile publicity. We especially want to see multilingual submissions and work from the perspective of women, Third World communities and indigenous/First Nations. We suggest that artists collaborate with grassroots, social change organizations of their choosing to make posters. We want posters that are both imaginative and relevant to “on the ground” organizing around issues of land, housing and globalization. Working with an organization is not required, but it is encouraged.

It could be argued that Christopher Columbus began our current age of globalization when he washed up on the shores of the New World. The slave trade, imperialism and resource theft that followed in Asia, Africa and America were a brutal beginning for globalization. Today imperial conquest has been refined into cold, impersonal corporate bureaucracies. In the last 30 years these corporations have become economic giants more powerful than many countries. Setting up global assembly lines, today’s corporations move freely around the world forcing countries, rich and poor, to surrender their land, resources and labor. In the process, corporations have made massive profits shifting wealth from the global south to the industrialized north, from the impoverished and working people to the rich and powerful.

SAW wants to look at how this form of globalization has affected our lands and how people are fighting back. How has it affected land in the cities — especially housing? How has globalization impacted land and workers in the countryside with farming, mining, drilling, logging and other resource extraction? What are the connections between land struggles in the global south, indigenous nations and the industrialized north? What are some of the connections between the landless peasants movement of Brazil and the squatter movements of Europe and North America? What links together the struggle against dams in India, hydroelectric projects Canada and water privatization in Latin America and South Africa? How are farmers and campesinos resisting industrial agriculture, like biotechnology and GMOs (genetically modified foods), in the U.S., Mexico and India? What organizing strategies have worked and hich ones have failed? These questions are a starting point. We want to see more questions from you and some hard-hitting answers. We want powerful ideas and inspirational art that we can broadcast directly to the streets in 2005.”

The deadline for submissions is September 1, 2005.

For more info, visit streetartworkers.org

From an interview with Dan Bar-On, co-founder of the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East:

“One of our projects is to develop a new school textbook with a group of Palestinian teachers and Israeli teachers and two historians. We suggested that they take some dates from the history of the conflict... there were three dates: 1917, the Balfour Declaration, 1948, and the First Intifada. Each teacher should write his own narrative about these dates. Then they read each other’s narratives, they commented on them, and they asked questions. Finally, they were written up as two separate narratives. The task of the teacher is to teach both narratives to the pupils, and thereby to make the pupils aware, and to respect and acknowledge the fact that there are different narratives, that it’s not one legitimate and one not, and not that one are facts and one are propaganda, like the public says. These are two different perspectives, two different understandings of what happened in the history of the conflict.”

The book itself is a physical model of the divide — one half tells the Israeli story, flip it over and the other half tells the Palestinian story, with blank pages between the two.

As the UK evaluates its waste reduction programs, five BBC correspondents file a nice little collection of vignettes on the state of waste reduction and recycling around the world.

Of note is Switzerland’s garbage tax sticker:

“The Swiss do not recycle just because they care about the environment. There is a strong financial incentive. Recycling is free, but in most parts of Switzerland throwing away rubbish costs money — each rubbish bag has to have a sticker on it, and each sticker costs at least one euro (60 pence).

So the less you throw out, the less you pay. No sticker? Then the rubbish will be left outside your house to rot.”

The snapshots are all too brief (and a little more anecdote than analysis) but leave me hungry for more.

.....

June 29, 2005 — Reader Jim R. writes:

“Being a country of ‘participative democracy’ in almost the extreme sense of the word, the Swiss get to vote, a few times a year, on many topics both of great and little significance. The federal government leaves the cantons with a lot of power. One thing the cantons can vote on is how they want to handle garbage collection. Last year sometime we had an initiative on Gebührensäcke.

I live in canton Vaud, and at the time garbage collection was paid for out of our local taxes. We voted as to whether we should switch to paying more for garbage bags (in lieu of a sticker), which would cover at least some of the costs of garbage collection. The initiative failed. The two main arguments against were:

1. Certain costs should be shared equally by everyone, regardless of family situation. Therefore a single person should pay (roughly) the same for garbage as a family. Swiss Socialist tendencies, perhaps?

2. Opponents warned of "garbage tourism" where people would drop their garbage bags over the border in the next canton.

A trickster might just drop off his garbage bag somewhere along the road late at night. But beware: Sometimes the authorities will go through the garbage, looking for an address or something else that will incriminate the perpetrator. But I think that happens more in the German part than here in the French part.

Yes, the Swiss are pretty damn good at recycling compared to other countries in Europe. And let’s not even talk about the States... But there’s still plenty of room for improvement here.”

Just flipping through Teaching Graphic Design, another compilation edited by Steven Heller.

The book consists of sample curricula, “Course Offerings and Class Projects from the Leading Undergraduate and Graduate Programs” in graphic design and typography, professional practice, exhibition, and Web design.

Notably absent is much mention of social responsibility. Only one chapter by Stewart Ewan attempts to do so explicitly (with projects on designing flags... and currency. Blah.) Another assignment asks students to design a poster “about human rights.” But to what ends?

This absence of any actual public engagement is particularly striking because Heller’s previous volume, Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility repeatedly and specifically fingers design education as the place where designers go astray and the reason designers are not more socially engaged.

Well, so much for that.

It raises the question, though, of what a book of progressive design curricula would look like.

A little Paolo Freire? A little Augusto Boal? I imagine something written not just for design teachers, but for a broader audience. It might touch on:

• Using design research and problem solving methodolgy to address civic issues
• Designing visual tools for public participation
• Reading assumptions encoded in images, structures, and practices
• Design for community building and advocacy
• Using design to streamline civic processes
• Issues on sustainable design and responsible printing
• Methods of user testing
• Multi-lingual design

It would cover media including:

• Basic typography
• Information design
• Documentary or narrative design
• Posters, graffiti, and street art
• Transportation graphics and civic way finding
• Mapping
• Branding and communications design
• Design for multimedia

It would integrate principles of cost-effectiveness, accessibility and inclusiveness, usability, environmental sensitivity, and technologically appropriate solutions.

Too much for undergrads? Why not throw in some historical analysis of art, design and social movements? An analysis of strategy and tactics... I could go on.

Any takers? Done properly, such book might be useful for grassroots groups and social movements, too. I’m sure there’s grant money to be had.

Just when you’re pounded by clients and far too busy to think about updating your blog, Print magazine publishes a nice little write-up pointing readers your way:

“Most designers agree, even insist, that design is more than clever imagery selling goods and services — it also influences how societies function. Social Design Notes, a remarkably informed and highly useful blog edited by John Emerson, explores design’s sociopolitical power and inspiration. A New York activist and designer who oversaw Web sites for Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, Emerson launched his blog is 2002 as a ‘bridge between design activism — to push designers to think about acting in the public interest and to help activists see how design can facilitate their campaigns.’ Emerson explores how design is used to support and challenge the status quo, posting one historical note about the ‘Black Panther Coloring Book’ created by the FBI during the civil-right movement, and another about South Africa’s use of the comic book to prepare its citizens for their first election. Emerson also discusses the built environment, praising former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani for having championed design to improve the lives of the disabled. And Social Design Notes’ Resource page contains tools — such as free stock photos — designed to convert readers into true reformers.”

The July/August 2005 issue also has a several excellent articles on sustainable design, and is worth checking out for this alone.

But it makes you wonder — why doesn’t the magazine itself use recycled paper? Despite the “In Print” column which touts the magazine’s “early environmental outlook,” this is not addressed. So, do they care about sustainability or not? I know design magazines are hardly a lucrative venture, but the article “Fiber Optimistic” on page 57 points out that cost differences between recycled paper and not are nowadays “negligible.”

But then why not take it a step further. If toxic printing processes and non-recycled paper are harmful to the environment, why not consider sustainability as a criteria for your annual design competition?

Imagine what a massive force the AIGA could be if they required printed entries to their annual showcase use recycled paper.

Would this punish designers for the choices of their clients? Perhaps, but then why shouldn’t judging the beauty of a product take into account the nature of physical object itself? If designers care about competitions, why shoudn’t they push their clients that much harder? Why don’t all design competitions consider sustainability as a criteria? Does this impose some kind of “political” viewpoint? One could argue that not requiring this broadcasts a political viewpoint just as clearly.

Would the AIGA’s dues paying members revolt? Certainly some, but as the issue of Print notes (p. 11):

“This year the AIGA formed a national task force to develop policies and programs for the organization in support of sustainability. Following a poll revealing the environment to be the profession’s most pressing concern, the Worldstudio Foundation and the AIGA, through their ‘Design Ignites Change’ collaboration addressing social issues on a local level, made sustainability the focus of their first project.”

Hell, the AIGA’s last national conference was largely devoted to discussion of sustainability.

So at what point does sustainable design cease to be a “special issue”? When does it become incorporated as a fundamental part of what we do? And when do our design institutions take a stand and show some leadership? When do we start demanding it?

Is this all unreasonable? I would point out that it’s already happened once before. The American Institute of Architects, another national design association, went through a very similar internal debate years ago and came out embracing the green.

...

Update July 18, 2005 — Print responds:

“It’s true, Print does not currently use recycled paper, but we are looking into doing so as soon as our current supply of paper is fully depleted. It has been an economic issue in the past, but we are hoping to persuade our publishers to spend a little extra on this aspect of responsibility.”

Via that same issue of Print I found this interesting matrix of recycled and tree-free papers assembled by Celery Design. About the guide:

“Most graphics professionals are searching for a few simple things in a paper the highest quality, the easiest functionality, and the lowest price. The goal of this guide is to help you add one more critical consideration to the decision making process: the environmental impact of the paper you specify.

Through your paper choices, you are directly connected to the preservation or the degradation of land, water, air, and the creatures that dwell therein. Paper reps and printers provide guidance on finding the best quality, functionality and price, but often can’t help when it comes to preserving the environment. This guide fills that information gap and points you to the very best recycled and tree free papers on the market today. You will discover that most of these papers are also very competitive in terms of quality, functionality, and price.

The recycled and tree-free papers listed here generate fewer toxins and impact the environment far less than typical virgin wood, chlorine-bleached papers. There are options here in nearly every grade, format and price category. We encourage you to contact the paper manufacturers for samples, pricing, and ordering information, and work with your clients and printers to specify these papers. We developed this guide as an easy-to-use, practical tool that makes it simple to change old paper-buying habits. Use it and share it with your friends. With the right information and a bit of initiative, each of us can reach a higher standard for our graphics projects.”

It’s not clear when the guide was last updated, but do bookmark the page at http://www.celerydesign.com/paper/matrix.html

What’s missing from the list are more tree-free, “synthetic” alternatives to paper like:

• TerraSkin, a biodegradable paper made of mineral powder.
• Yupo, made of 100% polypropylene. Not biodegradable, but easy to reconstitute.
• NatureWorks PLA, a biodegradable corn-derived polymer, primarily used for packaging.

Anyone know of other good resources on alternatives to paper?

...

Update July 27, 2005:

More suppliers of tree-free and recycled papers are listed at Rainforest Web

Update August 28, 2005:

The San Francisco AIGA’s Ecological Guide to Paper lists 20 papers that are either 100% recycled, tree-free, or some combination of both

Update October 31, 2005:

Conservatree has lots of good information:

• Paper types
• How to choose paper
• Paper listings
• and a Guide to Choosing Paper

They also offer consulting services.

For more on changing your organization’s paper policy, see the Environmental Paper Network’s Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing Guidance (436 Kb PDF).

What’s the best online donation service for non-profits and activist groups?

This is one of those simple questions that seems to come up again and again.

At last, the LINC project has posted a nice comparison of four options.

(This does not address tax-deductible status, which is another matter entirely.)

I’m still new to the literature of sustainable design, but I find again and again that much of the writing consistently ignores the political, addressing the social only peripherally, usually in the analysis but not in the response. Instead the authors pursue solutions based on individual design and purchasing choices or through technological fixes — creating cool new materials or processes — hoping the market will sort things out once the ‘good’ is cheaper than the ‘bad.’

Is this a matter of expedience? Cynicism? Organizing to set standards or pass legislation is messy and slow and often involves other people.

And yet so many materials and processes already exist around us. Why they are not used more pervasively is, I think, a political problem.

The same technologies are generally available in the U.S. as the E.U. And there’s no doubt the E.U. is light-years ahead of us down the path towards sustainability.

And yet, even among those pursuing “market” oriented solutions, folks seem focused on making new, better, cheaper things rather than intervening in the market to, say, make the polluting more expensive. The former approach ignores the huge subsidies and political weight of industries invested in the old ways of doing things.

Still, if one wanted to pursue a market-based solution, why not require the Federal Government to purchase such products — say, requiring all government printing use a percentage of recycled paper. This would create an enormous demand for ecological goods and ultimately lower the prices of such.

But folks seem to focus on individual choice rather than industrial requirement, ignoring the power of the State altogether. Yeah, cleaner technology is cool and good, but I’m not convinced we we can just invent ourselves out of, say, deforestation without shaping the force of law.

And how to pressure the State? Building a movement is hard. Grassroots organizing is slow. And battling clients every day certainly makes me want to focus on making things instead of dealing with other people. But something’s got to give.