My design training has conditioned that type selection and application is fundamentally subjective and relies heavily upon the designer’s sensitivity and awareness of types semiotic, linguistic and rhetorical values relative to the society around them, to make what would be deemed an ‘appropriate’ choice. Any perceivably inappropriate choice might arguably result in any ‘message’ being undermined, confused or de-valued. It might also be argued that we (as designers) are actively creating a visual-system based on stereotype or cliché or both. If clichés and stereotypes are characterized values founded on unsubstantiated prejudices, shouldn’t we question any apparent validity? Repetition or perpetuation of these I would claim would not necessarily make them accurate or indeed appropriate; graphic intervention or manipulation realises the designers’ own interpretation, and any consequent success lies with the perceived audiences’ ability to understand the message as it was intended. However, if the perception of the audience itself is misguided or misinformed, then any basis for any type decision the designer might take bears no foundation, thus weakening the designers’ ability to effect success.
Fig. 1 A ‘Contentious WEA Logo Proposal’: aspirational or a barrier to education?
Fig. 2 Successful WEA Logo Proposal: design evolution or ‘dumbing-down’?
A logotype proposal (Fig. 1) made for the Workers’ Educational Association deemed serif-types’ inclusion as “wrong” and wholly ‘inappropriate’ (WEA Council Meeting Minutes, August 2006). Council opinion declared the style highlighted a ‘social divide,’ ‘reminding learners of what they were not instead of what they could become’. I challenged whether this apparently ‘aspirational’ quality was in fact a positive quality – anything less could negatively ‘dilute’ a learner’s perception of their learning and the provider. However, a serif-type was likened to that of a barrier to education.
Design education has presented me with “essential typographical rules” (Jury, 2002 p.144). As a result I find myself “perpetuating the stereotypes” (Swann, 1991 p.55). If we concur with Pavlov and Skinner, I am helping to ‘mould’ my environment, shaping it by typographical “association” thus “reinforcing” beliefs through repeated use of a visual system. But if we (as designers) are actively creating a visual system based on stereotype or cliché shouldn’t we question any apparent validity? Clichés and stereotypes are characterized values arguably founded on unsubstantiated prejudices. Repetition or perpetuation of these I would claim would not necessarily make them accurate or appropriate.
Research conducted on the previous module sought to answer whether it could be claimed that history has presented university education with a visual-language: from ancient manuscript’s of the 12th century, this ‘original’ style has since been determined by technological advance and perpetuated in serif-type following the arrival of movable type in the 15th century through to modern-day. Throughout its history, although alternative to serif-type has since been developed (the Industrial Revolution presented the first alternative to serif-type, display and sans-serif type prompted by a burgeoning advertising industry) serif-type could be been seen to be the choice of the established university ‘sector’, and in this context could claim to be a ‘visual benchmark’ of the high(est) standard in British education – perhaps achieving an ‘aspirational’ status?.
However, since the Robbins Report (1963), the Further and Education Acts (1992), the Dearing Report (1997) and more recently the white paper The Future of Higher Education (2003), it could be said that successive government policy and political reform continues to change the nature of university education, where ‘political re-branding’ has guided any recent type-style appropriation. In general terms, the previous module to this course revealed that my own perception of the British university league-table, reflected correctly that ‘serifed’ logos are more densely populated toward the upper reaches. Intriguingly, this was also how widening participation (WP) learners perceived how ‘university learning’ should be presented.
The Future of Higher Education, called for “an expansion of the higher education system”, which “had not yet extended to the talented and best from all backgrounds”, by widening participation. This moniker has since been frequently echoed. According to the new (current year 2009) Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills John Denham, post 1997, government ambition was renewed to “widen access [to Higher Education] to all who could benefit” (Denham, 2007). In a press release he added, “The government is committed to unlocking the talents and potential of all. . . ensuring that a university education is an option for everyone” (ibid I).
Consequently I pondered the validity of this argument for access – as well as widening participation (WP) learners’ seeking to move into higher education (HE) – those previously targeted by Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education and Skills (2003) describing them as being from the “best of all backgrounds” (The Future of Higher Education, 2003, p.2).The Future of Higher Education – White Paper Jan 2003
