{
Tyranny of Taste
Tyranny of Taste
Tyranny of Taste

Taste isn’t innocent. While taste may seem subjective and individual — one person’s trash is another’s treasure — it also reflects existing hierarchies of power. Operating within an increasingly global and connected world, designers are challenging long-established definitions of how design looks and behaves. How do we define “good” and “bad” design? How do we unlearn the Western tradition as the only way? How can we promote inclusion in a system that excludes so many? In a field that claims to be forward-thinking, designers are interrogating the rules of taste and calling out structural inequalities that can no longer be ignored.

INDEX

1.1

Taste Reflects Power

1.2

Going Global

1.3

Deconstruct the system

1.1

Taste Reflects Power

“If we are makers of taste or visual
culture, who is deciding what is good? And
why those people?”

The conversation between good and bad taste is impossible to separate from the people, institutions, and education that taught it as a binary. “When I got to college, design was mainly a European and North American space. Only what people from these areas did was relevant. [...] European modernism is not the only answer to design.”

Consciously or not, design movements from Europe are still a primary framework through which we evaluate design around us. This predominantly white, Western perspective perhaps has the most power in university classrooms and curricula across the globe, where the few students who come from less privileged backgrounds often feel unrepresented and excluded.
BREAK-THE-CANON.INTERACTION
There’s a sense that Western design movements have ruled from their ivory tower for too long. Designers are challenging the notion that any work that disobeys classical conventions or form-follows-function principles should be labeled trashy, messy, or "too much.” As one interviewee put it, "Whose taste matters? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not effective or good."
WHOSE TASTE MATTERS? DESIGN THREADS EXHIBITION

WHOSE TASTE MATTERS? DESIGN THREADS EXHIBITION

Just take Massimo Vignelli, who famously proclaimed that the proliferation of typefaces “represents a new level of visual pollution threatening our culture” and that designers should only use a few and “trash the rest.” Declarations like these start to reveal the body of laws that, upon closer look, only take some views into account. While clarity and utility can’t be ignored, the notion that design languages outside of modernist tradition are trash doesn’t hold water in 2022. If a radically open understanding of design threatens the old myths of taste, hopefully it can propel design into a more exciting, if uncomfortable, future.
FIGHT FOR THE UGLINESS, @SCREENSAVIORS

FIGHT FOR THE UGLINESS, @SCREENSAVIORS

Our respondents also respect tradition, indicating that despite a desire to embrace perspectives, designers don’t want to throw all the rules out the window. “Nowadays, how do you differentiate between a trend and design history? We're simultaneously using all these different vernaculars from all these different times.”

1.2

Going Global

“We don’t idealize or glorify specific
people or movements as much anymore.
There’s not a single voice that is the
right one.”

Designers are challenging the idea that a single person or movement can do it all, but could they ever? A larger-than-life spotlight puts too much emphasis on the views of star “rulers of taste” who may have played a role in where we are today.
GOOD-DESIGN-AT-WORK

GOOD-DESIGN-AT-WORK

The internet expanded the frontiers of design, giving access to more sources of inspiration and opportunities for those outside the inner circle to be seen and heard. While this growing body of references and work circulating to anyone with internet connection creates its own problems, globalization has begun to destabilize the hierarchy of big names in favor of smaller practices and freelance designers from around the world — not just the design capitals. The design stars are dimming, gatekeeping is waning, and clients are more interested in local perspectives with a point of view than agencies with a shelf of Lions. Beyond adding seats to the “good design” table, designers are dismantling the table piece by piece.
Global appeal cannot be denied, but designers recognize the value of local perspectives: “I like thinking on a local level. [...] We really have to look around at our own communities and the people who are seeing what we're making, and who we're making things for. It makes us more grounded.”

1.3

Deconstruct the system

“How do we meaningfully intervene to
change broken systems?”

If the design narrative is a progressive, forward-thinking field, statistics tell a different story. According to AIGA + Google’s 2019 Design Census, only 3% of designers (across diverse specializations) identified as Black.

The question posed in 2015 by Maurice Cherry (and others) remains urgent seven years later: “Where are the Black designers?” And with it comes further questioning of who has been and is still excluded from the field, particularly in leadership positions. Where are the Indigenous designers? The AAPI designers? The Latinx designers? The disabled designers? The women, nonbinary, trans, and queer designers? The list goes on.
Look at any slice of the industry and you’ll find evidence of how deep racial, class, and gender biases run. Projects like Judging by the Cover, created by interviewee Leonardo de Vasconelos, use data visualization to highlight stark racial disparities in design publications, even among more progressive publishers.

While some respondents see shifts toward inclusivity in design, many pointed to the potential pitfalls and contradictions of that process as it unfolds under capitalism.
Interviewees are questioning what real inclusion in design should look like. Many seem dissatisfied with mainstream attempts at inclusivity, specifically those in corporate contexts. Take for example: diverse representations without material inclusion / benefit, image-driven DEI efforts and other initiatives that end up resulting in tokenism instead of change in organizational structures.
If taste isn’t innocent, then neither is design. Designers refuse to ignore the deep-seated inequalities of the industry, but questioning the tyranny of its origins and disrupting the canon is only the beginning. Designers agree real progress must shift to the structural: who makes decisions, who benefits financially, who gets in, who is kept out, and what systems of power rule.

UNRAVEL

1. How do our tastes and definitions of “good design” reflect what we were taught?

2. Whose ideologies have we followed and whose might we have excluded?

3. How can we help to make practices of inclusion institutions and agencies more materially beneficial for the global majority of designers, rather than the image of an institution/company?

4. What is designers’ responsibility in calling out agency leadership to make changes? And can we go beyond that?