design t-shirts I Have Nothing Nice To Say


11,9×17,9 format teespring
Photoshop Ai File and Psd and png
RGB color mode
Smart Object
100% Layered

More details

9000 Items


More info

The slogan “designer as author” has
enlivened debates about the future of graphic design since the early 1990s. The word
“author” suggests agency, intention, and creation, as opposed to the more passive
functions of consulting, styling, and formatting. Authorship is a provocative model
for rethinking the role of the graphic designer at the start of the millennium; it hinges,
however, on a nostalgic ideal of the writer or artist as a singular point of origin.1 The
avant-garde movements of the 1910s and 1920s critiqued the ideal of authorship as
a process of dredging unique forms from the depths of the interior self. Artists and
intellectuals challenged romantic definitions of art by plunging into the worlds of
mass media and mass production. As an alternative to designer as “author,” I
propose designer as “producer.” Production is a concept embedded in the history of
modernism. Avant-garde artists and designers treated the techniques of manufacture
not as neutral, transparent means to an end, but as devices equipped with cultural
meaning and aesthetic character. In 1934, the German critic Walter Benjamin wrote
“The Author as Producer,” a text that attacked the conventional view of authorship
as a purely literary enterprise.2 He exclaimed that new forms of communication—
film, radio, advertising, newspapers, the illustrated press—were melting down
traditional artistic genres and corroding the borders between writing and reading,
authoring and
Benjamin was a Marxist, committed to the notion that the technologies of
manufacture should be owned by the workers who operate them. In Marxist
terminology, the “means of production” are the heart of human culture and should
be collectively owned. Benjamin claimed that writing (and other arts) is grounded in
the material structures of society, from the educational institutions that foster literacy
to the publishing networks that manufacture and distribute texts. In detailing an
agenda for a politically engaged literary practice, Benjamin demanded that artists
must not merely adopt political “content,” but must revolutionize the means through
which their work is produced and
Benjamin attacked the model of the writer as an “expert” in the field of literary
form, equipped only to craft words into texts and not to question the physical life of
the work. The producer must ask, Where will the work be read? Who will read it?
How will it be manufactured? What other texts and pictures will surround it?
Benjamin argued that artists and photographers must not view their task as solely
visual, lest they become mere suppliers of form to the existing apparatus of bourgeois
What we require of the photographer is the ability to give his picture the caption
that wrenches it from modish commerce and gives it a revolutionary useful
value. But we shall make this demand most emphatically when we—the
writers—take up photography. Here, too, therefore, technical progress is for the
author as producer the foundation of political progress.3
Benjamin claimed that to bridge the divide between author and publisher,
author and reader, poet and popularizer is a revolutionary act because it challenges
the professional and economic categories upon which the institutions of “literature”
and “art” are erected. To enact this revolutionary shift, the author must embrace the
new technologies of