First Thing First Manifesto 2014 - Cole Peters

Reasoning

After reading about a 2014 FTF Manifesto, I looked it up to see if it had any major differences from the 2000 and 1964 manifesto's that were noteworthy or potentially useful. I found it here, and after trawling through the signatories for a considerable amount of time, as well as more general searching on the internet, interestingly enough, Ken Garland doesn't seem to be a signatory, nor is he acknowledged at the bottom of the site as having shown 'overwhelming support' or providing 'promotional support and coverage'.

What I Gained

I found that it continued the change made from 1964 to 2000 in it becoming increasingly political and reinforcing the feeling of blaming designers. The main difference this time was it's focus on technology in an attempt to make it more relevant to more people outside the industry. Key points were: 

1. Inclusion of 'creative technologists' in the 'we are' section.
2. Lack of gender, race and age diversity in creative industries.
3. Accusing some designers of aiding the abuse of the law and human rights.
4. The re-inclusion of not wanting to take the fun out of life.

Potentially useful quotes:

Next Steps

Having established that there's nothing particularly groundbreakingly useful or interesting about FTF 2014 in relation to my topic, I don't feel the need to look into it any further, and will return to looking at how Nietzsche's ideas have been reflected in film to assist my ability to articulate them in the future.

First Things First Manifesto - Ken Garland, Adbusters, and Rick Poynor

 

Reasoning

It'd been a while since I'd looked at the First Things First Manifesto, so I printed out copies of the 1964 and 2000 Manifestos to make notes on, as well as an article supporting it by Rick Poynor, a signatory of the 2000 Manifesto. 

What I Gained

I'd written down noted down presumptions about the Manifesto that I'd remembered thinking from last time I read it, and was looking for quotes that backed them up. I started with the 2000 manifesto because I remember it being a bit more negative than the original. I found that all the points I made in my notes were backed up by particular parts of the 2000 manifesto, and so in the 1964 one I looked for bits that were missing in the updated one to identify which of Garland's thoughts Adbusters deemed to be unnecessary, and then looked for explanations in Poynor's article. This is what I found: 

1. 1964's Manifesto explicitly states that they don't want to get rid of consumerism, and tends to have a more positive attitude in general.
2. 2000's Manifesto is very accusational of designers, blaming them for the growth of consumerist culture.
3. 2000's Manifesto is a lot more politically based than 1964's.
4. The 1964 Manifesto wasn't pre-planned and was a "heat of the moment" thing.
5. Ken Garland was an active member of the Labour Party at the time of the 1964 Manifesto's publishing, and it gained the attention of Labour MP Tony Benn.

Potentially useful quotes:

Next Steps

Poynor was supportive of FTF, as would be expected from a signatory, so I now want to look for a fairly high-profile person who's critical of the manifesto to balance this out a bit, Michael Bierut seems like a good place to start. I also want to look into Johanna Drucker, the aritst/critic mentioned by Poynor who suggested that "the life and consciousness of the designer" are at stake by not following FTF.