DESKTOP

about the emerging potential
of multimedia, our ideas pale in
comparison with Terminator
2, a U2 concert of the latest
Las Vegas hotel. I believe it is a
profession in an identity crisis
caused by over-specialisation
and deep polarisation.
PR: When did you first meet
April Greiman?
DF: I had been in Basel four or
five years earlier than Greiman,
who knew of my work at Yale
through Weingart. I met her, as
you did, when we were teaching
at Philadelphia College of Art in
1972. She replaced me at PCA
when I could no longer continue
to commute by air every week
from Yale.
Clearly we all influenced each
other. At that time there were
few people interested in sharing
new ideas about typography
and design theory. Back in the
early 1970s, even in Philadelphia,
there was an incestuous Basel
influence. Even more than
Weingart, Greiman approached
her work with spontaneity and
intuition. In our relationship
between 1972 and 1977 she
opened me to her spirit and her
way of thinking with the heart,
while I probably influenced her
by relating design to broader
theoretical or cultural issues and
seeing typographic compositions
as metaphorical environments.
PR: There have been enormous
changes between your graphic
idiom of the 1970s and you
current work – for instance
Artificial Nature or Art
Against Aids.
DF: When a visual idiom or style
becomes so overpowering that
you can’t tell the difference
between one project and
another, that makes me feel
uncomfortable. In the 1970s,
when such an idiom became
assimilated into other people’s
work, it lost its inherent
meaning for me. I never stopped
being a graphic designer,
but I definitely put it in the
background. I never stopped
being aware of what was going
on in the world of graphic
design, but I was able to look
at it as an outsider, which gave
me more perspective. When at
last I had a really interesting
graphic design project to pursue,
I was able to do so without all
the visual baggage so many
designers carry with them. I
was able to enter into these new
projects with an approach which
I think is more appropriate to
the audience, the content and
our times.
PR: What do you mean by
‘Radical Modernism’?
DF: Modernism is a philosophy
which emerged in the late
nineteenth century. It was a
concern with the way people
could improve the quality of their
lives, using all means including
new technology and design.
It would be an evolutionary
process and will continue as
long as we are motivated to
make such improvements. When
the ‘look’ of Modernism was
appropriated by industry and
named the International Style, it
lost moral authority. We should
try once again to be fun-loving
visionaries; we should return to a
belief in a radical spirit – the idea
that design is something that can
help improve society and people’s
condition. Radical Modernism,
therefore, is my reaffirmation
of the idealistic roots of our
modernity, adjusted to include
more of our diverse cultures,
history, research and fantasy.
(37)
Dan Friedman