He, She, It... - Julia Meer

Women in Graphic Design
Page 383-392

He, She, It...
Julia Meer
Women and the problems of gender in the history of graphic design — Introduction to the short biographies 

It becomes evident from the unabating political and scholarly discussions on the topics of gender and equal opportunity how complex, wide-ranging and deeply rooted the differences between the sexes are, as well as their causes. This publica-tion is a part of this discussion, confronting a seemingly simple task, namely the compilation of short biographies, from a multifariously problematic standpoint. A comprehensive listing and review of the female graphic designers who were active between 1890 and the present day is still missing in the scholarly literature, thus presenting an unexplored topic of research, yet the problems posed by this under-taking became apparent during the nascent stages of the project. It is the aim of this introductory essay to mitigate — or at least define — some of these problems.

Problem No.1 - The forgotten ones


The multitude of the listed biographies initially obscures the gaps in them. Despite months of research, some designers — such as Carolyn Davidson, who created the Nike 'swoosh', or Sonya Dyakova, art director at Phaidon publishers — were not 'dis-covered' until after the editorial deadline. Overall, the fact that more women de-signers have yet to be discovered is positive, since it shows that a very large number of women have not only been active as designers, but have also achieved success and are regarded as important figures in the field. Two fundamental problems of our research project already become apparent here: first, it was impossible for us to account for all women designers; and second, our selection was strongly deter-mined by the material that was available to us. Our work was especially limited by language barriers and logistical constraints: we were primarily able to examine German and English source materials, albeit only those that were 'mobile'. Due to time and budget restrictions, we were unable to evaluate archives and most foreign periodicals. This constraint was especially problematic in view of the fact that this publication approaches design history with the explicit question: why were so many women ‘forgotten’? Yet while we attempt to correct some of these omissions, we simultaneously reinforce others. In addition to these more or less unavoidable limitations, others were intentionally added: contrary to our early expectations, from 1890 onwards a large number of women were active in the  eld of commercial graphics, making it necessary to limit the scope of the short biographies. The initial concern that we would only few female designers was supplanted by a much more complex question: upon what criteria should our selection be based?

Problem No. 2 — What is ‘graphic design’?

The title of this book is Women in Graphic Design. The subject of our research appears to be clearly delineated by this — but what exactly is ‘graphic design’? While the English term refers quite speci cally to the group of women that we intended to introduce in this publication,1 it was difficult to  nd a German equivalent. In contrast to the English-speaking world, there is no consistent occupational title in German. Those who were active as ‘poster artists’, ‘book artists’ and ‘script artists’ were intermittently referred to as ‘applied graphic artists’ and later subsumed under the title Gra k-Designer, and today the term Kommunikationsdesigner is widely used. The latter, however, also encompasses the extraneous areas of illustration, photography,  lm, et cetera. The German term that corresponds most closely with the American-de ned label of ‘graphic design’ is Typography e, for this word is used by scholars and professionals (in German-speaking regions) in reference to the arrangement of text, images and graphic elements within a two-dimensional space — namely the subject of this book. However, we found that this created confusion among people outside of the  eld, since they understood Typogra e as referring exclusively to the design of typefaces.2 For this reason, we  nally chose the analogous subtitle Frauen und Gra k-Design, despite the derogatory connotations that are sometimes associated with this outdated occupational description in German.

The nebulousness of the border between ‘photographer’ and ‘graphic designer’ is illustrated by the fact that grete stern (p. 562, fig. p. 436 and p. 438) was included, while Marianne Brandt was not, although she also created several typo- graphic works. However, Marianne Brandt did not regard herself as a commercial graphic artist, while Grete Stern worked for many years in this  eld and was also represented in the relevant trade journals. It is equally difficult to determine the point at which a designer becomes an ‘illustrator’, especially around the turn of the twentieth century, when — based on the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk — this differentiation was intentionally neglected and designers often produced not only commercial graphics, but also textiles, ceramics, metalworks and even furniture and architecture. To emphasise the  uidity of these boundaries, several short biographies of women were included whose work is representative of the areas that have generally been omitted from this publication, for example, bookbinding, exhibition design, kinetic or environmental design. The increasing convergence of art and design is also addressed in the biographies of contemporary designers.
Yet even after limiting the selection to women who were active in the area of typography, the remaining number still exceeded the planned scope of this book. Consequently, we had to establish additional qualifying criteria. Our  rst impulse was to choose only the ‘good’ designers.

Problem No. 3 — What is ‘good’?

The stipulation that only ‘good’ designers should be included would inevitably result in an evaluation that was at least partially subjective. Furthermore, judgements on the ‘quality’ of a design are shaped by prevailing opinions in society and within the design scene. This is illustrated, for example, by the ongoing discussion about what ‘good’ — i.e., historically relevant — design is: history is constantly reassessed, supplemented and repudiated. The belief in an ‘objective’ history has yielded to the acknowledgement of the subjectivity of historiography as written history.3 In the context of our project, the criticism of Modernism that was put forward by feminist scholars offers the most striking example of the malleability of the term ‘good’: in the 1970s, designers such as sheila levrant de bretteville (p. 414, text p. 310 ff., interview p. 236 ff.) demanded that attention be given to ‘female’ aspects of design. Speci cally, the clarity, ambiguity and objectivity of modernist, ‘male-oriented’ design should be balanced by a multilayered and interpretable design aesthetic that more clearly re ects the complexity of reality and communication processes.

The great degree to which these demands resemble the ones placed on society as a whole is illustrated, for example, in april greiman’s (p. 458, fig. p. 61 and p. 508) assertion that dualities are not opposites, but independent possibilities in a common  eld, which co-exist with equal status and each bring speci c qualities to design and — here the transferral — to life. In view of the semantic shift that can be observed in design history, the word ‘good’ has neither a distinct and unequivocal meaning nor an established visual representation. While it is possible to identify ‘good modern’, ‘good postmodern’ or ‘good whatever’ design, the use of ‘good’ as a single benchmark is nonetheless problematic.
If quality alone is an insufficient criterion, could it be amended by assessing the productivity of the designer and the amount of work by her that has been published? After all, the visible quantity of work is an indication of success.

Problem No. 5 — ‘male genius’ and ‘female aesthetics’

Directly related to the problem described above is the impossible consideration of pro ling only women who have made a major contribution to the development of design. For in addition to the mentioned social causes that have prevented many women from investing as much time and energy in their design work as men, and that have discouraged them from publicising their work and thereby establishing a reputation, comes the fact that contemporary criticism often disputes women’s capacity for creative ‘genius’.

Conspicuously consistent in the evaluation of female design work is the emphasis on women’s purportedly ‘feminine’ character, which produces ‘feminine’ works. In 1928, for example, Hans Hildebrandt expressed a widespread — and certainly not the most conservative — opinion about designs that were formed by the hands of women: in his book Die Frau als Künstlerin (Women as Artists), he described the work of his wife as a delightful, ‘truly feminine combination of naivety and sophistica- tion [...]. Such designs harbour a heartfelt joy in the liberation from all aspects of everyday logic, such as only a grown child can feel.’16 Similar statements are also found in later trade journals from the 1950s: ‘The success of this couple’s collaboration is based on the law of polarity [...]. Hans Adolf Albitz is the structuralist, the cool and calculating shaper of things [...]. Ruth Albitz-Geiss prefers the painterly elements, the passionate vitality of colour and the expressive gesture.’

These comments are not intentionally disparaging, as the ‘feminine’ was appreciated for its promotional value. In further remarks, Hildebrandt expressed his pleasure about female emancipation, which makes the woman ‘less acquiescent’ to the man, but also ‘more attractive’.18 However, such restrictive definitions of women as ‘feminine’ limit them in a twofold manner:  rst, female designers are reduced to a specific character trait and not treated as truly equal — also with regard to their choice of styles — and second, the more positive evaluation of stylistically ‘femi- nine’ works often influences women who strive for success to fill these expectations. This can explain why — especially in the 1950s, and especially when they collaborated with their husbands — women more frequently performed illustrative tasks using delicate lines and soft colours, while their male partners produced design work that was rational and stringent.

This distortion is reinforced through the selection of works that have been reproduced, as well as the expectations to which women were subjected. Especially in Germany during the 1950s, only a few women, such as the example of sigrid lämmle (p. 497), contradicted this role model. (The image of the Neue Frau, or new woman, had a stronger impact in the 1920s.) Even a successful woman like grete troost (p. 574) was more likely to earn praise from commentators for her hospitality than for her competence as a designer and businesswoman. The often unconscious or unquestioned notions of a ‘feminine’ type of design and the efforts to correspond to them are also major reasons why women at the Bauhaus, with few exceptions, were active in the weaving workshop, despite the professed modernity of the school.19

Several publications from the 1980s and early 1990s must, therefore, be viewed from a critical perspective when they suggest that women are especially thorough in their preparation of a project, that they are more involved in social causes, have a more personal identi cation with their work and their clients, that they can better understand and relate to their clients’ wishes and are not as strongly influenced by their own egos.20 Such well-meaning attempts to generate greater appreciation for ‘female’ traits and to portray women as the ‘true designers’ only tend to rein- force a one-dimensional role model. Also, the emphasis on women’s ‘commitment to service’ is problematic: although it does not explicitly deny their capacity for ‘creative genius’, it also does not af rm it. Comments like these, which supposedly contribute to female emancipation, are astonishingly similar to remarks made by Michael Spondé in the early 1920s in reference to graphic designs by lotte pottel (p. 440), which ‘clearly [point to] a woman, because they evoke a strong sense of empathy and intimately shared experience, but less energetic boldness’.The view that a woman is unable to produce creative work is found with great consixtency in commentaries from the 1920s and 1950s, and as illustrated above, this continues to have an effect even today. However, it was seldom articulated as blatantly as in a statement by Karl Schaefer from the year 1908: ‘Women are completely incapable of possessing the power of imagination, neither in the creation nor in the appreciation of art, because they lack the driving force behind it: a fanatical will for advancement. These or similar views promoted the tendency to attribute the creative output of a number of women to their designer-husbands, as was the case with ditha moser (p. 519), the wife of Koloman Moser. Noting the superior quality of her tarot and playing cards, one author commented: ‘One must come to the conclusion that Kolo Moser was directly involved in the design.

The extent to which design and female designers are in uenced by the prevailing image of women is seen, for example, in the changes that took place in Russia during the 1910s and 20s. During this era, an unusual number of female artists dis- played a combative, ‘unfeminine’ public demeanour.24 The in uence of Constructivism on this trend was linked to the rejection of the ideal of artistic ‘genius’ (which was generally regarded as masculine), as well as the battle against traditional aesthetic hierarchies, which had valued the  ne arts as being superior to the applied arts. Since women were typically associated with the latter, their work became more highly esteemed during this time. natalia goncharova (p. 453), for example, demonstrated a con dent self-image in a letter to Filippo Marinetti, when she wrote that women are ‘good mothers, good lovers, good working comrades, and there is no reason to disdain them. In Russia, the word chelovek is a designation for human beings of both sexes, and this affects all of our human relationships and our national identity.’