Shock(ing)-gun

Presently in graphic design, the taboos, conservatism, revivalisms, clichés and boundaries of the discipline are so blurred and merged that “shock” is either easily absorbed or continuously bounced around with no real effect. However, American economist Milton Friedman’s shock tactics have been recently revitalised in Naomi Klein’s popular book The Shock Doctrine (2007): “only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change”. We live in a state that continuously shifts between imminent or actual crisis – and this has normally been achieved through shock.

What if we are submerged in a perpetual state of crisis? In this reality, shock can only be used to create two scenarios: paralysis or action. In the present realm of graphic design, do we want/ need paralysis (even more) in a speeded-nomadic discipline that moves and stretches its boundaries every second? Or, should we promote reinvigorating action/ reaction to the numbness that this nomadism generates? In both cases, change will occur, but it seems that change can no longer happen through shock, as we know it – predictable, indifferent, and effortlessly digestible.

While this reality sets in, graphic design increasingly feeds itself on the content that the discipline produces. Can this act be auto-cancelling the possibility of shock, of resonating beyond “club graphic design”? Does the speed of society and especially the blurriness of the professional/ educational environment (generating loss of identity), prevent graphic design from looking outside of its own spheres, generating shock neither “inside” nor “outside”? I have come to realize that whenever I look at examples where a rupture happened, I notice that high levels of “contamination” from external factors were absorbed by graphic design. I’m talking about music, politics, philosophy, society… the polis.

Perhaps the continuous flux, the driving-aimlessly mode, the dodging and dribbling of a defined position from this discipline, prevents any contamination. It is a safe and protective kind of living, which paradoxically generates numbness and escapes almost any responsibility other than navel gazing. Perhaps this is why there isn’t space (or time) for surprise - that essential condition for shock to arise. Perhaps this is a strategy to run away from the debate, from action, from questioning design’s parasitic living. Framing this described scenario, the word ambiguity emerges: this is the word that prevents shock from happening, because when there aren’t identifiable differences, shock can’t exist.

Let’s abruptly sail away from graphic design. A few weeks ago, I read a headline that announced that there was another incident with the Taser gun in Utah, USA. Thus far nothing new (or shocking). However, I didn’t know what a “Taser gun” was, so I quickly tried to read about it. On Wikipedia I read that a Taser is “an electroshock weapon, which is an incapacitant weapon used for subduing a person by administering electric shock that may disrupt superficial muscle functions”. They have now developed a new model contained in a shotgun cartridge that administers the same shock. As additional information - in a website where I read the word shock 45 times - we are told that “the trademarked name Taser is an acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle”. Arizona inventor Jack Cover designed it in 1969 and named it after the science-fiction teenage inventor and adventurer character Tom Swift.”

In a world where images don’t shock us anymore, when guerrilla actions are powerless, it seems that the physicality of the word is being absorbed - more than ever. According to Amnesty International, over 275 people died because of these self-proclaimed non-lethal weapons. Apparently, it appears that if it doesn’t kill, the law enforcement can use it more often… it is “just” a shock. Symptoms like temporary paralysis in the form of a spasm, relate very well to what Friedman argued in his theories of using collective shock to introduce profound changes in economy and society. This “discovery” induced me to make natural connections with graphic design. It was at this moment that I jumped to Taser’s website.

This was a totally impressive experience. When the website loaded, the first thing that could be seen was an image of a mad/ serious Santa Claus announcing: “What does Santa bring you when you have been good, but the world is getting bad?” Well, the answer is obvious: a Taser gun. The logo has a 3D image of the globe with an electrical shock symbol over it. The silver terminator-style typeface and the shock symbol reminded me immediately of Flash Gordon’s logo (with his gun). The connections with a super-(self)hero mania make more sense now: Tom Swift, Flash Gordon and everyone that has a Taser. Perplexed, I continued to wander through the website, until I found - yet again - another motto, with a pink bar overlaying an executive-dressing woman, saying: “I will control my own destiny”. Of course she will. How? Through shock, naturally (and literally). Underneath, the caption was the following: “in today’s world, maintaining self-confidence involves the need for self-protection”. Graphic design? It continued, stating that “for independent, self-reliant women, the Taser C2 is an effective protection device that fits any lifestyle”. The shock-gun is pink and comes in different colours, with a kind of “Zaha Hadidean” design (described as having a non-gun design!), to truly include this object as another gadget of everyday life.  At this point, I was already reading “in shock” where it was actually written “in stock”, because on the bottom of the page, very visibly, there were two words that don’t shock anyone: buy now.