This is a chilling period in world history and a dangerous time for the future of freedom. Evils that have been dormant are publicly on the rise and new ones are regularly conceived. Ultra-right-wingers, nationalist hate mongers, and terrorists of many stripes are taking the opportunity of a free and open World Wide Web to spread racism, prejudice, and ethnic apartheid. What once stood in the shadows is now standing in the bright sunlight. Sadly, albeit predictably, the desire to fight these tendencies has also compromised certain freedoms. The concept of a free society is based on the presumption of relatively unrestrained expression, a notion that is not always easy to swallow but must be exercised within reason. Most rational people are appalled by the current flow of hate speech and will do whatever is necessary to squelch it. But sometimes this can create moral and ethical dilemmas, particularly in the design sphere.
A case in point is when designer Mirko Ilić attempted to post a poster that he designed for a play produced in Zagreb, Croatia, about Anne Frank (Ana Frank), the most iconic human symbol of the Nazi Holocaust, on Typo/graphic Posters, a social media website devoted to showcasing posters from around the world. Ilić had already placed twenty posters on the site and wanted to upload his work for Anne Frank. He was proud of this design showing a portion of a Nazi swastika (black symbol against a white circle on a red field) with a human figure huddled within the corner of one of the hooks. A chimney rises from this hook suggesting both the Amsterdam building in which the Franks hid from the Nazis and the familiar smokestacks of the Auschwitz crematoria. The strong image drew viewers’ attention precisely to the tragedy of victims of the Holocaust. Over the past several years Ilić has curated exhibits and produced books that tackle political protest, popular dissent, and humanitarian tolerance. This poster was an appropriate use of the swastika as a symbol of Nazi horrors.
So, he was surprised when this email response came from the Typo/graphic Posters website’s managers:
Hi Mirko Ilić,
Sorry, we won’t be able to accept posters with Nazi or racist themes. It is a signal that demotes our project recognition and may raise an issue with other members and sponsors.
Hope you understand.
Ilić naturally responded with anger and incredulity:
You must be kidding me. This is a poster for a play about Anne Frank. It was used by the theater and was posted all over streets in Croatia.
This is not a Nazi racist theme, it’s against Nazis and racists. If you can’t recognize the difference, I’m going to pull out all of my posters from the site. BTW, I quickly googled “Anne Frank theater play poster” and this is [some of] what I got [showing six or seven dramatic posters juxtaposing the famous photograph of Anne Frank with a swastika].
Possibly what actually transpired was some failure through language of communication. But then he received this response to the above email:
Sorry Mirko for the misunderstanding. Of course we know it is against nazi. There is not a chance we believed it was pro-nazi.
Still it’s about the image itself, not what it means. The image is recognized as a nazi symbol, and goes through Google. We won’t risk each member of the project because of that.
Again, please understand it is the image itself, there is a nazi symbol there. This is not about your poster or Anne Frank play.
Sorry for the tone you answered, I believe you still understand our side.
This was not miscommunication, as such, but a debatable interpretation of the form and function of design and how the design field is either insensitive to or overly sensitive to the power it wields. This represents a much larger issue than Google’s diligence to filter out threatening or offensive material—in fact, there are plenty of swastikas on Google image pages.
The problem is that the swastika in certain contexts is such a charged symbol of venality and criminality that using it to attack that criminal behavior is viewed as potential provocation. Instead of wielding it as a weapon against evil, the evil it represents dominates the discourse. This was preemptive censorship on the part of Typo/graphic Posters. It is not protecting itself but rather justifying repression.
I felt compelled to write Typo/graphic Posters the following email:
I was forwarded this correspondence between you and Mirko Ilić (who is a colleague and friend but who is also an important designer in NYC).
I write the blog for PRINT magazine called The Daily Heller http://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/ which covers the world of design and culture in all its wonderful and strange forms.
This incident is grist for my column and I would like for you to have the opportunity to tell me why this policy to reject a bona fide poster representing one of the most famous diaries (as literature, play and movie) to emerge from the Nazi holocaust.
I realize we are in awkward times. I wrote two books on fascist imagery and the swastika, so I am aware of the danger it poses and the hate it represents. But Ilić’s poster is within the bounds of acceptable narrative and appropriate content.
I am going to write this up as a case of being overly cautious in light of the resurgence of right radicalism and racism, and I don’t want to take total aim at your site. But you have to admit this demands discussion. Please feel free to state your position as you did to Ilić. Or, if preferred I will simply republish parts of this correspondence.
I received the following response, which I decided to let speak for itself (unedited). My hope for the exchange was to prompt more conversation about the thin line that separates rational thought from overwrought paternalism and potential harm to free discourse. I am of the belief that in the admirable spirit of doing the right thing Typo/graphic Posters made a mistake.
Hi Steven,
Even though it is a delicate subject, I am open to discuss and come clear to any misunderstanding or to have my project the most transparent position possible.
It is also clear to me this is an open letter, it is free to be published and comes in accordance to the reason we brought up this website 8 years ago, and keep it online since then, to give back, to provide a means for inspiration, to connect different cultures through posters, to do good and only good, nothing opposite. Typo/graphic posters is honored for the privilege every designer grants us to publish and promote their work online.
The policy for approvals is that we host only typographical and graphical posters—by graphical we mean posters with strong aesthetical properties, like shapes, colors, symbols and expressiveness in composition—and the approval process happens first in a non-verbal analysis, by acknowledging first those two qualities. Being symbol our discussion, Mirko’s poster do have a primary and clear presentation of the swastika. It is of our decision in respect to the negative message it delivers to not host it alongside our other 400 authors. It is admittedly a subject for discussion and undoubtedly Mirko’s poster have great value and its rightful place in representing Anne Frank play and the subject.
To bring a public project demands care, especially in these awkward times, and we honestly prefer to make a decision to not offend, raise flags, or be in any political position even though it would not be the case. That is an excessive care and, like you meant, should not have to be. In general, there is nothing to hide regarding the nazi existence and us and our children deserves to learn from their mistakes. But typo/graphic posters is just not there, at that level, we do not exist to aid or support social causes, we exist to inspire graphic designers in the subject of typographical and graphical explorations through the posters medium.
I also understand we are not in a battle (me against you), as fascism and racism are a subject we both reprove and I believe you and Mirko will understand my side as a maintainer of a public project. This overly cautions decision is right for us, specially in a search based project where his poster may be seen without all contextual support of what Anne Frank is or the theater play. Quite contrary to having an exhibition where the audience would have plenty of contextual support, from curatorial essays, to printed matter and presentations, in our case, the poster may just be simply found on Google, shared on Pinterest, or through any other means, and will not have all the context necessary (even though we have a description text alongside the poster). It is a risk we decide to not have. Although we know it is a loss we have, for not hosting his poster and other posters in that subject.
Steven, I do remain open for any further discussion, we do not loose by taking this subject further. It was a professional decision for you to have reached us, and we respect that, we are open to contribute to your case if you see fit.
Best regards,
André Felipe
The job of an informed designer is to make these kinds of judgment calls. Yet the underlying rationales are important if we are to preserve freedom. Designers have a responsibility to do no harm. But defining the parameters of that responsibility must be carefully considered.