Catalogue of Repetition

catalogue of repetition

Printed in April 2023 at Emily Carr University of Art & Design.
September 2022 – April 2023
Type set in Maiola by TypeTogether & Cardea by Emigre.
Special thanks to Charlotte Falk for her support throughout this project.

a series of design & printmaking explorations
sid watson

This publication serves as documentation of my capstone project spanning the
course of my final year studying Communication Design at Emily Carr University.
This project exists as a series of explorations in design and printmaking, working
specifically with topics of consumerism, reproduction, and repetition. My work finds
comfort in its chaos, and builds off of itself to spin different worlds intertwined with
one another. Lean into it.
Please see the handbook attached, which contains my weekly reflections correlating
to the figure numbers throughout the publication.

Week 9: I spent hours reading up on the relationship
between communication design and capitalism. Can
design exist outside of this social structure? Should it?
How do I as a designer grapple with the fact that this
field is so entrenched in consumerist belief? Michael
Rock, a graphic designer, has spoken about the respon-
sibilities of designers within capitalism quite extensive-
ly, and much of his writing spoke to how I felt about
my new discoveries. Simultaneously, though I couldn’t
quite remember exactly how or why, I stumbled into
Roland Barthes’ notion of the “author” and its death1.
This was familiar to me, however within this context
provided new insight I was curious to pursue further.
Barthes’ Death of the Author felt relevant to the work
I had been doing thus far. I began relating Barthes’ con-
cepts to design authorship and responsibility as I slowly
combed through his essay again and again, squeezing as
much from it as I possibly could. I next read Foucault’s
argument detailed in What is an Author?2 to further un-
derstand the various perspectives on the vastly compli-
cated matter. Both brought some interesting arguments
to their respective cases.
Not only did the aforementioned texts spark my
interest in design theory and analysis, but their flourish-
ing narratives inspired my creativity as well. My mind
went straight to pop art, its seeming rejection of an
“author” fitting into this exploration seamlessly. From
there, the pieces of the puzzle started coming together;
I will use printmaking as my vehicle to emphasize the
nature of slow design (acting as a rejection to the fast-
paced nature of commercial design) within the overar-
ching space of post-art design. Immediately, Barbara
Kreuger came to mind as a main source of inspiration.
Week 10: Barthes’ Death of the Author focused the tra-
jectory of my project, alongside the First Things First3
manifesto which I soon discovered shortly thereafter.
The First Things First manifesto was written in 1964 by
Ken Garland, and subsequently rewritten in both 2000
and 2020, each quite differently reflecting the issues of
its time. The version most recent touches mainly on
sustainability which, though incredibly important,
strays far from the original manifesto’s focus.
(It was at this point that I was also discovering more
about the slow design activist movement, which reso-
nated with my project space. It isn’t the area in which
I am specifically looking to focus, however I will be
mindful of the movement’s values as I continue with
my explorations.)
A few days after discovering the three versions of
First Things First, I followed suit. Combining Barthes’
Death of the Author with the parts of all three First Things
First manifestos which resonated most with me, I con-
structed the first draft of my First Things First 2022 man-
ifesto. This deviated from the original, much like its
other versions, combining Barthes’ philosophical takes
with the consumerist-conscious stance from 1964, 2000,
and 2020.
The visual narrative for the final piece is greatly
inspired by ad design of the 1970s. I was curious to
explore advertisement design styles, and due to my re-
cent interests in pop art’s narrative as well, the 1970s
stood out as the era into which I should explore. I want
to emphasize the strange audacity of advertisements,
while calling attention to the role which the designer
plays in the consumption of the product. The product’s
proliferation is as a direct result of the design’s success.
Therefore, is the designer at fault if the product for
which they design causes harm? Should they be? How
do we as designers remain aware of such complications
while pursuing our passion in the field?
October 28th – November 10th, 2022
1 Roland, Barthes. "Death of the Author" (1967). Image, music, text, Fontana, 1977, 142-148.
2 Foucault, Michel. "What is an Author? (1969). Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, edited by James Faubion, translated by Robert Hurley, The New Press, 1998, 205-222.
3 Garland, Ken. First Things First: A Manifesto, 1964.

We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, art directors and visual
communicators who have been raised in a world in which the tech-
niques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented
to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable use of our talents.
Many design teachers and mentors promote this belief; the market
rewards it; a tide of books and publications reinforces it.
Encouraged in this direction, designers then apply their skill and
imagination to sell dog biscuits, designer coffee, diamonds, deter-
gents, hair gel, cigarettes, credit cards, sneakers, butt toners, light beer
and heavy-duty recreational vehicles. Commercial work has always
paid the bills, but many graphic designers have now let it become, in
large measure, what graphic designers do. This, in turn, is how the
world perceives design. The profession’s time and energy is used up
manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best.
Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view
of design. Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertis-
ing, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implic-
itly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial
messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak,
think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we are all helping
draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.
We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, photographers and students
who have been brought up in a world in which the techniques and
apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most
lucrative, effective and desirable means of using aour talents. We have been
bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work
of those who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as:
cat food, stomach powders, detergent, hair restorer, striped toothpaste,
aftershave lotion, beforeshave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodor-
ants, fizzy water, cigarettes, roll-ons, pull-ons and slip-ons.
By far the greatest time and effort of those working in the advertising in-
dustry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing
to our national prosperity.
In common with an increasing number of the general public, we have
reached a saturation point at which the high pitched scream of consumer
selling is no more than sheer noise. We think
that there are other things more worth us-
ing our skill and experience on. There are
signs for streets and buildings, books and
periodicals, catalogues, instructional man-
uals, industrial photography, educational
aids, films, television features, scientific and
industrial publications and all the other
media through which we promote our trade,
our education, our culture and our greater
awareness of the world.
We do not advocate the abolition of
high pressure consumer advertising: this is
not feasible. Nor do we want to take any of
the fun out of life. But we are proposing a
reversal of priorities in favour of the more
useful and more lasting forms of communi-
cation. We hope that our society will tire of
gimmick merchants, statues salesmen, and
hidden persuaders, and that the prior call on
our skills will be for worthwhile purposes. With this in mind, we propose to
share out experience and opinions, and to make them available to colleagues,
students and others who may be interested1.
first
things
first
manifesto
1964
first
things
first
manifesto
2000
First Things
First

We, the undersigned, are designers who have been
raised in a world in which we put profit over peo-
ple and the planet in an attempt to grease the wheels
of capitalism and keep the machine running. Our
time and energy are increasingly used to manufacture
demand, to exploit populations, to extract resources,
to fill landfills, to pollute the air, to promote coloniza-
tion, and to propel our planet’s sixth mass extinction.
We have helped to create comfortable, happy lives
for some of our species and allowed harm to others;
our designs, at times, serve to exclude, eliminate, and
discriminate.
Many design teachers and professionals per-
petuate this ideology; the markets reward it; a tide
of imitations and “likes” reinforces it. Encouraged in
this direction, designers then apply their skills and
imagination to sell fast fashion, fast cars, and fast
food; disposable cups, bubble wrap, and unending
amounts of single-use plastics; fidget spinners, mi-
crowave dinners, and nose hair trimmers. We market
unhealthy body images and diets; products and apps that propagate social
isolation and depression; the consumption of unbalanced food systems; we
sell pills to pop, tiks to tok, and a scrolling feed that never stops... and then
the desire to consume it all over again and again. Yes, commercial work has
always paid the bills, but many designers have let it become, in large
measure, what designers do. This, in turn, is how the world perceives design.
Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view
of design. Because of this, we call for a massive change in what and how
designers design. Climate change is critically entangled with class, race, and
gender-based dominance, we can no longer push merely for sustainability,
but must create new systems that undo and heal what’s been done.
What We Must Do
— We must challenge and examine the histories, processes, and ethics of
design and develop new creative skills, resources, collaborations, and
languages of design.
— We must support community-based efforts to advance and promote
justice, healing, co-existence, and mutual respect.
— We must understand that we are not outside of nature; we are a part of
a complex system and our actions must reflect that knowledge
— We must reverse our profession’s priorities in favor of more inclusive,
empathetic, and engaged forms of action — a mind-shift that goes
beyond sustainability — towards regeneration, exploration, and co-
creation of a non-exploitative, non-appropriative set of social-envi-
ronmental relations
— We must commit to reconnecting design, manufacturing, distribution,
and use of the things we design to the Earth — and all of its inhabitants.
— We must direct our skills for the betterment of humanity towards a
more ecological civilization.
— We believe all of these principles should be integrated into multidisci-
plinary design education.
— We acknowledge the complex and varied nature of designing, which has
many possible uses and outcomes. We do not want to take any of the
fun out of life. But we are proposing a reversal of priorities in favor of
more useful, generative, and equitable forms of design.
In 1964, 22 visual communicators, young and old, signed the original call for
our abilities to be valued. In 1999, 33 designers and commentators signed
an updated version of First Things First published in magazines around the
world, and the document attracted hundreds of signatures online. In 2014
– on the 50th anniversary of the manifesto – over 1600 designers across the
world renewed their commitment to the manifesto.
With the ongoing destruction of essential living systems on our planet,
this message has only grown more urgent. As we celebrate the 50th anniver-
sary of Earth Day, we renew the previous manifestos with a greater sense
of urgency as we see the compounded effects of our climate crisis unfold
before us. It is imperative that we take climate action now3.
There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills.
Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our
attention. Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns,
books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs,
films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgent-
ly require our expertise and help.
We propose a reversal of priorities in favor of more useful, lasting
and democratic forms of communication – a mindshift away from
product marketing and toward the exploration and production of
a new kind of meaning. The scope of debate is shrinking; it must
expand. Consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged
by other perspectives expressed, in part, through the visual languages
and resources of design.
In 1964, 22 visual communicators signed the original call for our
skills to be put to worthwhile use. With the explosive growth of global
commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent. To-
day, we renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades
will pass before it is taken to heart2.
1 Garland, Ken. First Things First: A Manifesto. 1967. Retrieved from Design Is History: http://www.designishistory.com/1960/first-things-first/
2 Barnbrooks, Jonathan. et al. "First Things First Manifesto 2000." Emigre 51, Emigre, 1999. Retrieved from Emigre https://www.emigre.com/Essays/Magazine/FirstThingsFirstManifesto2000
3 First things first 2020. First Things First 2020. (2020). Retrieved March 29, 2023, from https://www.firstthingsfirst2020.org/
first
things
first
manifesto
2020

Week 3: I continued a deeper investigation of prece-
dent Warhol-imitation work. I went to the library for
help with the research, as I was having difficulties using
the right wording to come up with the results I wanted.
Unfortunately, they weren’t able to provide me with
many keywords that helped refine my search, however
I kept scrounging around on the internet in hopes of
finding something that would lead me closer to an an-
swer. I continued with my manifesto drafting, playing
with my ideas on sticky notes in hopes of arranging
and rearranging until something clicked. It didn’t (but
that’s okay). I also began looking at Warhol’s screen
printing and painting techniques, hoping to under-
stand a little bit more about his practice and process. I
found some basic information about it, and figured I’d
revisit the process more thoroughly once I had access
to the printmaking studio again.
Enter Deborah Kass. I stumbled across her work
accidentally while searching for artists who’ve used
Warhols work to create their own pieces, and felt I had
hit the jackpot. Kass is a Jewish lesbian from New York
who, for a decade in the 90s, focused her practice en-
tirely on The Warhol Project: an exploration dedicated
to reinterpreting Warhol’s work from her Jewish lesbi-
an perspective1. All of the work she created was from
a feminist lens, something Warhol lacked across his
portfolio. I reached out to Kass, hoping to understand
more about why she chose to dedicate a chunk of her
practice to Warhol. She responded with an incredibly
helpful list of resources on The Warhol Project which
I would go on to deeply familiarize myself with the
following week.
Week 4: This was the beginning of my deep dive
into Kass’ portfolio and history as an artist. I went
through all of the articles she sent me and tracked down
the book she mentioned immediately. I spent that
evening reading the entirety of the book and familiar-
izing myself with her breadth of appropriation art and
her reasons for it. The essays about her Warhol Project
retrospective referenced a few other artists who have
worked with Warhol’s aesthetic which provided me with
additional precedents I was unfamiliar with before.
Learning about Kass’ work emphasized how so much
of the work I have been curious about revolves around
topics of identity. It was exciting to learn about some-
one who’s done something so similar to ideas I’ve had,
however it also felt discouraging to see a version of an
idea of mine well executed 25 years ago. Nevertheless, I
continued searching for information on Kass and her
work with Warhol.
Alongside this research, I was digging deeper
into theory surrounding pop art, queer theory and
reproduction. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction2 is a paper that outlines the history of
mechanical reproduction, and discusses reproduction’s
effect on art and its “aura” (the feeling an artwork has
as an original, versus a copy). I felt like my brain was
exploding a little bit while reading through the essay,
so much of what was discussed was fascinating in-
formation I felt was vital to my understanding of my
explorations. It started connecting some interesting
dots for me, and I continued to lean into this learning
path. Reading Unseen Warhol/Seen Barthes3 made
me realize Barthes had written about Warhol, which
was somehow so mind blowing to me (I never put it
together that they lived at the same time, that Barthes
would’ve been aware of Warhol and his impact on
art and pop culture). This discovery lit a fire inside
of me, and I was determined to find Barthes’ essay on
Warhol (which somehow doesn’t exist on the internet).
The angels at the library ended up tracking down the
essay, which ended up being a fascinating addition to
the web of theory I was spinning.
January 20th – February 1st, 2023
1 Rosenblum, Robert. "Cards of identity". In Deborah Kass: The Warhol Project, edited by Michael Plante. Newcomb Art Gallery, Tulane University, 1999, pp. 13–17.
2 Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction." In Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books, translated by Harry Zolin from the 1935 essay,
edited by Hannah Arendt, 1969.
3 de Villiers, N. (2005). Unseen Warhol/Seeing Barthes. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315842

Deb
orah
Kass
From 1990–2000, in New York City, Jewish and lesbian artist Deborah Kass dedicated her practice to the
appropriation of Andy Warhol’s various iconic works. Titled The Warhol Project, Kass’ investigation spanned
the infamous pop artist’s portfolio through a Jewish, feminist lens1. She focused on Warhol’s depictions of
people, recreating both his self portraits as well as his work with celebrity figures. Kass sought to subvert the ways
in which we perceive gender identity2, prioritize Jewish representation, and rebel against the male-dominated
field in which she struggled to succeed as a queer woman3.
1 Rosenblum, Robert. "Cards of identity". In Deborah Kass: The Warhol Project, edited by Michael Plante. Newcomb Art Gallery, Tulane University, 1999, pp. 13–17.
2 Berger, Maurice. "Seeing Myself Seeing Myself". In Deborah Kass: The Warhol Project, edited by Michael Plante. Newcomb Art Gallery, Tulane University, 1999, pp. 19–21
3 Staniszewski, Mary Anne. "First Person Plural: The Paintings of Deborah Kass". In Deborah Kass: The Warhol Project, edited by Michael Plante. Newcomb Art Gallery,
Tulane University, 1999, pp. 23–32.

Warhol had
Marilyn & Elvis.
K
a
s
s
h
a
d
B
a
r
b
a
r
a
&
J
a
c
k
i
e

W
a
r
h
o
l
h
a
d
M
a
r
i
l
y
n
&
E
l
v
i
s
.
Kass had
Barbara & Jackie

In Barthes’ analysis of pop art and its subsequent philosophies in his essay
That Old Thing, Art..., he deconstructs pop art’s style of repetition to delin-
eate the ways in which the work “(is there a work?)” is interacted with by the
artist, by an audience, and by time. Barthes points out how by embracing
the “flat, insignificant, hence irreligious Double”, pop art ascends beyond
the supposed unsettling notion of the Copy, and instead uses these notions
to its advantage to further comment on (objectify?) popular culture.
Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Repro-
duction focuses more broadly on an artwork’s “unique existence at the
place where it happens to be” (or, as he later puts it, “aura”). His argument
spans mechanical reproduction’s historical precedence in contrast to the
man-made imitation, articulating a general distaste for such technological
advancements (however there is something to be said for providing access
to the masses mechanical reproduction has provided, which would other-
wise be unachievable). To summarise Walter’s argument, he states;
...that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the Aura
of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance
points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the
technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the
domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a
plurality of copies for a unique existence.
Pop art fundamentally favours a “plurality of copies” over unique work,
this concept is pop art. The artistic movement thrives off its reproductive
nature and close ties to such technologies, therefore challenging Benjamin’s
ideas of art’s relationship to mechanical reproduction. If this plurality sug-
gests a dimmed, and therefore lesser than, Aura of an artwork, does this
deem pop art invalid? If pop art, as Barthes suggests, “takes the place of a
machine; it prefers to utilise mechanical processes of reproduction.”, then
pop art as the mechanical reproduction pushes the bounds of Benjamin’s
argument further.
In addition, pop art challenges the nature of what constitutes “the
original” (the work which holds the most powerful Aura) around which
Benjamin’s entire argument is structured. His argument focuses on the
distance from which the Original exists compared to its reproduced form,
however in pop art’s case, how do we decide what stands as the Original?
If, as I see it, the Original is in fact the object (or subject-turned-object)
with whose imagery the artist creates their work, then Benjamin’s argument
becomes convoluted when attempting to piece apart the validity of pop
art’s repetitive nature. In this case, the Original is an object entirely
1 Barthes, Roland. "That Old Thing, Art..." Collection, edited by First Last, Publisher, Date, page numbers.
2 Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction." Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books, translated by Harry Zolin from the 1935 essay,
edited by Hannah Arendt, 1969.
Throughout this essay, pop art refers to the artistic
movement beginning in the mid-20th century which
exists as a reaction to consumerism, mass media,
and popular culture3. Pop art emphasises a lack of
cultural hierarchy, turning rather towards imagery
from everyday life. The pop artist Richard Hamilton
describes the movement in 1957 as “popular (designed
for a mass audience), transient (short-term solution),
expendable, easily forgotten, low cost, mass produced,
young (aimed at youth), witty, sexy, gimmicky, glam-
orous, big business”4.
That Old Thing, Art... by Roland Barthes &
The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of
Reproduction by Walter Benjamin
For the duration of this essay, I will refer to such as
Aura as capitalised to distinguish Benjamin’s theory
of Aura from its dictionary definition.
As with Aura, Benjamin’s theory of the Original
will remain capitalised throughout the remainder
of this essay.

detached from, and preexists, the artwork itself. Does this then conclude
that pop art holds no Original?
Pop art embraces stripping itself of Aura, focusing rather on its iden-
tity grounded in being simply “an image, a collection of reflections”, thus
removing an object’s greater context. “The object is, according to pop art,
no longer anything but the residue of a subtraction.” An object’s subtrac-
tion at the hand of pop art is the annihilation of its symbol, removing any
personal connection to the viewer (as anything other than the stereotype)
and therefore immortalising solely the fact of its image. (If the Original
in pop art stems in fact from within the artwork itself, then we must decide
if it is the whole body of copies that exist as one Original entity despite
the fact that they are, or can be, presented separately without losing their
initial context. If a body of repeated works can be separated and understood
just the same, then are they all Original despite being exact copies of one
another? Can multiple Originals exist within the context of Benjamin’s es-
say?) Regardless of whether or not pop art’s Original is that of the object’s
or that of the work itself, pop art’s repetitive nature exists as an antithesis
to Benjamin’s theory.
Additionally, such subtraction and repetition in pop art indicates,
according to Benjamin, an absence of Aura because “even the most perfect
reproduction of a work of art is lacking one element: its presence in time
and space.” Though Benjamin goes on to discuss the practice of dating a
piece, I find the metaphorical (im)mortality of a work a much more fas-
cinating subject. To understand the immortality of pop art (disconnected
entirely from its physical age) has only to do with the progression of popular
culture (or lack thereof). What remains relevant and therefore unable to
be trapped in a period of time is up to the constant shifts in the cultural
sphere.
Benjamin, referring to a work of art, states that “the quality of its
presence is always depreciated” when it is mechanically reproduced. If
the Aura of an artwork diminishes as its copies grow, then the more an
artwork is reproduced the further its quality is lessened. Pop art, on the
other hand, works exclusively to capture iconic imagery appealing to
the masses, in addition to being based in large scale reproduction. This
seems, to me, that pop art fundamentally exists as an artform not only
accessible to the masses via its multiplicity, but also via its content. If
the Aura of an artwork is to be protected, according to Benjamin, it is to
be kept exactly how it was made, which often means entirely inaccessible
to a greater audience often excluded from art’s consumption.
3 Pop art. Tate Modern. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/pop-art
4 Ibid.

Catalogue of Repetition

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Catalogue of Repetition

Similar to Catalogue of Repetition (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Catalogue of Repetition