These multi-billion dollar corporations have quietly infected their logos, brand names and colours into the very hearts and history of our modern culture. They have marched unhindered through the fertile fields of our society, until now.

On November 30, at the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, this new revolution flexed its common muscle and the most powerful commercial conglomerate in the history of the world had no choice but to stop and pay attention. As did the rest of the world watching on t.v., listening on radio, or reading about it in papers. This revolution has strength, and an important social and personal issue to revolt against. It grows stronger as more people are made aware of the imbalance found in the corporate landscape.

Traditionally, the vast percentage of a designer's income and production has been in service to the commercializing of business. Not to do this work based on moral and social issues would leave the designer with a clean conscience but financially bankrupt. The revolution simply cannot afford to support the design economy; in fact, if the revolution's goal of corporate de-construction were realized, it would be a case of destroying the hand that feeds us. Maybe the organizers of this movement have alternative financial back-up for the industry. (This I am not aware of to date).

So, what is left to ensure the moral credibility and financial stability of designers? In his letter in the spring 2000 issue of Adbusters magazine, Dominic Amatore writes of his reaction to this paradox. He says, "I am a double agent...work from within the system if you must. Turn the very tools and ideas that create nonsense onto themselves. Implement the very same techniques used to brainwash our society, and say something else."

So contemporary designers face decisions regarding ethics and social respondsibility that comes with their position as major visual communicators for our culture. What course of action you as a designer choose to take (if any) is up to you.