Interaction Design · Project 1 of 3 · Weeks 1–5
GD 2 Project 1: Human Rights / Human Wrongs
Three visual languages, one social argument
FORMAT
individual
WEEKS
1-3
METHODS
Research and issue analysis · Physical collage studies · Photomontage · Typographic composition · Illustration · Adobe Illustrator · Adobe Photoshop · Analog-first process · Iterative critique
TAGS
Human Rights, Design Thinking, Design Education, Community, Semiotics
Why this project
This project has been the foundation of GD2 for over a decade. Its core question remains unchanged: how can social justice issues be effectively and responsibly communicated through visual means? The three-mode restriction, typographic, illustrative, photographic, raises a unique question that few single-medium projects explore: what does each medium uniquely contribute? A student focused on typography considers how letterforms can convey meaning, urgency, and voice without images. In contrast, working with photography reflects on what images reveal and the responsibilities that come with their depiction.
The legacy of social posters is integral to this project. Emory Douglas's work for the Black Panther Party's newspaper demonstrated that graphic design could serve as a form of political activism—where clarity, impact, and reproducibility held revolutionary potential. The Atelier Populaire posters from May 1968 in Paris exemplify what happens when designers work directly for a social movement, bypassing traditional client relationships. Malaquias Montoya and the Chicano civil rights poster tradition integrated community printing and handwritten letterforms to heighten political urgency. In the early 1970s, women's liberation graphics illustrated how visual culture can both mirror and foster social change. Students are not asked to copy these traditions but to understand their strategies and reasons for success—and to develop their own responses to the same question.
The semiotic framework introduced here—Roland Barthes's distinction between denotation and connotation, or what an image shows versus what it signifies—serves as a vital tool for students throughout their projects. The work of Hannah Höch with photomontage and Kurt Schwitters with Merz collages traces the analog evolution of compositing techniques. The guiding constraint is not merely formal but deeply ethical.
The Brief
PROJECT PROMPT
Design a series of posters addressing a human rights issue of your choice. Each poster communicates the same core message through a different visual mode: one driven entirely by typography, one by illustration or symbolic imagery, and one by photography or photomontage. Together, the three posters must read as a coherent system — same message, same visual DNA, three distinct visual languages.
The issue you choose for this project is the foundation of your entire semester. Every subsequent project connects back to it. Choose something you are willing to research deeply and represent responsibly.
Before any digital work begins, build three physical collage studies — one for each poster mode. The collage phase is not a sketch. It is where the composition is resolved.
DELIVERABLE
Three finished posters — minimum 11×17 inches each, print-ready resolution
Research documentation
Written statement (300–500 words) on the ethical dimensions of the issue and the design choices made
Process documentation across all three posters.
What I've learned from running this
I've taught this project for over ten years. The core question remains the same: how do you visually communicate a social justice issue with purpose and responsibility? But the constraints vary. Some semesters require three posters, others only two. Sometimes the focus is semiotic — students explore metaphor, connotation, and denotation, examining the gap between images and their meanings. Other semesters emphasize methodology — selecting three visual languages from photography, illustration, and typography. Some classes involve physical creation, including collage, sculpture, fabric, and found objects. I've had students build sculptures and even use drywall, with the medium becoming part of their argument.
Through this approach, I've learned that constraints influence thinking as much as the topic itself. A semiotic student asks: What does this image mean? A methodological student asks: What can this medium do that others can't? Both questions result in stronger designs than having no constraints at all. I haven't decided which approach is better, and that uncertainty keeps the project engaging for me.
What remains constant is the social justice focus. Students who choose issues that impact their own lives—communities they belong to or systems they navigate—produce work that is not just emotionally compelling but also formally stronger. Their research is deeper, design decisions more purposeful, and ethical considerations more serious during critique. I made the social justice component mandatory because I observed that when it was optional, students chose safe topics, designed from a distance, and created work that didn’t reflect their true beliefs.
