1.

The most important difference between the 1964 and the 2000 updated version of
“First Things First” is: In the 2000 version, consumerism has become much worse
and the challenge has become much more urgent.

2. The undersigned in 1964 version: graphic designers, photographers and students

The undersigned in 2000 version: graphic designers, art directors and visual communicators

I do think the professional identities of the individuals signing them define their respective
content. For instance, in the 1964’s version, in the part that they mention “things that worth
our effort”, there were no social marketing campaigns and exhibitions like the 2000’s version,
since they were more likely to be the art directors and the visual communicators’ specialise
area.

I think the 1964’s manifesto is a call for humanism philosophy, and to fight back against
consumerism. The authors believe that the effort of designers should be put in somethings
that has real value on society, instead of only dealing with how to sell products and make
money.

When reading the two manifestos, I find this part interesting: In 1964’s, they wrote:”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 communication.” And in the 2000’s
version: “Consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives
expressed, in part, through the visual languages and resources of design.”
Even though the two phrase was really similar: they understand that consumerism cannot be
eliminate, however, they want to express another perspective. However, I notice that the
2000’s tone of voice in this part were a little less aggressive than the 1964’s version. It is
because after a really long time being bombarded with consumerism, the new generation
has got use to it and are more willing to accept it?