How does the canon in design perpetuate the subjugation of women and diverse perspectives?

Introduction

The canon in graphic design serves as a foundation for understanding the practices, history, values, and influential figures. It comprises of what is considered as critical works, principles and designers by a group of 'connoisseurs' (Locher, 2020) that have moulded the way in which graphic design is practised, taught, studied and critiqued. Equally, it may have developed through a historic consensus of people within the field. The canon, however, is not neutral when it comes to considering what is prestigious and considered instrumental in formulating what 'good' looks like in today's world. It plays a significant role in shaping the designs we admire today, one must acknowledge its perpetuation of the subjugation of women and diverse perspectives. Although design has become more representative of diverse genders and cultural heritages, the canon and its prevalence within institutions, does not reflect female, non-western perspectives. Moreover, educational systems should challenge the imperialist and patriarchal hierarchies in design, by rethinking how they teach historical and cultural foundations and the resultant marginalisation within the canon of design to support broader perspectives in the discipline of graphic design.

Firstly, the historical and societal foundations of the graphic design canon are explored, focusing on how power structures have influenced the inclusion of certain figures while excluding others. It continues to analyse marginalisation within the canon, to then the ways women have been excluded from design and explores how societal norms have been upheld and defended male dominance. Finally, exploring representation from feminist and decolonial perspectives.

Chapter 1: The Canon's Foundations: 'The Great' and 'The Outsider'

Essentially, the canon can be seen as a fixed body of works that are thought to be "most significant…worthy of teaching…and universal" (Brzyski, 2007). However, those that do not meet this standard, or demonstrate a differing perspective, are often disregarded. These recognised works reflect the historical, hegemonic power dynamics and values and that raise the question 'How can the canon be universal or representational when so many voices are silenced?' Guillory succinctly makes this point, highlighting how social identities are shaped by history, and how their meaning changes over time.

"Social identities are themselves historically constructed; they mean different things at different historical moments, and thus the relation of different social groups to such cultural entitlements as literacy will be differently constructed at different times. Acknowledging the conditional force of literacy in the history of canon formation would thus disallow us from ever assuming that the field of writing is a kind of plenum, a textual repetition of social diversity, where everyone has access to the means of literary production and works ask only to be judged fairly" (Guillory, 1993, p.16-17).

Many social groups have experienced unequal access to various cultural tools, such as literature, art, and design. This imbalance within society has influenced the value systems which decide what's considered significant. Guillory (1993) juxtaposes that not everyone has 'the means' to create or to be 'judged fairly'. Therefore, the concept of the canon has been shaped by those who hold power but continue to exclude many voices because of a failure to recognise that social identities change over time as do their means and simply serves to protect their own positioning and status. If this is true, institutes, like universities, worsen this inequality by validating the canon's permanence. By standardising curriculums around the canon and such established value systems, students are only exposed to a narrow and selective understanding of global design.

The canon is defined in art history as "the conventional timeline of artists who are sometimes considered as 'Old Masters' or 'Great Artists'" (The National Gallery, n.d.). This definition applies to many other art forms such as graphic design, literature and film, however graphic design most closely relates to the elitism of the art canon as its formation stems from that of art history. Understanding that the status of the art canon is tantamount to that of the religious canon (McDonald and Sanders, 2002), one can understand how set the value systems are due to its almost biblical allusions.

The idealisation and myth of the 'Great Artist' has historically reinforced elitist attitudes, this being a perspective that is critiqued by feminists for its gendered exclusion. Essentially, the art canon, being formed by institutions, critics, historians etc, has focalised the works of white, male and western artists. Thus, reflecting the contemporaneous hegemonies and social hierarchies that sideline the contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals, non-western cultures. The mythic of the 'Great Artist' or 'Old Masters' reinforces the religious reverence within art history, which induce various negative implications. The exclusivity of this selection creates, as previously discussed a "fixed" narrative regarding artistic contributions, which is obstinate and dismissive of those who don't conform to the tradition. From this we see "the failure of much academic art history, and a great deal of history in general, [is] to take account of the unacknowledged value system" (Nochlin, 1971, pp). The sacred veneration of the idea of 'Genius' highlights certain artists like Michelangelo, Van Gogh and da Vinci, to an almost divine and "holy" (Langfeld, 2018, p.5) status. This divine regard suggests an invisible yet fixed hierarchy, that values their work to a level that makes it unattainable to the mere artist. This religious status discourages criticism of their works, which can lead to overlooking flaws, biases, or as Guillory's text suggests the historic context that have moulded their value. The idea of 'Genius' and 'Great Masters' canonises a narrow slither of history, that enforces that only certain individuals were worthy of such status, being the Western white man, marginalising diverse voices.

This idolisation limits other voices and practises which don't fit the 'Great Master' frameworks and sustains the canons narrative that individual greatness makes artistic greatness. This disregards many artists such as feminist artist Judy Chicago who disobeyed the canons ideals of individualism and conventional art (Serpentine Gallery, 2024), who are part of the marginalised communities. The work of artists who challenge the traditional values and aesthetics are devalued because of the barriers to recognition and inclusion in the artworld's canon. The near "holy" regard to 'Old Masters' holding 'Genius', merely discourages experimentation and creativity, as artists may feel the need to replicate these canonical figures of the past, instead of pursuing their own innovations and cultural expressions. Many institutions, like museums, galleries, and universities, uphold these prejudices through prioritising canonical works in their collections and curriculums, such as reading lists. As a result, those marginalised will sometimes face systemic obstacles in gaining recognition and financial opportunities, because the canon divisions them as 'outsider art' or disregard them from discourse entirely. "Outsider art" coined by writer Roger Cardinal in 1972, 'has been used to describe everything from art made by people with mental health issues to the work of folk artists' (Petridis, 2016). However, Cocker describes outsider art as 'art made by people who haven't gone through an art education system' (Petridis, 2016). Both definitions demonstrate how the canon limits diversity, one through broad classification and the other showing its limitations when many are systematically excluded. This therefore establishes how the canon reduces and marginalises non-conventional art as it doesn't suit the traditional canon style, content, or the expectation of the artist within the male-centric, Western-European canon, and therefore must not be worthy.

"What makes someone truly an outsider? Is it a question of attitude, access, opportunity? Does it simply mean a certain rebellious streak, an aversion to the mainstream? When it comes to the art world, the term "outsider" has a tumultuous history, and it's still liable, to set off long debates. And yet, despite occasional detractors, "outsider art" is…accepted terminology-a way of describing a certain kind of creative output that resists tidy boundaries" (Indrisek, 2019).

Ultimately, the design canon forms boundaries between those who are deemed 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' The language and myths surrounding such 'greatness' around art and design reinforce a value system that marginalises those who do not conform to the dominant narrative. It isn't merely about the canon itself, rather who you are, and who is allowed to participate in, shape and be recognised within the field.

Chapter 2: Marginalisation within the Design Canon

Although there are various movements encouraging the diversification of the canon of art institutions, that challenge traditional hierarchies, the legacy of exclusion continues to impact who's heard and valued in the art world. For example, in graphic design, Harris (2019) debates that modernism has become the 'default' setting and standard of the design world. The value of a design is based of conforming to Modernist principles. He suggests that 'everything looks the same' and that design is lacking experimentation and personality, and modernism is overpowering this development. By dismantling the uncritical appraisal and promoting a more inclusive understanding of art, the art world including graphic design, can move toward a liberal and more balanced appreciation of diverse, global voices and perspectives and their contributions.

Similarly, Martha Scotford (1991) explores subjects much akin to Harris' on how the canon is shaping the design world. She examines the possible existence and consequences of a graphic design canon and pinpoints how it can exacerbate a narrow, Eurocentric, male-dominated view of design, thus marginalising global voices and women's contributions. Her critique stems from the issues surrounding the study of literature that was primarily written by Western, white men. This drives her to question the possibility that graphic design history could in fact be creating its own canon (Scotford, 1991). She develops her views by critically analysing five well-known books on graphic design history, to identify the patterns of the curation of works and designers. She then created a list of all the designers included within these works, before condensing it to the most frequently represented designers or reproduced bodies of work. She then employed further criteria against each designer which highlighted demographics such as their sex, age, country of origin, country of practice and if they were deceased. The study found that the pre-assumed canon was 'all male...all born before 1920...[and]...all native Europeans' (Scotford, 1991). Her findings portray a canon with a limited idea of what design has to offer, through the lack of representation of women and non-European voices.

Scotford's analysis remains relevant to this day, because it is the same lack of diversity within design history that continues to limit students' exposure and knowledge to non-Western and non-male perspectives. This selective storytelling not only creates a "shortsighted" (Scotford, 1991) understanding of graphic design's vast and opulent history but also suppresses alternative narrative and voices in design discourse. Thus, prompting her to question the fairness and inclusivity of the canon. Scotford examines the implications of such a canon on the future generations of graphic designers and the way graphic design is taught. Whilst recognising the canon can be a useful tool for education by 'reduc[ing] a lot of material (designers, works, facts, biographies, influences, etc.) to a smaller and perhaps more manageable package' (Scotford, 1991). She also challenges its limitations. Although the canon simplifies exposure to the foundational design principles, it can overlook 'rich, complex, and interrelated history' (Scotford, 1991) that graphic design must learn from. This was not revolutionary seventeen years earlier, as this had already been identified where a pattern of 'a canonical list of 'important' design and designers is rapidly being established, despite that the critical arguments for their inclusion in such a list remain almost unstated' (Dilnot, 1984). The unclear critical value systems he discusses, relates directly with Scotford's proven argument, that design history that recognises and favours white, male, western figures while excluding women and diverse voices. The lack of justification and transparency supports historical biases and systems of power, dismissing important contributions from various underrepresented groups. By classifying works as important and unimportant, the work that is considered 'unimportant' is excluded from design discourse entirely. Scotford argues that this limits and restricts innovation and exploration within the field and especially for students. Much like the art history, 'a canon creates the impression that they need go no further; the best is known, the rest is not worth knowing' (Scotford, 1991). Through focalising on the past moments, figures and work, suggests the best has already been accomplished and one should emulate the past, she argues that this is 'unfair, dangerous, and shortsighted' (Scotford, 1991). This suggests that the canon has emerged from graphic design has merely replicated that of art history, which is too focused on the elitist ideas, the 'Great and Old Masters' (National Gallery, n.d.), rather than the design principles, theory, time, place or group of people which form much richer cultural histories, which she also argues could form more meaningful representation of our design history. Overall, Scotford recognises that, intentionally or not, a canon is being created within the field of graphic design. Her suggestion surrounding the canon is to question the traditional value systems and create a more equitable and equitable canon, one that is representational and open to diverse perspectives, not only the Western male.

"Whether we agree that there should be a canon or not, I submit one exists and is being created, and that this process will continue at an increased pace as graphic design history develops further through publications, exhibitions, scholarship, and collections. We need to evaluate and control the process; if we need a canon, if we really need to label and separate, we need to assess better what canon exists and to amend it to make it intentional, conscious, responsible, and truly meaningful for all." (Scotford, 1991)

Chapter 3: Gender Bias within Design Work

In the 20th century the field of graphic design emerged, stemming from the increase of advertising, consumer culture, and notably the rise in technological advancements in print and communication (Galvan, n.d). Mainly, the field has been steered by male practitioners, which reflects the wider social patterns of gender inequality within workforces. Towards the mid-20th century (1950s-70s) figures such as the previously mentioned Paul Rand and Milton Glaser were considered as influential and became synonymous with the profession of graphic design, whereas women's contributions to the field were often overshadowed or simply excluded from the narrative. According to the 'Kerning the Gap' website, studies show "63% of graphic design students are women" (Kerning the Gap, 2015). In addition, the 2019 AIGA article, a study showed that "61% of designers working today are women" (Bolt, 2020). In sharp comparison, leadership roles and recognition remains heavily male-dominated, showing that women only hold "17% design leadership positions" (Kerning the Gap, 2015). Is this a result of gender bias or are men just more destined to be in positions of power? What is the impact of a lack of women role models?

Historically speaking, the foundation of graphic design was rooted in print and typography. Before the professionalisation of graphic design, practitioners were engaged in manual, craft-based work, being printers and compositors. Printing and typography have "always been a very gendered field, dominated and designed by white men" (Furter, 2020). From the conception of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press in the 15th century, one is exposed to the exclusive field we know today. Printing was considered a man's job, requiring hard work and physical strength to do jobs like carving type, setting press, and handling machinery, which further enhanced the male identity of graphic design-this being in line with the gender norms of the pre-industrial period. Within print and type, women were primarily "absent, invisible or accepted only in specific roles" (Furter, 2020) these being tasks like cleaning ink from the metal letters and organising them.

Historically, it's widely recognised that women were often subjected to supporting roles looking after their families or working in ancillary jobs. In relation to the early days of graphic design they were often relegated to tasks such as proofreading or binding in their husbands' print shops, as these tasks were deemed gender appropriate (Scotford, 1994). The typographer, Beatrice Warde, for example stated in an interview that "the printing trade is barred for women, on the craftsman level" (Warde, 1959, cited in Furter, 2020), this was considered one of the earliest recognitions of the role of women and their absence within the trade. This shows how the value systems surrounding design have been heavily based on gender and the gendered connotations of art forms. It was only in the late 19th and 20th century that women entered the field more visibly, although their marginalisation was still apparent as they were consigned to lower roles (V&A, n. d.). This context serves to highlight the way in which graphic design has evolved, from its foundation in manual labour to its placement to the modern profession, steered by the structural barriers that reduced women's participation and recognition.

"You can't be apprenticed to the printing trade if you're a woman, except in certain forms like binding and all that, and that's been true for many centuries. But of course in design, anyone who has a good sense of design can … know their stuff - whether he or she is a man or a woman …" (Warde, 1959, cited in Eye Magazine 2012)

In the 19th and 20th century, graphic design coincided with the industrial revolution and capitalism, these both cemented the male presence within the field. Companies, associations, and educational institutions frequently excluded women or steered them into professions deemed as more womanly or less prestigious like applied arts or crafts. This aligns with the idea of women being secondary and less able, prevailing the "fine" arts and thinking for the men. Despite the shifts in culture during the 20th century which allowed women to enter workforces, women have faced ongoing biases in hiring, pay and recognition, all of which have maintained the gendered, androcentric hierarchy. Nowadays, only "11% of creative directors are women. 70% of young female creatives have never worked with a female creative director. 88% of young female creatives lack female role models" (Hemingway, 2021). There is a systemic bias towards gender and leadership roles, traditionally men have been perceived as innovators and natural-born leaders, whereas women's contributions were displayed as subordinate and decorative, not important. This is disillusioning for women in design to this day, because the male-dominated narrative prevails to marginalise women and other perspectives that challenge their status quo, especially in terms of leadership; revealing how education, employment infrastructures, and societal expectations all perpetuate these structural inequalities, which merely furthers the marginalisation of women within graphic design and creative fields.

Delving further into systemic bias, we can evaluate marginalisation from another perspective. In the case of Grayson Perry for example, we can recognise that despite identifying as a cisgendered man, he does still meet most of the prerequisite characteristics to be allowed into the canon as he is white, heterosexual, and from western culture. Grayson Perry recognises that he holds a position of influence that many with diverse perspectives are not afforded. In his article, the 'Rise and Fall of the Default Man' he delves into the societal archetype that embodies the overarching power structure, referring to the demographic which has historically held disproportionate influence and authority, naming this the "Default Man" (Perry, 2014). Perry, himself, within his article confesses that he too could "qualify in many ways to be a Default Man" (Perry, 2014), however, he states that being of a "working-class background and being an artist and a transvestite" (Perry, 2014), he feels he has enough "cultural distance" and perspective to challenge the power systems of the canon. Here we see a glimmer of hope that the future has a chance of welcoming more diversity to the canon.

The influence of the male rhetoric and narrative has controlled major institutions; their influence has been so pervasive that their views and values have become the universal norm. Perry adds that the influence of the default man and "his worldview, his take on society, now so overlaps with the dominant narrative" (Perry, 2014) and that "we live and breathe in a Default Male world" (Perry, 2014). This alludes that the domineering narrative directly influences who gets hired, funded, and lifted within design's power structures. Perry's ideas link closely to the canon's formation, whereby the same assumptions of 'default' whiteness and masculinity are heavily ingrained.

Both the 'Default Man' and the graphic design canon, represent systems of privilege and exclusion that have been shaped by a 'part of society'. The canon perpetuates and reflects a limited perspective of what is considered 'valuable' in design history, the bias within this creates a facade of fairness, whilst positioning "Default Mans" works and movements, like Modernist design as "universal." As Perry states "no wonder he succeeds, for much of our society operates on his terms" (Perry, 2014). Universal design which is representative of 'all in society' is not possible, whilst sidelining women, people of colour, non-western cultures and non-elite design practices. This reveals how the canon has historically and continues to subjugate women and diverse perspectives through the default male world. As a result of creating a set standard based on a singular narrative, there is no opportunity to explore a real and true and retrospective portrayal of design and its histories.

Chapter 4: Feminist Critique

Feminists might argue that the canon and the systems who uphold it, have marginalised women in the graphic design field. In the article, 'Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?' Nochlin (1971, p.7) deconstructs the idea of the 'Great Artist' with the intention to reveal the systemic barriers which have historically marginalised women from the canon. She directly challenges that the idea of "greatness" (Nochlin,1971, p.7) is derived from the patriarchy, that affords certain characteristics, such as genius, individualism and recognition, these qualities being traditionally synonymous and accessible to only men.

Similarly to Nochlin's notion of individualism and men, in 'Rise and Fall of Default Man,' (2014) Perry appears to mock the idea that male success is awarded solely for their own individual efforts, that they obtained this status because of their exceptional talent, and not as a result fitting the brief of the 'Default Man' (Perry, 2014) and highlights the tendency to credit success to the individual value of the 'Default Man' whilst ignoring systemic advantages, like privilege which is often invisible to those who profit from it. By bringing into sharp focus the achievements of "canonical" men, it highlights how women's artistic efforts can be overlooked because of the systemic barriers and resultant apathetic appraisal that exists in today's world. This is not because women lack "greatness" and "genius" (Nochlin, 1971, p.2) but due to the infrastructures that deny them access to opportunities, training, and recognition, which are provided to their male counterparts. This is highlighted in her commentary around the nude, she reminds us that the "nude model was essential to the training of every young artist", to become a 'Great Artist' one had to master the nude, being regarded "the highest category of art". Her research for the article exposes that up until 1983, The Royal Academy in London did not admit women into life drawing even after the model had to be "partially draped". So, by forbidding women to take part in high art, this automatically limits a woman's ability to compete on the same playing field as men as well reinforcing the expectations of propriety for women. It clearly demonstrates how educational institutions have until recent history have discriminated against women.

"…the fault lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education…" (Nochlin, 1971, p.5)

Nochlin's ideas on the injustices of the industry and its biases, link to figures like Beatrice Warde, whose experience emphasises the difficulties women faced in the graphic design field, due to the lack of accessibility and their exclusion. Women were often denied opportunities to hold higher roles in the field, like typography and research, because of the societal expectations and conventions that confined their contributions, being considered as a 'trade - a word loaded with certain ideas around masculinity' (Gosling, 2020).

From 1921-1925, Beatrice Warde managed groundbreaking research on the originals of the typeface Garamond (History in the Margins, 2023), revealing that many of the characters were not created by Claude Garamond, but by Jean Jannon (Furter, 2020). Knowing the criticism and scepticism her research may face as a result of her gender, Warde decided to push the boundaries through atypical means, publishing under a pseudonym Paul Beaujon. She later stated "nobody would believe a "woman could know anything about printing, typography and such-like"" (Warde, 1959, cited in Soutron, n.d.). By changing her name, she was able to avoid gender discrimination, but also distinguish herself from her husband's typographic work, and ensure that like so many women that her work was not overshadowed by either their collaborators, or husband's legacies. Her disguise allowed for the 'work of a woman' to be taken seriously, gaining the "reputation as a scholar of typography" (History in the Margins, 2023). This led to her being offered a position at Monotype, which only after accepting her identity was revealed. This example highlights Nochlin's argument, that women have always had the capacity for "greatness" within design, but the patriarchal expectations and structural biases embedded within the industry, have hindered women's progression and recognition. Especially in male dominated fields. Warde's experience demonstrates how societal expectations have forced women to navigate around exclusion in design, rather than through it. Warde's career revealed an opportunity for progression, especially in type, helping to pave the way for future generations of designers to defy the canon's expectations and make their voices heard.

Overall, writers like Nochlin and figures like Beatrice Warde have exposed the various ways institutions have created barriers that have historically marginalised women. in which women have been institutionally marginalised within the creative industry. Together their work represents a courageous challenging of patriarchal norms, making space for women's voices and contributions to be recognised. Despite these efforts, fields like typography and design more broadly, remain heavily male-dominated. Although women have more access to these industries, the unwavering structural inequalities spotlight the question: how much genuine progress has been made?

Exhibitions like Tate's 'Women in Revolt' highlight the historical fight for inclusion and recognition in the design industry. The exhibition shows the discrimination women have had to withstand, which mirror the issues in design. The exhibition emphasises how institutions have historically excluded women from the canon, challenging the norms of both the past and present, querying the foundations that have defined value and legacy. The exhibition explores a range of feminist artworks by over 100 artists who made a significant contribution-all of which helping engage the women's liberation movement in the UK from the 1970s-1990s-in a time of crucial social, economic, and political changes in society (National Galleries of Scotland, n.d.). It was at this time that women began voicing their 'radical' stances more openly with the rise of the second wave of feminism, which was amid the civil and queer rights movement (The Art Story Contributors, 2025.). Many feminist artists 'sought to rewrite a falsely male-dominated art history, change the contemporary world around them through their art, intervene in the established art world, and challenge the existing art canon' (2025). Like much of the work in the exhibition, opposing the social expectations of women and art through various forms, helping shape a period of dramatic change. Despite the efforts of these women artists, many were omitted from the artistic narrative of the time or not appreciated at all. Many of the works on display had not been seen by the public since the 1970s (Tate, n.d.). The work presents urgency and impact that emphasise a community of proactive and politically engaged women, all of which revolutionised British culture shaping the future generations of artists. The exhibition is riotous and expressive. The harrowing audio screams of Gina Birch in her performance '3 Minute Scream', reminds the viewer each piece reflects the women's lived experiences and the anguish behind them. It celebrates the innovative works that encouraged women's liberation.

This exhibition can be celebrated for its recognition of women's efforts despite the "widespread neglect of the women's art movement in UK institutions" (Art Review, 2023). For some, it underlines that the struggle is not over and many of the issues present in the exhibition are still ongoing and the fight for women's liberation is one that may continue for years to come in a world still guided around ideals of the "Default Man" (Perry, 2014). However, some argue these exhibitions risk of being an "exhibition reproducing feminism's whiteness, ableism and middle-class orientation" (Art Review, 2023).

Despite their progress over the years, feminist efforts can sometimes fail to notice its own contributions in enforcing the canons exclusive narrative. An example in 'Women in Revolt!' the rooms centred on LGBTQ+ and Black women's rights were placed last. This could give the impression as being merely secondary, mirroring the historic pattern whereby non-Western and intersectional voices are viewed as secondary to dominant narratives. Thus, favouring the interests of white, middle-class women. So, whilst feminist critique can point out how gender disparity shapes the canon, one needs to investigate the ways colonial hierarchies have further established exclusionary practices, particularly for non-Western perspectives, therefore it's important to consider the intersectional perspective, to avoid marginalising diverse groups of women.

Chapter 4 - Decolonial Critiques

Decolonial critique is a theoretical perspective that

"…distinguishes between coloniality and colonialism. It argues that colonial relations continue to shape and ground our present-day political, economic, social, and knowledge systems; this is termed coloniality. (Duvisac, 2022)

Colonialism,

"…refers to the historical process in which European and western powers exerted territorial, political, social, and cultural power over non-western territories…" (Duvisac, 2022)

The canon not only reflects colonial power, but also actively upholds these hierarchies. It does this through moulding whose 'knowledge' and design practices are valuable within institutions, and significant in education. Decolonialism, looks to challenge the canon's ongoing influence, critique its biased origins and disrupt the systems that continue to legitimise it. Through questioning which voices and histories are favoured, there is a need to redefine values, expand representation, and move towards a more inclusive knowledge production. From a decolonial perspective, it's believed from a decolonial perspective that "modern[ity/ism] names the period in which Europe begins claiming the present of world history and the center of geography" (Archey & Melken, 2023).

Decolonial critique in design often challenges the predominant western modernist movements, and aims to use design as a tool for activism and social change, over mere aesthetics. It assigns value to global design traditions and community driven practises and recommends "acknowledging the positionality of our artistic practices and institutions by recognizing our position in relation to the modern/colonial divide" (Archey & Melken, 2023) as this could help to create a more accessible, respectful positioning, rather than ignoring the impact it can have on people who are underrepresented.

'The Black Experience in Design' (Berry, 2022) examines the graphic design canon, by offering a critical lens from a decolonial viewpoint, exhibiting how the field of graphic design has marginalised Black and non-Western designers, as well as women and the LGBTQ+ community. The book is an anthology that explores the diasporic perspective of non-white westerners through a collection of stories, conversations, reports, and experiences (Berry, 2022) which seeks to bring together the discontent of under-representation which simmers under the surface.

"As a designer I have come to terms with the fact that what and who designed history has been interested in canonising up to this point, does not reflect me, my cultures, my values, and many of the tenets that make me a citizen, a designer, and a teacher. I don't see myself reflecting much of the narrative of design - not in the history, the theory, the practitioners or the outcomes" (Tejada, 2022, p.141).

Over 65 people contributed to the book, creating a 'wide cross-section of Black diasporic identities and multidisciplinary practises' (Berry, n.d). This demonstrates a collaborative and accessible approach to the topic and engages a wider audience. This links to the decolonial approach of communal efforts and engagement, which has been de-valued by the canon that focalises individual successes. Not only this, but these methods of informing disrupt the preferences for objective, formal analysis by prioritising the subjective. It spotlights on an individual's 'lived experience' and thoughts, which is key within decolonial ideologies. As a result, it acts as a form of reclaiming the autonomy over the controlled dominant narrative with embedded western favour. Black designers have been systematically 'excluded from the traditional design history and educational canons' (Berry, 2022), which forefronts the Eurocentric and male-dominated perspective, perpetuating an exclusive definition of greatness.

Through the favouring of figures and movements that align with western modernist conventions. The books emphasis on identity and systematic silencing, ultimately challenges the control of the canon, by advocating for visibility of the overlooked but also through interrogating the systems of power that dictate who and what is considered valuable. Emory Douglas presents the foreword whereby he states:

"The Black Experience in Design, provides guidance and context that was not available to me when I started in the field. It gives young people entering design an opportunity to hear from Black designers, educators, scholars, and thinkers whose experiences overlap in some ways and are unique in other ways. All of the essays add up to a way of seeing that was not possible in the past. I am happy that this book will support design educators and help students find their way into meaningful design work. That way has been paved by those who came before and generously share memories and thinking with those who are entering the field, who have more opportunities than ever to shape their individual experience in design." (Douglas, 2022)

Emory Douglas is well-known for his roles as Minister of Culture and "revolutionary" artist and designer for the Black Panther Party (Hernandez, 2023), whereby he utilised design as a tool for political activism and change. He described art as 'a powerful tool, a language that can be used to enlighten, inform and guide to action' (Gardner, 2021). His work challenged the systemic racism within society, through visual storytelling to empower. He challenged the canon and its Eurocentric norms by putting black identity and community problems on the centre stage and makes his contribution significant within this book which critiques design histories' exclusion of diverse voices. His experience as a renowned Black designer and activist, who already has faced the hardships of the industry, helps to validate and add historic complexity, as his acknowledgement provides a sense of authenticity and encouragement for progression. This reinforces the decolonial aims of uplifting marginalised voices. He comments that the book offered a 'way of seeing that was not possible' (Douglas, 2022) in his early education and career. This shows the books significance as it implies a shift from his time, revealing that there is progress in the making and this book is part of it. It recognises the benefit of hearing and feeling represented within the industry, thus adding importance to decolonising design. Not only does 'The Black Experience in Design' add urgency for the inclusion and recognition of the exclusion of underrepresented voices but it also encourages a rethinking of design history and through empowering the next generation with a tool to help mould their own identities and practises in the field.

Emory created posters for OSPAAAL (Organisation in Solidarity with the People of Africa, Asia, and Latin America). They exemplify another example of decolonial design and activism. Founded in 1966, during the time of the Cold War, OSPAAAL was a non-governmental organisation that looked to increase discourse with activists across the globe (V&A Museum, n.d.). Stemming from the Tricontinental conference of 1966 in Havana, Cuba, which is considered "a defining moment for the creation of OSPAAAL" (V&A Museum, n.d.). The conference was a milestone to establish transnational political solidarity, in overcoming liberation struggles across continents and denouncing imperialism and colonialism. From this they produced a bimonthly magazine, this was considered to have "perpetuated the spread of radical writing and news worldwide and was a call to arms for those seeking to remove imperialist rule" (V&A Museum, n.d.).

Within these editions were innovative poster inserts that helped to summarise the themes in the magazine. The posters embodied anti-colonial and imperialist themes representing the struggles across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, bringing focus to the voices of marginalised communities, which have often been ignored within design history.

From a decolonial lens, these posters can provide a critique of the design canon, by challenging the Eurocentrism/Western dominance and the rejection of diverse cultural viewpoints. Langfeld argues art perception is legitimised by using a formalist approach (Langfeld, 2018, p.5). Formalism as the 'study of art based solely on an analysis of its form' (Tate, n.d.), highlights the canons favour of western modernist design traditions being considered 'universal', which is a possible explanation for the canon's dismissal of activist art and design. This stance, again, overlooks the cultural and political areas of design movements, thus emphasising the subjugating of many diverse narratives. OSPAAAL's posters, often utilise a Western design approach in terms of design, some alluding almost to Swiss design, however they reclaim this by utilising graphic styles and visual languages synonymous to their cultures combined with decolonial, anti-imperialist messages to challenge and disrupt the canons dominance. This shows how design can be weaponised for liberation, rather than the formalist appreciation of aesthetics. OSPAAAL's work highlights the plight of non-Western designers, through the canon's tendency to ignore design's role within society and activism, as well as colonial issues. Therefore, highlighting a demand to dispute and dismantle the hierarchies of the canon, to allow a more accessible, expansive and inclusive design history, that recognises its role in silencing these voices.

Some critics argue that despite some activist works being recognised they are often classified by the industry as 'Art of the Revolution' (Shen, 2016, p.262). This simplified classification in the canon, 'obscures its avant-garde origins' (Shen, 2016, p.262), which can often 'oversimplify the histories of its artists, of the art form' and its historical context. Again, this substantiates how the canon and its ingrained biases, can subjugate diverse perspectives through categorisation undermining their complexities and restricting the recognition of their artistic significance.

Conclusion: Redefining the Canon

Here we have critically examined role of the canon within art and design. Through interrogating the canons historic formations and the societal biases it was built on, to explore its impact on women and diverse perspectives. Further research needed to examine its influence in more detail, particularly around race and intersectional identities like LGBTQ+ and disability communities who have also experienced marginalisation in the design field.

The findings within this paper emphasises that the canon that has formed is exclusionary and based off elitist connotations, with specific desirable attributes moulded by the dominant systems of power and ideals of societal hierarchies. The first chapter exposed art history's idea of the 'Great Artist' which was used to support elitist and patriarchal structures and avoid critique of the canon's frameworks, which ultimately limits the recognition of marginalised contributions. The second chapter studied the systematic barriers faced by women in design, to expose its lack of representation within the industry and leadership positions, because of the white, Western/European males' stance as 'default' within society. Thus, exposing the systematic struggle of being to being considered as anything other than the canon's preference. Whilst chapter three sought to critique through a feminist and decolonial lens, to advocate for a redefined canon, one that is innately inclusive, seeking a more collaborative, multidisciplinary, with intersectional diversity.

One can conclude, the canon should serve as a foundation for understanding the practise and its history but should be done in an inclusive and representational manner. Historically, the canon's presence has subjugated marginalised voices within the art industry and, although there has been progress, it has not sustained momentum. Institutions and educational systems must embrace change to ensure the canon continues to be relevant for all in the field and that no longer overlooks or excludes certain demographics of society. We do not need to demand apologies for the past but acknowledge the historical injustices and look for more progressive solution's. This could overcome any resistance to change, allowing the institutions that uphold the canon to mindfully embark on a new course of action-winning their hearts and not attacking their minds. Through recognising how systems of power have influenced the canon and contributed to the historic marginalisation of diverse voices, and by teaching with a pluralistic lens, it would be a 'quiet' way of changing course. This ripple could build up to a wave of historic proportion.

Ultimately, like the canon, design and education are never neutral. Understanding this as a key principle of practice is vital. With time, tenacity and gradually sustained institutional support, the canon could become a pedagogical asset, rather than a tool for subjugation, one that supports a more inclusive, accessible and representative design field.

Bibliography

Archey, K.A. and Melken, R.V. (2023) Decolonizing Modernism(s), Stedelijk Studies. Available at: https://stedelijkstudies.com/decolonizing-modernisms-decolonial-practice/ (Accessed: 03 January 2025).

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.

Berry, A.H. et al. (2022) The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression & Reflection. New York: Allworth Press.

Berry, Anne.H. (ed.) (no date) The Black Experience in Design: Identity, expression and reflection, The Black Experience in Design. Available at: https://blackexperienceindesign.com/ (Accessed: 15 December 2024).

Bolt, L. (2020) Women make up over half the design industry-so why are there so few at the top?, Eye on Design. Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/women-make-up-more-than-half-of-the-design-industry-but-how-do-they-get-to-the-top/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202019%20AIGA,you%20get%20to%20the%20top? (Accessed: 08 December 2024).

Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Wordpress. Available at: https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/butler-gender_trouble.pdf (Accessed: 05 January 2025).

Dilnot, C. (1984) 'The State of Design History, Part II: Problems and Possibilities', Design

Issues, 1(2), pp. 3-20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1511495. (Accessed: 5 November 2024)

Douglas, A.F. et al. (2022) Celebrating 50 years of 'Ways of Seeing', Frieze. Available at: https://www.frieze.com/article/celebrating-50-years-ways-seeing#:~:text=Anna%20Frances%20Douglas,-Few%20books%20of&text=Its%20message%20that%20art%20was,a%20different%20and%20receptive%20audience (Accessed: 03 January 2025).

Douglas, E. (2022) 'Foreword'. In: Berry, A. H., Collie, K., Laker, P. A., Noel, L.-A., Rittner,

J., and Walters, K. (eds.) The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression & Reflection. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, pp.xvii-xix

Duvisac, S. (2022) Decolonize! what does it mean?, Oxfam Library. Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize- what-does-it-mean-151222-en.pdf?%20sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 19 January 2025).

Easterling, P.E. (2015) Canon, Oxford Classical Dictionary. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-1342 (Accessed: 19 November 2024).

Escobar-Lemmon, M.C. and Taylor-Robinson, M.M. (2014). Representation: The Case of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. [online] Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=4842607# (Accessed: 4 November 2024)

Feature: Beatrice Warde: Manners and type (2012) Eye Magazine. Available at: https://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/beatrice-warde-manners-and-type (Accessed: 28 November 2024).

Furter, L. (2020) Crystal Clear, depatriarchise design. Available at: https://depatriarchisedesign.com/2020/02/02/crystal-clear-by-loraine-furter/ (Accessed: 27 November 2024).

Galvan, M. (n.d) The History of Graphic Design, Flux Academy - Learn How To Become a Web Designer. Available at: https://www.flux-academy.com/blog/the-history-of-graphic-design#:~:text=Advertising%20and%20print%20design%20were,design%20to%20name%20a%20few (Accessed: 29 November 2024).

Gardner, A. (2021) Emory Douglas | Moma, Museum of Modern Art. Available at: https://www.moma.org/artists/70943 (Accessed: 15 January 2025).

Gosling, E. (2020) Why is type design still so male?, Creative Review. Available at: https://www.creativereview.co.uk/why-is-type-design-still-so-male/ (Accessed: 02 January 2025).

Guillory, J. (1993) Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chapter 1:

Canonical and Uncanonical, pp. 17-18. Available at: http://depts.washington.edu/lsearlec/510/Texts/Guillory-Cultural Capital.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).

Harris, J. (2019) Against, but in the Spirit of, Modernist Graphic Design, YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4ygiodaY40 (Accessed: 15 December 2024).

Hemingway, M. (2021) Where are the leaders?, Design by Women. Available at: https://designby-women.com/where-are-the-leadhers/ (Accessed: 04 December 2024).

Hernandez, A. (ed.) (2023) Ten Minutes with Emory Douglas: On arts activism | magazine | moma, MoMA. Available at: https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/939 (Accessed: 03 January 2025).

hooks, b. (1992) Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, MA: South End Press, pp.121-130.

Indrisek, S. (2019) Why 'Outsider Art' is a Problematic But Helpful Label | artsy, Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-outsider-art-problematic-helpful-label (Accessed: 02 January 2025).

Jones, S. (2022) '2.4 Design Education: Unvisible (What's the scenario?)', in The Black Experience in Design. New York: Caroline Russomano, pp. 140-147.

Serpentine Galleries, (2024). Judy Chicago: Revelations. Available at: https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/judy-chicago-revelations/ (Accessed: 13 January 2025).

Kerning The Gap (n.d.) Kerning The Gap. Available at: https://www.kerningthegap.com/ (Accessed: 08 December 2024).

Kimball, R. (1998). Tenured Radicals. Elephant Paperbacks, p. 13.

Available at: https://archive.org/details/tenuredradicalsh00kimb_2/page/12/mode/2up (Accessed: 16 November 2024).

Kotter, (n.d.) Our Foundation: The 8 Steps for Leading Change.

Available at: https://www.kotterinc.com/methodology/8-steps/ (Accessed: 27 January 2025).

Langfeld, G. (2018). The Canon in Art History: Concepts and Approaches. Journal of Art Historiography, (19), pp.1-18 Available at: https://arthistoriography.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/langfeld.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2024).

Levinson-King, R. (2023) Four ways the end of Roe v Wade has changed America, BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65956103 (Accessed: 19 January 2025).

Locher, H. (2020) (PDF) The Idea of the Canon and Canon Formation in Art History, Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301681399_The_idea_of_the_canon_and_canon_formation_in_art_history (Accessed: 18 January 2025).

Mack, J.B. (1994). 'The Role of the Canon in Western Education', Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, [online] 26(1), pp. 7-16. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294350?seq=1 (Accessed: 15 November 2024).

McDonald, L. M. and Sanders, J. A., eds. (2002). The Canon Debate. [online] Available at:https://archive.org/details/canondebate0000unse/page/3/mode/1up?q=connoisseurs [Accessed 22 January 2025].

Meggs, P. (1992). 'Is a Design History Canon Really Dangerous?', Design Issues, 9(1), pp. 19-22. Available at: https://www.are.na/block/3451578 (Accessed: 3 November 2024)

Mulvey, L. (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Amhurst Edu. Available at: https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1021/Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure.pdf (Accessed: 28 December 2024).

National Gallery of Australia. (no date) Chinese Woodcuts of the Thirties and Forties. Available at: https://nga.gov.au/exhibitions/chinese-woodcuts-of-the-thirties-and-forties/ (Accessed: 05 January 2025).

Nochlin, L. (1971) Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, Available at: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf (Accessed: 12 April 2024).

Oxford Reference (no date) 'Art History', Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press. Available

at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105459575 (Accessed: 13 January 2025). Pamela (2023) Beatrice Warde: "First Lady of Typography", History in the Margins. Available at: https://www.historyinthemargins.com/2023/10/20/beatrice-warde-first-lady-of-typography/ (Accessed: 03 January 2025).

Perry, G. (2014). 'Rise and Fall of Default Man', New Statesman, [online]

Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2014/10/grayson-perry-rise-and-fall-default-man (Accessed: 12 April 2024).

Petridis, A. (2016) Sacred Works, secret tunnels: Jarvis Cocker's journey into outsider art, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/26/jarvis-cocker-journey-outsider-art-gallery-of-everything (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Sanders, P. and Reisenfeld, R. (2020) The History of the Woodcut and Printmaking's Collaborative Process, Toledo Museum of Art. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/@ToledoMuseum (Accessed: 06 January 2025).

Schleif, C. (1998) The Roles of Women in Challenging the Canon of 'Great Master' Art History, Academia.edu. Available at: https://asu.academia.edu/CorineSchleif (Accessed: 22 December 2024).

Scotford, M. (1991). 'Is There a Canon of Graphic Design History?', Design Issues, 7(2), pp. 150-158. Available at: https://www.are.na/block/3451578 (Accessed: 3 November 2024).

Scotford, M. (1994). 'Messy History vs Neat History: Toward an Expanded View of Women in Graphic Design', [Visible Language, 28:4], pp. 368-388. Available at: https://readings.design/PDF/messy-history-vs-neat-history-toward-an-expanded-view-of-women-in-graphic-design.pdf (Accessed: 15 April 2024).

Shen, K. (2016) The Modernist Woodcut Movement in 1930s China, Academia.edu. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/22157339/TheModernist_Woodcut_Movement_in1930s_China (Accessed: 02 January 2025).

Soutron (n.d) St Brides Foundation Archive. Available at: https://stbridefoundation.soutron.net/Portal/Default/en-GB/RecordView/Index/129803 (Accessed: 06 December 2024).

Tahir, U. (2023) Lewins's Force Field Analysis, Change Management Insight. Available at: https://changemanagementinsight.com/lewins-force-field-analysis-change-management/ (Accessed: 23 January 2025).

Tate (ed.) (no date) Women in Revolt! Art and Activism in the UK 1970 - 1990 - press release, Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/press/press-releases/women-in-revolt-opens#:~:text=Many%20of%20these%20pieces%20have,work%2C%20and%20the%20domestic%20environment (Accessed: 08 January 2025).

Tate (no date) 'Formalism', Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism (Accessed: 01 January 2025).

The Art Story Contributors (2025) Feminist Art Movement Overview and Analysis. [online] TheArtStory.org. Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/movement/feminist-art/ [Accessed 26 Jan. 2025].

The Invention of Woodblock Printing in the Tang (618-906) and Song (960-1279) Dynasties - Education - Asian Art Museum (2020) Asian Art Museum. Available at: https://education.asianart.org/resources/the-invention-of-woodblock-printing-in-the-tang-and-song-dynasties/ (Accessed: 06 January 2025).

The National Gallery, L. (n.d) Glossary, Canon of art history | Glossary | National Gallery, London. Available at: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/canon-of-art-history (Accessed: 10 November 2024).

V&A Museum (no date) 'An introduction to women printmakers'. Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/an-introduction-to-women-printmakers Accessed: 22 January 2025).

V&A Museum (no date) 'Revolutionary Design: OSPAAAL and the Art of the Poster'. Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/revolutionary-design-ospaaal-and-the-art-of-the-poster/ (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

V&A Museum (no date) 'Solidarity and Design: An Introduction to OSPAAAL'.

Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/solidarity-and-design-an-introduction-to-ospaaal (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Westphal, M. (1993). 'The Canon as Flexible, Normative Fact', The Monist, 76(4), pp. 436-449. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903354 (Accessed: 15 November 2024).

Women in Revolt! Art and Activism in the UK 1970-1990 (no date) National Galleries of Scotland. Available at: https://www.nationalgalleries.org/exhibition/women-revolt-art-and-activism-uk-1970-1990 (Accessed: 06 January 2025).

Women in Revolt! Art and Activism in the UK 1970-1990 (2023). [Exhibition]. Tate Britain, London. 8 November 2023 - 7April 2024.