1950 Unknown High profits for big business. High prices for housewives

within the party. Each poster compliments the other and exists within the same world, something that Labour had alluded to in 1945 and 1950, but had never achieved to this extent, and although the rules set out by Middleton and other Labour designers weren’t followed in the larger sense, we see elements of it making its way through, the use of ‘Gill Extra Heavy’ within the ‘Vote Labour’ motif and the use of strong colours; blacks, yellows and reds. It shows that a thought process on the aesthetic was happening all the time, and a concerted effort went along with that, but the final pulling together of ideas and theories sometimes missed the mark.

There is also an argument that we can put the aesthetic simplicity of the campaign links to popular design theory, As Burgess comments, Jan Tschichold, the Bauhaus typographer said ‘The aim of typography was communication’ and ‘Communication must appear in the shortest, most penetrating form.’38 It 38 Richard Hollis, could be argued that the campaign and it’s Graphic Design : A Concise History, 2016, brevity within its style was attempting to the p. 55. channel this ideology to get the message across in the simplest most easily digestible way, as similarly advocated by Middleton. The actual campaign was incredibly short and unexpected; Labour suffered in this quick turn around with missing out on locations to advertise.39 So maybe we can glean that the 39 Christopher aesthetic shift was an artistic response to the Burgess, ‘From the Political Pipe to limitations of the campaign, there was no time Devil Eyes: A History of the British to come up with a creative campaign, so stick Election Poster from 1910-1997’, PQDT - UK with what has suited you well for six years, and & Ireland (unpublished Ph.D., The University apply with a design theory to hammer that of Nottingham (United Kingdom), 2014), p. message home. What we can forget within this 102, campaign is that while Labour lost, and we can easily attribute that to the design choices of the campaign and its departure from the rules that were put in place, Labour did win the popular vote, although as we have said before posters don’t win elections, but they echo and interact with public perception. Despite my misgivings of this campaign, maybe the lack of overt traditional design sensibilities; the friendly, honest nature of the brush font, the simplicity of its message, resonated more than I can appreciate.

In conclusion, 1951 is a campaign that lives in an element of obscurity, in both terms of message and aesthetic, but it asks interesting questions of the importance of design and the importance of a cohesive message, if you look at it alongside 1945 and 1950, you are left wanting, but in isolation, we can see ideas of a campaign that is being experimental and playful in its design. I think on this occasion it’s the messaging that let Labour down, it’s difficult to talk of aspiration and development when you have nothing left to advance, and when the other side has cottoned on, Labour wasn’t quick enough to develop their message, and the message they did develop didn’t sit well aesthetically in what they produced.