In a famed ‘Debate’ in 1972 between Wim Crouwel and Jan van Toorn, Crouwel states ‘… graphic design consists of a process of ordering for the benefit of the clarity and transparency of information.’^{42 42.} Available at: https://designobserver.com/the-debate/ [Accessed 21 March 2025] Crouwel contends that museum publications (he worked with Stedelijk Museum during the same period that Van Toorn worked with the Van Abbe Museum) should locate the museum and their curatorial policy, while reproductions of the artwork present the artist, for whom Crouwel claims ‘I have nothing to add to his story’. van Toorn by contrast regards the attitudes of the Swiss Style as a ‘patriarchal fixation on reproductive ordering’, stating that ‘Symbolic productions represent the social position and mentality of the elites that create and disseminate them’ (van Toorn, 2009: 103). More recently writers such as Buzon (2020) have claimed that the assumed neutrality of the International Typographic Style or Swiss Style in which Crouwel’s argument has its origins, emerges from Western imperialism and indeed white supremacy.^{43 43.} Available at: https://dabuzon.medium.com/design-thinking-is-a-rebrand-for-white-supremacy-b3d31aa55831 [Accessed 21 March 2025] Van Toorn’s writing in 1994 about his practice is the nearest I have found to a perspective with which mine aligns. He offers that we must ‘break through the existing communicative order’ (van Toorn, 2009: 104). There is surely an echo here of Benjamin’s call for the producer to be ‘instrumental in challenging the structures, not appeasing them through production to be consumed’ (Benjamin, 2005: 777) and equally ‘to reflect on his/her position in the process of production.’ (ibid.: 779). From this I could say that my field of enquiry is the communicative order and instrumentalisation of ideas and material/mediums in diverse artistic and cultural contexts across multiple media, framed by my practice formation in graphic design.