By now, we have all been to this exhibition probably, but I wanted to mention it for my research as well since I went there a couple of times already and I think the exhibition is presented in a really nice way on different levels: It is visually appealing, interactive and has a good size to not be overflowed with information or feeling like there is something missing.
The exhibition focuses on one central question: How do we want to shape our society in the future? It highlights that democracy sometimes feels very static and abstract, but it is something we practice every day, in big political institutions like the townhall, but also in very immediate contexts: workplaces, schools, families, and communities. The exhibition combines historical material about democratisation in Graz with current debates around participation, civil rights, social responsibility, and the fragility of democratic systems. What I found particularly meaningful is the idea that democracy is in constant movement. It requires reflection, dialogue, and sometimes the willingness to question our own assumptions.
The exhibition uses varied media to create this sense of movement and participation. The spaces are visually designed to invite curiosity rather than lecture the visitor. Instead of overwhelming explanations, each room opens a small question, theme, or personal story. The interactivity is also woven into the exhibition in a subtle but effective way through sticky dots, opinion walls, small surveys, and participatory prompts. Visitors are encouraged to position themselves, literally and metaphorically, and to see how diverse or fragmented collective opinions can be. It becomes clear that democracy is not only about “being loud” but also about observing and understanding how different perspectives coexist.
From a communication design perspective, this was one of the strongest aspects. The way the exhibition was structured felt democratic in itself: open, accessible, and balanced between information and personal engagement. The visual design was friendly and non-intimidating, with a tone that felt approachable but not superficial. This made it possible to deal with political content without creating emotional overload or polarization, something that is difficult to achieve in contemporary political communication, which tends to be highly charged or simplified. Also, when I spoke to the curator she also mentioned that they got criticized for putting in their own political views even though they tried to be as neutral as possible. This also reminded me that anything (regarding design in this case) can be unpolitical and I will always send some kind of message.
The exhibition also made me think about how communication design can contribute to democratic processes. Visual tools, spatial cues, and interactive elements can help people express opinions, reflect on their biases, or understand complex issues. The use of stickers, participatory questions, and tangible interaction points reminded me how design can facilitate dialogue rather than merely transmit information. In my own work regarding activism, protest, or subtle feminist interventions these ideas feel very relevant. Designing spaces for conversation rather than statements might be the wording and also a direction worth exploring.
How is this an impulse for my potential master’s topic?
This exhibition made me reflect again on the relationship between design and participation. A possible direction for my future research could involve exploring how communication design can create environments for democratic engagement in public space, activist contexts, or through gamified interaction. It also connects to some of my earlier ideas around subtle protest and spatial behaviour: how can design help people understand power structures through experience rather than explanation?
Alternatively, this impulse could be relevant for my interest in globalisation and the communication of complex systems. Democracies depend on clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity; and design plays a huge role in how accessible political knowledge or decision-making feels.
In the context of my developing research identity, Demokratie, heast! serves as a reminder that design is never neutral. It mediates understanding, shapes participation, and creates frameworks for dialogue. Maybe my master project can explore how communication design can act as a facilitator of reflection and collective thinking through visuals, spatial, interactive and emotional design.
Links:
