A brief post over at "Graphically Speaking" by Michael Kovalchick (who describes himself as a student - I think my earlier point is being made for me) made me dig out an old post I made a year ago on the subject of art v graphic design. I think I've been pondering this for quite some time, particularly since I taught on a graphics course where most of the staff were fine artists or illustrators, and seemed to be pushing students down the route of being "arty" and "conceptual", but never once considering the communication aspect. Although the work they produced was certainly arty and stylish, it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, graphic design. I remember the argument I had with them, but it was like trying to herd cats. They seemed to think I was saying design should be boring - far from it. But it certainly shouldn't be indecipherable (a quality they rewarded in students' work).
I think my argument's a little clumsy, but it was written "straight", i.e. without being edited. I might rephrase things now, or offer more explanation, as I think I open myself up to misinterpretation. But here it is in all its vain glory. (I also discovered that About Desktop Publishing had commented flatteringly on the original, which is no longer available, so this is an opportunity to correct a broken link. I think this is a subject I'd like to come back to as it's one that people have strong opinions on.
----
The way graphic design is often taught ignores the harsh commercial reality of the profession, and the context within which designers work. By dressing it up as "art" where the only people to be delighted are the artist and their peers, the trick is missed.
Let me get straight to the point. I don't think designers are artists.
Now I know that's a controversial view. It's not that I don't believe there is an art to being a designer, it's just that I think it's unhelpful to view art and design as the same thing. There are all sorts of reasons to attempt to see the two as being separate. Firstly, only designers protest that they are artists. Secondly, artists protest that designers are not. So there's a difference of opinion, and I really think designers shouldn't be self-possessed enough to insult the people who, let's face it, really should know about these things. Designers are the first to get upset when they see people encroaching on their space, and it's somewhat two faced to think they have the right to trespass on somebody else's patch.
That aside, I think there are some very obvious differences between art and design. The main one is that when an artist produces a piece of work, it doesn't matter if somebody doesn't like it. Sometimes, that's the point. Art often exists to provoke a reaction (particularly modern art - whatever that term means nowadays). The reaction is enough - it might be desirable for it to be positive, but it doesn't really matter either way. (I'm being over-general here, and I know it, but bear with me).
Graphic design, however, is a branch of visual communication in which it is important that the message being communicated is received in the way that was intended. Graphic design is objective, while art is subjective. If a designer produces a sign to direct people to the right place in a building, it has to do the job. Its function is not open to interpretation. Either it works, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't it fails. The rest is decoration. Maybe that's where the art comes in, but if it affects the objective of the sign - it fails.
This is a clear point of difference between art and design. If an artist designs a sign that doesn't work, it can still be art - indeed the more obtuse and 'conceptual' the better. But it isn't design. You see?
Okay, let's try something else. A student of mine told me she was looking for some work experience on a magazine because that's the line of business she was interested in. She told me she had got a few weeks working for a weekly gossip/TV listings magazine but her other tutors had told her to try, instead, to get experience on a magazine like 'Wallpaper' or 'Eye'. They were quite disparaging about her going to work for the more populist title, almost snobby. In fact, forget the 'almost'. The worst designed magazines in the world are the ones designed by designers for designers. They are awful , mostly unreadable with tiny illegible text painstakingly set in such a way that other designers coo over the artiness of it all. The best designed magazines are the ones that people can read and, as a consequence, do read. In their hundreds of thousands.
The best designed magazines are also the ones that follow the 'rules' such as use of grids etc.But get this: "Grids constrain their creativity," one fellow tutor told me - she'd never worked in publishing so didn't understand that a) a grid is a framework upon which you build, like an architect builds on a basic structure - so not a constraint to creativity but a support; and b) that any magazine that doesn't use a basic template will have to be re-designed from scratch every month which basically means it just won't come out on time.
The problem is, the way graphic design is taught establishes the myth of the designer-artist. Students are given briefs and then guided (or often just left) to produce something that the tutor 'likes'. The feedback the students get is very low level and tends to focus purely on the ego of the tutor. "I wouldn't have done that", "I think you should do this", "I want you to tear that up" (I have met several tutors who proudly tell me they make their students tear up their work every so often to learn not to be precious. I think that's criminal and there are better ways to make the same point without distressing and depressing people who will as a consequence be scared to put any effort into any work in future. It's all about the tutor and that is wrong.)
Where was I? Oh yes.
The real problem with this method of teaching is it is entirely subjective. The same piece of work will receive completely contradictory advice from each tutor, each piece of which will be based on that tutor's opinion. What's wrong with that? Well let's take another example.
Imagine a student is asked to design a piece of packaging aimed at twelve year old boys. The only opinion that counts as to whether the design is good or not is that of the target audience - the twelve year old boys. Yet students are forced to design for tutors who will, more often than not, judge it based on whether they like it or not, forgetting that they are not (and may never have been) twelve year old boys. And as a result we have generation after generation of designers trained to design for themselves, for their 'betters' and for each other. But not, bizarrely, for their target audience! What this means is that we are producing designers who do not know how to communicate with their audience .
When I said this once to some colleagues I got shouted down - they said that the course should be about "skills". But what skill could be more important? As the only actual graphic designer among them (believe it or not) I knew that the way designers tend to work is as part of a team. There'll be an art director to help make things look nice, and an account manager to keep things real. The account manager will bring in the brief, specify the objectives and any constraints, and leave the creatives to get on with it. The ideas they produce will then be tested out - not on the client, not on the art director and not on other designers, but on the audience with any problems then fed back to be sorted. This will go on until the team is happy to go to the client who, if they make any comments, will be shown the market research data.
Any design team that traded off ego, the way today's design students are trained to believe happens, would sink. Yet I've heard students get live jobs from real clients and then have a prima donna fit in the studio when the client has over-specified what they want or taken a creative hacksaw to what they've come up with. "I'm the designer", they will cry, "and if they won't let me design the way I want to design, I won't do the job". Fine - and nobody will ever ask you to work again. There's no room for artistic temperaments in this business.
But there's no suggestion of selling out in all this - a well prepared designer is armed with the evidence that their design will work. It has to look good, yes, but first and foremost it has to work . And that requires the sort of objectivity that sets graphic design apart from art.
Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice
(Winner of 'Best Higher Education Title' at the British Book Awards 2006)
by Jonathan Baldwin and Lucienne Roberts
More Than A Name: An introduction to branding
by Melissa Davis and Jonathan Baldwin
29 comments:
I've thought about this quite a bit, but still not enough. Graphic design, and indeed most of the "design" professions (I'm thinking of fashion design, interior design, architecture, industrial design; excluding the newer "scientific" areas of design that have grown out of WWII and are related to the cognitive design theory movement), were historically seen as lesser arts. There was high art, and then there were the lower arts. I think the distinction was originally made in regard to quality, cultural value, and uniqueness. The lesser arts were performed by lesser artists, were of lower quality, were more mass-produced, and were more related to everyday business needs (posters, for example, are paradigmatic examples of graphic design).
Now, I think you'll find in Design History: An Anthology, that Jules Cheret fought to give the work of graphic designers a higher respect. The movement continues to this day, with artists fighting for solidarity in the arts; for example, producing graphic design and presenting it as fine art (Krueger?), or producing fine art and presenting it as graphic design (Brody?) to give further status to graphic design.
But what do we make of these insults to graphic design that you spoke of? The artistic solidarity that I was trying to imply only works one way: all arts should be considered important, high arts. And there is an assumption that high art is autonomous; let me explain. Graphic design is called upon to give up its links to consumer culture. When all the facts are on the table, though, it becomes clear that if graphic design is "art prostitution", then high art has almost always been art prostitution on the level of Heidi Fleiss. So, rather than thinking of Graphic Designers as "lesser art whores", we would prefer to imagine that Art really had gone autonomous, no longer dictated by the whims of the rich and powerful, and that they are the only "art whores". The antipathy towards graphic design is this self-righteous response to their perceived whoredom.
While this antipathy persists today, there are a few twists thrown in, because certain high artists have occasionally embraced their role as superior prostitutes.
But I'm starting to digress. In analyzing (or producing) this difference that we want to make between art and design, we need to switch our concerns from those that see the difference between art and design as a quantitative difference (to be interpreted in any of various ways) to some new concerns which see the difference as a qualitative one. If we grant that Art is ideally an autonomous project (--even when it isn't totally, the isolated autonomous elements are what constitute "art"), and that graphic design has a lesser autonomy (and thus a lesser degree of "art" to it) because it is "more" dictated by the market, we could imagine that design, to become more like it's older brother, should strive to be more like Art, to go autonomous as well. But there are reasons, I think, why it shouldn't simply follow in Art's footsteps. The differences between art and design become "qualitative" when we realize that design is potentially concerned with quite different things than some abstract notion of formal and ideational freedom through avoidance of market imperatives. I would suggest, as a preliminary thought, that design would rather work on the freedom to have a say in the market, to gain some control over it, rather than to just transcend it. Design seems to be a mediator in the dialogue between art and commerce; science and economy can develop according to their own logic; art can develop the abstract source of freedom; and design needs to be concerned with mediation, something that art does not have to think about at all. So design has its own concern and a qualitative difference in focus.
I share your interest in the "objectivity" of graphic design, though I wouldn't simply call it "objective". I do think that design is, and must always be, based on reasons. I am a signmaker, and I agree that the signmaker either does his job or he doesn't. The "artiness" of signs is not the concern of graphic design. I do not think that I become a better graphic designer by becoming a high-scale sign whore as opposed to a merely run-of-the-mill sign whore. But I don't become a better graphic designer by uncritically doing things "right", either. To become a graphic designer, I need vocational training. To become a better graphic designer, I need a conscience. I become a better graphic designer when I refuse to make certain signs, period. This is my thinking now, and it implies a certain kind of freedom gained through the autonomy of ideal art and an education in the humanities (not through the high whoredom of what is typically called fine art) and also implies a certain view of efficacy that is gained through the goal-orientedness of business but not uncritically subservient to its particular goals.
I'm sure with that revelation we will have a lot to disagree about. There may be no such thing as "selling out", in the traditional sense, if a designer isn't an artist anyway, but if we want to bring the study of design forward, we will have to have some way of deciding what selling out is in the realm of design. Because obviously it has happened. Schools have sold out to some force or another, or else there wouldn't be these huge barriers to progress in design thinking.
Mmm... some interesting points there, Tom.
There is a difficulty in discussing this in that I don't think graphic design is artless, but it isn't Art (I like your use of capitals to differentiate) in the same way that it's not English Literature. Just because they share a common language and materials does not imply a deeper relationship.
But looking at a lot of design courses, the curricula tend to be more "conceptual" than "design-led", with teachers rewarding students who come up with obtuse responses to briefs and penalising those who do something "obvious". I'm glad you took the sign example and advanced it. If it works, it's good, and that's a starting point for decoration.
Something that I remember particularly from my unhappy encounter with a course like this is that I spent several months trying to explain to colleagues the difference between the word "concept" from a graphic design point of view, and "conceptual" from an Art point of view. The two are vastly different, I think. One is an answer, the other a question...
What is odd is that I was accused of attempting to make the course less vocational - looking back I think if anything I was wanting to make it more vocational!
It is odd talking to students on or after graphic design degrees who have actually done pot pourri courses that include five weeks of animation, five weeks of 3D, five weeks of Flash, five weeks of packaging and five weeks of illustration but no graphic design. Does such a subject exist I wonder? Doing one double page spread does not make you a graphic designer. This realisation in the students can be quite depressing.
I think that's probably my main point - too many design courses associate themselves with Art rather than Communications, yet communication theory has a more central place (in my opinion) than art theories or even art history.
Anyway, end of a long day and I risk making an already obtuse post worse!
First I'll apologize for having not sorted out my thoughts in a better way. This is all new territory for me, and I'm exploring different ways of going at it--sometimes 10 different ways in one post.
At my first school, I always did the obvious, and in fact I was rewarded for it. That was a vocational school. At the second school, they would never accept the obvious (or the obviously best) solution but preferred artsiness (which didn't always equal functionality.) That's when I started to see that Art was getting tangled up with design.
I like the distinction between concept and conceptual in design and art respectively. Hadn't considered things in that way before.
What is odd is that I was accused of attempting to make the course less vocational - looking back I think if anything I was wanting to make it more vocational!I think the same thing happened to me. Oddly enough, by trying to make design more "practical" at my second school, I ended up being the epitomy of impracticality--the theorist. Strange how things go.
Thanks for the link you left in your comment on my site (1000blacklines.blogspot.com). You have given me a lot to consider. I think I both agree and disagree with you, but to echo Tom's statement I am still sorting things out.
I agree with the idea that graphic design is visual communications. The goal of a designer is to clearly articulate the visual message. In verbal communications the necessary tools are vowels and consonance. To mispronounce a word would be miscommunication. In graphic design, the same rules apply. The tools are a bit different (i.e. images and copy), but the principles are the same.
To further agree with you, an art director I work with is a self-trained designer. In other words, he went to school to be a journalist and now works as an art director for a newsmagazine. He understands the tools and principles of graphic design. And does it quite well, I might add. He has a very objective, utilitarian approach to design. And it has served him well.
Now here is I begin to sort things out. Though this award-winning art director is good at what he does, he tends to imitate what he sees around him instead of creating his own solid visual voice. Being a writer yourself, you may have found that while writing you'll create a line of prose that just hums with lyricism. You know the language well enough to make it sing when you want to and simply communicate when necessary. That's why I think there is an element of art to graphic design.
Another example is from my short stint in radio reporting. I learned that anyone can pick up a local newspaper and read the weather report out loud. But a professional radio announcer READS the news across the airwaves musically. I learned quickly how to READ news as opposed to reading news. And this second example is where I'm sorting things out again. I was coached (or trained) on how to READ the radio news items. Just as graphic designers can be coached on how to visually communicate articulately, I was coached in the art of radio announcing.
Here's where I flip-flop again. Some of the radio personalities I had work along side told me my voice worked well on radio. Also, my writing coach told me recently I definitely "had the chops" to write. So, I come to believe that there is an element of talent, which makes graphic design work musically as opposed to mechanically. Maybe it comes down to this: some graphic designers design while others DESIGN.
Graphic Designers are not artists? This is news to me. I believe whatever you do to express yourself is a form of art. To say that us designers only create things like signs that tell people where to go is pretty vague. There are album covers, websites, book covers..etc. All of which take time and talent to create. If you have no knowledge of art, creating these things successfully is not going to be easy. I believe this debate was created by someone who feels threatened by computer artists.
You need to re-read what I said. I said there is 'an art' to being a designer but that Design is not Art. The difference is important and your comment simply reinforces what I said.
I don't know who you are or what makes you an authority on this subject but you come across as uneducated and misinformed.
Anonymous: look up 'irony' - the idea of someone accusing me of being uneducated and misinformed after just admitting you don't know who I am or what qualifies me is the funniest thing I've read all day.
I think it's pretty funny that you think I am uneducated and misinformed because I don't know who YOU are! Who are you? Did you go to design school? Are you a graphic designer? What does make you an authority? How do you know so much about design and if you do why are you leaving so much of it's real concern out?
My design education was nothing like what you have described. This is where you are misinformed.
"I really think designers shouldn't be self-possessed enough to insult the people who, let's face it, really should know about these things"
Are you saying here that designers don't know about art? Do you really think that design students do not learn about art? Why do you think that designers don't know about these things? To be honest, I have never heard of a designer insulting an artist, it always begins with some painter getting their feelings hurt because they cant accept that it is totally possible to make something beautiful and still have it serve a purpose. Why do artists get so huffy about this anyway?
I read your thing about the pizza flyers and really I think its a poor representation of graphic design as a whole. Of course there is bad design, just as there are very bad paintings. I feel like it is a common misconception that this is all that designers do--make ugly advertisements to sell stupid things. There are just as many talentless painters who graduate from college as there are designers, all skilled perhaps, but like great painters, great designers have a better handle on the elements of art and how to use them to communicate their vision. To use pizza flyers as examples is only convenient to your point and shows me that you are not looking at all sides.
I do however like how you describe the differences between art and design as subjective and objective. I think thats totally true. Obviously I am a believer that objective art is just as valid. Design and Fine Art are different but Design is a form of art.
(heather)
This is, without hesitation, the best commentary on the graphic design v. art debate I've ever read. Well done!
I agree - this is the best commentary on this topic that I've ever found. I am a trained graphic designer, draftsman/illustrator and photographic enthusiast. I don't consider myself a pure ARTIST; I am a skilled visual arts technician and marketing professional. I have talent for tweaking and arranging visual and textual elements - language, color, type, shapes, images - and can apply my knowledg of the psychological factors that go into comprehension and persuasion to my work. My husband is the true artist in our household - an oil painter since childhood and a highly talented sculptor.
Very well said.
Personally, I think you need to define art before you can say they aren't artists. Art can have many far and short definitions, and I think people are reacting to your blanket accusation.
But it sounds like you mean "People who create things for visual beauty and personal satisfaction", and by that definition we can all agree that designers aren't artists. Though I do feel there is art within graphic design.
Although very well written, I believe the article should have been titled Graphic Designers are not Artists. There is a big difference between the two. read my take on it...
Josh from Cubicle Ninja said it best in his comment "People who create things for visual beauty and personal satisfaction", and by that definition we can all agree that designers aren't artists. Though I do feel there is art within graphic design."
That's a good point Joshua although it sort of ties in with what I say about the moment you stick a piece of graphic design on a wall in a gallery it stops being graphic design and starts being art.
And yes, there's an art to doing design, just as there's a craft or a science. But that doesn't make graphic design craft or science ;-)
It's the difference between a noun and an adjective, isn't it...
I think defining ART would be crucial in arguing the difference or homogeneity between Design and Art. However, I believe that the universe is made up or relative identities and so labels and definitions always change. There is no single black and white definition unless you give it a frame of reference. now with this said, if we say that ART is defined according to modernist philosophy and embraces Avant Gardism, then Design is not Art. Here is something I pulled out of Wiki about Avant Gardism;
"The concept of avant-garde refers exclusively to marginalised artists, writers, composers and thinkers whose work is not only opposed to mainstream commercial values, but often has an abrasive social or political edge. Many writers, critics and theorists made assertions about vanguard culture during the formative years of modernism, although the initial definitive statement on the avant-garde was the essay Avant-Garde and Kitsch. As the essay’s title suggests, Clement Greenberg conclusively showed not only that vanguard culture has historically been opposed to ‘high’ or ‘mainstream culture’, but that it also has rejected the artificially synthesized mass culture that has been produced by industrialization."
By this definition, ART is opposed to the commercial values that Design upholds. However this definition is a product of evolving philosophies and perhaps, maybe we are now on the verge of another evolution. Although for purposes of institutionalized tutelage, I believe we have to start with a definition as a foundation. In my experience (and as I was informed by peers as well), many of us feel that college education has become unnecessary because of the poor quality of training that we received. Many of us resorted to self learning by hanging out at Borders. The problem is that the schools are infested with instructors who cannot distinguish between fine art and design. Many abandon teaching the technical dynamics required (esp. in web design) and focus on concept and aesthetics (which is relative anyway). I personally believe that a sense of aesthetics is innate and cannot be taught anyway. For the sake of our college students spending big $$ for vocational foundation, we should focus on Design as an industry driven by marketing objectives and technical instructions. Designers should start with this foundation first so that we know what to expect in the industry. If we want to call ourselves Artists or Designers later on will be a relative label anyway.
This is very interesting, because I am both a graphic designer and a fine artist. I have been a graphic designer for 15 years, and I have painted professionally for 6. I for the longest time would argue that graphic design was in fact an art, but it is not. In my humble opinion, and from my experience as a corporate in house designer, graphic design is simply a process of organizing photos that you do not shoot with logos that you do not create with text that you do not write. All of this organization is a learned process for the afore mentioned "tutors" to be processed to their liking, or as the case may have it these days to "Corporate Standards. The other side of this is fine art creation. This is the act of freely creating, or destroying an idea using your own creative devices for no end other than you have made a choice to do so.
I soon hope to leave behind the graphic design world because I am burned out and spent on the idea that it involves some sort of creattive process. I know that this view will be torn to shreds but, it is again my own experience.
It really depends on what is art to you. Conveying emotions and lay it out on your designs is for me art.
I have recently decided to go into graphic design. I understand this may not be the right place to put this, but I can't find my solution anywhere. Since I have no experience in the field I'm reading this to try and get some sort of scope as to what I'm getting myself into.
I love to draw and make art, but I'm not interested in the fine arts. I myself am more objective which is why I thought this to be a good field. My question is simply whether graphic designers are able to create their own images with the soft ware? Are they able to use a creation they've drawn and inhance it digitally? Are digital art and graphic design in anyway related? My interests lie in entrepreneuring maybe in fashion or animations, and promoting. I won't work corporately, I have my own plans. Any response is appreciated!
Software is only a tool like a pencil. You can create images in the software, or you can scan things in and add to them. But you don't need to use software to do design.
I recommend getting hold of a few books about design (dare I suggest my own: Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice which gives an overview of the context within which design operates, or for more practical aspects "What is graphic design?" by Quentin Newark or at the simpler level "The Non Designer's Design Book" by Robin Williams)
Graphic design is more than being interested in drawing - in fact you don't need to be able to draw to do it. You need to be interested in the way people communicate, in business (especially marketing), in what's going on in the world - a good designer is a polymath, not a computer operator.
Hope that helps.
Wow, this seems to be intense!
My random thoughts are:
Art and design seem so similar but carry different outcomes, for differing demographic marketing prospects.
But art is in some way designed, otherwise i suggest thought upon the importance of composition in both, weather it be consciously informed or unintentionally created. Its still evidently noticed carrying much importance to the overall aesthetic outcome.
Design depending on who views it can be looked at being some way artistically inclined or executed, so i feel in trying to define anything it would considering whom you are trying to define in terms of there job title and status values that standing within various cultures.
Question:
The idea of the commercial artist as the lesser artist, due to paradigmatic mass produced designs is historically a wavering concept. The 'lesser artist' was usually and many times anonymous... due to the credibility of many a times it being a female designer of the historic period within a male dominated society. This idea taken from a design theory university lecturer in New Zealand, opens the idea of how can we measure the level of 'lesser or greater' without defining the question of what is the meaning and fundamentals behind good ART DESIGN?
In the end i guess art and design become either separated or combined- thus depending on how an individuals passion directs them within society, in which they would feel free to advertise themselves as either a designer artist or both and even more to advertise their intention or creative vision to a prospect employer etc.
The topic of 'Graphic Design is Not Art', seems it comes from a close minded source?
The bold statement expresses to me you carry VERY LITTLE understanding/ concept of experiencing the powerful aspect of creating. This is presently used over ones time to help create the underlying fundamentals of understanding how one creates and in which way they exude themselves that allow one to successfully succeed in either subject, or cohesively allow themselves to combine elements of the two.
You trying to define them as two on the other hand, seem to be defining whom you are in relationship of feeling inferior if noted as the other? (just sensed by the way the alphabetical order is subjective in a literary sense, u assume to me as the Graphic Designer).
I propose that you should try doing some art maybe blocking out every aspect of vision you consciously use when designing?
Let me know if you discover any differences.
Cheers
ALSO: In regards to
'The way graphic design is often taught ignores the harsh commercial reality of the profession, and the context within which designers work. By dressing it up as "art" where the only people to be delighted are the artist and their peers, the trick is missed.'
This is the reason why sometimes it is up to the fundamental teaching standards of the school or university and how sometimes, it is up to the student to explore the realm for her or himself, i think the way it explores artistically in a way you mention allows the student to think outside the box and expand there thinking methods of how they would approach a design brief.
The 'dressing up' concept completely is up to the student depending if they are there for an 'A' grade by pleasing the teacher or disobedient in a smart way to exceed expectations and set higher standard to go by in terms of meaning and passion being expressed in the work.
The way in which it is taught however is correct to an extent however it does come back down to the background of the educator and the provider in which it is situated. And i must add, that the background experience of the educator makes a great difference to the style of teaching in which they use and how they inspire the students. Therefore i feel by them having someone experience and maybe also holding current active experience within the field they can help one understand the way one subject can aid the other and teach that in the way it is executed it can be defined as both art and design.
Cheers for the thought provoking words.
OG I thik you've entirely missed my point. Religion and Philosophy are "similar" in the same way you claim art and design to be similar, yet they are not the same. Biology and physics. Literature and linguistics.
Design has "grown up" since the days when it was simply a way for artists to make money. It requires a totally different mindset and approach. That is not to denigrate art - it is to liberate it from commercial concerns.
Meanwhile any graphic designer who takes the artistic approach of putting their own concerns ahead of everybody else's is not a graphic designer, they are an artist. That does not stop them producing graphic design but they should be proud enough of what they do to say "I am an artist". Meanwhile a graphic designer should be proud enough of what they do not to have to hide behind another title.
Imagine if a cop claimed to be a postman. Both public servants, both wear uniforms, both walk the streets. But most definitely not the same thing.
Thanks for assuming I have no experience in any of these matters! You're entirely wrong.
The problem with a design curriculum that focuses so much on art is that graphic design has more to learn from sociology and psychology than it does from art. This is what's missing from so much graphic design teaching, an understanding of the social and cultural (and commercial) context of the profession. Artists don't (and why should they?) get, or teach, that.
For better or for worse, art is defined by the artist. If you say 'this is art'... then it is. One has only to look at modern abstract art for an unlimited number of examples of this. Having said that, the best designers, the ones who really drive the industry, are artists. This does not make design art. Design has, and always should have, different goals. Those goals often overlap - for instance it is a benefit to both an artist and a designer if their work elicits an emotional response in the viewer. But the goal of professional design is to communicate the benefits of a product or service to a consumer. The goal of art depends entirely on the artist. It may have a political agenda, may seek to communicate something, or may be created simply because the artist wanted it to exist. This does not mean that designers can't seek to create great work that is emotionally moving and beautiful, but it does mean that they should start with a clearly defined set of communication goals, and should strive to achieve those goals, which may or may not detract from the artistic merits of the finished work.
I'd disagree on the basis that graphic design MUST elicit an emotion to be effective. I'd say the only difference between 'art' and 'graphic design' is the origin of the purpose behind the work. For an artist it's whatever he feels needs to be created. For a graphic designer, it's the client. Both work to create a piece that evokes a reaction in a viewer. I'll give an example: A T-shirt that brings out a stronger reaction (i.e. That's Awesome!) is more likely to be bought than a shirt that makes someone go "bleh". Likewise, and artist's creation is more effective if it receives a strong reaction from a critic instead of being passed off as mediocre.
Yes but the t-shirt designer wants to sell t-shirts. If the design doesn't sell, it's failed. And if it only "moves" one person, it won't make any money.
You're confusing "art" with "artwork".
An artist may only seek to move one person, or even just themselves. Their aim isn't to have 50,000 copies of their art on people's chests. An artist would say "that's not art".
You've actually made my point for me!
Okay I couldn't possibly finish reading all of the comments on this subject because they seemed to become hostile as they progressed. I've been pondering and pondering this question for quite some time, so I finally decided to research it online. This might have been a bad idea to begin with. I am not a graphic designer/artist. I'm just an artist. At this point I'm having a hard time refraining from putting quotations around art, and artist no matter what context it is being used in. I also need to mention that I am no writer, which I'm sure will soon be made quite obvious, and due to my compulsion to jump right in, my thoughts are also a little jumbled, so at least go easy on that aspect.
Also note that this "argument" is loosely based on R.G. Collingwood's: The Principals of Art. I am not here to bicker, I am only here to discuss.
I have admittedly been feeling a little offended by graphic design being considered art proper. As I consider it to be art-like, that is to say pseudo art, it is not art proper. I've held this opinion because I can't help but see it mainly consists of craft. I say this because it is a small part of a whole, or the means to a preconceived end.
Art proper does not do this. Though the artist does have tools provided by a craftsman, the art that an artist produces to properly express him or herself is hardly preconceived, Nor is it and "end". This is why I see the graphic designers job as that of a blacksmith's. For example: The farmer hires the blacksmith, to fashion shoes for his horse to the farmers specification. After the shoes are made the job is done.
Though the blacksmith has the tools, and the skill to accomplish this, it does not justify these actions as art proper. In fact, it is just the smaller function, or means to an overall, preconceived end, which in this case would be the food the farmer produces.
The graphic designer is hired in the same way. To create (we'll say an ad in this case) to help promote the clients business, after this is done it can go no further. That which is being conveyed to the viewer of the ad has already been spoken of numerous times before it hit the designers desk (in many not all situations, but none the less it is still preconceived). This is not to say the graphic designer can't create his own work to express what he wishes, but in my opinion, because he is ultimately using a computer it breaks down the actual work itself into strictly digital information, or data. This makes it (in a sense) intangible and therefore lacks true essence, and only further filters his/her expression. Since it does this, it seems he/she still needs this preconceived recipe. It can also be reproduced exactingly by anyone who wishes to so as well.
Art proper does not strictly consist of information of any kind until it is "finished", even then it is still left open to interpretation. Hence it's need to be contemplated. Of course fine art can be reproduced over and over on postcards and posters, but the eye that admires that representation always says to itself, "Now I need to see this work in person." There is without a doubt something lost in the translation between the true work and it's reproduction.
Just as well with art proper, the artist does not know ahead of time the steps in which to take for the work to be accomplished. There is no set order of completion in art proper. Even if the artist has the notion of what he/she is trying to say before hand, it is still just that, a notion. There are no further measurements taken.
So yes, I suppose I do half agree. While it is not art proper. it is pseudo art or art-like. However relating art proper to prostitution in any way out side of commissioned work is completely absurd. Of course this is the internet, so I'm sure, and can't wait to hear why I am entirely wrong in some pretentious condescending fashion. ;)
I'm 21.
I got an associates at a community college where I was learned that I was doing graphic design and what works well to communicate. The name of the program was
Applied arts.
I just moved far away to go to an art school thinking I'm an artist because I'm a graphic designer.
I want to get my bachelors so I decided a ritzy ditzy art school was the best place to go.
After my first year I've realized my passion, Graphic Design, is not art. I was force fed all this art b/s that didn't apply to what I was trying to do.
They were trying to make me think too much about something that's rather simple.
Using armatures, golden triangle/mean/ratio, hand made illustrations, rule of thirds or color theory doesn't add anything to my work, it only weakens it.
When you look at a billboard you don't say "oh wow look at that billboard, I feel a sense of sadness in the blue and the font works well using an orange gradient"
All of these things should not take time to understand.
Graphic Design is "Buy ME!" in a fast and easily understood visual medium.
Art is "look at me" and it's a slower process to decipher what it is.
Art doesn't tell you the ingredients in the cereal your eating, Art doesn't sell you your t-shirts, art doesn't guide you through a magazine; graphic design does!
I love this post. I just had to google "graphic design is not art"!
I personally grew to despise artists and separated myself from them. I hate how I'm even placed into this "artist" group, because I'm not an artist.
I'm a visual thinker and a visual problem solver.
I'm not a visual creator.
Anyone can be an artists,
but not everyone can be a graphic designer.
combining the two is like trying to mix water and vegetable oil.
Ya you can fit them both in the same bottle, but they won't full mix no matter how hard you shake it.
Kudos to everyone for keeping this discussion alive, if only to keep in the forefront the question "
what is art?" It’s actually an old topic, updated for the last two decades and the advent of digital audio-visual media. The discussion used to be “illustration” vs. “art” or “commercial art” vs “fine art”, with the implication that the former was less art because of their monetized consumerist ties and more transitory nature tied to immediate product consumption. I personally think the distinction between the two “sides” has become more obscure and ambiguous nowadays. The music video has been instrumental (yes, a pun) in putting motion graphics on the map as possible art forms in themselves, irrespective of the “commercial” aspect of selling recordings. I would recommend going to motionographer.com for examples of motion graphics destined for use in commercial applications, yet some of which are stunningly beautiful and moving art. And if commercial ends in of themselves were to disqualify compositions as art, what then is to be said of popular “fine” art e.g., Thomas Kinkade? And what of political art, whether the “What if they threw a war...?” to the Shepard Fairey Obama hope poster? Yes, there are the very forgettable (and deliberately so) graphic art posters that hang in office cubicles and medical waiting rooms. When we work for someone else and are assigned to advertise their products, we often don’t have the freedom to express our own creativity. There is also a lot of not-so-fine art, forgettable and mediocre. I do not claim to have the be-all and end-all definition, but in my opinion the elements of (visual) art are: 1) the visual expression of the artist creatively posing a problem and solving it in an elegant way, in the mathematical sense of “elegant” 2) visual ironic metaphor (something akin to musical and poetic art) and 3) unique use of materials, be they traditional draughtsman’s media or digital or mixed media or the re-imaging of images that have come before.
Post a Comment