DESIGN CONTEXT BLOG: May 2014

Sophie McDonald

Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more ‘value’ than more popular forms of visual communication?

Fine art and forms of visual communication, for example graphic design, are created for different purposes. But are they as dissimilar as people may think? Dictionary definitions propose incredible differences between the two. The following is the definition of art: ‘[mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2001). Whereas the graphic design definition is as follows: ‘the art or skill of combining text and pictures in advertisements, magazines, or books.’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2001). ‘Art’ is seen as an incredibly emotional and creative formation that artists pour their hearts into whereas ‘graphic design’ seems like a straightforward and painless task that is quite inhuman in comparison. ‘We build elaborate temples to house art and we worship artists with a fervour that was once reserved for saints.’ (Buck L. & Dodd P., 1991). Whether or not fine art ought to be assigned more ‘value’ than more popular forms of visual communication depends on who you ask and the circumstances. Reproduction, function, meaning and creativity are some of the factors that must be taken into account when contemplating the value of such visual pieces.

The first thing that comes to mind when comparing fine art and graphic design is the obvious difference between the creators. A ‘designer’ is, most of the time, somebody who creates a consumer product or design. They are hired by clients who are in need of visual assistance to reach a certain target audience. An example would be a florist company hiring a graphic designer to create a suiting logo to adhere to their target audience of middle class women. Walker (1983) suggests that mass media such as graphic design is ‘the work of groups of specialists operating as teams in response to briefs, commissions or specifications laid down by employers or clients’. Graphic design is a tool that is used absolutely everywhere in a culture of consumption; including the book you read before falling asleep at night and the alarm clock that wakes you up in the morning. Is design only something that is made in relation to consumerism or can a designer create something for their own fulfilment? Does it then become art? It does, but some would argue that it doesn’t. People only value art if its in the fine form, or if the creator calls themselves an ‘artist’. Artists are seen as working for themselves and fulfilling their own set goals; they are the ultimate independent creative figures in society as there is nothing holding them back. Walker (1983) also suggests that fine artists enjoy more ‘creativity and independence’ than practices such as graphic design, and it is regarded as a ‘highly experimental and risky area of work’. However, creativity can be incorporated into just about anything, it does not stop at a form of ‘art’, nor should creativity on any front come across as ‘artistic’. The definition of creativity is ‘relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2001). The word art is not used once, yet art is seen as more creative than anything else just because its purpose (unlike graphic design, the majority of the time) is not clear.

Successful artists are thought of as original in all their works, yet some (if they can still be referred to as an artist; to most they can and will) are assigned commissions. The requirements are set out in something similar to a brief or specification that would be given to a designer. This isn’t creative freedom or experimental risk-taking as we think art to be. Baxandall (1972) expresses that a contract between Father Bernardo and Domenico Ghirlandaio regarding the ‘Adoration of the Magi’, says that Ghirlandaio must submit ‘in every particular according to what I, Fra Bernardo, think best’. Contracts like these usually specify the subject matter, colour and size. This seems to defeat certain aspects of art that are favoured in the first place, such as self-expression and emotion. However, it supports the hard truth that artists need money to live. Fine art can only truly be, one hundred percent, about self-fulfilment if money is not an issue for the artist. This suggests that art is more similar to graphic design and other communication methods than we think. In the end, it is about earning a living, and the purpose of the artwork is to earn money: ‘no culture can develop … without a source of income’ (Clement Greenberg, 1986).

Graphic design has ‘social, cultural and economic’ functions as a whole, Bernard (2005) states. But individually the functions that are in designs consist of information, persuasion, ‘decoration’ and ‘magic’ (Barnard, 2005). Each of these has their own purpose. Information in one form or another is imparted. Persuasion happens by graphics changing the way the viewer thinks or looks at the world, ‘to convince or merely affect a change in thought or behaviour.’ (Barnard, 2005). What is design if it doesn’t affect people? Decoration is a key part of design, as it has to be visually appealing for people to take notice or put their trust in it. It may not be as decorative as art but it is still important. Lastly, ‘magic’ is a function Bernard believes in, which is linked to visual language. Graphic design has the ability to transform one thing into something else; ‘making things appear and turning one thing into another thing are exactly what magicians do and that is exactly why graphics may be said to have a magical function, however residual, or primitive it may sound.’ (Barnard, 2005). So what functions does this leave art? Art is simply selling its aesthetic at times, and others simply selling its contextual depth. To say it has functions in the same way as design would be incorrect, art is for entertainment. Bernard says that one view is that it is ‘the use of the item and the (institutional) context it is a part of that determine whether it is considered art or design.’. This is to say that pieces of design displayed in an art gallery or museum automatically become pieces of artwork, because of the change in context. This is partly true, but not fully; design will be design forever, as that was what it was created as, but taking it out of context kills the original purpose and helps the viewer step back and look at it in a similar way they would study fine art. ‘… there is no ‘essence’ of ‘art’ or ‘design’; something that can be added or taken away depending on whether it appears on a printed page or in an art gallery cannot be ‘essential’ (Barnard, 2005).

Graphic design and art often have something in common: a concept can make them more interesting and appealing. Art with meaning behind it (even if it is unclear) is often more captivating, and the same can go for mass media such as graphic design. Using on trend aesthetics to sell something may seem like a good idea that will appeal, but what does it really have to do with what is trying to be communicated? It doesn’t make the design stand out as well, as it looks like any other modern design. For example, the FedEx logo features a hidden arrow using the negative space between the ‘E’ and ‘x’. This is known as subliminal imagery, but it has become well known for its subtlety and concept.

Figure 1 FedEx logo (1995)

Using negative space in this way adds character to a logo, without being overbearing or ruining the simplicity of it. Once the consumer notices the arrow in FedEx, it’s all they can see, thus making the company very memorable indeed. Does this make graphic design as worthy of being called art as fine art? Not really, as they are still completely different in their context, however some memorable pieces of graphic design are taken out of their consumerist context and recognised as creative and supposedly artistic.

Art is often dubious, and known for its unclear meaning; ‘poetry, ambiguity and difficulty are necessary constituents of art’ (Jones, 2004). It is a well known fact that when walking around an art gallery, most people in there will want to know the background of the piece, which can be discovered by reading the small paragraph of information that often accompanies an artwork. However, even still the meaning of a piece may not be certain to the viewer, and may instil a feeling of mystery. This is often what makes a particular piece popular, for example the painting ‘The Scream’ by Edvard Munch.

Figure 2 'The Scream' by Edvard Munch (1893)

This piece is disturbing to many people, and confusing: what does it mean? Why is this person screaming and who are the figures in the background? The artist himself once vaguely described his inspiration: "I was walking down the road with two friends when the sun set; suddenly, the sky turned as red as blood. I stopped and leaned against the fence, feeling unspeakably tired. Tongues of fire and blood stretched over the bluish black fjord. My friends went on walking, while I lagged behind, shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous infinite scream of nature." (Edvard Munch, 1893). This quote gives a background, but obviously Munch sees things completely different from other people, leaving the explanation a mystery.

This painting was created by an artist that had bouts of insanity, which is not unusual; some of the most successful artists have suffered from mental illness. To quote Cesar A. Cruz (1997), ‘Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the uncomfortable’. Art is a form of intriguing self-expression. ‘The Scream’ has had a profound effect on the art world, and it is a perfect example of ambiguous artwork. In comparison, graphic design is not admired for any deep contextual mystery but is known for communicating a clear message. An example of this is Milton Glaser’s ‘I Love New York’, which is clear and straight to the point.

Figure 3 I Love New York by Milton Glaser (1977)

It’s function is clear: it was made to advertise New York and attract tourists in 1977; it originated from the state song of New York. It became highly successful over the years and now it is one of the most well known pieces of graphic design in the world. It has no underlying meaning or mystery; it doesn’t make the viewer stop and wonder. All it does it instil a feeling of positivity in relation to the city New York, thus wanting to find out more about the city or even better, visit. The red love heart gives off a feeling of love and warmth. At the very least it reminds the viewer of New York, which is known very widely as ‘NY’.

This example shows that graphic design can vary very much from fine art; art leaves it up to the viewer to interpret in their own way, and immerses them in a whole new world. This is a vital reason why people would place more value on fine art than other forms of visual communication such as graphic design, as they see it as a very commercial form that is trying to persuade them. “The idea can only be that, if something communicates in a ‘forthright’ and ‘plain’ fashion, then it cannot be art. Graphic design, which many people would say is in the business of forthright, plain communication, cannot be art on this account.” (Malcolm Barnard, 2005) But is straightforward, non-contextual art as valuable as work from artists such as Munch? If we take paintings of landscapes or straightforward portraits, it may affect how people value it. Both hold value, however the mystification of an art piece aids curiosity, so to some that may make it more valuable. The quality of the techniques used also need to be taken into consideration: does art with an unclear meaning need to be of a good aesthetic quality to be valuable? Absolutely not, as art is about creativity and originality as well as aesthetics.

Another difference between art and design which could affect the supposed ‘value’ of a piece, is the production methods. Graphic design is reproduced mechanically, while fine art isn’t (generally speaking). Reproduction is seen as unauthentic, and some may only deem traditional methods artistic as authentic, but that is denying modern society and how things change and evolve through time. It’s about the aim and the meaning behind a piece that defines it. Hollis (1998) said that ‘unlike the artist, the designer plans for multiple production’, which is very true; multiple production is used for newspapers, magazines, advertisements, posters etc. because it is trying to reach a wide audience of viewers to draw them in. ‘Items such as oil paintings, sculptures and architecture are said to be art and to possess a sense of permanence while the products of graphic design, such as labels, posters, books and magazines are seen as impermanent and transitory.’ (Barnard 2005): this view links to the mechanical reproduction of design, as they are seen as having less worth individually because there are hundreds if not thousands of copies in one form or another (take Figure 1. as an example). Barnard (2005) says that ‘aura is the sense of uniqueness and authenticity that is felt before a work of art’, which is something that may not happen with graphic design but that doesn’t completely devalue it, it can still be absolutely unique and just as worthy of admiration as creativity is channelled into it just as much as art. Barnard (2005) states that ‘The idea that art is somehow apart from everyday life leads to the mystifying conceptions of creativity as either a bursting out or a bursting in a personal vision, for example, and encourages the view that art is a different kind of activity from graphic design.’ However, the creativity is used differently and applied for different reasons.

‘They are different institutions, different organisations, having different members and existing for different purposes, practising the same form of creativity. Both graphic design and art are ways in which experience is visually produced, described and communicated.’ (Malcolm Barnard, 2005) The difference in value of graphic design and fine art lies in the meaning behind it, and there are several variables that make the line between art and design difficult and unclear. Graphic design becomes art when it is viewed without its context of consumerism, although many would disagree with this. But graphic design as a whole is fuelled by creativity just as much as fine art, without a doubt. Naturally people are drawn to original and interesting objects, which can make something sell very effectively. However, if it is not solely selling itself and it’s own aesthetic, why should it be placed next to art with the same value? Fine art conveys emotion and feeling, thus can be more valuable as it reflects an individual, whereas graphic design is created with many different people’s inputs and is worked on until it functions in the correct way and it can reach a certain target audience with a very specific message using text and image. A lot of the time a designer will not like their own work as it was made to appeal to a company and their audience, not themselves as a therapeutic exercise. This is not to say that design has no value; it is very valuable and effective in today’s society as it can change social, political and cultural views. It just isn’t ‘one of a kind’ like pieces of fine art are, which cannot be recreated. Many people choose to create art because it’s comforting; others choose design because it impacts the world. ‘What … is experienced as expression and individuality in both art and design depends upon the existence of structures, systems of conventions, which make communication possible.’ (Malcolm Barnard, 2005)

Bibliography

Buck L. & Dodd P. (1991) Relative Values. London: BBC Books.

Barnard M. (2005) Graphic Design as Communication. Oxon: Routledge.

Walker, J. A. (1983) Art in the age of Mass Media. London: Pluto Press.

Baxandall, M. (1972) Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Greenburg, C. (1982) ‘Collage’, in Frascina, F. and Harrison, C. (eds) Modern Art and Modernism. London: Paul Chapman.

Hollis, R. (1994) Graphic Design: A Concise History, London: Thames & Hudson.

CRUZ, C. A. (1997) Quote by Cesar A. Cruz. [Online] Available from:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/622456-art-should-comfort-the-disturbed-and-disturb-the-comfortable

[Accessed: 13^th January 2014]

MUNCH, E. (1893) Quote by Edvard Munch [Online] Available from:

http://legomenon.com/meaning-of-the-scream-1893-painting-by-edvard-munch.html - edvard munch quote