What is graphic design? I hear this question all the time from family, friends, classmates, etc… It’s a hard question to answer, and somewhere along the line we begin to be simple and state: “Graphic design is the designing of graphics.” Unfortunately, this term is so vague and overdone that it leads to such simplistic definitions. That is not the reality.
I have been a design student for the past three years, and as I am approaching my final semesters, I am noticing some of the infinite details surrounding the realm of graphic design. Throughout my studies, the most disappointing definition of “graphic design” is as follows:
The art or skill of combining text and pictures in advertisements, magazines, or books.
This definition, found inside many dictionaries, is so limiting. If I had believed this from day one, I would not be writing this article. Graphic design is such a fluid term, and its origins are quite obscure. No longer are graphic designers skilled combiners of text and pictures, rather technical experts and understanders of visual communication as it relates to a specific audience.
The most sound definition of graphic design I have found has been provided by a textbook of mine. The author asserted that graphic design is a visual language one learns or observes. This language is then taken and design principles are added. Through this, one begins to create solutions. From these solutions, the graphic designer studies the effects created by the chosen communication.
The sad truth is, much like photography, anyone can call themselves a graphic designer. But what separates real graphic designers from the digital artists and amateurs that brand themselves as designers of graphics?
In most graphic design programs, students are required to take traditional art classes. Drawing, painting, design fundamentals, and other core subjects are required to understand and effectively manipulate the elements. It is known that an understanding of visual trends allows designers to exploit them and utilize them to create powerful solutions. This is where my belief comes into to play. I believe graphic designers are artists, which is a debate (http://isgraphicdesignart.com/) that lends itself to endless discussion. A graphic designer is an artist, yet we as a collective are profiteers (a little more so than a traditional artist). Almost all of my coursework has revolved around the commercialism of graphic design (print spreads, logos, letterheads, business cards, etc…). However, there are so many amazing things being produced by graphic designers, that calling them anything but artists is insulting.
The struggle graphic designers have is fighting to earn respect in a world that diminishes their capabilities to brochure and billboard design. While we are combatants in creating a communication that can sell products/services, we are also quite capable of creating solutions that yield works of art to our contemporary society. After all, art is a form of meaningful communication as well. The only difference is that graphic designers, as a trend, utilize these communication tactics via modern technological means to promote their client.
The most success I have achieved has been with school projects where I took the objective of the project, and injected my own personal views.
The final project of my very first graphic design class was to create a word using found objects. The word spelled and the objects found had to have a strong correlation and contribute to an effective solution. I decided to make a gay-rights piece, using the British colloquial as a jumping-off point. I was proud of this piece, because it was more than a school project. It was a piece personal to me that held a strong message.
I try to spice up everything I create with my own views and aesthetics. This way, I can always avoid the sell-out tendencies many graphic designers fall into.
Readers: Do you think Graphic Design is art? Why or why not?
I can’t say whether graphic design is art or not–it’s hard enough to even say what art is. But in personal terms, I recently saw some stunning work by graphic designer McRay Magleby that I don’t hesitate to call art. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a good web site for him, though I’ve nabbed this image from the announcement on Art Bozeman.
Although art could also be said to involve some communication, it seems this factor is much more prominent in typical graphic art, which is generally created for a specific purpose. As such, elements of language tend to be more apparent. I certainly see a number of accepted, conventional “language” in the poster above. (This wasn’t by any means true of all the works in the show I saw.)
Welcome, Brandon,
I found your “Fags” graphic wonderfully two (or five) sided in meaning and visuals — clearly, from my point of view, art which resonates and is both clear, clean, and evocative of any number of feelings and insights.
I suspect that the reason “graphic design” is sometimes seen as a lesser art is that more often than not, the designs aren’t intended to evoke anything but a consumer impulse. I can’t see that either your Fags or Steve’s Peace has the “gotta go out and buy one” as its impulse. Communication, when limited to a single message, stops at the “I get it!” stage. Artistic communication requires time and thought and re-looking to “get” it — and then it’s often rethought again at 2 AM. Graphic design as art, done by a graphic artist, provokesa long-term reaction.
I generally make a distinction between the use of the term “graphic designer” and an artist who uses highly graphic designs. As a stylistic phenomenon, I’ve always considered art that was highly graphic and “designed” to be clear and clean, not muddled nor obscure or puzzling — not painterly but rather having an initial clarity. I have a friend (who was trained as a graphic designer) who works with highly patterned fabric to make images — the patterns could easily start to whap the eyes around and confuse the mind. But in her work, what I love is that each pattern has its own integrity as does each shape and form. Her art is clear, and clearly art.
You spoke of an instructor who said that “graphic design is a visual language one learns or observes. This language is then taken and design principles are added. Through this, one begins to create solutions. From these solutions, the graphic designer studies the effects created by the chosen communication.”
Indeed, this solving of problems, using the tools we have available, is what artists do. But most artists can’t see “the effects created by the chosen communication” as clearly as can be seen when the Superbowl advertisements provoke a rise in the sale of hummers (or whatever). The effects of art, whether graphically designed or painterly smeared, are not easily studied; the problems the artist faces are less easily stated and understood than in the most banal use of graphic designs, such as ads and brochures.
So there are perhaps two meanings to the phrase “graphic design.” One is the general concept used by marketers looking for talented renditions; the other is the deeper problem of the artist, finding a solution to a complex problem, a solution which could have a stylistic approach similar to that used in commercial work. Not the same at all, but two different meanings that could sound the same to the un-thoughtful.
I have a question, however. What did your instructor have in mind when he said that “graphic design is a language” that differs from design principles? Can you talk more about that concept, which intrigues me. I’m not sure what the “language” is, if it is not found in the design principles.
Brandon,
In my naiveté, I thought that graphic art implied something about craft, perfection in craft. Thus, if your image is a photograph, then I would consider it to be Art rather than Graphic Art.
Steve,
Isn’t McRay Magleby’s picture similar to ‘The Great Wave off Kanagawa’ by Katsushika Hokusai (1760-1849), Japanese painter and wood engraver – Hokusai’s most famous print?
Birgit,
If Hokusai were alive and worked for Associated Press, they would be suing. But instead of a frightening wave with grasping foam bearing down on frail boats, Magley made a smooth, elegant wave with foam turning into doves, symbols of peace. He uses these things known to the audience, along with line, color, and format, like a writer uses figures of speech to elicit reactions. It’s pictorial rhetoric.
The AP/Fairey suit raises at least two immediate corollaries – -is Photoshop art? is journalism art? I lean toward “no” with Ps, toward “yes” with journalism.
Folks:
I smell the blood of a false dichotomy, if you don’t mind my doing so. There’s a lot more that meets the eye than “art” on one hand, and “graphic design” on the other. I’m not even sure that these represent the extremes. I love Manga, a form of Japanese cartooning. Manga started out in the popular media, and over time has become a gallery staple. A number of artists along the line saw Manga as a vessel for more serious issues – all this in a lineage that does back at least to the floating world wood block prints of another century.
And one could spend all day recalling those who have gone both ways. Picasso was once asked by a garage owner to paint him a sign for the shop. He made up a full-blown cubist extravaganza for the man without thinking twice about it. There’s a Toulouse Lautrec poster in the art museum – originally meant to be slapped on a wall. A few examples among many.
For me, one extreme within a multidimensional realm is art simply to be seen and without any further motive versus a block party announcement. And both of these can be done by the same artist on the same day employing identical design principles .
Jay,
Great comment!
Thanks all for your comments! All were very insightful and helpful. I have been struggling with this question “Is graphic design art?” for some time now.
——————
Melanie,
I don’t think photoshop can create art. I think an artist can create art, and if that artist wishes to use photoshop, I see it no different then using traditional media. Simply pulling a photograph into photoshop and adding a filter and proclaiming it art seems to be the dire path a lot of amateur designers take.
——————
Jay,
Your comment was right on target with a lot of speculation about the field of graphic design. We do fall into the realm of commercial artists, which has a lesser sense of prestige. However, outside of commercial works, many designers have other creative projects that utilize their methods used in the commercial realm.
I have seen many other works of street art that are pure graphic design, yet they are considered art. They have no sense of commercialism about them, only the air to provoke thought and question a nature of a society.
——————
Birgit,
Successful graphic designers are masters of their craft. However, that does not define what they are. Graphic Arts are another term for the works of art created utilizing Graphic Design principle(s). One can argue that the more this is discussed, the more similarities between Graphic Design and art are discovered.
——————
June,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my article. You are correct in stating there are two varying levels of graphic designers. With this day and age, anybody can proclaim themselves a “graphic designer.” However, what I have found is a bunch of young adults that took a few photoshop tutorials and are mass producing images with the same filters, etc…
A REAL graphic designer is a contemporary communicator that is able to understand the social and political shifts present in a society (among other facets, but these two are the most powerful) and use that in their communication. The power of the imagery is discovered in the MESSAGE, exactly as you stated. That is what separates the two levels: intent.
I might be able to make a political statement in a magazine spread, however, I am myself when I have my own canvas to use with only my limitations, like the two pieces above.
——————
Steve,
Thanks for sponsoring my article! This has been very beneficial for me.
I believe all art is pure, raw communication. The difference in graphic design, as you noted, is that that communication has to be clear. Much like Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” scene; that communication is muddled with the time period’s tradition, the da Vinci Code speculation, and religious iconography. Granted, almost every work of art can speak differently to every viewer, which is one of the most treasured aspects of traditional art.
In most typical graphic design solutions, that is not ideal. The goal is to send one clear message to an audience, unless of course the objective is to be confusing or have multiple interpretations.
——————
Thanks everyone again!
Dear Brandon:
Just think of us as the Geek Squad of art.
Brandon,
What is your take on the Shepard Fairey brouhaha? Fairey obviously is very graphic in his art, and has a clear, simple (if sometimes startling and contradictory) message.
Fairey (for those among us who don’t spend hours reading online) was the originator of the famous Obama images — the posterized red/beige/blue A&P photo, reworked by Fairey in Photoshop and used widely by the Obama campaign. He is now in a lawsuit with the A&P for using an image of Obama that the A&P owned.
Here are two articles that deal generally with questions about Fairey’s work. The first is by Mark Vallen and is a long rant about Fairey’s inappropriate “appropriation” and his consequent enrichment through using the images of others; the second is a refutation of Vallen’s charges
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/
I’m curious about how the world of graphic designers might see this issue, since highly graphic designs are those that are most easily appropriated.
June,
I actually had a discussion with someone last night about this issue. It is interesting because this is a touchy subject for many artists and non-artists.
Personally, I have mixed feelings. It is always taught that it is not an issue to trace on top of an image, because in reality, you are taking a model from a secondary source. It is similar to how a painter can paint from a photograph, etc… BUT, there is an issue because the original piece if a piece of intellectual property.
The argument can go either way, and I am beginning to sway towards the possibility the A&P have no claim to copyright violation. IF he simply took the image and manipulated it, then by all means he is guilty. However, the work reeks of vector work, which requires no manipulation, rather interpretation. Because, after all, it is Obama’s face.
I am super interested in how this issue pans out. It will be a ruling that will settle this ethical debate.
Folks:
It is somewhat like the Warhol/Campbell’s Soup dispute. Andy had appropriated a copyrighted image in the label design and people were upset. I don’t think he was sued however, but this issue might be on the net somewhere.
Brandon,
Don’t confuse A&P (Art and Perception–forget the supermarket) with the AP (Associated Press). We might be touchy about some subjects, but I think it’s outrageous of the AP to try to profit from a work that Fairey has clearly made his own. Does a painter or photographer have to pay the U.S. government for a picture made of the Capitol?
Back on the subject of communication: I’m not very clear on your message with Fags. Are you equating gays with discarded cigarette butts? Maybe you’re just pointing to a certain stereotype. I suspect the second is closer to your intention, but why isn’t the first a plausible interpretation? Graphically, I like that the word is not on a plain background, but I’m not sure if or how it’s conceptually significant that it’s against black and white. In the end, I’m finding this a bit muddled–but would welcome enlightenment.
Steve,
You’ve caught me. There are multiple interpretations for my “Fags” piece. I had known this all along and I intended to exploit that ambiguity. I spent a good chunk of my childhood in England, so when I moved back to the United States, I was confused as to the meaning of the word “fag”. I find it amusing that two separate cultures have different colloquial meanings for the word “fag” and that was my motivation to create this piece. However, the end result became something that you have touched on, the ill-treatment of homosexuals and the discarded attitude they receive.
The background is a sidewalk, a natural setting for a cigarette butt.
The real piece printed and mounted appears at a 1:1 ratio, which makes the subjects appear natural and unexaggerated.
Last year I begrudgingly signed up for a class called The History and Evolution of Typography. I naively assumed it would be a font identification class, but instead I learned the history of written communication from Lascaux to Erik Spiekermann. I won’t say that art and graphic design are the same, but I do think that graphic designers and artists share many of the same skills and both use their media for some communicative purpose. As an art theory student with a background in graphic design, I feel that the border dividing art and graphic design is rather fluid, and the histories of both fields share more in common than not.
I would like to mention Victor Schreckengost as someone who bridged the art and design divide.
An informative post. Thanks for sharing your good work.
Some of you who commented on McRay Magleby’s wave poster (above) are seriously retarded. I went to HS with his son and I kne Mac personally and I’ve heard the story of that wave poster so many times, you’re going to be embarrassed and ashamed as soon as you hear it that you’ll regret ever saying something retarded like “If Hokusai were alive and worked for Associated Press, they would be suing” …but I’ll give you a pass today because of your simple ignorance.
The entire idea behind that design was to honor the Japanese tradition by mimicking the style of those old art prints and engravings. That poster was designed as the official 50 year commemoration to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a design contest where they paid 12 of the world’s most famous designers at the time to come up with their best attempt for what that day meant to them. All the other designs were about doom and chaos and he was one of the only artists to design something positive. Something that showed the true spirit of the Japanese people who picked up the pieces from that day and pressed on.
…and anyone who thinks graphic design isn’t art, you’re fucking retarded. Anything that exists today that came from a person’s mind that didn’t exist the day before is the exact definition of what art is and it’s what separates humans from animals. ANYTHING we create is art. I am a graphic ARTIST …and nobody ever tell me I’m not an artist because I cash checks daily that says I am an artist. This is a silly forum and anybody debating what art is is seriously a dumb person. …OUT!
UtahRugbyGuy,
I don’t think you’d have missed the irony of the suing comment if you’d been commenting in the context of the time. But thanks for the background on Magleby’s poster, and for adding your view about what art is.
Steve:
You’re such a thankful person Steve.
Steve is more of a gentleman than I am.
Wow.
Tree:
My pardons: I’ve been mistaking your gender all this while.
I tend to label the smallest complaint as a rant. I’m falling farther and farther behind.
Jay, my female tongue was firmly planted in cheek :-)
But I am serious about Steve being a true gentleman.
Tree:
Yes he is.
But the Utah guy does sidle up to a point: the role or presence of novelty in a given definition of art.
I’m back to making chains and I’m contemplating such questions as the proper number of links before some erosion of integrity or original intent sets in. At this juncture I’m paying less attention to a the link-to-link narrative and more to the overall effect. Every addition of a link creates a new overall potentiality while still being one more brick in the wall. It appears that I’m better off keeping to a firm state of chaininess even though it is the easy way to go.
I do believe graphic design is an art. I believe this because many of the principles of graphic design, form, communication, compostion, perspective, layout, medium are principles taken from traditional and fine art. That is my view any way. This is something I am trying to bring into my career as a recent graduate.
Thoroughout my degree my work was geared to the craft and print art aspect of graphic design rather than commercialism and with adding a little bit of personal fealing and inspiration to a project it in my view adds so much to a piece of design by giving it some meaning. However I do think the industry needs to take a step back have a look at its self, I feel that it has developed an eleitist habit of making design have to be in poticular type of way or you have to have been the winner of some awards to get any where and have to be commercial and such to be amazing. This is not me or my way of working and is probably where I am failing, is because my view of design and my way of working dose not fit with industrys view and it’s a little dissheartening.
With that said I do have hope both in my work and the industry.
great post realy helpful.
What a great post! I just love your point of view.
This is an interesting discussion.
Skill levels of individuals vary – and also the quantity and quality of skills. At what point in the process do we call a practitioner able, skilled, talented or an artist? And are there only certain traits and skills that are demanded to be possessed before someone is an artist. How about originality? or style? Or variety, or outstanding quality? How how about making a living? Or having honor, friends, respect and success? And when in the process do we become artists? Or at what point does it matter?
And just who is the arbiter?
Artists are of all stripes and colors and sizes and genders and especially – skills. It would be nice if we could have all these things and the joy of the work also. I often think of the countless people who created this world of beauty we live in – and wonder if they all had the same feelings of wonder, If they had the same misgivings – were famous, respected, wealthy or happy just doing what they love to do. And be paid to do it?
Thank God I don’t think I am an artist. I know I am an artist! I used to resent it when people took my work for their own. Now I wonder if it makes them happy!
Kudos to everyone for keeping this discussion alive. 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? 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 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.
Colin Wright said it best – “Art is like masturbation. It is selfish and introverted and done for you and you alone. Design is like sex. There is someone else involved, their needs are just as important as your own, and if everything goes right, both parties are happy in the end”
Art and design share some of the same DNA but are inherently different. I’d also like to reference something Marvin Malecha posits in his design thinking courses at NCSU: Art takes the conversation to the people and most times the conversation between the artist and the people ends – a great example is Serrano’s Piss Christ – he’s said little about the piece since its conception. Serrano’s silence has made waves and mostly made people mad, that anger ends the intelligent conversation. What happens -more or less- is that the artist is circumventing all accountability. A designer, however, justifies his work with reason and structure. Explaining (hopefully) with wit and brevity the purpose of the work and the specific aesthetic qualities falls on the designer instead of the audience. Those among others are the details that separate art and design for me.
This article pretty much sums up the amount of frustration that we artists feel on the daily basis. The term ‘graphic design’ is so broad and misinterpreted today that it fails to call out the fine arts talent that many designers possess as well as the concept development and time that goes into every detail of the piece. Graphic design is definitely art, and now at this time the most relevant and in demand style of art and advertisement. Everything you see is art, and has more than likely came from a graphic designer.
Just to realize and understand that graphic designers don’t just use default fonts and put them on a flyer, or use found imagery and make a collage and call it a day. We often go back to the fine art roots. We hand draw images and make up our own fonts (mind you takes hours/ days to perfect). We go out with our own cameras, just like photographers and capture our own stock images to use for future projects. We take pictures, scan fabrics and anything we can get our hands on to create textures. It’s not easy being in the industry and can be mentally draining to be constantly pushing out ideas and executing piece after piece.
Designers are so underestimated.
Thank you, Brandon, for this post. Having dealt with this question for years myself, turned it over and over, and also having heard people’s opinion, I would add to the definition: Graphic Design is a form of art, where the artist uses his or her skill to accomplish an assigned project. He basically uses his skills on behalf of a client’s vision, plan or mission and finds an appropriate solution to it. Historically, until the beginnings of modern art (19th century) art and design were not separated, to define more clearly: art until then was solely commissioned work, commissioned by church or kings and rulers.
Only in the early beginnings of modern art (French realism) the artists started to make art for arts sake alone. But for example in poster design during French Belle Epoque, there was no question, that it would be the artists, who would design the famous posters. The further modern art progressed, however, the more the two disciplines separated and graphic design as an entirely separate discipline emerged; leading to the idea that the latter was of lower value than Fine Art (Art for Art’s sake versus commercial art). I definitely agree that a visual creator, be he artist or designer, who has in depth training and study of visual language under his belt, will be able to produce the more far reaching work. These are just a few thoughts; I think this discussion will be ongoing, at least for me. I like to see a renaissance of the multidisciplinary artist, and the two disciplines merging back into one.
Forgot this: my art website is: http://www.anjamohn.com
I am working on merging the two disciplines myself, including process and approach.
we were always confronted with the issue on what is/what is not art when talking about art versus money. i thought about it too that art needs no money and it never will. art does not need financial reciprocation or whatever. in fact, it is by itself a a fulfillment and satisfaction. an art does not wait for financial reward because it is a reward by itself. meanwhile, graphic art design is commercial undertaking to make money, the purpose it is being done and continued to be done… in fact, it is always dictated by outsiders more often and not the artist himself in his own volition… my peers called this type of art for money as prostitution…
So many great references, and some touch upon my point that it is on a *case by case* basic whether a piece is fine art or design, IMO.