Guest blog by Sara Teresa
It was an offhand comment, more or less, when I said to Oli at Split Design that I’d be interested in curating a graphic design exhibition, but it ended up sparking a rather intensive and continuing debate about the line between art and graphic design (if there is one!); the nature of design as opposed to art; briefs and commissions; and lots of other argument fodder that I won’t even bore you with. It also ended with us agreeing to co-curate an exhibition from some of the talented graphic designers Yorkshire has to offer us, which we have actually managed to do. The exhibition will run between 14th May and 23rd June at Café 164 . I have the feeling the debate might continue long past those dates.
Below you will find my and Oli’s point and counterpoint regarding art and artists and graphic design(ers) and whether or not they meet (where it will of course be clear to you all that he is completely wrong).
I’ve also included some thoughts and responses from our exhibitors, who had quite insightful viewpoints of their own.
Feel free to weigh in yourselves in the comment section.
Graphic design is art.
art /ärt/ noun:
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form (…)
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination
Graphic design is modern, it’s the strangely dressed young cousin who turns up to the family reunion and doesn’t quite fit in. But it is no less part of the ‘art’ family than painting or sculpture. Some might even say more-so, as perhaps one could argue it takes more skill and imagination to work to a brief than to create art for the sake of it? This coming from the perspective of someone who is not a graphic designer, but clearly sees the intrinsic artistic value in the medium and is willing to shout “bollocks” to those designers who prefer not to be called artists.
This does obviously beg the question, if a designer does not want to be known as an artist, why is that not okay? Is there something innately better about being classed as an artist than, say, a designer? To that I’d say very reluctantly say no (recognising my own terrible bias); however, even if a graphic designer prefers not to be known as an artist, their work is still clearly art. And can you produce art without classing yourself as an artist? Apparently you can – it appears to be happening every day – and if that is one definition of “modern art”, then it’s an interesting definition indeed.
————————————————————
Some graphic design could be called be art… sometimes
(Oli Bentley, @splituk)
Art (and illustration especially) can often run into design and vice versa – the two areas cross over so some design definitely sits within the sphere of “art”. But graphic design also crosses into illustration, digital production, typography, marketing, business (and I’m sure somewhere along the line coffee connoisseurship!) so saying “graphic design is art” is impossible.
Graphic design is more-often-than-not done in response to a brief. This is perhaps where art and design differ the most. Wherever a designer is answering a brief, they should be judged not on the work in isolation, but on how effectively they have fulfilled the requirements of the client. I love being a designer because I get to push myself creatively but within any number of design constraints and specific requirements of the client. No matter how creative, visually stunning or conceptual the work is, it’s only successful if it does its job. How good a design is will ultimately be judged by the client and how effective a piece of work has been for them.
Interestingly the very first submission we got for the Yorkshire Graphic Design exhibition was a set of promotional material from Analogue for a club night. They had taken off all the text and logos and just submitted the illustration work – presumably because they thought it more “exhibition worthy”. But I’m not really keen on this – the work is fantastic a piece of design in its own right and makes an interesting piece for an exhibition.
For me, if design is done with real creative integrity, design (text, logos and all) has a lot of value in its own right. If this makes it art or not I’m not sure, but I’m not sure its important. However, what I think is really important in the discussion is not to put a value judgement on the label “art” as opposed to “design”.
I also think it’s important to recognise that the question “is graphic design art?” might lead us to look at design through rose-tinted spectacles a little. For example:
Many designers work with packaging. If a client’s brief to a designer is to create a label for a tin to help sell more tomato soup than a competitor then surely the “best” design is that which answers the brief most effectively, and thus sells the most soup? If you go into Asda to buy the cheapest soup you can find you’re not going to pick up the can with a modern-day Rembrandt on the side of it! In these purely commercial and sales-focused circumstances whilst the piece would clearly be “design” I’d certainly challenge anyone to call it “art” (A picture of a tomato soup can might be a different matter up for discussion!)
People who like a piece of design because they deem it to have artistic value may want to claim it for art; business men and women who value a design because of its merits in the commercial sector may call it good business; and TV viewers might talk about how they like the Channel 4 idents and call them good special effects.
Design is a fantastic mix of creativity, communication, craft and more often than not commercial clients. Some parts of design could be called art yes, but many different parts of design could also be called so many other things… At the end of the day what’s so bad about calling it graphic design?!
————————————————————
More snippets from those in the know (ie. our amazing exhibitors)
Adrian Riley
Although I’m proud to call myself a graphic designer (and had my sights set on claiming such a title way back in school days) it seems that for years job roles in the creative industries were defined and restrained by the tools of the trade and the time and skill it took to use them. The digital age has pretty much erased those barriers – for some people this is worrying, others see it it as a fantastic opportunity.
Graphic designers have always seemed more fearless than most and the world is full of film-makers, writers, musicians, even artists who began their careers as designers. Am I still a graphic designer if I’m creating a series of stainless steel sculptures, spending a week as the voice of a talking tree or devising a structure for community engagement via invisible theatre (all things I’ve collaborated on in the last 12 months)? Who cares. It’s the same creative thought process that I learned and continue to hone as a graphic designer, just applied to different situations and often on a much larger canvas. And yet despite the excitement and fun of being out of your comfort zone and the stimulation of collaborating with people from wildly different creative backgrounds I still always hanker to mess with lettershapes and lay words out nicely. I guess I’m a graphic designer through and through and proud to be so.
———————
Alexander Peters
Graphic Design is omnipresent, it can be obtrusive, it can be subtle, the power of the graphic designer is unrecognised. It can be an art form, it can tell a story, or relay a message through a range of mediums exploiting shape, form, and context. It is the single letter you press on your keyboard, to the extensive composition of shape and colour. It is the unconscious language of all societies.
———————
Graphic Design, like written language, is used to communicate information
visually. By using symbols, evocative shapes, textures and colours; incorporating text
and photographs- visual information from unlimited sources- the designer can
build and adapt levels of meaning within their design.
To do this effectively we must be mindful of the intention or message of
the piece and have a good understanding of our audience and the relevant
context. With these considerations in place the designer can apply their own
personal style and creativity to the work- lifting the design beyond a functional
level to exist as something more beautiful and complete.
———————
Often, the term “Graphic Design” gets so easily bandied about. Perhaps it’s my own slightly obsessive need to research and learn about design processes, typefaces, the psychology of colour, and so on (my tutors will be pleased, I am sure, to know, that I put it down to good teaching methods), but I feel that Graphic Design is about so much more than the finalised outcome, which many perceive to be true. Graphic Design, I believe, is most clearly effective when the designer understands what they aesthetically want to achieve, and what affect it will have on the viewing audience. Like with any practice- be it culinary, mechanical, literature, design, etc, it’s the increased knowledge that creates the more sophisticated outcome.
———————
Graphic design is all around us. You need graphic design somewhere within a process in
order to portray what it is. It can be art, or something functional, and helps someone
communicate anything from a brand identity, magazine article or product promotion. You
will see some form of graphic design just looking out of the window or on the commute to
work.
Does it not depend on your definition of ‘art’? People seem to be judging graphic design against a preconceived idea of what constitutes ‘art’…
To me there is generally one main difference between what is called graphic design, and what is called art. As covered above, graphic design more often than not is created in response to a brief, and is made to serve a purpose – advertise an event, sell a product, create a visual identity for a business. This isn’t to say that it can’t be more than that, much of it is so much more than just an effective solution to a problem, but generally design is made to communicate.
Art on the other hand can exist purely as itself – a painting, a sculpture, an installation. It can communicate anything, or a multitude of things. But it can also communicate nothing. A portrait of a man can exist solely as a portrait of a man.
However, despite that, I suppose in the end it is all about context. Toulouse Lautrec created posters to advertise musical performances, which today woud probably be called “graphic design”. But if you remove the text, put in a frame and in a gallery, you’re left with a painting of a dancing girl. Is that then considered art?
Gosh, what a long-winded lot.
Graphic design aims to be “fit-for-purpose”… and accepts that the purpose may be defined by others.
Art has evolved as something distinct from and autonomous from religion etc. through the idea that the artist defines his own work (rather than serving purposes defined by others), and that it is generally purposeless.
Uncontroversial. Not anecdotal. And surely not confusing.
The truth is that graphic design is indeed an aspect of art. It needs inspiration, creativity, efford and other qualities which we meet in everything we call art.
And if people support that “this cannot be art, because it is made for advertising reasons”, it is good to notice that so is many other aspects of art, from music to paintings…
Hockney uses an iPad – argument ended
Graphic Design cannot be considered Art (and vice versa) if it has first been labelled Graphic Design, as definitions exist to separate. However if you remove prior classifications it becomes obvious that they are completely merged. People often argue that G.D needs a client, purpose or must problem-solve or be mass produced but when you look into these criteria they unravel easily:
British artists were commissioned to create the London 2012 posters while many graphic designers create work (clearly design) pro bono for themselves and exhibit it in galleries. Francesco del Giocondo was Da Vinci’s client for the Mona Lisa.
Designers like Metahaven use Graphic Design as a tool for research and to ask questions, (in the vein of speculative designers/architects Dunne & Raby, Superstudio etc.) not solve problems.
Materials: Mass Art as posters, books, billboards and on their covers.
3D graphic design, limited editions, installations, use of traditional art materials. Warhol’s mass screenprints printed by others (Initially a commercial artist and designed record sleeves.)
Donald Judd who worked in both fields said ‘Design has to work, Art does not’ which is probably the closest definition, however if successful graphic design is that which communicates, then its completely subjective and context dependent.
Besides, artists like Lawrence Weiner and Barbara Kruger and designers like M/M Paris, Sagmeister have blurred this line for several decades, creating art that looks like GD/Advertising, typography or making GD that is arty, subjective or vague.
Most Graphic Design is created to make money (er… Art?)
The fact that noone can agree on a definition and most people who create the work that causes debate don’t care.
Much better to enjoy it regardless of what other people think it is. I call myself a graphic designer/artist depending on what commission I want.
Interesting! I missed this debate.
This is something I talk about fairly frequently, as well a similar debate surrounding illustration. Personally I don’t view ‘Graphic Design’ as art, this is not to say I don’t appreciate the craftsmanship and aesthetics within the discipline.
What exhibitions like this intend to provide is simply space for graphic design to be viewed out of intended context, but not out of intended purpose. We live in an extremely visual environment where more elegant graphic design solutions are often overcrowded. The problem I see is with the way we engage in graphic design in contemporary culture in a broader sense. Providing a place with space to view the quality in some solutions over others is important within this environment, celebrating beautiful solutions over tacky & loud solutions. This raises the question as to whether the solution to a particular graphic design problem is better than another if it communicates more clearly when loud and aggressive in it’s native environment. The way things work now isn’t necessarily about good design solutions coming through, using a better way of communicating, it’s about who can afford the most space in the public sphere. Due to this some more aesthetically pleasing, thoughful and considered solutions are easily overlooked. To my mind this is why graphic design has found its way into the gallery context – not because it’s art.
I don’t think we need to legitimise viewing graphic design in a gallery by calling it art. We should view it and appreciate it for what it is, a well crafted solution to a problem.
There is another argument as to whether the graphic designer could also be considered an artist. But this has been put more eloquently by others above.