Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned
more 'value' than more popular forms of Visual Communication?
The word ‘value’ is described as something
which explains how much, an object, a person, or anything is worth, whether is
be in a material way such as money, or whether its describing the importance of
something. Graphic design is an important form of visual communication,
therefore this essay will be looking at the relationship between fine art and
graphic design, it will suggest reasons why fine art is seen to have a higher
value than graphic design, and how it is culturally, more significant. Looking at
the way in which people see fine art in comparison to the way they look at
graphic design and what they take from that. Is graphic design a form of art? This
is a popular question, even though they are both seen as a means of
communication, does that make them the same thing? Throughout this essay, these
questions will be answered and investigating the similarities and differences
between art and design.
Graphic design is seen to have less value
than Fine Art. When looking at the monetary worth of a piece of fine art in
comparison to a piece of graphic design, this statement is true as art is seen
as one of a kind, not reproducible, therefore it will go on sale for a lot of
money, whereas graphic design is mass produced and is disposable, therefore has
very little monetary worth. Although when looking at the importance of a piece
of art or design, it could be argued that graphic design has more importance as
it has a function, and is serving a purpose. Malcolm Barnard supports this idea
as he says, ‘The argument is that graphic design is there to perform various
jobs or functions, but art has no function.’ (Barnard, 2005: 172) With this
Malcolm Barnard shows that there is an argument that Graphic design should have
more value, as art has little importance as it has no function therefore
doesn’t achieve anything. Which brings you back to question, why should fine
art have such a high value, when graphic design has no value at all?
In Malcolm Barnard’s book, Graphic Design as
Communication, he identifies the areas in which art and design are different,
why design is not an art, and what people are confusing between the two. He
states that art and design is not the same thing, although not for the reasons
people would usually think. The idea that graphic design differs from art
because art is being creative and has no limits, whereas graphic design is
problem solving, its serving a purpose. Malcolm Barnard shows that this is just
a theory, which he believes is wrong, as he states, ‘problem solving is itself
an example of creative activity. If this is the case, then it can be claimed
that graphic design is not different from art in that they are both creative.’ (Barnard,
2005:170). This quote argues that it’s not as simple as that they are both
creative, therefore are the same thing. ‘A work of art stems from a view or
opinion or feeling that the artist holds within him or herself. They create the
art to share that feeling with others, to allow the viewers to relate to it,
learn from it or be inspired by it… By contrast, when a designer sets out to
create a new piece, they almost always have a fixed starting point, whether a
message, an image, an idea or an action. The
designer’s job isn’t to invent something new, but to communicate something that
already exists, for a purpose.’ (Anon, 2009). This quote is by Webdesingerdepot, and it is
saying that is not just black an white, which means the idea that, art and
design are the same because they are both creative, can be argued that they are
creative in different ways. As graphic design is very limited, this is because they
have a starting point and a purpose, and something that they have been briefed
to communicate. Therefore the designer is able to be creative in respects to
these compulsory points to start and finish, which some people suggest that
having so many restrictions, disables the creativity and forces structure and a
process to designing. Artists on the other hand, have as much freedom as they
want, they do not work from briefs, they work from the emotions that they are
having at the time, and show them through a piece of art. This would mean that
art and design may have similar aspects to them, but this doesn’t mean that
they are the same thing, as they differ from each other in many ways.
Continuing to argue the point that art and design are similar in the way that
they are both creative, Malcolm Barnard shows that art also has creative
limits, and is also meeting clients needs like graphic designers do. ‘some
point at which the “artist’s” freedom and expressivity is inevitable
compromised by economics: what is produced has, eventually, to be marketable in
order for the “artist” to be able to live. Even in the limit cases, there is something
like a client and the “artist” is constrained to produce something that
‘end-user’ will want to buy’ (Barnard, 2005:165). Limiting artist’s freedom
shows that art and design both follow the same restraints when it comes to
working for clients, proving that art and design don’t differ from each of in
this respect, therefore should have the same value.
Another way to show the differences between
art and design is by looking at the audience who purchase or are effected by
the pieces of work, and looking at the clientele that the work attracts. A
piece of fine art is usually bought by someone of the elite, someone who has a
lot of disposable income, or someone who wants to look like they have a lot of
disposable income. Buying a piece of art can be for many reasons like, being
effected by the way you interpret a piece of art, or wanting to shows people
how much money you have, and how cultural you are, some people even buy a piece
of art as an investment. Art is not communicating a message as much as it is
communicating a feeling or emotion, the audience may not see the same emotion
that the artist has, but they will have their own feelings about the work, this
is what is unique about fine art, it effects people in different ways depending
on how they are feeling. Design on the other hand isn’t necessarily bought, it
can be bought but it is most commonly known for communicating a message, could
be about a product, place or function, it could try and make you purchase
something, or do something. Graphic design is communicating a certain message,
and it is not for the audience to interpret like fine art is. Therefore what
art and design are trying to make you do or make you see are completely
different things, this quote supports this. ‘art and
design … are interpreted by their respective audiences …
Art connects with people in different ways,
because it’s interpreted differently. Design is the very
opposite. Many will say that if a design can be “interpreted” at all, it has
failed in its purpose. The fundamental purpose of
design is to communicate a message and motivate the viewer to do something.’
(Anon, 2009). Malcolm Barnard agrees, ‘graphic design
is a means of communication.’ (Barnard, 2005:18)
and that it cannot be interpreted. Although he does believe that design is just
as culturally significant as art if not sometimes it’s more. ‘Many examples of graphic design, they say, are “preserved and
studied”, just as art is preserved and studied, and it therefore be considered
as being culturally significant as art… some graphic design products can be more
artistic than art in some respects.’ (Barnard, (2005:166). Barnard is arguing
that although art is known as having more cultural significance than graphic
design, he doesn’t believe that it should. ‘posters, packaging and logos on
this account can be more expressive of an age or a culture than oil paintings
and sculptures.’ (Barnard, 2005:166). Having a piece of graphic design in your
house should have just as much value as having a piece of fine art in your
house, whether this is in terms of monetary value or personal value.
‘Traditionally, the main differences
between a graphic designer and an artist is that a graphic designer requires a
brief and needs to be given content to work with. Artists, on the other hand,
write their own briefs and create their own content.’ (Shaughnessy, 2009:21)
This is seen as one of the main reasons why art and design are so far about
when it comes to what they do and how they work, when actually Malcolm Barnard
argues that this is another mistake, and that art and design are different but
not for this reason. ‘not all those whom one might want to call artists are
experimental risk-taking loners who revel in their creative freedom; some are
and have been bound by strict contractual obligations to produce exactly what
they are told to produce.’ (Barnard, 2005:165) examples of this are Damien
Hirst, Picasso, Tracey Emin. These ‘artists’ all worked to briefs at one point,
or did their work, not for the idea of showing emotion and trying to inspire
and effect people’s lives, but purely just trying to make money, and doing what
people have asked them to do to make some money. For example Picasso was
commissioned to provide illustrations for the town Nice and De Beers
Consolidated Mines Ltd, this was commissioned by advertising agencies, and he
was told what he needed to illustrate, therefore following a brief to make
money. This can be inferred that not all ‘artists’ are free to express whatever
they want to, a lot of them have to work for briefs to earn some money so they
can live and pay for their materials and studio space. Fine art is seen to have more value because
of its lack of rules and regulations, they are not ‘working for the man’ they
are working to express, where as graphic designers have sold out and they are
doing designs to earn a living as well as communicating a message. Therefore as
Malcolm Barnard shows that this is false and artists need to earn a living to
survive too, they should have the same value as both art and design influence
peoples lives in different ways, they both do it for the same reasons. Craig Elimeliah suggests ‘most design projects have a detailed set of instructions
and most design is based on current trends and influences. An artist, on the other hand, could never be given any specific
instructions in creating a new chaotic and unique masterpiece because his
emotions and soul is dictating the movement of his hands and the impulses for
the usage of the medium. No art director is going to yell at an artist for producing
something completely unique because that is what makes an artist an artist and
not a designer.’ (Elimeliah,
2006)
Craig Elimeliah argues the idea that maybe if these ‘artists’ are following a
brief and being told what to do they are not an artist at all, that they are a
designer.
Looking at the difference between artist
and designers in a different way is by looking at the monetary value and how a
piece of fine art only increasing in value after the artist has died, this is
because it is irreplaceable, and unique. Whereas if a designer had died, it
would be a loss but their work would not change in monetary value, unless their
work was used in exhibitions, this is because the work can be reproduced as it
can be reprinted and replaced. Malcolm Barnard states that the difference
between art and design is ‘Aura’ he says, ‘some works of art possess “aura” and
others, mechanically reproduced works (such as graphic design), do not. Aura is
the sense of uniqueness and authenticity that is felt before a work of art.
Uniqueness, the sense that there is a single work of art’ (Barnard, 2005:175). A
good example of this is Van Gogh’s work. Van Gogh is considered as one of the
most well known artists in the world, he produced paintings and drawings, each were
singularly produced and seen as unique. Van Gogh struggled for years with
money, as he only sold one of his paintings when he was alive, the work he
produced didn’t make any money, and at the time no one understood his work or
what he was doing. He believed that he was outside of society, and didn’t care
about money because he was better than that, and after during his mental health
issues he killed himself, some people say it was because no one understood him
and his work.
Van Gogh had a very good relationship with
his brother, they wrote letters to each other all the time, a lot of the
letters were Van Gogh asking for money; as he lived off his brothers money as
his brother was quite wealthy and well off as he was an art dealer, therefore
this shows that he needed money. Van Gogh was commissioned to do work by his
uncle, although his uncle didn’t appreciate the work he did, therefore gave him
a more specific brief to follow, and he still didn’t use his work. Although his
uncle didn’t use his work, Van Gogh still worked to a brief in order to earn
some money, he also relied on his brother to provide him with money whilst he
was paintings. This shows that Malcolm Barnard’s theory that; some artists
follow briefs to be able to live, and survive, and it doesn’t mean that they
are not an artist, although it could be argued that they shouldn’t have a
higher value than graphic design either. Van Gogh’s work had an aura about it,
it is unique and this is the reason why it has such a high monetary value to
it. His work increased in how much the paintings were worth after he died as he
couldn’t sell a lot of his work when he was alive, but 20 years after he had
died, the self portrait (the last self portrait he had ever painted) that he
gave to his mother for her birthday (Fig 1), sold in New York for $71.5
million, at the time this was the third most expensive paintings ever sold.
Although he produced about 37 self-portraits, they were all one of a kind, they
were not reproducible, and this is why they have this aura about them.
Another example of a fine artist, which
displays and questions Barnard’s theories, is Damien Hirst. Damien Hirst peaked
in 2008, he is also seen as quite a well-known contemporary artist and is seen
as a risk taker, who experiments with the abnormal. Damien Hirst’s spot
paintings are one of his most widely recognizable works that’s he has produced.
He started with two and produced them himself, he then started hiring assistants
to do it for him, this meant that he could produce more, which brought him to a
total of 300 spot paintings (Fig 2) which were in exhibitions all over the
world. It could be argued that as he didn’t physically do the paintings, as he
says he can’t draw or paint, and that he showed his assistants how to produce
them, almost mechanically, this is seen as something that could be reproduced
although he calls himself an artist, by doing this he could be working as a
designer. As Barnard suggests that the difference between an artist and a
designer is that art possesses aura, whereas design doesn’t, as it can be
mass-produced.
Hirst’s work is decreasing in value, his
prices are down by 30% and some of his work isn’t even being sold, is this
because he is no longer seen as an artist anymore, therefor his work has less
value? He doesn’t always physically produce his work, he sometimes just thinks
of the ideas for them, which has also been argued to be plagiarism. People have
suggested that he has stolen other artist’s work and ideas, for example he had
said that he had seen the spin paintings (Fig 3) on blue peter before he had
done them, also his friend John LeKay had exhibited animal carcasses long
before Damien Hirst had produced and of his animal carcasses (Fig 4), then when
people question him about it his response was “F**k
’em all!” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239504/As-prices-Damien-Hirsts-works-plummet-pity-credulous-saps-spent-fortunes-tosh.html
By Daily
Mail Reporter PUBLISHED:| UPDATED:) The work, which Damien
Hirst produces, is seen as art as it doesn’t have a specific function or
purpose, his work is produced to cause reactions, it is very in your face and
it wants to spark emotions from his respective audience. This shows that his
work can’t be graphic design, as he is not communicating a message, he is
trying to spark and emotion.
Images
Fig 1 - Anon. (n.d.), (2002-2013) ‘Van Gogh
Gallery’, [Internet], Available from: <http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/Painting/2117/Self-Portrait.html>
[Accessed 28 January 2013].
Fig 2
– Anon. (n.d.), (2012), ‘Daptomycin 2010’, [Internet], Available from: <
http://www.damienhirst.com/daptomycin> [Accessed 28 January 2013]
Fig 3
- Webb, P. (2010) ‘Poul Webb Art Blog’, [Internet], Available from:
<http://poulwebb.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/damien-hirst-spin-paintings.html>
[Accessed
28 January 2013].
Fig 4 – Anon. (n.d.), (2012) ‘The Physical Impossibility of
Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991’, [Internet],
Available from: <http://www.damienhirst.com/the-physical-impossibility-of>
[Accessed 28 January]
Bibliography
Ambrose, G & Harris, P. (2009), ‘The
Fundamentals of Graphic Design’, Switzerland, AVA Publishing SA.
Anon. (n.d.). (2009), ‘The Difference Between Art and Design’, [Internet],
Available from: <http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/09/the-difference-between-art-and-design/>
[Accessed 28 January 2013].
Anon. (n.d), (2012), ‘At last, the real shark is exposed: As prices for Damien Hirst’s works plummet, pity the credulous saps who spent fortunes on his tosh’, [Internet], Available from: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239504/As-prices-Damien-Hirsts-works-plummet-pity-credulous-saps-spent-fortunes-tosh.html > [Accessed 28 January 2013].
Barnard, M. (2005), ‘Graphic Design as
Communication’, Oxon, pages 172, 170, 165, 18, 166, 165, 175, 163 & 164,
Routledge.
Berger, J. (1972), ‘Ways of Seeing’,
London, British Broadcasting Corporation.
Elimeliah, C. (2006), ‘Art Vs. Design’,
[Internet], New York, Available from: < http://www.aiga.org/art-vs-design/> [Accessed 28
January 2013].
Heller, S. (2010), ‘Pop’, New York,
Allworth Press.
Lupton, E. & Miller, A. (1999), ‘Design Writing Research’, London, Phaidon Press Limited.
Newark, Q. (2007), ‘What is Graphic
Design’, Switzerland, RotaVision SA.
Shaughnessy, A. (2009), ‘Graphic Design; A
User’s Manual.’, London, page 21, Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment