Why graphic design is not art

02-03-'11 | Creativity etc. | 2 Comments   

I know this is slightly off topic on our company blog, but after more than 2 years in advertising and working with graphic designers and art directors on a daily basis, and learning more about it through the internet, I have just heard too many people – not my colleagues, for the record – claim that graphic design is art. And I beg to disagree.

As seen from the copy corner

Being a mere humble servant of the word as a copywriter, I have the greatest respect for the esthetic skills, experience and sensitivity that comes with designing ads, logos, flyers, posters, reports, websites and basically any visual means of professional communication in the world of advertising.

So it is with the greatest respect for both graphic designers and artists that I state here that graphic design is not art. No, really. They might have a lot in common, but they are not, and I repeat, not one and the same. Not even variations of one another.

Without pretending to be complete, here are 4 short reasons why. Just to be clear: I am talking about graphic design as applied in e.g. advertising and communication.

1. Art has no other purpose than to be art

Plenty of room to argue here, I know, but compared to graphic design art definitely has no clear and predefined purpose. In my humble opinion, art has plenty of different reasons to be made, and there is a wide range of different kinds of art. But its primary purpose is just to be made and to be art.

And maybe even it is us, experiencing art, who ultimately define its purpose. Art that needs a clarification by its maker has a tendency to be bad, or at least to be poorly made. See also my reason 3.

2. Art knows no rules

This is obvious, and follows from reason 1. For every rule you can come up with to illustrate how something works or should work in art, there is another work of art that does the complete opposite – and still both creations can be art.

Due to its communicational purposes, there are clear rules for how an advertisement can reach maximum impact through its graphic design, or how an annual report should be built up visually.

That is not the case in art. You think there are rules for how a novel should be made? There are plenty of unreadable books out there that are art. Try something by Robert Musil, and you’ll see what I mean. Or just think “Ulysses”.

3. Graphic design is a means

See also reason 1. In graphic design the communication objectives lie with the target group: graphic design is made to have a communicational impact. Most of the time, it contains a clear ‘cta’ and tells the target group what to do: it is a means to get a clear message or purpose across.

In art the communicational objective lies primarily with the artist. In some cases, the only reason it is made is because the artist felt the necessity to create it, and he or she is not concerned with how it will be received, or what it should do.

Imagine your AD designing a recruitment ad like that. Good luck with presenting it to your customer.

4. Exaggeration and inspiration they do have in common

And that is why people are tempted to compare art to graphic design. They both use a lot of the same tricks. Esthetic principles, primarily. Exaggeration, for example, as a way to create emotional impact and make identification easier.

And inspiration: I tend to agree that great ideas to create something for a work of art and for graphic design come from that same awesome endless source called human imagination and inspiration.

Conclusion

Salman Rushdie may have been a copwyriter, but his novels are art, his copywriting work was not. Though art and graphic design use a lot of the same esthetic tricks and share the same origin, there are fundamentally different.

Feel free to disagree in the comments below. Or check out some of our work on our website.

2 Comments

Author : Conard
I would have to disagree with you. As a graphic designer I would have to say that graphic design is indeed an art. Exactly what is art to you? Isn’t everything art? Do you have to have artistic talent to be an artist? In my opinion, art is an expression of how someone feels portrayed on a canvas, notebook paper, post-it, poster, Photoshop document, etc. Sculptures as well; architecture is also art, music, the list goes on. Everything is art, including graphic design and I have never seen that more clearly until I became a graphic designer myself.

Author : Walters
Having been researching for a paper on aesthetic theory in relation to graphic design I stumbled upon this entry. I would like to offer some rebuttals to some the points made here, not to nay-say these points but to question the validity of them in light of new information.

1.Art has no purpose other than to be art. I would think many people would argue a great many things as to what arts purpose is. Many common things would be ‘the exist to be an expression of emotion’ or ‘well the mona lisa was supposedly commissioned by a man for a portrait of his wife so that would mean that art exists for the husbands enjoyment’ I would argue that art is made for the purpose of the aesthetic experience. (in whichever form that may be)

2. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a set list of rules for graphic design, and while one might say that the rules are given to them by the person commissioning the design, then you could argue that the Sistine Chapel painted by Michelangelo (where he was commissioned to paint certain figures in certain ways) was a set of rules so all the paintings in there are not art due to the rules associated with their creation.

3. All art is a means, if any artist makes a work of art it is because he feels like it is a means to convey whatever he is trying to convey. Even if it’s not targeted at anyone other than himself.

I hope these thoughts of mine aren’t offensive in any way, and that these may offer different and thought provoking ideas for you and any others that might read this.