Essay.

Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more 'value' than more popular forms of Visual Communication?

Joel Burden, 2012.

It’s a question that presents itself often whether you desire it or not. The age old divide that is handed down to you the moment you specialize like your dad’s old jumper. Sign your name on the dotted line and please take care when entering your stereotype. We cannot deny that these categories we are broken down into do prove useful, but also provide ammunition to split us apart. Superiority complexes and segregation have become rife and it becomes common practice to resent our fellow creative brothers and sisters like a family feud that shows no sign of ending. The question we therefore must ask ourselves is ‘are we so different after all?’

One thing artists and designers do share in common is that of the matter of money. Whether either party admits it or not, in the end the overriding hope for a piece of work is that it can, and will be, eventually sold. John Walker’s view is that people concerned with mass market products like those of certain disciplines, such as graphic designers, are creatively confined, due to being forced to work to ‘specifications laid down by employers or clients’ and goes on to describe the work of ‘artists’ as ‘work where the emphasis is on creativity and self-fulfillment’ (Walker 1983: 21, 17). But how free are artists to live a life of expression as Walker would like us to believe? If we were to look at contemporary artists today and see them as visionaries who have no concern for material possession and money, but only for that which is seen to be avant-garde, then we might be very much mistaken.

Barnard suggest that ‘Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst’s work is so risky and experimental that at the time of writing the former is considering legal action against some school children concerning the ownership and retail price of a piece of collaborative work, and the latter’s work is sold before the gallery doors open’. He goes on to say ‘at some point the ‘artist’s freedom and expressivity is inevitably compromised (…) in order for the ‘artist’ to be able to live’ (Barnard, 2005, p. 165).  Perhaps we live in a world where art for arts sake rarely graces the gallery’s which have become an auction house for investors more interesting in gaining an asset then a space for people to admire artistic merit. An article for The Telegraph by Colin Gleadell highlights this art as a ‘market’ ideal which is ever present. His chosen subject for discussion is again Damien Hirst who we are told ‘employed 160 staff making artworks for him at five studios in England’ and quotes Hirst himself saying ‘I can’t wait to get into that position of making really bad art and getting away with it’ (Gleadell, 2012). However his work is still considered ‘art’ and he is considered by himself and others, as an ‘artist’. Surely someone with these methods and a mind for money is better suited to the role of designer according to Walkers argument.

This you may say is the role of contemporary artists who live in a more rigidly capitalist world then those of the past masters. If anything they appear to have more freedom then those who paved the way with oil and canvas. Berger lays down several interesting discussions around this in his book ‘ways of seeing’. He ponders ‘what are these paintings? Before they are anything else, they are themselves objects which can be bought or owned’ and continues on to say ‘the art of any period tends to serve the ideological interests of the ruling class (…) the values it was nominally expressing were less meaningful to the painter than the finishing of the commission’ (Berger, 1972, p. 85, 86, 88). Art is as susceptible to working for a ‘commission’ as any designer working today, they have just swapped the target audience from corporate business to the elite and wealthy, which have no real regard for the subject matter. This in turn makes art corporate business, and everything they use against more openly ‘buyable’ creative disciplines to elevate themselves above others.   

The other side of Walkers argument attempts to describe design work as constrained by the expectations of the brief and this constraint of self-expression is what separates it from artistic pursuits. Newark when speaking about design constraints tells us they should be viewed as ‘porous’. He tells us of a clock which uses purely image, and comments ‘part two-dimensional, part three-dimensional, it has no pages, no typography, only a sequence of images. No designer experiences disciplinary boundaries when they work’ (Newark, 2007, p. 118). This multi-media skilled modern designer has emerged in contemporary society, which leaves the designer with large amounts of creative freedom even when working within a brief. Walkers attempt to separate the two so definitively seems unbalanced in it’s approach and should be known that sometimes the similarities outweigh the difference, this is surely hard to deny for either party involved.

All this directly affects the ‘value’ of fine art. Cynthia Freeland muses that ‘Prices of Van Gogh’s work at sales in 1987, in particular, stunned the world: his Irises sold for $53.9 million and Sunflowers for $39.9 million. Can we ever again see Van Gogh’s works as art rather than as huge dollar signs?’ (Freeland, 2001, p.107). Does the very nature of selling art for profit deduct from its cultural and creative merit? Should art ever be sold other than to keep the artists fed, watered and supplied for the next piece? It certainly seems that when pieces are sold for such a large sums of money that they are instantly coined as a ‘masterpiece’. Graphic Design in nature is accessible; if it weren’t how would it communicate its message? Does this also mean that because it is so available, and therefore affordable to the mass populous, it can never be considered masterful?

Freeland goes on to say ‘art can express or communicate not just feelings but ideas’ and ‘artists are often admired because they can express ideas in ways that are original, apt, and unique to a particular medium’ (Freeland, 2001, p. 160, 161). Gavin Ambrose and Paul Harris when describing Graphic Design, tell us ‘graphic design takes ideas, concepts, text and images and present them in a visually engaging form (…) it imposes an order and structure to the content in order to facilitate and ease the communication process’ (Ambrose and Harris, 2009, p. 10). It seems both Art and Graphics at least partially agree that they are both concerned with the communication of an idea. We also know that both disciplines at the top end are concerned with the originality of that idea. Yet it is inevitable that one good idea next to the term ‘Art’ will be valued higher than a good idea associated with ‘Graphic Design’, whether that value be cultural or commercial.

     

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1 - 'Musica Viva Poster' - Joseph Muller-Brockmann.

Figure 2 – ‘Untitled’, 1963 – Mark Rothko.

On the left we see ‘Graphic Design’, on the right we see ‘Fine Art’. One is considered to be high culture where the other is not. Even if that piece of low culture is publicizing something considered high. Abstract minimalism, such as the works of Rothko, have always been a mystery to some people. An article for the London Evening Standard by Ben Lewis says ‘although everyone I’ve ever met loves Rothko, no one has come up with a convincing reason why’ (Lewis, 2008). People describe Rothko’s work as emotional, overpowering and even spiritual. With such a minimal approach this must have been no easy feat. Brockmann himself when describing art in an interview with eye magazine tells us ‘the greatest works of art impress through their balance, their harmony, their proportions, all of which can be measured’ (Schwemer~Scheddin, Yvonne, 1995). Both images seem to possess these guidelines. Measured. Balanced. Similar, yet miles apart. Two ideas, in two different worlds. Each considered beautiful in their own way.

Value is defined as, the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance or preciousness of something. When speaking of these two disciplines it is obvious, culturally, that they are both, precious and valuable. Fool on us if we ever mistake this for the ‘dollar signs’ on the price tag.  

       

Bibliography:

-       Barnard, Malcolm. (2005) Graphic Design as Communication, Oxon, Routleedge.

- Berger, John. (1972) Ways of Seeing, London, Penguin.

- Gleadall, Colin. (2012) How Damien Hirst tried to Transform the Art Market, Telegraph, accessed 21 March 2012 < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/9157252/How-Damien-Hirst-tried-to-transform-the-art-market.html>

- Newark, Quentin. (2007) What is Graphic Design?, Switzerland, RotoVision.

- Walker, J. (1983) Art in the Age of Mass Media, London, Pluto Press.

- Freeland, Cynthia. (2001) But is it Art?, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

- Ambrose, Gavin and Harris, Paul. (2009) The Fundamentals of Graphic Design, Switzerland, AVA.

- Lewis, Ben. (2008) What’s it all about Rothko?, London Evening Standard, accessed 21 May 2012 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/whats-it-all-about-rothko-7410007.html

Schwemer~Scheddin, Yvonne. (1995) A Conversation with Josef-Muller Brockmann, Eye Magazine, accessed 21 May 2012 http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature.php?id=51&fid=163