Essay

Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more value than graphic design?

Both graphic designers and fine artists produce creative pieces of work, but for different reasons and targeted at different audiences. A graphic designer’s job is to communicate a message to a mass audience, whether it is to instruct, inform or inspire, whereas the artist’s job is thought to be about self-expression and hidden meaning. Fine art can be rather subjective, the artwork is generally aimed at an elite target market associated with high culture. Some people would argue that this gives art more value than graphic design, as only a select number of people can understand and appreciate the work. However, surely a good piece of design that communicates to the masses has more value, as it serves a purpose and has a function. Most graphic design work is understood by the majority of the population so certainly this should give the work higher value. Artists such as Jackson Pollock have been renowned for creating ‘art for art's sake’. His painting Lavender Mist (1950) is merely a canvas covered in splattered paint, which may be full of self-expression and experimentation but simply has no function. Does something with no function have value? Only a niche market of people understand his work as opposed to something like road signs. Road signs are understood all over the world and they communicate a clear message used in day to day life. It could be argued that they have definitely had a bigger impact on the world today in comparison to famous works fine art. But it is distinguishing the difference in the value between fine art and graphic design which is difficult, as it all fall down to the reaction of the audience.

Some people believe that because artists have the creative freedom to do whatever they want, their work is of a higher worth to that of a graphic designers who is paid to work to a set brief. In chapter 8 of Barnard’s, Graphic Design as Communication, there is a quote from Walker which says, ‘designers work to briefs and specifications laid down by clients where artists enjoy artistic freedom’ (Barnard, 2005, p.163). but is this the case or not? The book mentions a contract between Domenico Ghirlandaio and Father Bernado regarding the Adoration of the Magi in which it says, ‘in particular according to what I, Fra Bernado think best’, this is referring to conditions of the brief. This brief left the artist with little scope for self-expression or creative experimentation putting him into the same situation as a graphic designer but this doesn’t necessarily mean the work lacks value, as value lies in the eyes of the audience.

Fine art is very much about ownership and reputation whereas graphic design is fairly anonymous. People of the art community value graphic design as less important as they perceive designers as wage labourers, solving problems for money, but is this not the case with artists? Artists still need to make a living and put food on the table and the way they do this is by selling artwork. This is somewhat of a hypocritical way of valuing designers work. In Barnard’s Design as Communication, he says, ‘there is some point at which the inevitability 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 the end-user will want to buy.’ (Barnard, 2005, p.163) This basically demonstrates how graphic design and fine art have the same fundamentals, they both work to a wage, but the work they produce is aimed at completely different audiences. If the work produced, is only understood by a select group of people should it have more value? A fine artist's way of looking at it creates a kind of hierarchy system in which the lower class and upper class are segregated. In the past the upper class more educated people of the art community were thought to be of more importance, as they understood the subjective work that artists were creating whereas graphic design, aimed at the masses, was deemed less valuable as it was easy to understand and lacked self-expression and hidden meanings. In Jonathan Baldwin’s Visual Communication from Theory to Practice he says, ‘a design aimed at a specific audience will have more effect than when aimed at a wide one’ (J.Baldwin, L.Roberts, 2006) This is true however it all depends who it is aimed at. Fine artists will definitely agree with that statement but as a whole, something that everybody can understand should be seen as more valuable to the masses.

In Baldwin’s, Visual Communication from Theory to Practice, he talks about the value of art and design in mass culture and how the artist’s reputation adds value to the work. He says, ‘the focus of consumption is on the status of the designer or director. In addition the number of people who can afford to buy the brand is limited by the cost, hence perpetuation the sign of exclusivity. The true meaning of an artefact only becomes apparent when it is consumed.’ (J.Baldwin, L.Roberts, 2006) This is an alternative way of observing the value of art and design work, almost distinguishing its value solely based on the amount of money the work can produce which is a rather consumerist approach. Fine artists claim that they do not create their work to sell a product or promote a service. They create it solely as a means of self-expression so that it can be viewed and appreciated by others. In Barnard’s Design as Communication, he states that ‘art is about self-expression. It is a manifestation of an internalised world-view. Design...has been created with an end user in mind...it is ultimately designed for the market’ (Barnard, 2005, p.163) Fine art in respectively, follows these same principles, artists produce work with the intention to sell and make a living.

For instance, the work of Damien Hirst should not be seen to have higher value than an integral pieces of design that communicate to the masses every day such as road signs. Hirst’s work may sell for millions of pounds but half of the time he doesn’t even create the work himself, he commissions others to carry out the hard work for him. An article from the Daily Mail online commented, ‘when asked how he could justify putting his name to works made by others, Hirst said the questions were “totally missing the point... It amazes me that I still get asked these questions” he said. You have to look at it as if the artist is an architect, and we don’t have a problem that great architects don’t actually build the houses.’ (Watson, 2012) This takes away its cultural value putting the emphasis on the paycheck, people merely value his work based on his reputation when in fact, he doesn’t do half of the work he gets credit for. Whereas road signs have definitely been more iconic and influential to a larger number of people, which should surely give the work higher value as they suit a purpose and have value worldwide value. In John Berger’s book Ways of Seeing, he says, ‘art is a sign of affluence; it belongs to the good life; it is part of the furnishing which the world gives to the rich and beautiful.’ (Berger, 1972, p.135) This is a rather condescending and elitist attitude to way we perceiving fine art, as it cannot be enjoyed by everyone. It has always been associated with an elite audience of art fanatics that see themselves immersed within a higher culture. They believe that graphic design is too easily understood giving it less value to that of a complicated painting.

Both graphic design and fine art have value but which is deemed more valuable all depends on the audience. Fine art will definitely be perceived as more valuable within the art community. However, graphic design definitely has more value across the general public. It affects everyone in day-to-day life whether you realise it or not, something that is recognised and understood by the masses has more value to our society as a whole, rather than an obscure and ambiguous piece of art, containing hidden meanings and messages that only a handful of people can understand. Nowadays reputation is too important in the fine art world, it is almost as if a respected artist could pretty much throw something together in five minutes without thinking about it and fellow artists will start adding abstract meanings to it that were never intended. This is simply due to reputation of the artist himself and the associations of class and culture that come with fine art . This is not valuable; it is simply people looking into things too much. Fine art is definitely full of high culture and the work does carry value but only for a select few people in the world but as a nation, the ability to learn, inform and communicate in a simple design language is much more valuable to the masses. Fine art is important, but is more of a luxury that only a select group of people enjoy, whereas graphic design has global recognition.