Could
it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more 'value' than
more popular forms of visual communication?
The
differences between fine art and graphic design are subject to
opinion. These opinions are controversial and will continue to cause
disagreements for the foreseeable future. 'The mass production or
reproduction of graphic design is necessary in order to distinguish
it from art.' (Barnard, 2005, P11). This therefore implies that fine
art is unique and has a greater importance than design which is
purposely produced for the masses and is therefore seen as being less
significant. For this to be said however, it is imperative that one
is aware of the definition of the word value, as it can be
interpreted in so many ways. It could be referred to as monetary,
cultural, philosophical or even impact value. All of which are so
vastly different and make it even more challenging to analyse both
sides of this argument. This essay will explicitly focus on the
notion of value of fine art in comparison to graphic design.
Malcolm
Barnard is a key writer on this topic and discusses cultural
significance and how it can define and separate fine art from graphic
design. He says that fine art is seen as being more culturally
significant and uses the quote 'where art is perceived to be of
lasting value, graphic design is said to be 'ephemeral' (Cronan in
Barnard, 2005, P165). Barnard discusses the evidence to support and
argue against the claim that graphic design only lasts for a very
short time. 'The first is made by Heller and Pomeroy (1977) in their
Design Literacy. They argue that graphic production is not as
'ephemeral as the paper it is printed on' (Heller and Pomeroy in
Barnard, 2005, P166). They are saying that some graphics is art
because it can and does 'endure' and it can possess a sense of
permanence.' (Heller and Pomeroy in Barnard, 2005, P166). They then
argue that 'some graphic design products can be more artistic than
art in some respects. In particular, graphic production can be more
artistic than art because it 'speak[s] more about particular
epochs... than fine art' (Heller and Pomeroy in Barnard, 2005, P166).
This suggests that graphic design ought to be assigned more value as
it portrays messages which communicate a remarkable event in history.
Barnard
discusses creativity and problem-solving and says that 'graphic
design and art are different from each other because graphic design
can be characterised as 'problem-solving', while art is 'creative'.'
(Barnard, 2005, P169). This could make it more challenging to say
whether or not fine art should be viewed as being more valuable than
graphic design as they both have completely different purposes,
making it hard to fairly compare the two. However, there is an
argument which suggests otherwise and expresses the view that
'problem-solving is itself a creative activity, that finding a
solution to a communication problem is itself an example of creative
activity.' (Barnard, 2005, P170). This therefore puts both fine art
and graphic design under the same 'creative' category, making it
harder to distinguish which is more valuable.
Barnard
focuses on Benjamin's concept of aura. Aura is formed by the area
surrounding a piece of fine art or graphic design. For example, if a
painting was found in a gallery, surrounded by numerous other
paintings with high value then it would automatically have a special
aura about it. Benjamin portrays the view that the shrivelling of
aura through technology is a good thing because aura makes people
blindly accept what is tasteful and important.
It
was said that 'unlike the artist, the designer plans for multiple
production.' It is this idea of reproducibility that is at the heart
of Benjamin's notion of the loss of 'aura'. (Hollis in Barnard, 2005,
P175). This is following the idea that graphic design is designed to
be reproduced whereas fine art is not. Benjamin is trying to
emphasise the view that 'some works of art possess 'aura' and that
others, mechanically reproduced works (such as graphic designs), do
not.' (Benjamin in Barnard, 2005, P175). He claims that the
'reproduction of text and image, whether mechanical (woodcut, for
example) or process (such as lithography and photography), destroys
aura in two ways.' (Benjamin in Barnard, 2005, P175). He says that
the 'reproduction of an image precludes the possibility of a unique,
one-off or original image.' He then explains his second reason by
saying 'prints and digital images may exist anywhere, at any time,
without losing anything (unlike an oil painting, which can be in only
one place at any one time), and are thus available to any and all
'situations' (Benjamin in Barnard, 2005, P176). He is suggesting that
if a piece of work retains aura then it is worthy of more value, as
it 'is generated by the artwork's imbeddedness in the 'fabric of
tradition' (Benjamin in Barnard, 2005, P176). Therefore suggesting
that art is traditional and ought to be assigned more value as it is
classed as being more traditional.
To
quote John Berger, 'The reciprocal nature of a vision is more
fundamental than that of spoken dialogue' (Berger,1972, P9). This
enforces the importance to be able to appreciate and comprehend the
message that the artist is trying to convey without it altering too
much. These messages can differ greatly within art and design as
Berger wrote 'the way people look at it is affected by a whole series
of learnt assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning: Beauty,
Truth, Genius, Civilisation, Form, Status, Taste, etc.' (Berger,
1972, P11). This makes fine art harder to understand as it is
impossible for each individual to envisage the same as the painter
once did, and feel the same emotions that were felt whilst it was
being completed. This could potentially imply that it shouldn't be
assigned more value because the meaning isn't clear enough.
On
the other hand, the mystery that lies behind the work could be
perceived as unique and worthy of value. Berger related to this as
'mystifying the past' (Berger, 1972, P16). He also argues that 'When
the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its
image.' (Berger, 1972, P19) which once again reinforces the view that
reproduction of art and design deducts value and if something is
multiplied then it is more likely that the meaning will become lost,
in the same way that Barnard talks about aura being lost through
reproduction. However, he then goes on to argue the possibility that
'all reproductions more or less distort, and that therefore the
original painting is still in a sense unique.' (Berger, 1972, P20).
This is arguably a valid comment but would also suggest that graphic
design has very little value when it is mass produced in some
situations, for example advertising via leaflets and flyers.
Berger
proceeds to look at replicated paintings in more depth. He has a
strong viewpoint that whenever a piece of art is replicated, the
meaning of it changes each time. He says 'Consequently a
reproduction, as well as making its own references to the image of
its original, becomes itself the reference point for other images.
The meaning of an image is changed according to what one sees
immediately beside it or what comes immediately after it. Such
authority as it retains, is distributed over the whole context in
which it appears.' (Berger, 1972, P29). This could support the
argument that fine art is therefore in the
same category as graphic design when taking replication into account.
A lot of graphic design
is mass produced to communicate and distribute a message. Similarly
fine art follows the same pattern and along the way the quality and
message behind the piece of art is lost along with value.
It
could be argued that fine art is more expressive and individual in
comparison to graphic design. Some may say that because of this it
should be valued highly. John Carey has a very philosophical and
unique argument which suggests otherwise. He believes that 'there are
no absolute values in the arts' (Carey, 2005, P249). This would
suggest that all work has value which can't be judged upon personal
reason. Every judgement is subjective to each individual and
therefore it is impossible to categorise fine art and graphic design
in terms of 'universal value' (Carey, 2005, P249).
Carey
makes comparisons between science and art by conveying the idea that
science can be proven and verified whereas art is something which has
no means for verification. He quotes ''scientific truth' means
something definite whereas 'artistic truth' is a nebulous concept. It
is true to say, for example, that the earth goes round the sun,
whereas the claim that Pollock is a better painter than Alma-Tadema,
or vice versa, is not a verifiable proposition but an opinion, and
this would be so even if it were an opinion that very many people, or
possibly all living people, shared.' (Carey, 2005, P253). He is
therefore saying that even if the majority overruled the minority
when expressing an opinion, it would still lack common truth and
would therefore lack consistent common value. Whether we are
discussing art or more popular forms of visual communication such as
graphic design, we are still in a situation whereby nothing can be
proven and therefore they should both be assigned the same amount of
value because they are both subjective to opinion.
As
science can be reinforced with verification and reason, but not
subject to opinion, it could be argued that it is restricted. This
would therefore suggest fine art or graphic design, holds more value
as it is open to interpretation, allowing everyone to have their view
without it being instantly discarded. This is another argument of
Carey's. He says 'Since art must accommodate all personal tastes and
choices (at least, according to the definition of work of art that I
have offered), it is illimitable as humanity, and as extensive as the
imagination. The aim of science, by contrast, is to find solutions
that are unaffected by taste or choice, and which consequently
eliminate the human element altogether.' (Carey, 2005, P254). We are
therefore part of a world which is full of both scientific proof and
personal opinions, and what we decide to value most can often depend
on whether we follow scientific beliefs or whether we open our minds
and allow ourselves to be open to different interpretations of art
and graphic design, which in turn can be supported by religious views
and the idea that we have all been given free will. It could be
argued that this free will has been given to us to form an opinion
and decide which form of visual communication is most valuable.
Steven
Heller is another important writer where fine art and graphic design
are concerned. He looks at the price of fine art and design and
concentrates on the notion that it is extremely subjective to time
and as a result it could be argued that value is determined by how
much art or design is worth. He states that 'monetizing fine art is a
fairly logical process. Artists who have reputations command more
money than those who do not. Gallery shows usually create the
baselines for value, while museum exhibitions exponentially
raise that line.' (Heller, 2010, P212). He also finds a similarity
between art and design and says 'posters are among the few graphic
design forms that follow this
essential
model. Since a poster is a displayable objected, often marketed to a
broader audience than just designers or design scholars, it commands
a higher price.' He is therefore conveying the idea that regardless
of whether we are considering art or design, the same principle
applies where monetary value is concerned. If fine art or graphic
design needs to reach the masses, then it instantly falls into the
same category of being worth more money and as a result it is more
valuable overall.
Damien
Hirst is a prime example of a fine artist who is widely recognised
for his unusual, unique work. Among his work he created a piece of
art named 'Pardaxin, 2004' (see fig.1) 'The small coloured spots, all
with the same area, that fill the canvas, distributed at regular
intervals over their surface, reproduce and rearrange the synoptic
abstraction and the sense of tranquility of pharmaceutical design.'
(D'Argenzio, 2004, P41). This explains the reason for the existence
of this piece of art, which is then reinforced by saying that the
'paintings summarize and coagulate the symbology of colours'
(D'Argenzio, 2004, P41). They also 'verify the the unstable territory
positioned between the artist's intention and the interpretation of
the viewer.' (D'Argenzio, 2004, P41). This implies that the painting
was purposefully designed for the viewer to form their own opinion
regarding what the painting is portraying. One could argue that the
value of fine art is held in the meaning. This being said it could be
argued that because it is subject to opinion, it is therefore less
valuable.
During
an interview Hirst was asked 'Did you paint the first ones yourself?'
(D'Argenzio, 2004, P104). He responded by simply admitting to only
painting five himself. He then went on to say 'I hated it. As soon as
I sold one I used the money to pay people to make them.' (D'Argenzio,
2004, P105). This is a major flaw in Hirst's work and it most
certainly deducts value from his art. This
supports Barnard's claim about aura, suggesting that if a piece of
design is replicated, it loses value instantly as it has been
designed to be reproduced and not recognised as an individual piece.
If this is a flaw where art is concerned however, surely the
same criticism could be applied to graphic design, as when one design
is finished and ready to be replicated, it is then left in the hands
of the printers and the designer doesn't need to be involved.
Ironically, Hirst said during the same interview 'in my head I had
this idea of this artist who just endlessly made these paintings that
were more like a logo. I did that. I just made that grid where I said
all the gaps have to be the same as the spot and in no painting two
colours are the same.' (D'Argenzio, 2004, P99). This suggests that
art and design aren't always as different as we might imagine or
presume as there are close links demonstrated here when he makes a
comparison to logos. On the other hand, Hirst admits that his spot
painting series should 'be put to bed' (D'Argenzio, 2004, P98).
Therefore stating that there has to be an end to a series at some
point as it can get too repetitive. Graphic design on the other hand
almost certainly relies on replicability to be effective and
successful. It is challenging therefore to settle on an objective
opinion where value is concerned as there are so many factors which
can affect the answer.
Antony
Gormley's Domain Field project (see fig.2) was a time consuming
project involving a large population of people. 'The making of Domain
Field, as Gormley has
often said, is just as much a part of the work as the finished
product. Participants had the opportunity to become
part of a collective project, involving the delicate process of being
cast and then engaging with the resultant figures.' (Gormley et al,
2003, P58). In comparison to Hirst, Gormley is much more concerned
about perfecting the process before reaching the final product.
Having said this, he had a team of welders working with him on the
project to help complete the moulds. 'The instructions to the welders
were to use seven lengths of stainless steel to form a random matrix
of T pieces where one end of the T was touching
the
skin or boundary of the body space.' (Gormley et al, 2003, P143).
Therefore guilty of the same as Hirst as they do not produce their
work completely individually, which in turn has an impact upon the
value of their work.
Although
both Gormley and Hirst are fine artists they differ greatly,
demonstrating how difficult it is to categorise fine artists in one
way and graphic designers in another. Mainly because there are a lot
of similarities between the two. In the same way as graphic design,
the figures were composed in a certain way to illustrate 'a matrix of
lines joined at mostly irregular angles, creating a play of light and
line that privileges energy and process over boundary and surface.'
(Gormley et al, 2003, P59).
Gormley's
philosophical views on life have a huge impact on his work. He says
he 'keeps going back to this idea that my appearance doesn't belong
to me, it belongs to others; that the constitution of self is the
constitution of our relationships with others, and that's what makes
life worth living.' (Gormley et al, 2003, P127). As a result,
similarly to Hirst, the message he is trying to portray isn't exactly
clear, 'because suddenly Allotment
or Domain Field
becomes an illustration of a thesis about identity and society, and
it isn't that. It's an experiment to try to make the physical
equivalent, for the state of togetherness and apartness in which we
live.' (Gormley et al, 2003, P127). Here he is trying to explain how
he believes that 'we don't want to acknowledge the death that we
carry inside us.' As a consequence, we fail to understand the
relationship between the body and soul.
When
considering the strengths and weaknesses of both graphic design and
fine art it is evident that they both have their flaws where value is
concerned. We can easily argue that graphic design is more valuable
due to a variety of reasons, such as it reaching a wider audience, it
is more cost effective and therefore not as extortionately priced as
fine art can be. On the other hand we can say that fine art is more
valuable as it can be more sought after with it being so unique. A
lot of the time, both are subject to the same flaws. Carey's
comparison between science and art makes us consider verification, as
he believes that art has no means for verification, unlike science,
and is therefore less valuable. Whilst Berger also argues that it is
impossible for fine art to be viewed in the same way as everyone
else, as the meaning isn't clear enough, therefore implying that it
should be assigned less value as well. Barnard concentrates on the
loss of aura within mass production and talks about the differences
between art and design, suggesting that it is impossible to
distinguish which is more valuable. It is therefore challenging to
state whether one is more valuable than the other. A lot of the time
it is down to whether or not people are willing to form their own
opinion or trust a writer's opinion.
Fig.1
Napoli,
E. (2004) 'Museo Archeologico Nazionale' Quarto (Naples, Italy),
Sa.Ma, P103.
Fig.2
Gormley,
A. et al (2003) 'Making Space' Gateshead, Hand Books, P53.
Bibliography
Barnard,
M. (2005) 'Graphic Design As Communication' Oxon, Routledge.
Berger,
J. (1972) 'Ways Of Seeing' London, British Broadcasting Corporation.
Carey,
J (2005) 'What Good Are The Arts?' London, Faber and Faber Limited.
Heller,
S. (2010) 'Pop How Graphic Design Shapes Popular Culture' New York,
Allworth Press.
Napoli,
E. (2004) 'Museo Archeologico Nazionale' Quarto (Naples, Italy),
Sa.Ma.
Gormley,
A. et al (2003) 'Making Space' Gateshead, Hand Books.
Word
Count
3130
No comments:
Post a Comment