Sophie Abell
BA (hons) Graphic Design
Could
it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more 'value' than more popular
forms of Visual Communication?
For hundreds of
years fine art has been thought of as having the highest reign over most visual
communications. There has always
been a hierarchy between the different art and design specialisms and Marshall
Arisman summed it by saying ‘Fine art is pure,
Illustration is the beginning of selling out, Graphic design is commercial art,
Advertising is selling-Period.’ (Arisman, 2000) Although this point is one illustrator’s opinion many people have
followed this view through when it comes to art and you only have to look at
the history of art and design to realise this. No matter how great a piece of visual
communication is people’s perceptions towards the work still do not change,
even when the fine art work is not anything special. When defining as to
whether a piece of fine art is of high quality,
it is purely down to your taste and how you have interpreted it because
an artist’s main aim is to give the viewer a visual experience to leave you
asking yourself questions about how you feel towards the work. In contrast a designer of visual communication
such as graphic design creates work that sends a visual message to the other
that is well explained and literate.
Visual
communication specifically graphic design doesn’t get the recognition it
deserves. As a student studying graphic design this notion could potentially be
biased however there are many reasons to argue this point on both sides. These
significantly establish which form of design and creativity deserves to have
more value than the other.
There are three main types of value within fine art, Commercial value,
Social value and Essential value. Commercial value within fine art means that
it is sold for a high sum of money; however it has no real purpose or meaning.
Therefore some people believe that art should not be sold at such a high value.
‘Even Plato considered the value of art to be dubious because it was mimesis,
an imitation of reality.’ (Findlay,M. 2012) Social value is the status it is
given due to the popularity of the piece. It is based usually on the reputation
of the artist, if an artist is of high social value, then so will their piece.
An example of this is Leonardo Da Vinci and the ‘Mona Lisa’ being a painting of
extremely high social status. This is why the value of this painting is vast,
as it is desirable for its prestige. (fig.1) In the late 16th
century Da Vinci argued that ‘the artist should be treated as the social and
intellectual equal of aristocrats and scholars’ (Cumming, 2005) In contrast the
social status of art today is in not in the original form of art but more so
where the artist does not create the work of art in a traditional manner but
promotes ideas and concepts and manages as a project or display that is
manufactured to aim at a select audience. (Cumming, 2005). Essential value with
in fine art means that even though art does not necessarily have a function or
a purpose it is the meaning to you that matters. It is how you feel towards the
piece of work which is what makes it so important and valuable because it is
personal. “The meaning must come from the seeing, not
the talking.’ Newman, B 1905– 1970 (Findlay, M 2012) The piece of work
may brighten a room perhaps giving aesthetic value to that room or perhaps
become a talking point but it is not an essential value it does not bring
anything of real importance to modern living unlike most technologies that are
being designed every day. These technologies provide ever increasing benefits
for modern living and are marketed through the accompanying visual
communications such as graphic design and advertising which encourage the
experience of these technologies.
‘All works of art
have the potential for commercial value, social value, and essential value. But
none of these values are constant; all are enhanced or diminished by the
fluctuating mores and tastes of different times and cultures’ (Findley, M. 2012.) Controversially
this statement is true however that owning fine art is mainly about social
status and its commercial value with regard to bragging rights. I believe it’s
all about money rather than having a meaning or purpose. A person may buy expensive art that is often locked away in a safe
place. It is not necessarily bought to adorn their walls. It can be purely
bought as an investment then locked away, so keeping it safe in order to
increase its value. The Rockefellers are an extremely wealthy family that have
adorned there offices with paintings from a multitude of artists up on their
walls, whilst members of their family do have an interest in art their
paintings will be gaining value by being hung up on their walls. Like property,
art doesn’t tend to lose its value it just gains in price to then sell on to a
higher bidder.
It would be naive
of me to suggest that all artists just create work for money. I do believe that
the majority of art is a culmination of creativity and the love of that
creativity and may not have a defined purpose, but just like designers, there
would be no relevance in their work if it was not being viewed because it is
the viewing of the work that sells the piece and creates capital. An example of
this is that many artists such as Vincent Van Gogh shot himself because he was not
being understood when he was alive which resulted in him not making any money,
it wasn’t up until he died when his paintings became as well-known as they are
today, which is when he earned a lot of money. Similarly (Wallace, W
-Death of Chatterton (fig 3) painted
a painting of a poet who had killed himself because he as well did not make any
money whilst he was alive. It goes to show that the love of art can be
extremely costly and life threatening. However, I am certain that
many artists would still create pieces of work even if it was not being sold
for a monetary value, just as long as it is being viewed and enjoyed. Yes as an
artist/designer I am sure it would be a little bit dis-heartening when a piece
of work is not being appreciated, but art is more like a hobby, you do it
because you enjoy it, not because you have to. The main difference that
separates the two is their purpose. For an artist their purpose is to create a
relationship with their viewer that would give them an emotional connection to their piece of work. The artist
aspires to create and make the viewer feel a certain emotion which could
inspire, encourage and give enjoyment. That is their purpose to visually
stimulate and control the way a certain person may feel towards their work.
As there are
thousands of art museums globally with hundreds of art works all in the same
creative atmosphere, the artist would not necessarily know how that viewer
feels towards their work and from this only a select few people would then go
on to purchase a piece of artwork. With this in mind it is quite a risk as to
how someone may interpret the artwork. That being said a designer of visual
communication does work similarly except on a larger scale. Their sole purpose
is to inform, educate and encourage for a commercial market. It is not expected
that their work should be interpreted or be expressed in any other way other
than for the reason it was created. If a design is being interpreted in more
ways than one then it is not communicating its purpose successfully, however a
piece of art can be interpreted in many ways, it is the expression of how you
might feel.
Controversially,
art is only appreciated thoroughly by persons who are interested in art, which
in some respects could be considered as only a select few. Generally speaking,
patrons would not go to an art museum to appreciate the work if they had no
interest or desire towards art. Whereas designers and their designs main purpose are to inform, educate
and encourage. Visual communication can be easily understood and appreciated in
a different way. Perhaps this is realised obviously if the viewer was not
coming from a design background. The viewer needs to be able to understand the
design without any knowledge of design, information need to be properly
portrayed so that it has one meaning. If a design has multiple meanings it is
not achieving its purpose. It is the subtlety of the design which makes it
successful. An example of a bad design is the
butterfly ballot card that had not been aligned correctly, which caused its
users confusion on how to use this ballot card.
(Fig.2)
Art has always
been put on this higher pedestal purely because of the passion and feeling that
the artist invokes towards the subject. However it might not have the same
effect to everyone which adds to the obscurity of this reasoning. In today’s society admittedly it
would appear that the popularity of art is decreasing, it is not the most well
respected popular specialism as it used to be, mainly because the fine art that
is being created is becoming ever more outrageous. Artists are trying to do
something new except in most cases it is just confusing people. For example Damien
Hirst’s ‘The
Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’ (Fig 4) which
is a controversial piece classed as ‘Art’ because it is just a shark in a tank
full of formaldehyde, I find that confusing because how is that art. When I
think of art I think of something that takes real skill, talent, creativity and
most importantly patience. Yes it is a creative piece but ‘commissioned by
Charles Saatchi for £50,000’ and then ‘sold to a collector for $12Million’. (Daily Mail Reporter, 2012,) Modern day society has changed in
regards to the value of art, years ago art was the most popular art form purely
because it went through a stage of only the elitist could afford it and the world
wasn’t in the same financial climate it is in today, therefore there was a lot
more wealthy people about who could afford to spend money on collecting works
of art. However in this day and age many
people will look at art and go to museums and look at it and pretend to be
interested when in reality they have no idea what that work is about and even
the notes that are given about a piece are just as baffling as the actual art
work. Fine art is becoming more of a
fashion however I find that this fashion is slowly fading purely because we now
live in a society where technology rules over anything and fine art is not
becoming as popular, you very rarely see it. Another reason is that art is becoming
a fashion, it is purely down to art collectors, they buy pieces that are from
the most well-known artist, the work has to look like it has come from that
artist whether it is portrayed in their style or if it has the artist’s
signature on it. Otherwise where is their right to brag about owning a
well-known artists piece of work if people don’t recognize it. It is like
branding if you buy an expensive garment that is not branded but only you know
and people who know that brand well will know and appreciate the expense you
have paid. Therefore I believe art is like a fashion you are buying the name
not because you actually like it and that is the world we live in today it is
these fashion forward people who want to be branded as if they have money,
again bragging rights. In contrast Graphic design however is everywhere, no
matter where you are, it is an essential not a rarity. It is a rarity that you do not hear
of many new up and coming artists that are creating inspirational art work that
look as if so much skill has gone into it rather than the thought process and
the idea behind that makes it as great as it is because if for example you are
purely going off looking, I find that majority of modern art is just confusing,
art needs to make you feel something other than confusion because surely then
its defeating the object.
‘No two persons looking at the same information, but
their brain process it in very different ways.’ (Findley, M. 2012)
Returning to the
financial aspect, art can be symbolic of wealth and therefore on this basis it
can be considered fundamentally to be of more value than visual communications.
Visual Communications are seen by everyone but not always appreciated in the
same way. A message is conveyed which the majority of the time it is understood through a glance which
has a quick and immediate impact than normal thought processes carry on. It is
never about something that can be treasured other than by the designer. A visual
communication would not ordinarily be kept; it is more of a throw- away design
source. Seen by many, but is never a factor of people appreciating it. For
example when you get given posters, or advertisements, you look at it but you
would not necessarily keep them for decoration because it is not necessarily
there for that purpose.
“As a general
rule, when something becomes useful, it ceases to be beautiful’ Theophile Gautrie
1811-1872 (Findley, M. 2012) This is a reason as to why fine art could possibly
be considered to be more valuable, it is the beauty and nature, of a piece that
makes it valuable due to the fact that it is presented in ways for many to see
and treasure rather than visual communication that would get thrown away. Fine
art’s purpose is there to do nothing but be beautiful and meaningful to many
people, by adorning walls and being a decoration.
That
being said a designer of visual communication does very similarly except on a
larger scale. Their sole purpose is to inform, educate and encourage. Their
work is not there to be interpreted or to be expressed in any other way other
than there sole reason as to why they have done what they have done. If a
design is being interpreted in more ways than one then it is not communicating
its purpose successfully, however a piece of art can be interpreted in many
ways, it is the expression of how you might feel.
There
is one thing that establishes the relationship between both specialisms and
that is they both have a personal philosophy ‘There is nothing wrong with not
having a personal philosophy; without one we are unlikely to produce work that
has any value beyond purely pragmatic’ (Shaugnessy,A.
Bierut,M. 2009) The personal philosophy however is different for both a
designer and artist, they have different believes an artist works for
themselves where as a designer works for other people to please. An artist
works selfishly they do what they think is right for them; they do what they
feel at the time whether it looks respectable or not. A designer follows rules
when it comes to aesthetics, they have clients with expectations and they have
to go beyond to please them rather doing what they would prefer to do. A designers
job is to get past the mind-set of what they would do and listen to what their
clients want to do, it is restricted however if you are a creative designer you
would be able to get past this and create work that you are happy with and
proud to call something you have done but also pleasing your client. I believe
that this is a hard task to follow because it is an issue of taste. Everyone
knows what they like on a personal level but it is about creating something
that is going to please others and that is why on that aspect being a designer
should be valued to higher level purely because they are doing more than one
thing and sending a message to the viewer as well. You could argue that an
artist’s role is to give the viewer an experience that may inspire or encourage
but at the end of the day I have a slightly biased view towards fine art purely
because I am a graphic designer and I think many artists purely do what they do
because of money. Artists like to be glorified in contrast to a designer who a lot
of their works are unknown, artists are judged on how good they are because of
how much they sell their work for, it is a constant competition when it comes
down to art to be the best and earn the most. When in reality it is not
benefiting anyone other than themselves.
In conclusion to this the argument
about value between both Fine art and Visual communications will be a constant
debate and argument. I do not think you can ever answer definitively why fine art is valued
higher than visual communications because there will always be a counter
question suggesting that visual communication should be rated at a higher
value. For example you could say fine art does not communicate a message like
visual communication, but in many aspects it does. Perhaps it is not a specific
interpretation but it is there for the user to interpret and understand. In
contrast visual communication is more literate and direct to a point where it is
understood easier. The same
arguments supporting fine art could be used to support visual communications.
They are both equally hard to define. They are two different specialisms that
cannot be compared because either way you look at it. It is going to be a
biased opinion just purely dependant on your tastes and which you prefer, it is
like arguing a point about a colour if your favourite colour is red and another
person’s is blue there is going to be an argument about why one is better. It is
a debate purely down to taste.
We live
in a society where everyone is in competition with each other; everyone is in a
race to be better. At the end of the day these two specialisms have their
similarities then they have differences but why should one be better than the
other it is naïve to believe that either one should hold a higher value then
the other. It is like comparing two things very similar but both have different
reasoning’s to why they have been done. They are similar but different at the
same time. I do not believe that anything should be ruled by the price I think
we need to take a deeper look into the value of something that has not got
anything to do with the price or the cost because at the end of the day it is
about what it means to you.
Fig 1: Mona
Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci Fig
2: Butterfly Ballot Card
Fig 3:
Henry Wallace-Death of Chatterton
Fig
4: Damien Hirst- The Physical Impossibility of death in the mind of someone
living’
