essay.

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

An obvious answer to such a question would be to say yes; logically, fine art should be assigned more value than graphic design, due to the very nature and intensions of the practises. However it is possible to offer countless arguments to oppose this, particularly when examining definitions of the word ‘value’. A common-sense and in some ways quite precise definition could perhaps be: ‘the amount of money/goods/services that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else’ (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). Of course, as with many words and phrases, the aspect of opinion must be take into consideration: for example, it would also be possible to define ‘value’ as being a property of an object, representing a degree of importance. This raises further questions, as it could be argued that graphic design - often being referred to as an ‘applied’ art - is of more importance to our everyday lives than fine art, which traditionally has been regarded as a luxury enjoyed by high society. Taking into account these two definitions alone, it becomes clear that both practises enjoy positions of ‘value’ within cultures. It is important also to consider the effects of the 21^st century on art and design cultures: it is questionable, with the evolution of blogs and social networking, whether art and design cultures really hold any real monetary value anymore – it could be suggested that traditional ideas of the word ‘value’ - when dealing with art and design - are being shifted at an exponential rate to accommodate cyberspace’s visceral and anonymous judgement.

In order to provide a conveniently logical answer to the question of whether fine art should be assigned a greater value than graphic design, it is worth studying a generalised definition of ‘fine art’: ‘type of art primarily created for the purpose of providing beauty and enjoyment rather than for commercial use. It is often intended to be uplifting, thought provoking, and life-enhancing.’ (www.globaled.org). If this is the case, then graphic design (often and understandably thought of as opposing fine art) can be understood as a form of commercial artwork, created with the purpose of communicating a particular message with the aid of graphic elements. Adrian Shaughnessy describes a fundamental difference between a fine artist and a graphic designer, stating that:

 ‘A graphic designer requires a brief and needs to be given content to work with. Artists, on the other hand, write their own briefs and create their own content’ (Graphic Design: A User’s Manual, 2009, p21).

 Although a potentially disagreeable point of view, this effectively outlines the most generalised difference in intension between the two practises: on the one hand, we have a fine artist; who could spend an eternity exploring the same issues, producing work that usually becomes valued accordingly to the artist’s reputation, aesthetic qualities and the number of originals produced. On the other hand, we have a typical company of graphic designers; employed by clients as a service, of course based on their reputation as successful designers, but perhaps most importantly, their effective time management and efficient delivery skills. It becomes obvious how value is defined through the nature of the practises. With graphic design, a ‘commercial’ art, clients are seeking a product that cannot be obtained from many fine artists – rapid, reproducible, and effective material that can be replicated in a number of different mediums, to present to the majority of society on sometimes an hourly basis. This in itself can validate the argument that fine art should be assigned a greater value – the masses will not venture out of their way to see good graphic design, as it is often a disposable medium which is rarely viewed by choice. Fine art naturally opposes this in the way it is traditionally presented to society – hung or installed in quiet, pristine galleries, and, quite ironically, often advertised using graphic design as a medium.

Although the traditional differences between the two mediums do very much still exist, it is becoming increasingly important to consider the transformations that art and design cultures have experienced as a result of the internet, along with the many branches of new platforms that have become available to its users.  The arrival of countless blogging websites, social networks and online picture albums has forced the art and design community to exponentially become more rapid in every aspect:

 ‘It has become both fashionable and necessary to monitor daily – sometimes hourly – the design discourse online...most of the design magazines have blogs, a tacit acknowledgement that most of the action has moved online, and that print media are unable to move with a fraction of the speed that is possible on the Internet’ (Graphic Design: A User’s Manual, 2009, p.33).

Of course Adrian Shaughnessy is commenting on the current state of graphic design in our world, yet it is equally valid to apply this statement to other existing art forms; after all, the internet provides us with a constantly evolving, level playing field for documenting pieces of work, many of which provide mere seconds of enjoyment, before being shared amongst others, and then consequently forgotten and lost in what would appear to be a virtual well of binary matter. This raises the obvious question of whether any sort of work created by the emerging generation of digitally fluent artists and designers is worth any sort of monetary value whatsoever. Perhaps art and design cultures are entering an era whereby work is assigned a value of one to five, determined by a large anonymous network of viewers who can simply click a button to express their judgement and opinion of a piece of art or design. Of course; if this is the case, then the borders between graphic design and fine art (particularly at an amateur or student level) have well and truly been torn down, creating a spectrum of work spanning from conceptual sculpture to sleekly designed pieces of graphic information, all assigned a translatable and in many ways valueless value.

Although it is possible to argue that the digital revolution is slowly defeating the traditional ideas of ‘value’ within both art and design cultures, it is also important to consider a slightly alternative - and slightly controversial - argument as to why fine art may no longer be exceeding the value of graphic design. There is a wealth of young artists, designers, and just plain vandals who are willing to broadcast opinions on the streets for the majority of society to see, without any permission, and most importantly, without any regard for monetary values. An old but nonetheless relevant quote from Eric Gill reads:

“...but tho’ industrialism has now won an almost complete victory, the handicrafts are not killed, & they cannot quite be killed because they meet an inherent, indestructible, permanent need in human nature. (Even if a man’s whole day is spent as a servant of an industrial concern, in his spare time he will make something, if only a window box flower garden.)” (An Essay on Typography, the theme, 1936)

If many examples street art can be interpreted as sharing similar, if not identical definitions as fine art, then it becomes a necessary aspect to consider within this argument. No matter how meaningful and aesthetically pleasing a piece of street art can be, there lies a beauty in the impossible nature of assigning a monetary value to it. However this raises the idea that perhaps ‘value’ can once again be perceived in an entirely new and differing way: maybe man’s desire to create and broadcast a particular message can be measured by his bravery and intelligence used to place a piece of artwork, or indeed graphic design, in the unsuspecting public eye. Of course this can then be photographed and uploaded to some sort of blog and have its value judged in a similar fashion mentioned earlier. Or perhaps its value can be translated to an economic sense by collecting images of these works and publishing them in a book, which in itself becomes a piece of graphic design which holds a monetary value greater than the original pieces of work.

After examining various arguments, definitions and opinions, it is ironically becoming more and more obvious that attempting to assign ‘values’ to pieces of fine art and graphic design is becoming an ever more ambiguous act; it is becoming less and less possible to categorise work into areas such as graphic design and fine art, and as a result of this, neither practises will in future receive any more value than each other, and in fact will predictably result in having a monetary value of zero, for all pieces of work. The impact of modern technologies, combined with man’s ever persisting desire to create artwork and display it in the public eye, no matter how good or bad, will inevitably result in new interpretations of the word ‘value’ within art and design cultures, for which neither practise will enjoy any more than the other.