Are You an Artist?
Monday May 17, 2004
Back in July, I posted an excerpt of a discussion at "a word in your ear" dealing with graphic design vs. Art. The author has resurrected the discussion with a new introduction. Read the comments too. Here's my original posting with updated link.
In the whole graphic design vs. desktop publishing debate that surfaces from time to time, I've often seen graphic designers liken themselves to artists while calling desktop publishers merely 'technicians' (when they aren't calling them other less flattering terms). And I've seen some who are new to desktop publishing lament "I'm not an artist but..." when describing their interest in design and desktop publishing as if that were a prerequisite . An interesting read posted in May (2003) at "A word in your ear" makes the assertion that graphic designers are not artists. The article goes on to address snobbiness, art vs. design, subjective vs. objective, and how the way design is taught in schools perpetuates the designer-artist myth.
Whether you call yourself a desktop publisher, a designer, a visual communicator, or an artist give the whole article a read. It makes great sense to me. What do you think?
Forum Poll asks: Who is the artist? Vote then reply with your reasoning.
Related Reading from this site:
Who does desktop publishing?
What is desktop publishing?
Why is desktop publishing important?
In the whole graphic design vs. desktop publishing debate that surfaces from time to time, I've often seen graphic designers liken themselves to artists while calling desktop publishers merely 'technicians' (when they aren't calling them other less flattering terms). And I've seen some who are new to desktop publishing lament "I'm not an artist but..." when describing their interest in design and desktop publishing as if that were a prerequisite . An interesting read posted in May (2003) at "A word in your ear" makes the assertion that graphic designers are not artists. The article goes on to address snobbiness, art vs. design, subjective vs. objective, and how the way design is taught in schools perpetuates the designer-artist myth.
Whether you call yourself a desktop publisher, a designer, a visual communicator, or an artist give the whole article a read. It makes great sense to me. What do you think?
"...when an artist produces a piece of work, it doesn't matter if somebody doesn't like it. Sometimes, that's the point. Art often exists to provoke a reaction (particularly modern art - whatever that term means nowadays). The reaction is enough - it might be desirable for it to be positive, but it doesn't really matter either way. (I'm being over-general here, and I know it, but bear with me).
"Graphic design, however, is a branch of visual communication in which it is important that the message being communicated is received in the way that was intended. Graphic design is objective, while art is subjective. If a designer produces a sign to direct people to the right place in a building, it has to do the job. Its function is not open to interpretation. Either it works, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't it fails. The rest is decoration. Maybe that's where the art comes in, but if it affects the objective of the sign - it fails." — Graphic Design Is Not Art (link updated May 2004)
Forum Poll asks: Who is the artist? Vote then reply with your reasoning.
Related Reading from this site:
Who does desktop publishing?
What is desktop publishing?
Why is desktop publishing important?
Comments
Gr8! First time i got the prefect answer to the diff. b/w graphic designer and an artist. Very convicing too.