Communicating Through Graphic Design - Part One
In this series of articles, I will be examining Graphic Design and its potential impact and significance in the field of communication studies, the distinction between art and design, and focusing on the function of graphic design as visual communication. The various components that make up this process — client, designer, and audience and their relationships are analyzed. A visual model is offered based on existing communication models, but adapted specifically for this research to benefit graphic design practitioners.
A Personal Journey
Several years ago, I attended art school with a focus on graphic design. This was the career path I had chosen. I wanted to be a graphic designer. After finishing the program, however, and working as a graphic designer for a few years, I was left with the question, "Why am I doing this?" I knew I wanted to be a graphic desginer and I loved what I did, but what was my role? Was it simply to make pretty images on the computer? Which, was the reply I most often received when I told people what I do. This frustrated me and influenced me to seek more information.
In much the same way, the field of graphic design has become frustrated with itself. In the year 2000, a manifesto signed by 33 prominent graphic designers, art directors, and visual communicators was published. Called First Things First 2000, it harkened back to a similar manifesto, of the same name, published in 1964. Both sought to shift the focus of the field from commercially driven design to more culturally aware, socially responsible design. This most recent version however, has stirred quite a bit of debate within the field. Many supporters have applauded it and its authors and signers for taking such a strong stand against the huge, corporate establishments of the world. Others however, view it merely as a parade of famous designers making their consciences publicly known. Criticized for being premature, short-sighted, and inadequate — it provided no real solutions. It did however, serve as a wake-up call for graphic design; sparking renewed debate within the field regarding its purpose and direction.
In addition to this internal conflict, the professionalism of graphic design was being questioned externally. For a long time, the field of graphic design was limited to creative individuals, who were well versed in the principles of design, and technically skilled in the mechanical tools of the trade. With the advent of the personal computer and inexpensive software that allows for image manipulation, illustration, and layout; and the numerous "how-to" and "do-it-yourself" books populating bookstore shelves everywhere, however, nearly anyone now can claim themselves to be a graphic designer. This intrusion of "would-be" design, and the growing disdain for the field's commerciality, has influenced many in the field to seek a deeper understanding.
Art Versus Design
While its roots lie deep in the arts, graphic design has seen a recent shift in its ideology. Practitioners and researchers in the field have begun developing a theoretical approach to graphic design and thus providing a framework for measuring its effectiveness. In 2004, Peter Zec wrote:
“Design in general, and its process is nowadays characterized by a communicative philosophy. It can be asserted that communication is the new paradigm of design.”
This wasn't always the case however. In 1988, Jorge Frascara, author of "Graphic Design: Fine Art or Social Science(1988), points out:
“… Unlike architecture, literature, and fine arts, it(graphic design) has developed without much theoretical reflection.”
Frascara goes further to define graphic design as,
"The activity that organizes visual communication in society. It is concerned with the efficiency of communication, the technology used for its implementation, and the social impact it affects, in other words, with social responsibility.”
When we begin to view graphic design as visual communication, we step away from the realm of art and start to move into the social sciences. While communication studies have traditionally focused on verbal and non-verbal communications, visual communication studies have been relatively sparse. This is due in part to the misconception that graphic design and art is the same thing. In fact, these two terms are very different and not interchangeable on the deeper levels. These distinctions have caused some controversy and debate among practitioners in both fields. Traditionally, graphic design has veen viewed as a “lesser” form of art, if art at all. It has been argued that fine art is culturally more significant than graphic design. Renowned artist and illustrator Marshall Arisman breaks it down this way,
- Fine Art is pure.
- Illustration is the beginning of selling out.
- Graphic Design is commercial art.
- Advertising is selling… period.
While many graphic design examples are temporary in their contributions, there are many works whose lasting value towards the field, culture, and society cannot be argued. Designers such as Lissitzky, Mondrian, and most notably the designers of the Bauhaus movement of the early 1900’s are still exacting their influence on today’s communication designers. While its commercial role is apparent, graphic design’s value should not be judged solely by it. What then should it be judged by? Graphic design is first and foremost human communication.
When viewed from this perspective, graphic design moves from artistic and aesthetic analysis to a more scientific study. While aesthetics is a key function of graphic design, it should not be the only measure of its effectiveness. When viewed as artistic expression, we overlook the significance graphic design has towards the field of communications. And that significance has mostly to do with the key component in communications, the audience.
In Part 2 of this series, I will be looking at the audience, its role in the communication process, and the problems posed when dealing with an audience comprised of many individuals with varying cultures and beliefs. Stay tuned.
Test comment.