Essay - Could it be argued that Fine Art ought to be assigned more ‘valuable’ than more popular forms of Visual Communication?

-->

Could it be argued that Fine Art ought to be assigned more ‘valuable’ than more popular forms of Visual Communication?

            Marshall Arisman states the ‘outdated formula created by the art school faculty’ (Arisman, 2000) to differentiate between the different artistic disciplines as: ‘1. Fine Art is pure, 2. Illustration is the beginning of selling out, 3. Graphic Design is commercial art, 4. Advertising is selling… period.’ (Arisman, 2000). Although he states that the formula is ‘outdated’, it is still perceived to be this by many within the artistic spectrum and the wider upper echelons of society.

Fine Art, Illustration, Graphic Design and Advertising’s purity and value arguably depends on the interpretation of these two words. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘pure’ as: ‘1. Not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material, 2. innocent or morally good, … 5. complete; nothing but.’ The same dictionary defines ‘value’ as: ‘1. the regard that something is held to deserve; importance or worth (material or monetary).’ Using these definitions it is possible to argue that all four of the disciplines are pure and valuable in different measures.

In terms of Fine Art, classical paintings of the Virgin Mary or Roman/Greek gods and goddesses have, through the seeming lack of corruption and lack of adulteration, a more arguable purity, as well as a value, either for their historical significance or their age. Moving through the ages towards the current contemporary work, it is possible to argue that Fine Art still has ‘pure’ qualities. It becomes increasingly difficult, however, to support this argument with evidence. As the argument becomes difficult to support with evidence it also becomes more of an argument of value and specifically cultural value, rather than purity.

Fine Art is seen as purer and more valuable as it is produced by artists who, through some misplaced arrogance, believe themselves to be superior to the rest of society – placing themselves and their work on a pedestal because ‘art has more to say than graphic design’ (Barnard, 2005). This ill-placed superiority is separated into three specific details by Diederichsen:

‘First of all, with the exceptional status of art in bourgeois society: its autonomy. Secondly, because art is regarded as an ally of desire, it is accepted as one of those forces that refuse to fall in line with imposed, coerced consistency of life. Thirdly, it is also the demand of art that it, unlike the rest of life, be particularly full of meaning.’ (Deiderchsen, 2008)

This view is questionably in support of art’s superior level, as only artists think art is full of meaning, yet his condescending tone towards the bourgeoisie suggests otherwise. Both Barnard and Diederichsen are opposed to Arisman’s view that art is superior to other forms of visual communication as Diederichsen states that ‘art clings to society’ (Diederchsen, 2008). He also debates, however, that it ‘must exist, despite that fact that its meaning lies in precisely not being useful”. The contrast that it must exist even though it is useless is in support of Barnard, yet is not completely dismissive of art.  This uselessness is very recognizable within contemporary art and contemporary artists where, arguably, the skill required to produce the ‘art’ is diminishing, but the ‘value’ of these works are ever increasing. For example, Damien Hirst’s Spot paintings (Fig. 1), that are ‘sold before the gallery doors open’ (Barnard, 2005), take very little skill and are not produced by the artist himself, but by his friends from Goldsmiths. Arisman quotes the sculptor David Smith’s definitions of commercial and fine art as, respectively: ‘Art that meets the mind and needs of other people’ (Arisman, 2000); and ‘Art that meets the mind and needs of the artist’ (Arisman, 2000). This highlights that artists believe themselves to be superior to everyone else, as you have to be an artist to understand Fine Art. Smith’s statement is supported by Barnard, who says ‘the designer’s message serves the…needs of the client who is paying for it’ (Barnard, 2005), showing that graphic design is arguably a form of commercial art. 

            In the modern cultural world the boundaries between Fine Art and commercial art are extremely blurred – everything has a price tag. Everything produced now has a monetary value, be it a Damien Hirst ‘masterpiece’ or a promotional flyer. So does this make all art commercial art? Barnard partially supports this notion, quoting Kirwan-Taylor that: ‘these traditional boundaries have ‘now become so blurred that what is art could easily be interpreted as design and vice versa’ (Barnard, 2005). Although this is sometimes the case it is easier to argue that design can be interpreted as art rather than the other way around. Due to fine art’s ‘superiority’, its monetary value vastly exceeds the bank accounts of the majority of the world’s population. In the blurred void between fine art and commercial art, however, there is a vast array of ‘artists’ who are simply a name, or not even that. These ‘artists’ produce work that the Middle and Upper-Middle class buy because it’s art and they believe it gives them status. They believe it is something they can show off at dinner parties to show they are ‘cultured’ and have an interest in ‘the arts’, without having any knowledge of the creative disciplines and only having purchased that work because, ‘it looked pretty’. A possible example of this is Jack Vettriano, a Scottish painter, whose work is reproduced in its thousands and sold throughout the world. Despite being ‘Britain's most popular artist, outselling Dali, Monet and Van Gogh’ (Smith, 2004), making an appearance in many dining rooms across the country, he is dismissed by the ‘art world’. In an interview he describes his view on the ‘art world’: ‘The art world is not a lot to do with art; it’s to do with money and power and position’, reiterating the point that the art directors and artists see themselves as superior. In some ways, however, Vettriano contradicts himself as he is the biggest selling reproduction artist in the UK, earning an estimated £500,000 a year from royalties. Supporters of Vettriano say he is dismissed because his work is enjoyed by the masses. In Smith’s article he quotes Sir Terence Conran’s view on Vettriano’s situation; ‘They turn their backs on him because his work has been reproduced on posters, which I think is incredibly elitist and snobbish’ (Smith, 2004).

            The ‘art world’ itself is somewhat confused with its own ideals. It dismisses Vettriano for being too commercial, yet at many galleries there are reproductions on sale, from postcards to posters to tea towels. On top of the blurred boundary between fine art and commercial art there is a notion of accessibility. Vettriano’s opinion on accessibility argues against the elitist discrimination, ‘Art which is accessible to the masses is often regarded as not worthy of inclusion’ (Smith, 2004). Although his opinion is less elitist than those of the artists who see their work as superior, his opinion on graphic design and its status within the creative industries would influence how his opinion on art is read. Vettriano argues that ‘There are two art worlds; the popular one which anyone can understand, and the academic one, controlled by relatively few people. The latter has a very different approach and tries to be sensational for the sake of it’ (Smith, 2004).

            Artists dismiss graphic design as too commercial; however, it is not very different to the commercial side of art – as Arisman identified – ‘Graphic design is commercial art’ (Arisman, 2000). Art is an industry like any other – as Warhol states ‘making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art’ (Warhol, 1975) – yet it is covered up by a manufactured aura that makes the world believe it is something superior. Barnard discusses this point whilst quoting Walker:

‘Where the social and cultural ‘demands’ are easy to discern and understand in graphic design, they are denied or hidden by the institutions surrounding art with the consequence that eventually, they are said not to exist’ (Barnard, 2005)

Barnard’s view that it is the institution and its elitist hierarchy which are to blame, where ‘art is perceived to be of lasting value [and] graphic design is said to be ‘ephemeral’’ (Barnard, 2005) is explicit in contemporary artists view of themselves. Many fine artists will claim that their work is an expression of an emotion, the outcome at the end of a journey, supported by the even more pretentious critics; however, it is really just a product that will enable them to purchase a designer suit for when they next decide to visit the Groucho Club. Their art, as a commercial object, has no great superior aura when compared to graphic design, in fact it is quite the opposite. There are no cloaks hiding the working, motive and ideals within graphic design, surely making it purer than fine art.

Graphic design is produced to communicate and to problem-solve, often produced on a vast scale allowing it to be accessible to many people. Jack Vettriano’s work is produced as art and arguably to be reproduced and sold, and although very different from graphic design it suffers a similar rejection in the art world. Graphic design is deemed too commercial, too popular and too accessible to be accepted into the art world, as are Vettriano’s paintings. Although it is impossible to refer to Vettriano as a designer (as it would grossly diminish the skill and ability of the designer), Barnard writes that ‘unlike the artist, the designer plans for multiple production (Hollis 1994)’ (Barnard, 2000). If Vettriano does produce his work to be sold, then under Hollis’s theory he is a designer. This then asks the question as to whether more famous artists, such as Hirst, produce their work to be sold – something that has previously been argued in this essay – in which case does that make them designers also?

            Richard Hamilton defines the essence of Pop Art as; ‘Popular (designed for a mass audience), Transient (short term solution), Expendable (easily forgotten), Low Cost, Mass Produced, Young (aimed at youth), Witty, Sexy, Gimmicky, Glamorous and Big Business’ (Hamilton, 1960). Pop art is something that is very much accepted by the art world, but it is juxtaposed with the artist’s and curator’s elitist views that art is superior. It is juxtaposed as some of the qualities Hamilton describes are qualities that have prevented Vettriano and other forms of visual communication being accepted into the art world. Pop Art is art that stems from the embracing of popular culture by artists, taking elements of the mass culture, such as advertising and graphic design and turning it into works of art. The most comparable is Hamilton’s Pop Art and graphic design. There are, however, commonalities with Vettriano. Vettriano’s work is ‘popular’, ‘sexy’ and ‘glamorous’ and through its scale of reproduction prints, it is also ‘low cost’ and ‘mass produced’, making it ‘big business’. Graphic design is designed for a ‘mass audience’, rather ‘transient’, ‘expendable’, ‘low cost’, ‘mass produced’ and can be ‘witty’, ‘sexy’, ‘gimmicky’ and ‘glamorous’ and is disputably a bigger business than fine art. So why is it that these other forms of visual communication, specifically graphic design, are not given the same value and accepted by the art world? Although Hamilton has detailed Pop Art as thus, the artists, curators and people who believe art to be superior have elevated Pop Art to their ‘superior’ level. Andy Warhol’s work is accepted by the elite and his originals are sold for hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet his work is turned into posters the world over and is based on processes derived from graphic design, ‘‘the artist’ who exhibited silkscreen prints of Campbell’s soup-cans…in art galleries claims to have been taught to draw by a graphic designer’ (Barnard, 2005). This returns to the point that the art world is confused. If graphic design is not worthy of the value of fine art, why is Warhol – who is equally as commercial – accepted?

Artists and curators – sarcastically described as ‘“outsiders” who acquire their artistic education through romantic involvement in “life”’ (Diederichsen, 2008), would probably argue that art has more cultural significance and more cultural value than graphic design because of the aura that surrounds art and the emotional content and journey the ‘outsider’ (Diederichsen, 2008) has been on. This is not the case, as the aura that surrounds art and artists means that the average person is distanced from it. Since art is not as accessible to the mass audience as graphic design is, art therefore has less of an impact and is less culturally significant. ‘The American Institute of Graphic Arts asserts that graphic design is a ‘culture force’’ (Barnard, 2005) whereas art is only something that speaks to the artist. Graphic design is communication that people witness throughout their lives on a regular basis and, as Barnard explains, ‘culture depends on communication’ (Barnard, 2005) and therefore graphic design is more culturally valuable to the art world than art itself. The art world would not function without graphic design, whereas graphic design could function without the art world. Graphic design’s accessibility it what makes it such a powerful ‘culture force’ (Barnard, 2005), which is outlined by Barnard in a comparison with fine art; ‘prints and digital images may exist anywhere, at any time, without losing anything (unlike an oil painting which can be in only place at any one time), and are thus available to any and all situations’ (Barnard, 2005). Although it is disputable that art is ‘available to any and all situations’ (Barnard, 2005) through media, the Internet and other modern technologies, the artists – the ‘outsiders’ (Diederichsen, 2008) would disagree and say that all images of art that appear on aforementioned sources are not original and therefore are not pure. This lack of willingness to see how available art is, enhances the pretentiousness and elitism associated with it: diminishing its social and cultural value, limiting its actual accessibility and exposing its seeming corruptness. Graphic design does not possess these qualities, as it is constantly available to almost anyone, almost anywhere. It is a fundamental part of anyone’s life, whether they like it or not, whether it is god or bad and it is these qualities that make it so culturally and socially valuable. It’s there, it’s available and it isn’t hidden by those who believe they are superior.

Over the course of this essay it has been argued that fine art, and art generally, should not be deemed more valuable than other forms of visual communication. This has been debated buy arguing arts impurities, its contemporary lack of skill and ability, its over indulgence in monetary value and its alliance to the upper echelons of society. The argument has also been posed that other forms of visual communication, specifically graphic design, should be deemed equally as valuable or more valuable than fine art. This has been done through the investigation of graphic design’s accessibility, its availability and its cultural and social significance.

All the evidence presented has confirmed that, as a ‘cultural force’ and as accessible form, art is extremely over rated. This is through its preconceived aura, created by the elite, but also because of the fascicle monetary value that this elitism brings with it. Diederichsen labels price and value as such; ‘price is not a value…it is the false semblance of value’ (Diederichsen, 2008), supporting the point made against Damien Hirst’s Spot paintings, that no matter how large and extreme the price tag is, it will not always reflect the value of the work and will never reflect the social and cultural value. Art’s exaggerated elitism also limits its accessibility and restricts is ability to accept other forms of visual communication as valuable, where ‘only the institutional contexts and the uses to which they are put distinguish ‘art’ and ‘design’ and not its true value’ (Barnard, 2005).

Unfortunately the world is stuck in a cycle where art will always be seen as superior, leaving us living in the age of the ‘post-bourgeoisie’ (Diederichsen, 2008)

‘The post-bourgeoisie will create a myth of the artist that is different from the myth created  and believedin by the old bourgeoisie…based on and ideal selfi-image: an excessive, hedonistic and powerful monster who shares the old artist’s enthusiasm for acts of liberation but is far removed from all political and critical commitments’ (Diederichsen, 2008).

It is all not lost, however, as for this world to function it requires all forms of visual communication, importantly graphic design, as it needs a medium to communicate with everyone. Without that the world would not function – ‘culture depends on communication’ (Barnard, 2005).

Fig. 1

Damien Hirst – Untitled (with black dot)

Bibliography

Arisman, M. (June 2000) Is there a Fine Art to Illustration?, Marshfield, Illustrators’ Partnership of America.

Barnard, M. (2005) Graphic Design as Communication, Oxon, Routledge.

Diederichsen, D. (2008) On (Surplus) Value in Art – Reflections 01, Berlin, Witte de With & Sternberg Press.

Oxford Dictionaries, (2011) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12^th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Smith, D, (January 2004) He’s our favourite artist. So why do the galleries hate him so much?,  The Observer.