5
Oct
2009
Graphic design: the ultimate sellout?
As a graphic designer, I have often felt that I am a sellout. In part because the things that I create are used solely for commercial purposes; in part because I am often forced to compromise design principles in order to please clients (and make my paycheck). I think that almost every graphic designer has to do this to some degree in their career. It would seem that the occupation of graphic design is intrinsically a sellout, whereas fine art is the only way to go if a visual artist is to avoid selling out.
Then I saw this post at ilovegraphics.net. I have nothing critical to say about the website or post. What struck me as off-kilter is the amount of money being exchanged for this artist’s work. Millions of dollars for one piece. No graphic designer makes that type of money for one piece of work, so what does it really mean to sell out?
A graphic designer creates a logo for a couple thousand dollars. An artist creates an installation for a few million dollars. I would argue that the former is being more true to their nature than the latter. Designers acknowledge that what they are making is commercial. They know they are going to get paid; the company who uses their work is using it in the process of making money. But what of the fine artist?
Fine art is supposed to be “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” (Dictionary.com definition) When an artist creates a work that they consent to have sold for an arguably exorbitant sum, they are selling out in grand scale. I am not criticizing Yayoi Kusama in particular here; she lives in a mental institution, not a mansion. I am speaking in general terms about fine art that becomes valued by its enormous price tag.
Yes, I know you could argue that the artist might not be motivated by money. I would say that if that were true, then the artist would donate the lion’s share of moneys made to charity. And some do. You cannot keep money without believing that you deserve it. The least sellout thing to do would be to legally cap the sale price of your works of art. Otherwise, you are allowing the same type of forces that drive the sale of pop music endorsements to drive the sales of your artwork.
I’m not saying that it is immoral for a fine artist to make a lot of money. But it is selling out. It is commercial. It is capitalistic. There is no moral high ground in fine art vs. graphic design if money is made in both arenas. Graphic design is generally a modest sellout; fine art is a potential sellout of enormous magnitude.
At the heart of it, I think that fanatics are responsible for sellout in any field. It’s like rubbernecking on the highway: once a few people look, everyone wants to see. Next thing you know, it’s a spectacle drawing a crowd. Much art, visual or otherwise, is valued by mob mentality. Is a painting worth tens of millions of dollars – more than many graphic designers will make in their whole career? It is if a big enough mob thinks it is. In my book it’s just another reason to look inside for affirmation of the value of your work rather than looking (solely) to the opinions of others.
These are my thoughts at 9:00 on a Monday morning. Please discuss. I welcome differing viewpoints.
Mike,
I like that you listed “selling out”, “Commercial”, and “Capitalistic”; but, are they all the same? In my book, no. “Selling out” has been used as a negative connotation for anyone making money from their creative potential.
Is it selling out to make a living from the skills that one possesses? I think this is where graphic design and “fine” art follow the same track. The difference there is quantity. Most designers (the ones making a living that is) are regularly selling their work where a “fine” artist may not. I wonder who makes the better hourly (granted selling a work for a million, the “fine” artist wins – but in the general scheme of things…)
For me, selling out is a loss of ideals and a loss of control. “Selling out” to me is when you are hired to push buttons rather than for your creative potential. “Commercial” is the realm that the work falls into and “Capitalism”, well, that’s just making money.
Just a few thoughts from the “fine” artist in me.
steve
Thanks for your thoughts, Steve. These are all good points. And I wouldn’t say that making a living from fine art is intrinsically selling out. I was talking specifically about artists who become so popular that just about anything they put their signature to fetches a huge price tag.
The point about control, for example, is very important. Is it selling out to allow the market to control the price of your work, or is there an intrinsic value? In other words, given the question, “How much is this piece worth?” is the answer, “The maximum I can get for it.” To me, a fine artist can sell out in ways other than making paintings for couches.
This is a great article and an excellent topic which really could do with more discussion and input from designers in my opinion. My concept of money is slightly different, which is that money comes to you as the result of solving a problem. The more problems you find to solve, the more money you get. Now, for whatever reason, some artists happen to stumble across some method of working that catches some art critics eye, he or she promotes them and then they can sell their work for sometimes insane prices.
No they might stumble into it on purpose, or accidentally, but whatever the reason, their work now solves a problem, which is that it caters to those who want to bee seen as ‘hip’ and trendy and collecting all the latest art. The artist’s name becomes a brand, and bingo, its solves the problem that their buyers have, which is they want the latest work by such-and-such. Doesn’t matter what the work is, if they *really* understand it, or if it is even (subjectively) any good.
Similarly, as designers we solve problems. This is what we get paid for. Client comes and asks for this and that, and we do our best to give them that which they ask. Unfortunately we do get clients from time to time who are really specific about wanting to use an element or visual style that goes against our better judgement. There are also some designers who dont care about being too commercial, and in fact revel in it. These are the ones who use every visual stylistic trend without shame, to increase the chance of finding more commercial clients who want ’stuff that looks like everything else’
In one way it’s selling out, in another it’s business. I like to strike a balance and be firm about what I won’t do when designing. I also don’t feel like I’m selling out because I create alot of work for myself and others which is purely for aesthetic enjoyment. Sometimes it’s work the client didn’t like, but I keep it, work on it, and i have something that is closer to the definition ‘fine art’ and i think as long as you have a balance and a personal body of work that is created in your vision and for aesthetic purposes and you can stay grounded, it’s not too bad earning a bit of money doing other jobs!
It’s true – it is all business, if that’s what you’re in it for. To a large degree, selling out is really a personal thing because it is a statement about personal values. The bottom line, in this context, is be true to yourself. And I definitely don’t want to promote an us vs. them philosophy with respect to graphic design and fine art. It just occurred to me that there is a perspective on selling out that I hadn’t heard or read before.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your thoughts.
I went to an art school where most of the fine art students isolated themselves from the communication design kids, because they were going to work for the man. Pretty ridiculous.
To some degree, I wonder if you’re almost comparing apples and oranges. Inherently, the canonical history of art is rooted(arguably) for the most part in the intrinsic value of the work itself. While “Fine Art” is commissioned, bought, sold, even for the sake of investment, most often, Graphic design does not necessarily follow suit. What I mean:
While form pervades most fine examples of graphic design, the inherent purpose of that form is often to move a product, service, etc. Without making blanket statements, the aesthetics of design, the organization, the emotional attachment to design has therefore much more potential to “sell out” when compared to the fine arts. MONOmoda spoke to the adherence of a “brand name” to a given artist, but this is indeed something that has always been existent. Patrons were clamoring for the prodigiously virtuosic idiosyncrasies only found in the work of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, for instance..and he ended up with money as a result. After the money is gone though, can you really compare his work to that of
Thus, I believe that in order to really be able to find the real extent of one’s “selling out,” we need to strip all of the stigma, all of the hype away from both art and design and look at examples of each in terms of the offering of each. Aesthetically, philosophically, etc. And if design comes up in terms of being created completely(italicized) for the sake of moving others to a greater degree of materialism, for instance, I would argue that inherently, such would be a lot more along the lines of selling out. If fine art is created for the same means, (some would see Jeff Koons as a good example of this) then it can be deemed no less exemplifying of doing so. In the event that it is not though, then perhaps we have on our hands somewhat of a dichotomy that maybe puts the value of graphic design on a lesser scale to whatever degree that is supported.
Even the Sistine Ceiling was commissioned, (probably for an exorbitant sum by today’s standards..)but how much greater is the Sistine Ceiling intellectually, culturally, aesthetically(if you can compare), than that of today’s design?
Sorry, last sentence in the 2nd paragraph got cut, should read:
After the money is gone though, can you really compare his work to that of what could be seen as the superficiality of today’s design?