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?

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?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your thoughts.

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!

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.

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