He maintains that graphic design discussion is flawed for a number of reasons, and these flaws have led to distortions about graphic design and its principles. He writes, "He and other avant-garde artists made a major impact in the visual development of graphic design, but they also raised the importance of their esthetic approach to a point where they communication link with the common denominator they were addressing broke down" (Frascara 20). He maintains their designs were so "out there" that they lost their meaning and were actually detrimental to graphic design, rather than the positive influence many people thought they were. He also maintains that graphic design is an art form, but that many designers aren't considering that graphic design is also a medium that communicates and is socially significant. He writes, "Furthermore, as an art form, graphic design is viewed only from an esthetic perspective, without enough consideration of communication and social significance" (Frascara 20). His main point is also a definition, and he writes,...

This could be a loose definition of art, too, because most artistic pieces do communicate something to the viewer, as well.
This author really wants a revolution in graphic design and the way graphic designers are trained. Do you agree with his points? There is no background given on this author, but it is quite clear he is a trained graphic artist and he has strong opinions about his craft. Did you like the examples he gave in the text, and did you agree with his assessment of them? Is graphic design a major form of communication, and do you think it has social responsibility, as well? These are all questions this unique article brings up to this reader.

References

Frascar, Jorge. "Graphic Design: Fine Art or Social Science?" Design Issues, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 18-29.

Poyner, Rick. "Art's Little Brother." Icon Magazine, May 2005.