Graphic design: fine art or social science

Graphic Design: Fine Art or Social Science

Frascara presents the argument that graphic design is both fine art and social science. He points out that the basis of design is communication - "someone has to communicate something for someone else" (p.20). In this I believe he is correct. Graphic art is distinguished from fine art by its commercial or function purpose. A message must be communicated to the target audience in order for the work to be effective. Graphic art is a marriage between form and function. He cites the Mir poster as an example of how the two can work together - the design is striking but the poster is functional because it communicates its intended message. He provides several examples where graphic art is too highly focused on the artistic component and the message has become lost. For example, he juxtaposes Mir with Albers' film festival poster. The physical distance Albers creates between the art and the message makes that poster ineffective, whereas in the Mir poster the art and the message are intertwined.

His point about the way graphic design is taught is valid. If the focus is strictly on the development of design aesthetic, then it is only "art" which is being taught. The communication function is thus ignored. Frascara argues that there is a strong element of sociology built into the discipline of graphic art. Therefore, he states, "graphic art cannot be understood in isolation but only within a communication system" (p.21).

He contends that the way design is taught is problematic because the discipline is more complex than schools sometimes realize. They try to cover too much ground, stretching the students thin. This is a valid point. An example I would use is marketing. Students in marketing typically spend their senior years studying little else. They specialize, and learn the practical skills associated with the profession. Frascara argues that graphic design students should do the same. Schools should narrow their focus at the undergraduate level. At this level, focus should be on meeting the needs of the graphic design industry. It is at the graduate level where intense discussion of theory should be developed. I agree with Frascara on this point. In most disciplines, such discussion is typically conducted at the graduate level. The average graphic design student can benefit from this work where applicable, especially if Frascara's proposed reference centers are created.

One of the main reasons Frascara wants to shift the emphasis of undergraduate education to meeting the needs of the industry is because he feels that the communication aspect of graphic art is understated in the current educational system. Greater specialized would allow for more in-depth training, allowing students more focus on this part of the discipline. I agree with his view that this aspect should be emphasized more. It will provide designers with a greater toolkit for the working world, but will also give them a stronger foundation for further, independent, exploration of communication concepts.