external monologue

I wonder how much "art" is also about the sale of a product (namely, the art object and/or the reputation of the artist).

Andy, I will be attending the SR. Art show #2 because a friend of mine will be showing his art then...which in the past were mostly paintings. You should come and see, it might be more encouraging than the first show.

Yeah Phil, that's exactly the issue that I "have more thoughts on" but avoided in the original post, thinking that someone would probably bring it up later. And I think I do agree with you that there probably is quite a bit of "sales" that goes into a good bit of artwork today, especially when an artist is attempting to make a living at it. How can one not be affected by why might sell better as artwork, no? However, I still think that graphic design differs in that the object of what its "selling" is not itself, but typically some other product. (Although, even that line is beginning to be blurred in advertising these days; think Apple advertising: do I actually want an iPod, or do I just want the experience that iPod advertisements imply that I'm not currently having.) All that to say that a painting or a photograph's "value" seems inherent at some level, especially before confusing issues of the artist's reputation or the item's sale price come into play. The piece of artwork is only trying to sell me itself without directly making reference to other products or experiences.

it's funny, because we were just discussing the issue of graphic design last week... one thing about art is that it requires engagement, while graphic design tends to allow passivity. so the question follows: what is the responsibility of the graphic designer to engage the viewer and not foster passivity? does graphic design inherantly embody passivity?... i don't think so.... i would disagree with the last part of your statement that says art isn't trying to sell "experiences." it seems that the artist is always drawing on the viewer's experiences to make the viewer feel a certain way ... anyway, just some thoughts.

hmm... Good point about the experiences Charity. I guess I was talking more about the sale of an experience in the same way an ad tries to sell a product, but perhaps there's not really a difference. The best artwork, at least in my opinion, is that which evokes some response from the viewer which typically has something to do with the "experience" the artwork is communicating.

But thats where it starts to get confusing for me, because what stands out to me about GD is its focus on manipulation, which I tend to think of as more active than passive. And probably more closely aligns it with any piece of artwork that attempts to evoke a response. Either way, I guess it always comes back to the object of the "experience" for me. Does the item, whether GD or "pure" artwork, attempt to point me to another object that is for sale, or does it stand on its own.

Okay, I'm starting to repeat myself I think.

i definitely know for sure that i want an iPod. preferably a mini-iPod. preferably a cute little green one.

then i can finally be as hipster as i wanna be.

in other news:

i don't see the inherent problem with any work of "art" being sold. this is, obviously, an aspect worth thinking about (which post-marxist thought does ad nauseum), but where's the moral dilemma?

is there some pure form of disinterested motivation that we're looking for the artist/graphic designer to have?

i would say, be aware of what informs your work. there is definitely a difference between me writing a poem and me writing an ad for nike. the first is more "personal," insofar as i believe in myself as an autonomous individual creating something within my cultural context. and the other is more "personal" insofar as i will be able to get a paycheck and thus by food and pay rent. and buy nikes and iPods that are:
-a creature comfort
-a way of defining my "individuality"
-a way of trading in cultural symbols with other people
-and in the case of the iPod: a way to listen to music which nourishes my individual soul

full circle.

by the way, speaking of music, if any of you like the postal service, you need to listen to the Stars. i just discovered them last night.

-jerah

i hope the student with the bird-box isn't trying to sell anything...

mmm... Yes, I want an iPod too jerbs, and I'm highly susceptible (sp?) to just about anything that Apple advertising pitches my way. =

that said...

In regard to your statements about "moral dilemmas": keep in my that my initial point in all this was not that there's something morally wrong with graphic design, just that I have a hard time taking it seriously, especially in the context of a so-called art exhibit. Most of the time I'm impressed with GD's ability to affect me and cause me to want a product, but I'm also pretty aware that the "artwork" I may like in the design isn't something I take very seriously or contemplate in the same way I would something that claimed only to be art.

In that same discussion that Charity mentioned, we also talked about the idea that art ("pure" art) is about creating problems (of interpretation, response, experience, etc.) whereas graphic design is about solving problems (whether it be to sell a product, inform the public of whatever, create a recognizable identity for a business, etc.). I like that distinction.

(btw, I'm one of Charity's housemates, I've been lurking for a while but decided to jump into the discussion today)

Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)