Summary of the Barnard Text.

Throughout this chapter on the underlying subject of is Graphic Design and Art? Barnard explores various subjects around the matter such as aura function and cultural significance.
Firstly there is an argument to suggest that the artist and the designer do different things because the nature in which they both work are completely different, and both have an alternate course and drive to the activity which they are undertaking. Walker (1983:20) This suggests that mass media products such as those of Graphic Design, are the work of groups of specialists operating as teams in response to briefs, commissions or specifications laid down to employers or clients. In conjunction to this point he is arguing that artists work at a much more leisurely pace, have more artistic and creative freedom to there practice.All this is being taken away from a Graphic designer as they have to produce something potentially for a client plus it has a purpose, also they are designing to potentially please the client who isn't of that professional area of practice. Some would say it would be absurd to be asking the client for their creative input in an area of design which they are not familiar. This is where aura is lost and through mechanical reproduction image and text are being reproduced time and time again ‘Aura is the sense of uniqueness and authenticity that is felt before a work of art , is ‘inseparable’ from that of arts place in a tradition authenticity is grounded in the ritual or cultic function of art (Benjamin 1992: 214, 217) By not being able to have a unique piece of Graphic Design wether that being an album cover, photograph or otherwise it takes away almost the value of art. Fine artists its almost feel as if they are being undermined of their workmanship. Graphic designers work often to a tight deadline and produce high quality work where the artist would take their time and have the perception it takes as long as it takes! Also It is argued that digital prints can be anywhere at one time where as a painting/ fine art piece can only be in one place at a specific time. Yet to conflict with this valued point Engles argues that people in every occupation, including artists and graphic designers have turned into wage-labourers (Marx and Engels 1968: 70; 1985: 82) In a way for fine artists graphic designers have made their work seemingly of a higher value in society, as graphic design is commonly seen in every day life and could be argued the workmanship is being taken for granted, where-as a painting is not seen very frequently and valued to a greater extent. Additionally graphic design is designed to be legible and readable a simple easy communication strategy, yet art has a deeper meaning something which the soul has to read into, does this make fine art more valuable? Does this create more aesthetic value? This leads on to the argument about cultural significance within society, art is perceived to have lasting value where-as graphic design is said to be ‘ephemeral’ (Cronan 2000: 216) graphic design is temporary it is about communicating a subject to the target audience at that time: promoting, informing or instructing it is about information and as you know this can change on a daily basis. People still need to be informed in a effortless manner of these alterations. ‘Most designers speak of their activities as a problem-solving process because designers seek solutions to communication problems’ Wild (1997: 94) There will always be a debate to wether art does differ to graphic design on a creative and expressionist manner, arguments such as the ones which are highlighted above weigh up each side of this debate. Both practices display some form of creativity wether you can say that creativity is art or not lies another problem to be explored.