Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2009
Volume 27, Number 1. 139-154
Keith Owens
University of North Texas
Dentón, TX, USA
Abstract
Modern artists of all types have adopted formalist aesthetics, in
part to create autonomy for themselves and their work. While many
applaud this changing social role, others believe turns toward
the aesthetic entail turning away from social responsibility. Does
adopting an aesthetic stance lead to moraijeopardy? In order to begin
to answer this complex question, this essay examines communication
designers and their aesthetic biases in light of two correlative moral
rubrics: Cheatwood's artistic accountability and Berleant's artistic
responsibility. Insights from this examination are useful insofar as
they can add to the discourse surrounding art, design, aesthetics
and ethics.
A
rt and social critic Hal Foster (2002) has suggested that much
cultural autonomy has collapsed into a world where "everything
from jeans to genes seems to be regarded as so much design" (p.
17). For Foster, art and life have finally connected - but "according to the
spectacular dictates of the culture industry, not the liberatory ambitions
of the avant-garde" (p. 19). He traces this conflation to it roots in Art
Nouveau's pledge to Gesamtkunstwerk, or total work, and the Bauhaus's'
attempts to shape all of modernity by transplanting aesthetic concepts
about beauty, through fitness of form, into mass produced objects. These
two examples are not unique, however.
Throughout history artists have been called upon to tum their aesthetic
output toward larger social ends, the principal variable being the cultural milieu,
ideology, or political force pressing them into service (Carroll, 1998) - art
endowed with moral content (Armstrong, 2003), or propaganda valorizing
state imperatives (Devereaux, 1998), for instance.
140
Table 1
Keyword archive search results
society 61 81
responsibility 22 47
ethics 13 21
consequences 7 12
moraiity 3 4
form 386 469
some would say morally deleterious, bearing on the group's generally accepted
sense of social responsibility.
Notes
1. Bauhaus is the more common name for the Staatliches Bauhaus, a seminal
German architecture and art school that operated in Weimar, Dessau, and
Berlin, from 1919 to 1933. The Bauhaus style became one ofthe most
resonant currents in Modemist architecture and the art school had a lasting
influence upon subsequent developments in art, graphic and interior design,
textiles, and typography. For more information see: http://www.bauhaus.
de/english/
2. For the purposes of this paper, communication designers will be thought
of as individuals participating in a distinct vocation - communication or
graphic design—the practice of which yields artifacts, experiences, and
systems that identity, inform, or persuade. Because of limitations in space
and scope, this paper will neither raise nor address concems involving
individual versus collective responsibility. For the sake of readability,
it also will refer to communication or graphic design as design, and its
practitioners as designers.
3. For instance, popular design competitions include those hosted by
publications Graphis, Print, and Communication Arts. Others (to name
but a few) include: European Logo Design Annual 2007, Institute of
Design Montréal Awards 2007, Prix Arts Electrónica 2007, Hong Kong
Intemational Poster Triennial 2007, HOW Intemational Design Awards,
and the Red Dot Award: Communication Design.
4. Popular press communication design publications include:
Communication Arts, Graphis, How, Print. I.D. Magazine, Eye, and
Graphics International.
References
Armstrong, J. (2003). Moral Depth and Pictorial Art. In J. Bermudez and S.
Gardner, (Eds.), Art and morality (pp. 170-184). London: Routledge.
Beardsley, M. (1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Bell, C. (1914). Art. London: Chatto and Windus.
Berleant, A. (1977). Artists and Morality: Toward an Ethics of Art. Leonardo
70(3), 195-202.
Bierut, M., W. Drenttel, & S. Heller, (Eds.). (2002). Looking closerfour. New
York: AUworth Press.
Blauvelt, A. (Ed.) (2003). Strangely familiar: Design in everyday life.
Minneapolis: Walker Art Center.
Carroll, N. (1998). Art, Narrative, and Moral Understanding. In J. Levinson,
(Ed.), Aesthetics and ethics: Essay at the intersection (pp. 126-160).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, N. (1999). Philosophy of art: A contemporary introduction. London:
Routledge.
Cheatwood, D. ( 1982). Models of Accountability and Modem Art. Journal of
Aesthetic Education 16(3), 71-84.
Christensen, C. (2006). Popping the Bubble: Ethical Responsibility of
Design. Design Philosophy Papers, http://www.desphilosophy.com/dpp/
dppJoumal/back_issues/paper4_ChristensenBubble/dpp_paper4.html.
Accessed 18 May 2007.
Communication Arts [Magazine]. Menlo Park: Communication Arts.
Devereaux, M. (1998). Beauty and Evil: The Case of Leni Riefenstahl's
Triumph ofthe Will. In J. Levinson, (Ed.), Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at
the intersection (pp. 227-256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ewen, S. (2003). Note for the New Millennium: Is the Role of Design to
Glorify Corporate Power? In S. Heller and V. Vienne, (Eds.), Citizen
designer: Perspectives on design responsibility (pp. 191-195). New York:
Allworth Press.
Foster, H. (2002). Design and crime and other diatribes. London: Verso.
Fraseara, J. (2006). Graphic Design: Fine Art or Social Science?. In A. Bennett,
(Ed.), Design studies: Theory and research in graphic design (pp. 26-35).
New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Goodman, A. (2001). The Aesthetic. In B. Gaut and D. M. Lopes, (Eds.), The
Routtedge companion to aesthetics (pp. 181-192). London: Routledge.
Graphis [Magazine]. New York: Graphis Press Corporation.
Heller, S. & V. Vienne, (Eds.). (2003). Citizen designer: Perspectives on design
responsibility. New York: Allworth Press.
Hoekema, D. (1991). Artist, Humanists, and Society: Conservatives Have
the Wrong Answers, and Liberals Ask the Wrong Questions. Art Journal
50(3), 45-48.
Jobling, P, & Crowley, D. (1996). Graphic design: Reproduction and
representation since 1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Keedy, M. (2003). Hysteria: Intelligent Design, Not Clever Advertising. In
S. Heller, and V. Vienne, (Eds.), Citizen designer: Perspectives on design
responsibility (pp. 206-209). NY: Allworth Press.
Keedy, M. (2002). Greasing the Wheels of Capitalism with Style and Taste,
or, the "Professionalization" of American Graphic Design. In Biemt, M.
and W. Drenttel and S. Heller, (Eds.), Looking closer four (pp. 199-206).
NY: Allworth Press.
Lamarque, P. & Olsen, S. H. (1994). Truth, fiction and literature. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lavin, M. (2001). Clean new world: Culture, politics, and graphic design.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Levinson, J. (1997). Messages in Art. In S. Davies {Eà.), Art and its messages
(pp. 70-83). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Lippard, L. (1983). Overlay. New York: The New Press.
Lukács, G. (1963). Die Eigenart des aesthetischen. Berlin: Luchterhand.
Marcuse, H. (1977). The aesthetic dimension: Toward a critique of Marxist
aesthetics. Boston: Beacon Press.
Margolin, V. (2002). The politics of the artificial: Essay on design and design
study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.