Fuck Graphic Design

When you're in tune with the mechanics of the universe, you learn to accept unforseen obstacles. As you may know from my entries over the past week, I had been planning on writing a searing indictment of the recent trend of graphic designers as celebrity. The bulk of my source material was to be culled from interviews in Tokion and Anthem magazine.

Well what the fuck... I just rummaged through all the junk I moved down from Portland, Oregon to Southern Cali... and it's all there except for one thing... those damn issues of Tokion and Anthem. But this is how I roll: maybe that was a stupid idea for an article to begin with. No... it was DEFINITELY a stupid idea.

Here is the email I sent to Dustin Beatty -- publisher/editor/director/etc -- of Anthem:

"i am currently working on an article that explores the views and strategies of numerous visual artists such as Shepard Fairey, Dave Kinsey, Mike Mills, etc., puts them in historical perspective (history of propaganda, commercial art, and utopian/dystopian philosophy, etc.), and examines how their art is consumed and interpreted. Does the average consumer "get" the messages behind the art? Is there a tendency to ignore or misinterpret the messages? How deeply does the art penetrate mainstream society? And, ultimately, is the work of these artists is in harmony with -- or at odds with -- their views, in light of how it is consumed and/or interpreted?

The follow-up to this piece will be an exploration of artists who have had significant impacts on popular culture -- not merely as instruments of businesses or politicians -- but as true cultural catalysts. What is the dominant force in popular art? Is it the personal vision of artists, or is it the adoption of new technology in a grassroots context -- such as TV, clothing, and modified cars? What are the trade-offs between art and economic necessity? How much do people sacrifice for different types of art -- say, a new haircut... or a ticket to a rock concert? And which mediums have the most potential to change the way we look at the world and ourselves? To establish all this we will need to look at whether it is technology or artistic vision, which ultimately decides the course of popular art."

Yeah... what was I thinking?!?! Not only is there no story here (and it sounds like a college writing assignment), but the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that graphic designers -- like most artists -- don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things and that technology and business rule our world.

While driving home from picking up the latest issue of Anthem and a turkey burger (with bacon and egg) I was thinking about Shepard Fairey and his style and his politics (he is basically "ground zero" for this new movement) and I figured it was best to ignore his politics and focus on his style. Because of his idealized, iconic forms and bold primary/secondary colors, most people (including Fairey himself) place the art in the tradition of communist propaganda. But what is propaganda, aside from mere political advertising? And in the case of someone who basically has no substantive (or at least overt) political program... the art is reduced to mere advertising.

You see... we didn't need a whole stupid article to get at the heart of the matter. Now I'm not picking on good old Shepard because I have a personal beef or don't like his art. I dig his art quite a bit. He's got an incredible style and his output is strictly phenomenal. The best part of Shepard is you get to see so much pop culture filtered through his Obey formula.

The reason I pick over his words is that we critic/observers take it upon ourselves to place the art in context. Another artist who has closely aligned himself -- politically and stylistically -- with Fairey is Dave Kinsey. Kinsey's style -- also -- is not to be fucked with. He has taken his medium and message to a new level of refinement. Unlike Fairey, Kinsey is a ground up artists and doesn't rely on digital tools for much of his art. I saw Kinsey's work alongside that of Andy Howell (both of whose style share a lot in common). Kinsey's political messages find their way into his art in a rather terse and vague manner, bearing notable resemblance to the way graffiti legend Doze adds key words and phrases to his pieces.

Of all the phrases Kinsey uses, the one most central to Kinsey's political/philosophical outlook is "unlearn." A general questioning of the the media and popular culture is nearly identical to the purpose of Fairey's "Obey" campaign. The irony of using a propaganda-influenced style is not lost on Fairey. But one is forced to wonder which came first: the propaganda or the dogma. Did Fairey come up with the propaganda style to serve his message? Or did his dogma come as a result of the fact that he must justify a style with obvious roots in totalitarian culture?

To answer this question, I think we need look no further than Dave Kinsey. Kinsey has nearly the same philosophy as Fairey, but his style is rooted in grassroots street culture. Kinsey utilizes a relatively low budget, one-of-a-kind graffiti based aesthetic where the ink drips over mutant forms, stencils, and offhand expressions. The stylistic connection with Fairey is that Kinsey's work is deceptively loose: Kinsey endlessly reconfigures several interrelated forms and themes in such a way that his methodial approach is only appreciate after gleaning through several of his pieces.

############

Join us for the next episode of "Fuck Graphic Design," when we expose the reality that all modern art is advertising.