Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Toward a heoretical backbone for graphic design Graphic design has existed long enough for its role in society to be easily understood. However, unlike architecture, literature, or the fine arts, it has developed without much theoretical reflection. It has evolved into a sophisticated practice in a piecemeal fashion, with scattered efforts aimed at the development of subareas, such as posters or books, but without either the critical apparatus in literature or the discussion present in architecture. The aspect of graphic design that has attracted some discussion is visual style. But this discussion of style has several flaws: * It overemphasizes the importance of the visual structure within an esthetic context. * It omits problems of appropriateness. * It leaves out certain areas of graphic design, such as signage, forms, timetables, maps, and educational material (Figs. 1, 2, 3). * It omits the importance of ideas in the communication process, not distinguishing between visual creation and visual manipulation. * It avoids problems of performance related to visual perception. * It omits problems related to the impact that graphic communication has on the public's attitudes and ideas. These flaws have led to several distortions, the most important brought about by the praise of modern avant-garde typography. How long will the praise of El Lissitzky continue? True, he made a strong impact on a few typographic designers whose work in graphic design was closely related to the practice of art and looked very similar to their paintings or the paintings of avant-garde artists of th time. However, was Lissitzky's contribution really positive? His visual language was tremendously abstract (Fig. 4), as inappropriate to mass communication as Schwitters's graphics
Jorge Frascara (Fri,) studied this question.