Chapter 1
Philosophical Aesthetics of Graphic Design
Functions and Aesthetic Appreciation
The purpose of graphic design is to convey messages successfully.1 As we know, no message will be received unless the viewer is willing to engage with it. This is why appearance often takes priority when evaluating graphic design. Aesthetic appreciation generates pleasure, and pleasure undoubtedly provides the motivation for behavior.2 Graphic design captures attention through its aesthetic form, using visual pleasure as its allure. To understand how graphic design operates and entices viewers, we must begin with its aesthetics.
However, viewing graphic design purely through an aesthetic lens unfortunately conflicts with its foundational essence as a form of design.3 At the heart of design lies the need for functionality and the ideology of pragmatism, where beauty is often sacrificed in favor of practicality.4 For example, if a poster fails to clearly convey key information about a movie or exhibition, its visual appeal alone cannot qualify it as good design.
This brings us to the relationship of mutual antagonism between the intuitive sense of beauty and functionality. Throughout the history of philosophy, we find that conceptual antagonisms often serve as the adhesive points of an idea. By disentangling these conflicts, we can better clarify the positions of various perspectives. Using graphic design as the anchor point for analysis, I aim to focus on the “lesion” in visual culture—namely, the tension between anti-functional aesthetics and pragmatism that suppresses beauty. These two “kitsch” tendencies obscure our vision, making it harder to imagine improved approaches to seeing.5
In the domain of analytic aesthetics, Glenn Parsons and Allen Carlson have already proposed the theory of functional beauty, which attempts to establish a connection between aesthetics and functionality.6 This theory will serve as the foundation for the following analysis. By using it to clarify the principles and objectives of various analytical steps, while identifying potential challenges, we can refine our discourse on graphic design. Ultimately, this approach will allow us to uncover an ideal framework for examining the underlying issues hidden within the conceptual operations of graphic design.
1. The Functional Beauty Theory
In their book Functional Beauty, Parsons and Carlson provide a detailed historical context for the way functionality has been sidelined in Western philosophical aesthetics. They critique the aesthetic tradition’s exclusive focus on art as the central object of aesthetic value. From the late 18th century—when Immanuel Kant introduced the concept of adherent beauty, treating the fulfillment of purpose as an external constraint rather than the source of aesthetic judgment7 —to the mid-20th century, when the concept of disinterestedness was embraced by aesthetic attitude theorists8 —and the rise of modern art perspectives that positioned fine arts as autonomous and independent practices9 —functionality gradually found itself pushed to the margins of aesthetic theory.
Because this aesthetic tradition excluded functional objects like design, it failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the aesthetics of art, nature, and everyday objects. In response, Parsons and Carlson sought to bring function back to the center of aesthetic theory. They proposed the concept of functional beauty, which holds that our aesthetic experience of an object arises from understanding how its form realizes its function. This concept can be summarized as follows:
Functional Beauty: If an object gives people the impression that its form effectively realizes a specific function, it is deemed beautiful.
Here, “form” refers to the compositional elements of an object and their interrelationships. In graphic design, these forms include the relationships between text, illustrations, layouts, and layers.
From the perspective of functional beauty, the aesthetic appeal of a thriller poster—such as Saul Bass’s design for The Shining—arises from the interplay of its formal elements. The bright red background, the unsettling squirming typography of “SHiNiNG” in mixed capitals and lowercase, and the eerie, blurry face emerging from “THE” combine to create a thrilling visual experience.10 This sense of beauty is inherently tied to function. If the same design were associated with a cozy family comedy, it would appear jarring and inappropriate, detracting from its aesthetic appeal11
The core of functional beauty theory lies in understanding how the functional category of an object influences our aesthetic appreciation. This categorization depends on the object’s proper function—that is, a function inherent to the object rather than one arbitrarily imposed.12 For instance, a thriller poster’s proper function includes providing a thrilling visual experience.13
Following this line of thought, we must first determine the proper functions of graphic design to analyze its aesthetics. While graphic design may encompass multiple proper functions, the focus here is on how selecting a functional anchor can guide analysis. Through this framework, I aim to explore how the production and dissemination of graphic design within visual culture operate as an extensive apparatus for generating and exporting beauty, thereby shaping the development of visual aesthetics and our broader sense of beauty.
If we were to find an analogy for the interplay between graphic design and visual aesthetics, communication serves as an apt comparison. In communication, the speaker conveys a message to the listener, who gains a deeper understanding of the subject. A listener already familiar with the topic might wish to engage further, requiring the speaker to demonstrate greater expertise to sustain the conversation. Similarly, the interaction between graphic designers and their audiences involves this dynamic. Fortunately, visual communication has long been regarded as the proper function of graphic design. Expanding on this, design theorist Malcolm Barnard argues that visual communication engages with the beliefs and values of specific cultural groups through formal elements such as shapes, colors, lines, text, pictures, and layouts.14
Considering an object as graphic design—where its proper function is visual communication—naturally influences our aesthetic appreciation. Before delving further into graphic design, we must first examine the details of functional beauty theory. Building on Kendall Walton’s influential article Categories of Art, Parsons and Carlson argue that the functional category of an object determines how we categorize its formal properties.15 These properties are divided into three types: Standard, Variable, and Contra-Standard. Each category influences our experience of functional beauty differently.
- Standard Properties: These attributes establish the functional category of an object. For example, in graphic design, legibility is a standard property because it enables information conveyance.
- Contra-Standard Properties: These characteristics prevent an object from being attributed to a specific category. For instance, three-dimensionality is contra-standard in graphic design; an object with this property would not typically be considered graphic design, even if it conveys information.16
- Variable Properties: These attributes differentiate objects within the same functional category. For instance, color is a variable property in graphic design. Saul Bass’s The Shining poster exists in both red and yellow versions, each eliciting distinct responses based on the background color.
Understanding how an object realizes its function through form is critical for categorizing these properties. For example, without knowledge of the impact grids have on graphic design, it would be challenging to classify grids as standard, variable, or contra-standard in postmodern design. Thus, the categorization of formal properties depends on an understanding of how these elements fulfill an object’s function. Parsons and Carlson emphasize that this functional understanding profoundly shapes our aesthetic experience and identify three types of functional beauty experiences based on this framework.17
1.1 Simplicity
First, when most of the formal properties of an object are standard and there is minimal variation in the variable properties, it evokes feelings of “Simplicity” and “Elegance.” Plain-colored objects typically convey simplicity because they lack complex changes in multi-colored combinations. In graphic design, plain colors limit the degree of variation in color properties, thereby creating a sense of simplicity. For example, the poster designed by Alfred Hablützel for Teo Jakob’s furniture store in Geneva in 1959 is an excellent illustration.18 The background consists of yellow and white vertical rectangular color blocks, which accentuate the table and chair composed of long black frame strips, along with text neatly organized within the central yellow block. Furthermore, the stacking of the table and chair eliminates linear perspective, emphasizing the graphic characteristics of the poster. The variable properties of this work, including color and layout, exhibit only slight variations, offering a classic sense of simplicity.
1.2 Looking Fit
An aesthetic experience of “looking fit” arises when an object displays minimal contra-standard properties and a high degree of functional variable properties.19 This concept is exemplified by the International Typographic Style, which fully embodies these characteristics. Emerging in the 1920s and 1930s, the Neue Sachlichkeit movement—reacting to expressionism—popularized the pursuit of sachlich, meaning approaching the object itself or striving for objectivity close to truth. This ideological trend influenced many graphic designers, who emphasized straightforward and clear communication with practicality as their primary goal. As a result, they opted for formal elements such as grids, photography, serif-free text, and geometric shapes.20
The poster Der Massanzug kleidet noch immer am besten by Walter Käch in 1928 is a classic example of the International Typographic Style. The poster directly communicates its message—“Der Massanzug kleidet noch immer am besten”—using a rectangular block to frame a photo of hands sewing, while the remaining background space features an image resembling blue textile. The poster’s text, presented in consistent, sans-serif capital letters, ensures clarity and direct communication of the message. Additionally, the use of photography reflects the context of the time, where objectivity was increasingly valued, as photography provided a more transparent representation of objects compared to the traditional painting mediums used in earlier graphic design. This poster’s variable properties, including layout, text, and graphic material, effectively enhance the function of conveying information clearly, providing a strong aesthetic experience of looking fit.21
1.3 Tension
Perceptive tension arises when an object belongs to a specific functional category but exhibits some contra-standard characteristics or lacks certain standard characteristics. For instance, post-modern graphic design frequently abandons the grid system, employing slanted lines or curved text layouts to create an imbalanced, dynamic visual tension. This approach transforms reading into an interactive process of searching and exploration.22 The Strange Vicissitudes poster designed by Willi Kunz in 1978 exemplifies this. The design incorporates elements of the grid system from the International Typographic Style while simultaneously using slanted layouts and alternating upper- and lowercase letters in “strange VICISSIUDES,” resulting in a visually striking and tension-filled composition.
Parsons and Carlson bridge functional categories and aesthetic experiences through their proposal of three types of functional beauty experiences. This framework significantly advances the aesthetic analysis of design by emphasizing the role of function in shaping beauty. Moreover, their work highlights the philosophical implications of functional beauty: the dialectical relationship between function and aesthetics merges the values of pragmatism and beauty. This synthesis underscores that favoring one value over the other leads to misunderstandings. Overemphasizing practicality at the expense of beauty, or prioritizing aesthetics while rejecting pragmatism, hinders a comprehensive understanding of value and risks fostering a new form of fetishism.
2. Beyond Function
A theory holds value because it provides meaning and direction for practice. The establishment of the theory of functional beauty has shifted function back to the center of aesthetics, offering an opportunity to move beyond the aesthetic tradition’s exclusive focus on art. However, in crafting the concept of functional beauty, the additional emphasis on function led Parsons and Carlson to focus primarily on aligning “beauty” with the practical aspects of design. This, in turn, overlooked design’s potential to create beauty beyond mere practicality.
A closer examination of the theory of functional beauty reveals that the examples Parsons and Carlson offer predominantly involve forms whose functions are unrelated to aesthetics, such as vehicle tires, engines, spoilers, glass doors, and furnace heads. These are elements we intuitively associate with design in practical contexts. This approach results in a framework that views design primarily through the lens of functionality-oriented objects. However, if our interest lies in design’s pursuit of beauty and its cultural significance, the analysis cannot stop here.
When considering works like the poster for The Shining or Barbara Kruger’s Untitled (Your Body Is a Battleground), created for the 1989 protest advocating reproductive freedom in Washington, are the experiences of functional beauty alone sufficient to explain the aesthetic impact? They are not. For example, the thrilling sensation evoked by The Shining poster is central to its appreciation, yet the theory of functional beauty fails to explain the connection between this sensation and aesthetic appreciation. Similarly, the beauty of Kruger’s poster arises from the profound meaning it conveys, rooted in introspection about the oppression of women’s rights under patriarchy. Functional beauty, however, does not account for how such meaning influences aesthetic experience.23
Every problematic claim originates from the assumptions of its theoretical foundation. The flaws in the theory of functional beauty stem from its reliance on functionalism to explain phenomenology. Viewing function as a “black box” means we can describe inputs and outputs but lack insight into the transformative processes occurring in between. Functional beauty offers the “skeleton” of design practice—how materials (graphics, text, etc.) are assembled via forms like layers and relationships to achieve a specific function, such as conveying a message. However, it neglects the “tissue” that fills this skeleton: the beauty or meaning imbued by the materials themselves, which undeniably influences aesthetic appreciation.24 Graphic design transforms these elements into cohesive experiences, but without analyzing the input materials, we cannot understand the transformations that occur, leaving aesthetic explanations hollow.
Parsons might counter this criticism by arguing that the theory’s limitations are not its fault, as the experiences provided by materials are unrelated to the aesthetic appreciation of graphic design itself. This argument is rooted in the presumption that the object and practice of graphic design are separate. When treating graphic design as an object, we may appreciate the visual experiences it offers, but the practice of graphic design is not about creating those experiences. This ontological stance is elaborated in Parsons’ The Philosophy of Design, where he posits that design practice creates not the object itself but the plan for its creation. Similar to an architect who designs a building but does not construct it, the graphic designer’s role is primarily conceptual.25
Understanding graphic design as planning reframes it as a practice of utilizing materials rather than creating them.26 This perspective helps distinguish graphic design from visual art. While some visual arts also serve the function of visual communication—such as Western religious paintings that convey the Vatican’s beliefs through color and line—they are not categorized as graphic design. Painting on canvas or modeling objects using software may fulfill communicative functions but remain distinct from graphic design, which focuses on how these creations are used as part of a plan.27
This planning perspective also illuminates the historical evolution of graphic design. For instance, Dada’s photomontage and modern collage art—often cited as precursors to contemporary graphic design—emphasize the assembly of found objects rather than their inherent beauty. However, this does not imply that aesthetic experiences derived from materials should be dismissed when analyzing graphic design. While the creation of materials falls outside the scope of graphic design, the designer’s selection and use of materials directly contribute to the aesthetic experience.28
Selecting appropriate materials is a critical aspect of graphic design practice. If the designer’s goal is to create an aesthetic experience, the beauty of the materials becomes essential. Even seemingly mediocre materials can be elevated under the designer’s aesthetic vision, becoming integral to the overall plan. While graphic design does not always involve creating materials, it invariably involves selecting and incorporating them. Neglecting the aesthetic experience of the materials themselves means failing to fully appreciate how the design fulfills its function of providing an aesthetic experience. Without this understanding, we cannot comprehend how the designer achieves the intended outcome.
3. Open the Black Box
The core problem with the functional beauty theory lies in its understanding of design as a type of plan, distinct from the act of creating materials. Parsons and Carlson, when filling in the content of this plan with practicality-based examples, focus on designs whose main objective is not the pursuit of beauty. As a result, the sense of beauty is not prioritized in the selection of materials. Consequently, the functional beauty framework sacrifices the sensory experiences and meanings that design can offer.29 If a designer creates with beauty as a goal—where the functions of the design include providing an aesthetic experience—then the beauty of the materials becomes a critical consideration. Their aesthetic value inevitably influences how we evaluate the work. While it is unreasonable to criticize a designer for not creating materials from scratch, the use of subpar materials undeniably poses an issue for the design.30
I aim to highlight the potential of this practice and propose a theoretical framework to better understand its aesthetics. Some might argue that if the beauty of materials contributes to the aesthetic experience of graphic design, then how does this differ from the aesthetics of visual art? The distinction, I believe, lies in the focus of appreciation. In visual art, such as paintings, the aesthetic qualities of the picture itself command our primary attention. By contrast, when a poster incorporates a painting, we do not focus on how the form of the painting fulfills its function in isolation.
Instead, the aesthetic experience of such a picture functions as a background element, integrated with other materials. Our attention shifts toward understanding how these visual elements combine into a cohesive form, producing an overall aesthetic experience. When appreciating a work as graphic design, the resulting aesthetic experience emerges from the interplay between the background (the picture) and the foreground (other elements).31 The materials used in graphic design often derive from the broader pictorial arts tradition, including paintings, photography, and other forms of visual art. Since the aesthetic experiences provided by these materials form the foundation for graphic design, an appreciation for beauty within pictorial arts becomes a key professional competency for graphic designers. In this sense, a professional graphic designer can be regarded as an ideal embodiment of the aesthetic subject.32
Having established the foundational content for the aesthetic experience of graphic design, we can now consider how to evaluate its aesthetic value. In the next article, I will explore how aesthetic theory can guide the creation of a system for evaluating the aesthetics of graphic design. Given that the aesthetic appreciation of materials shapes how we evaluate graphic design in terms of its capacity to provide an aesthetic experience, we must begin by analyzing how these materials compose the overall picture presented to us, generating a unified sense of beauty.
Merely analyzing the transformation from input to output is insufficient to comprehend the operations within the “black box” of design. These transformations are grounded in the input data, and the “black box” can only be revealed through epistemological descriptions of this data. When the input material in graphic design consists of visual art, phenomenological analysis of these materials is essential to establish the knowledge base for evaluating their aesthetic value.
To address this, I will introduce the concept of pictorial analysis as practiced by visual art historians, highlighting its two layers. The first layer pertains to the aesthetic experience of the picture itself, while the second focuses on how the picture is utilized within a broader context. I will demonstrate how the first layer can be integrated into the framework of graphic design aesthetics, addressing the omissions in functional beauty theory. Furthermore, I will argue that the second layer represents the core of aesthetic appreciation in graphic design and provides a bridge between the two layers of analysis. By examining this transition, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of how the aesthetic value of graphic design emerges from its materials and their application.