Piero della Francesca, Annunciation, c. 1455

Philosophical Aesthetics of Graphic Design

Author: Huai-An Hsing
M.A., Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition, National Yang-Ming University

III.
Value and Ethics

In the last article, I explored how to establish a foundation for the aesthetic theory of graphic design through the iconographical and iconological practices of art history, using a conceptual analysis of style and genre. This methodology allows us to appreciate graphic designs that achieve the function of message delivery through the beauty of their materials. Through iconographical descriptions, we can document the types of materials a designer selects, as well as the themes and styles they use to compose the overall work. Iconological analysis then clarifies the functions, confirms the genre, and enables interpretation and evaluation of the work.

The establishment of genre provides a framework for analyzing how different design practices shape the aesthetic experiences elicited by a work. When design is viewed as a creative plan, and the purpose of the plan is connected to the creation of beauty, we experience corresponding aesthetic pleasure if the plan is successful. The core of graphic design practice involves two key aspects: the selection of materials and the arrangement of materials. Consequently, the impact of genre on the aesthetic appreciation of graphic design manifests in both areas.

In appreciating a graphic design, the aesthetic pleasure derived from the materials themselves forms part of the overall experience. However, these material-based experiences typically function as the background in aesthetic appreciation. For example, in a poster that incorporates a painting or a photograph, our primary focus is not on how the artist created the forms, as we might in appreciating standalone paintings or photographs. Instead, the materials provide a sensory and meaningful foundation that supports our focus on the designer’s organization of these elements. In this context, the foreground of aesthetic experience is the sense of beauty produced by the interplay of the materials. This aspect of functional beauty, as discussed by Parsons and Carlson, encompasses experiences like harmony, gracefulness, and tension.

That said, the theory of functional beauty overlooks the aesthetic experiences and meanings derived from the materials themselves. By focusing solely on the beauty arising from the realization of functions, this theory neglects the background experience that is integral to the practice of design. We often find graphic design beautiful because the designer has either precisely conveyed the experience offered by the materials or created a meaningful context for interpreting their significance. ¹

¹ This aesthetic structure involves both foreground and background layers of experience. However, functional beauty theory fails to account for the background layer. As a result, aesthetics under this framework becomes limited to either the creation of materials or their use. When design is analyzed, this omission naturally leads to a neglect of the experiences and meanings derived from the materials themselves.

This layered aesthetic experience is a crucial criterion for evaluating graphic design and is the subject I wish to elaborate on further. ²

² A useful analogy for graphic design in the realm of auditory experience is DJ mixing. High-quality mixing provides a seamless listening experience, akin to the “sense of looking fit” described by functional beauty. However, in appreciating a DJ performance, the song selection is equally critical. Song choice forms the foundation for evaluating a set, with discussions of aesthetic value in mixing and transitions contingent on this basis. By drawing parallels between visual and auditory domains, I hope the following discussion will inspire further exploration of DJ-related aesthetic issues.

1.
Precision and Profoundness of Aesthetic Appreciation

The iconological analysis allows us to differentiate the genre of works, thereby making separate comparisons of graphic design according to the functions. For a piece of work to be good, it must not only realize the functions, but must also realize with success. The connection between function and aesthetics should not only be a relationship of all or nothing. If a work realizes its functions with more success, it will then have more aesthetic value in that genre; when appreciating that work, it can be seen that we will not merely feel that it is beautiful – our aesthetic experience obviously includes a certain level corresponding to the degree of successful realization of the functions.

Let us go back to a basic question to unveil the aforementioned discussion: What is success? Successfully doing something means that doing so realizes the inherent purpose of that activity. For instance, the inherent purpose of archery is to shoot the bullseye. Therefore, the closer the position shot to the bullseye, the more successful it will be for the archery activity. From this analogy, we know that if we care about how graphic design realizes functions through the sense of beauty, then a good work will have to precisely convey the aesthetic experience.

A tragedy will not be successful just because it has caused enormous pain to people. What makes us feel the absolute beauty of a tragedy is often the grief that just hits the spot. A piece of work can get us because it has effectively conveyed some important messages. During the process of aesthetic appreciation, we are allowed to receive and analyze these messages smoothly with the guidance of the work. Therefore, to convey the aesthetic experience precisely, one must catch the audience's attention, and make them extract the information while following the presumed perspective. And to obtain one's attention, the best approach is to strike a chord. ³

³ Some people might query that sex-related elements do not necessarily strike a chord, yet can always catch our attention. However, I wanted to point out that not all nudity or sexually implied content will attract us. Even though a not-so-sexy graphic will make us turn our eyes towards it, it will not make us place too much attention to it. Sexy matters are capable of keeping our attention and letting us effectively receive the relevant information because the desire flow or dynamics entailed by the represented or implied object or incident can bring about our sexual desire or make us imaginatively resonate with it. We should also have a certain aesthetic standard for the appreciation of sexual property, but this will be another topic.

This explains why selecting the right materials is vital to the practice of graphic design: the picture of the material itself contains messages like symbols and emotions; the materials combine to form the background we see, offer us the intuition to understand the work, and then determine whether the audiences will resonate with at first glance and be attracted by the graphic in front of their eyes.

After selecting appropriate materials, professional graphic designers further imbue their work with meaning through elements such as composition, color, and narrative. Our admiration for a piece that accurately conveys its message is not solely based on its legibility. The value of precision lies in the complexity of the message: if a design merely communicates superficial information without deeper implications, its precision will lack significance. One of graphic design’s vital functions is to provide a context that gives depth to the message and effectively conveys it to the audience. For instance, in the poster series designed by Gregor Huber and Ivan Sterzinger for the 2013 Talk to the Hand exhibition, the interplay of hand gestures and their interactions with figures prompts deeper reflections on the role of hands in communication, thereby creating a rich context for understanding both visual and other forms of communication. ⁴

⁴ Discussions of profundity often focus on the depth of narrative, making it intuitive to apply such considerations to designs involving plots and characters. However, applying the concept of profundity to graphic design may seem less straightforward. It is important to recognize that profundity is not a singular concept. While narrative depth undoubtedly contributes to the excellence of many graphic designs—Talk to the Hand being a case in point—profoundness in graphic design can extend beyond narrative. When aesthetic experience leads us to further understand how a work realizes its functions, profundity emerges. Graphic design, as a visual creation, offers a unique form of profundity that is independent of narrative elements.

For example, Armin Hoffmann’s 1959 poster for sculptors Hans Aeschbacher, Max Bill, Walter Linck, and Robert Müller lacks narrative content yet conveys a profound sense of depth through its classic Internationalist arrangement. Despite its importance, discussions of profundity are scarce in analytic aesthetics. Anthony Savile provided a groundbreaking analysis of profundity in art in The Test of Time (1982, Chapter VII), explaining how profundity sustains our engagement with a work. Unfortunately, his insights received limited attention. For further reading, see Savile (1982). Similarly, the question of whether music possesses inherent profundity has been explored (e.g., Dodd, 2014). A related but understudied topic is whether DJ practices can exhibit profundity—an analysis that, to my knowledge, has yet to be undertaken.

How does this relate to aesthetics? The theory of functional beauty posits that aesthetic experience arises from understanding how something achieves its functions through formal elements. This suggests that aesthetic appreciation requires a degree of familiarity with the practice and purpose behind the work. Consider the elegance of a swimmer’s fluid posture: this beauty stems from the precise coordination of body movements that adhere to the principles of biomechanics. The swimmer’s speed and force serve as a medium, bringing the underlying principles to the forefront. A deeper understanding of these principles enhances our aesthetic appreciation. ⁵

⁵ Why does aesthetic practice foster such profound understanding? Stephen Davies offers an evolutionary perspective. He suggests that aesthetic appreciation—whether of animals, landscapes, or humans—is deeply connected to survival. Appreciating non-human animals, for instance, helps us understand their role in the ecosystem. Similarly, the aesthetic appreciation of landscapes relates to identifying environments conducive to survival, while appreciating human beings aids in grasping complex social interactions. For further reading, see Davies (2012), Part II.

If an experience is aesthetic, it will inevitably prompt us to delve deeper into the matters it presents. ⁶

⁶ Bence Nanay argues that during aesthetic appreciation, the operation of attention enables certain aesthetic properties to influence the valence of our experience. While Nanay does not provide a detailed explanation of what valence entails, I interpret it here as the emotional resonance we feel when a creative action effectively conveys an aesthetic experience through specific formal elements. This resonance may not always be pleasant, but it is inherently worthwhile, and this distinguishes aesthetic functions from other kinds of functions. This sense of pleasure often motivates us to pursue aesthetic appreciation. For more, see Nanay (2016), Chapter IV.

Thus, when a creative action aims to realize the function of providing an aesthetic experience, it is essentially inviting a specific audience to gain a deeper understanding of the issues embedded within the message conveyed by that action—just as a found object becomes art by challenging our imagination about the nature of art. Conversely, if achieving a certain objective holds profound meaning, it provides fertile ground for the cultivation of aesthetic experience, as profundity involves attaining a more fundamental understanding of the matters at hand. ⁷

⁷ Some might argue that I have conflated aesthetic properties with artistic properties in claiming that aesthetic appreciation introduces profound experiences. Artistic properties grant an object artistic status. According to Arthur Danto’s seminal discussion in the philosophy of art, an object becomes art because it embodies meaning. For further discussion, see Danto (2013), pp. 37–45.

If this view is correct, the profundity I describe may be understood as an artistic property rather than an aesthetic one. However, several clarifications are necessary:

First, Danto’s assertion that the nature of art lies in its embodiment of meaning stems from his examination of contemporary artworks that lack traditional beauty or are overtly anti-aesthetic. Thus, the distinction between art and found objects does not depend on the former being beautiful and the latter not; rather, art provides meaning through the artist’s intent or within the context of art history, while found objects do not.

Second, aesthetic experience, as I understand it, differs from the “sense of beauty” referenced in traditional aesthetics. Philosophers often regard the sense of beauty as an experience with positive valence, but I argue that positive valence is not essential to aesthetic experience. An experience qualifies as aesthetic because we understand how the object’s forms evoke that experience. Under this interpretation, found objects can also elicit aesthetic experiences.

When appreciating a found object, what we experience is not necessarily a sense of beauty with positive valence but a tension arising from the object’s form—a tension that challenges the boundaries of art. This distinction reveals the difference between art and other crafts: while art practices are designed to evoke such aesthetic experiences that foster profound understanding, other crafts do not inherently serve this purpose.

However, this does not preclude the aesthetic appreciation of craft products. While the act of crafting does not automatically provide profound understanding, we can retrospectively extract the meaning of its practice through interaction with its products. In this sense, profundity can be considered an aesthetic property. To create and provide such profundity constitutes an artistic property.

This distinction applies beyond craft products: natural landscapes, for instance, can exhibit aesthetic profundity but lack the intentional artistic properties associated with human creation. I would like to thank Szu-Yen Lin for prompting me to further elaborate on this distinction.

It is worth noting that we often associate philosophy with profound analysis or perspectives, ⁸

⁸ The notion of profound creation I refer to does not involve obscuring or blurring messages through text or other forms. Profoundness arises from the complexity of the message, which achieves depth by weaving together parallel and interconnected matters through a vertical connection. Philosophy (and similar theoretical practices) constructs such vertical connections, while art and design guide our understanding of parallel matters through formal structures. While all these dimensions of profoundness may relate to the clarity of message delivery, they operate on different levels.

yet we do not intuitively think of philosophy and aesthetics as related. ⁹

⁹ Interestingly, the understanding of knowledge also offers a kind of profound experience akin to aesthetic appreciation. Such experiences often bring pleasure, even when the knowledge itself is considered “useless” by others.

This contrast highlights the unique role of art: artists compel their audiences to delve deeper into matters through the artistic forms of their works. The profound aesthetic experience emerges from the interplay between the audience and the artistic formal elements. In contrast, the profundity of philosophy arises not from the organization of form but directly from its content. In philosophy, the relationship between form and content is transparent; the audience grasps the message as soon as they encounter the form. ¹⁰

¹⁰ This transparency underscores the difference between philosophy and literature. According to Peter Lamarque, literary narratives possess an “opaque” quality. The more the identification of a narrative’s content relies on understanding its presentation, the greater its opacity. Writers and other artists create profound works through this opacity, while philosophy, with its transparency, derives profundity directly from its content. For a detailed discussion of the opacity of literary narratives, see Lamarque (2014).

This distinction underscores an important point: for a work to successfully convey a particular position or value, it must establish a meaningful connection between its formal elements and its subject matter. A work dense with intellectual content alone is more akin to a lecture devoid of depth. Profound works achieve their depth by connecting abstract, expansive topics with personal narratives or experiences through artistic forms. The intricate connection between form and content is the essence of design practice.

From this, we uncover a significant commonality between design and philosophy: content and data only acquire profound meaning under philosophical analysis, just as formal elements only convey profound messages under the direction of design planning. While much remains to be said about the possibility of philosophy possessing aesthetic value, this connection suggests a potential crossover. Beyond viewing theoretical creations through an aesthetic lens, we might find that profoundness, as a dimension of the aesthetic experience of design, becomes increasingly intuitive.

2.
Creativity and Imagination

Up to this point, I have endeavored to elucidate the aesthetic experience of graphic design. However, our inquiry does not end at understanding how graphic design can be beautiful. A more pressing question emerges: what kind of graphic design possesses higher aesthetic value? Through the analogy of archery, we discussed the precision with which graphic design conveys a sense of beauty. Precision, as a component of the aesthetic experience, provides an index for aesthetic evaluation. Yet, one significant dimension of aesthetic value remains unaddressed by this analogy: creativity. ¹¹

¹¹ The term creativity (創造性) is more appropriate than originality (原創性) for the concept I wish to convey here. These two terms are often conflated in everyday language. However, I clarify this distinction because, to me, creativity emphasizes the mental processes that lead to originality, whereas originality focuses more on the innovative features of the work itself. In other words, originality highlights the state of being original (原), while my focus lies on the creative act (創) underlying that originality.

Some might argue that creativity is an artistic value rather than an aesthetic one. However, whether artistic value exists independently of aesthetic value remains a subject of debate. For further discussion, see Lopes (2011). Although this is not the place for a detailed elaboration, I will assume for now that artistic value and aesthetic value are distinct. Under this assumption, originality as an artistic value does not conflict with creativity as an aesthetic value.

Two approaches could reconcile these concepts. One is to adopt a broader perspective on aesthetic value, treating artistic value as a subset of aesthetic value. The other is to view originality, as an artistic value, as the foundation of creativity, an aesthetic value. A person who perceives the originality of a work during appreciation may experience its creativity. The resulting aesthetic response—characterized by thoughts such as “this is innovative” or “mind-blowing”—belongs to aesthetic value. For the current discussion, the latter approach aligns better with my analysis of aesthetics.

Returning to the archery analogy, the posture used to hit the bullseye is inconsequential as long as the target is hit. However, when evaluating graphic design, we not only assess the level of success in achieving its function through precision but also consider whether the method of achieving that function is novel. ¹²

¹² The archery analogy falls short in addressing creativity, highlighting a key distinction between creative activities and other human endeavors. For most non-creative activities, the value remains unaffected by repetition, provided the function is successfully fulfilled. In contrast, as I will analyze further, creativity serves as a critical metric for evaluating the value of creative activities.

Why is creativity important in the evaluation of aesthetic value? A work that successfully fulfills aesthetic-related functions should indeed provide the audience with a satisfying experience. However, no matter how exceptional or classic a work may be, prolonged aesthetic appreciation inevitably leads to a desire for novelty—an urge to encounter fresh and innovative aesthetic experiences. After all, aesthetic appreciation is intrinsically tied to the pursuit of pleasure, and pleasure is something humanity universally seeks. Throughout history, humankind has continuously engaged in creative activities, with countless new works being produced daily. Yet without originality, aesthetic appreciation would eventually stagnate, even if there were abundant works to admire.

If, while appreciating a new work, we discover that its methods of evoking sensory experiences, constructing narratives, or enabling interaction are identical to those of an older work, we instinctively assign it a lower aesthetic value compared to a more creative work—regardless of how effectively it fulfills its functions. ¹³

¹³ The question of whether creativity qualifies as an aspect of aesthetic value arises here as well. If creativity is not part of aesthetic value, there would be no difference in our aesthetic evaluation between the example provided and the original work it mimics. See Note 10 for further discussion. Another issue to consider is how significantly a lack of creativity diminishes a work’s aesthetic value. This is a complex topic that warrants deeper exploration, which I will leave for future discussions. For now, I encourage readers to reflect on this issue independently, though the resolution of this question does not materially impact the perspectives presented in the subsequent analysis.

Conversely, the ability to create something distinct or to achieve a breakthrough in a specific domain is often what gives creators a sense of purpose and significance in their work. This underscores that, alongside precision in conveying a sense of beauty, creativity is a crucial criterion in evaluating aesthetic value. These two criteria are not entirely separate, as creativity often stems from discovering a more precise way of generating aesthetic experiences. However, creativity also possesses unique qualities that extend beyond precision, as I will demonstrate in the following analysis.

Creativity is often understood as the introduction of a property into a creation that has never existed in previous works, thereby endowing the creation with value. However, such a definition is insufficient—it fails to clarify the nature of this value or the factors that contribute to it. Consider an example proposed by Matthew Kieran: a stroke patient attempting to write something, who unintentionally creates an abstract image that exhibits an extraordinary sense of beauty unmatched by any previous artist. ¹⁴

¹⁴ Kieran (2014).

While this creation is undoubtedly novel and valuable, we would not regard it as creative. This indicates that the core of creativity lies elsewhere.

The key to understanding the example of the stroke patient lies in the fact that, while the patient created beautiful pictures, he had no intention of producing original creations. If someone lacks the motive to pursue creativity, we regard their creation as accidental—no matter how innovative or valuable it may be—and refrain from describing it as creative. Some might argue that many creative works emerge without the creators’ direct intention to innovate, arising instead from unforeseen incidents or decisions during the process. However, the crucial factor is the creator’s motive to engage in creative work, not whether they were explicitly thinking about creativity during the act. While creators may unintentionally produce innovative works through certain methods, without the underlying intent to innovate, it becomes difficult to classify their creations as truly creative.

But what if the patient, upon realizing the beauty of his pictures, intentionally began attempting to create similar works? Would he then become a creative creator? The answer is no. Even if the patient’s pictures are creative, the creativity would not originate from him but from the neurological damage affecting his brain. This highlights a vital element of creativity: the creative aspect of a work must stem from the creator’s mental processes rather than external factors such as other people’s ideas or non-human influences (e.g., a stroke). ¹⁵

¹⁵ What if someone creates beauty through random processes while working on a project? Does this lack creativity? Not necessarily. The distinction lies in the source of the process: in the case of the stroke patient, the production of beauty is entirely accidental and unrelated to any mental operation. By contrast, a creator employing trial and error within the framework of software techniques engages their understanding to intentionally shape aesthetically pleasing results. If the stroke patient later devised deliberate brushstrokes to introduce new aesthetic experiences, subsequent creations would qualify as creative. I thank Hsing-Kai Peng for raising this example, which prompted this elaboration.

This raises an important question: what kind of mental operation enables creativity? Alison Hills and Alexander Bird provide valuable insight by suggesting that imagination is the source of creativity. Imagination allows us to discover new possibilities among the myriad methods for realizing functions. ¹⁶

¹⁶ Hills and Bird’s original argument focuses on establishing creativity as a concept of neutral value and highlights imagination’s role in creative works. While their article includes a discussion on problem-solving, I have substituted this with the concept of function realization, as explained in an earlier article. This adjustment aligns with the current discussion without altering their core insight that imagination enables creativity. For further reading, see Hills and Bird (2019).

Works from the past serve as references, showcasing established methods for achieving specific functions, while imagination enables us to transcend these limitations. It can inspire us to repurpose approaches used for different functions, integrate multiple realization methods, or even introduce entirely new functions.

For example, in Dimensional Typography, J. Abbott Miller presents several cases of text design using molding techniques like extrusion and rotation. One standout example involves Miller drawing inspiration from rhizomes to create three-dimensional and botanical features in the reference text Jesus Loves You by Lucas de Groot. This demonstrates how imagination can transform existing references into innovative methods for conveying messages through text, exemplifying creativity in design. ¹⁷

¹⁷ Refer to Miller (1996).

Design is the process of planning to realize functions, while imagination enables us to conceive new plans. However, novelty alone does not guarantee quality. Blue-sky thinking does not always lead to works with aesthetic value. On one hand, we pursue creativity, but on the other hand, our creations must be guided by aesthetic standards. Giorgio Agamben reminds us that true creation involves understanding what one is capable of creating, choosing not to do so, and instead exploring other possibilities. ¹⁸

¹⁸ Agamben’s discussion of creation builds on Gilles Deleuze’s 1987 lecture Qu’est-ce que l’acte de création? and interprets Aristotle’s dual notion of potentiality—being-able-to and being-able-not-to—to elaborate on Deleuze’s understanding of the act of creation as l’acte de résistance. For further discussion, see Agamben (2020), Chapter II.

The works of the past not only show us existing methods for achieving certain functions but also highlight which approaches are superior and which may detract from the value of a work. To imbue creative works with value, we must engage with the traditions of planning within a specific genre. These traditions provide reliable aesthetic standards. By understanding the tradition we operate within, revisiting its successful endeavors, and consciously breaking through its limitations while retaining its strengths, we can create imaginative designs that are both innovative and valuable.

This perspective underscores the importance of iconography and iconology in establishing the aesthetics of graphic design. These practices help us define the traditions of a particular genre and evaluate the creativity and value of individual works within that context. A successful designer, therefore, is not only skilled in technical execution but also possesses the aesthetic discernment necessary to assess a work’s value in relation to its tradition, enabling them to craft superior creations. By combining the comprehensive insights of iconography and iconology with aesthetic analysis, the pursuit of creativity becomes a means to develop new plans imbued with aesthetic value.

3.
The Ethics of Graphic Design

Thus far, we have identified two critical aspects for evaluating the aesthetic value of graphic design: the precision with which the aesthetic experience is conveyed and the creativity of the associated plan. However, these discussions have been confined to the evaluation of works within a single genre. When engaging in aesthetic evaluation—especially in contexts such as award adjudication or exhibition curation—we often encounter comparisons between works from different genres. In philosophical aesthetics, the evaluation of cross-genre works is an intriguing and essential topic. Is it possible to establish standards for evaluating works across different genres? ¹⁹

¹⁹ Noël Carroll discusses the evaluation of cross-genre films in The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. He argues that such evaluations often transcend mere film analysis, incorporating elements of cultural criticism. This broader approach requires not only knowledge of film history but also a deeper understanding of social and cultural theory and practice. Through this lens, we can assess the social value embedded in different film genres and incorporate this into our evaluation standards. However, Carroll also notes that some works are so distinct that comparing them directly may be inappropriate. For further discussion, see Carroll (2007), Chapter VII.

In my view, the key is not to compare entire works but rather to evaluate the creative actions within specific sub-genres separately. In the subsequent discussion, I will propose an additional index for cross-genre aesthetic evaluation that Carroll does not address: the profoundness of a work.

Admittedly, comparing works from different genres is challenging. For example, it is difficult to determine whether the movie poster for The Shining is better than the trademark for MUJI. Nonetheless, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that aesthetic appreciation is entirely relative to genre. A thriller movie poster and a romance novel cover belong to distinct genres, but we can likely still articulate criteria to justify preferring one design over the other—or at least highlight specific aspects where one excels.

How, then, should cross-genre aesthetic evaluations be conducted? First, works that involve diverse creative actions often require analysis from multiple genre perspectives. This is why evaluations of such works tend to be mixed: a work might excel in realizing functions associated with one genre ²⁰

²⁰ It is important to clarify that this does not refer to determining the overall genre of a work but rather identifying the appropriate (sub-)genre for analyzing specific creative actions within the work.

while exhibiting flaws when judged through the lens of another. When evaluating a work involving multiple genres, the key lies in prioritizing the genres in order of importance and conducting the comparison accordingly.

What factors determine this prioritization? The designer’s intention is a significant consideration. If a designer primarily intends for a work to realize Function A, and it accomplishes this goal successfully, it would be unreasonable to assign a low evaluation based solely on minor flaws in achieving a secondary Function B.

However, a designer’s intention does not determine everything. Pipe cleaners were initially designed to clean pipes, but they have since become a widely popular material for crafts. Although the company originally produced pipe cleaners for cleaning purposes, if consumers primarily purchase them for handcrafting, this market-driven function should take precedence when evaluating their aesthetic value. ²¹

²¹ Parsons and Carlson argued that intentionalism leads to indeterminate proper functions and introduced the selection effects theory from the philosophy of biology to explain proper functions in artificial objects. For more, see Parsons and Carlson (2008), Chapter III. While selection effects theory is effective for analyzing market-driven functions, it struggles with experimental designs like speculative design, which aim to surpass traditional boundaries. A sophisticated intentionalism could better address these scenarios. Additionally, Wybo Houkes and P.E. Vermaas proposed integrating both approaches using the concept of use-plans to account for the roles of designers, users, and their interactions. See Houkes and Vermaas (2010), Chapter III.

It is worth noting that while considerations from the creator’s intent and the consumer’s usage may appear separate or even contradictory, both are ultimately related to how the design is utilized. The critical point is to understand what functions the design serves in practice to conduct a meaningful aesthetic evaluation.

Following this principle, we can prioritize the different genres a work belongs to. The next challenge is determining how to compare works across genres or those with varying genre priorities. One feasible method is to compare the values of the functions realized by works in different genres. Undoubtedly, functions with greater societal value often create more overall value. This explains why we typically regard a piece of design that addresses significant topics—such as gender equality, human rights, or environmental issues—as more valuable than a work that fails to inspire thought or influence.

Design, as the plan for creation, determines both the functions a work will fulfill and the methods for fulfilling them. Consequently, design establishes the issues a work addresses and its potential societal influence. ²²

²² Some might question whether this value pertains to ethics rather than aesthetics. While this is a debatable issue, the essence of graphic design aesthetics lies in how messages are conveyed through formal elements. Thus, the ethical value embedded in messages conveyed through design actions significantly influences aesthetic evaluations.

While different issues—such as gender and race—are equally significant, we compare works based on the depth with which they address their respective topics. As previously discussed, creating profound experiences is a key aspect of aesthetic value. Thus, the depth of engagement directly relates to the quality of a design.

Consider two works of historical significance in graphic design: Adrian Allison’s 1930 Art Deco poster East African Transports for the Empire Marketing Board and Barbara Kruger’s 1989 poster Untitled (Your Body is a Battleground), created for a protest advocating reproductive freedom against anti-abortion laws in Washington. Both works effectively convey their messages, and while gender and colonialism are equally important topics, Kruger’s poster is often considered superior.

Allison’s poster exoticizes Africa, depicting Africans as faceless laborers with heads bowed, reinforcing British imperial dominance and reflecting a shallow, authoritarian colonial perspective. In contrast, Kruger’s poster critiques the patriarchal gaze on women’s bodies. By framing bodily autonomy as a battle, it creates a powerful context of agency and empowerment. This difference in the depth of engagement with their respective issues illustrates why Kruger’s work is deemed more impactful. ²³

²³ While graphic design often intersects with narrative, its profoundness does not solely depend on narrative depth. Rather, it involves the interplay of foreground and background elements in aesthetic appreciation. In Allison’s poster, the foreground visual composition conveys activities in Africa, while the background narrative informs our understanding. Profoundness emerges from integrating visual and narrative elements into a coherent context. See note 4 for a discussion of profoundness in graphic design.

An issue’s importance extends beyond urgency; it involves addressing fundamental conditions or problems that provoke deeper thought and inspire action. However, profoundness cannot be achieved by merely presenting an issue. The audience’s understanding emerges from their interaction with the work’s formal elements. This layer of experience enhances the issue’s potential, offering audiences the context needed for deeper comprehension. If a work fails to convey its message effectively, it may not inspire its audience and could even propagate harmful values. Therefore, profoundness is essential for design to ethically and effectively address issues.

Aesthetic appreciation, as an experience of profound understanding, inherently contains ethical value. ²⁴

²⁴ Profound experiences themselves hold intrinsic value, explaining the ethical dimension of aesthetic appreciation.

Actions that encourage deeper comprehension of issues enhance our awareness of ourselves and society, connecting disparate dimensions of understanding and enabling thoughtful responses to human conditions. In this light, profoundness becomes a universal criterion for cross-genre aesthetic evaluation. As a discipline, graphic design is uniquely positioned to endow visual works with this essential quality.

References
Agamben, G. (2020). Creation and Anarchy. Stanford University Press.
Carroll, N. (2007). The philosophy of motion pictures. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Danto, A. C. (2013). What art is. Yale University Press. Davies, S. (2012). The artful species: Aesthetics, art, and evolution. OUP Oxford.
Dodd, J. (2014). The possibility of profound music. British Journal of Aesthetics, 54(3), 299–322.
Hills, A., & Bird, A. (2019). Against creativity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 99(3), 694–713.
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
Kieran, M. (2014). Creativity as a Virtue of Character. The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays, 125–144.
Lamarque, P. (2014). The opacity of narrative. Rowman & Littlefield.
Miller, J. A. (1996). Dimensional Typography: Words in Space: Kiosk Report# 1 (Vol. 1). Princeton Architectural Press.
Nanay, B. (2016). Aesthetics as philosophy of perception. Oxford University Press.
Parsons, G., & Carlson, A. (2008). Functional Beauty. Oxford University Press.
Savile, A. (1982). The test of time: An essay in philosophical aesthetics. Clarendon Press Oxford.

1 2 3 4 5

Conclusion ︎

Philosophical Aesthetics of Graphic Design

III. Value and Ethics

1. Precision and Profoundness of Aesthetic Appreciation

2. Creativity and Imagination

3. The Ethics of Graphic Design

III.
Value and Ethics

1.
Precision and Profoundness of Aesthetic Appreciation

2.
Creativity and Imagination

3.
The Ethics of Graphic Design