Graphic Design as Communication – Intro & Chapter 2 (pp.1-16) Comprehensive Notes

Illustrations Referenced (p. 1)

  • List of 38 visual works cited as figures throughout the book, ranging from posters and advertisements to typefaces and photograms.
    • Example clusters:
    • 1.1 Channel 4 Poster “Go on. Jump.” (2001)
    • 3.3 Barthes diagram on denotation  /  connotationdenotation \;/\; connotation (1977)
    • 5.1–5.9 Series on packaging & gendered razors (Tetley, Gillette Venus/Mach3)
    • 6.1–6.3 Historic avant-garde pieces (Lissitzky, Zdanevitch, Marinetti)
  • Illustrations foreshadow later analytic case studies (modernism, post-modernism, gender, rhetoric, etc.).

Acknowledgements (p. 2)

  • Author thanks colleagues, librarians, illustration providers, copyright holders.
  • Highlights institutional support (University of Derby) and inter-site resource sharing.
  • Acknowledges potential untraced copyright issues → ethical commitment to rectify.

Introduction – Why Graphic Design Matters (pp. 3-7)

Everyday Ubiquity
  • Pre-work routine flooded with designed artifacts: alarm-clock numerals, toothpaste tubes, shower symbols, kettle icons, breakfast packaging, TV idents, newspaper layout.
  • Transit spaces equally saturated: car dashboards, bus liveries, road signage, shopfronts, office way-finding.
Cultural “Blind Spot”
  • Despite saturation, term “graphic design/er” absent from major English dictionaries (Chambers 1988, Shorter OED 1990).
    • Alina Wheeler (1997) notes identical U.S. omission.
  • Possible cause: design’s “invisibility” while users focus on content rather than form (Helvetica on gum wrapper unnoticed).
Counter-example: Design as Potent & Noticed
  • Channel 4 base-jump poster “Go on. Jump.” (Figure 1.1)
    • ASA & Samaritans claimed wording+image could trigger suicide (“copy-cat action”).
    • Highlights belief in design’s persuasive power yet critics ignored formal attributes (typeface, cropping, Channel 4 logo placement).
Cultural Variance
  • Japanese lexicons include “graphic designer.”
    • Pictogram debate for 2002 World Cup (Uranaka 2001) shows higher graphic literacy.
Rising Western Attention
  • “Pictorial turn” in humanities since 1980s (Aumont 1997; Mitchell 1994).
  • Critical scholarship boom:
    • Kress & van Leeuwen (1996) →\rightarrow visual grammar
    • Jobling & Crowley (1996) →\rightarrow semiology + history
    • Looking Closer essay anthologies (1994-2002).
  • Designer monographs (Carson, Brody) ride post-’80s “designer decade” celebrity wave.
  • Dictionaries slowly reacting: New Shorter OED (1993) now lists “graphic,” but trivializes it as mere “decoration.”
Branding & Meaning (Klein 2000)
  • Brand = “core meaning” of corporation → designers as “meaning brokers.”
  • Graphic design centrally about communication, meaning construction, identity.
Purpose & Audience of the Book
  • Serves students of: graphic/communication design, illustration, visual comms, photography, media, cultural studies – and curious public.
  • Argues everyone already interprets graphics unconsciously (e.g., choosing a birthday card).
Scope & Method
  • Book will offer explanation (why does design look like this?) + critical analysis (what enables it?).
  • Not a “how-to” manual nor judgmental review.
  • Focus on meaning-making processes & socio-cultural embedding.

Chapter Outline Summary (end of Intro, pp. 8-9)

  1. Chapter 2 – Definitions, functions, communication models; critiques Shannon-Weaver, proposes semiology.
  2. Chapter 3 – Denotation vs. connotation; layout semantics; word-image relations; visual rhetoric.
  3. Chapter 4 – Social/cultural/economic contexts; how graphics build societies, economies, gender & ethnic identities.
  4. Chapter 5 – Audiences/markets; representation of race, age, gender.
  5. Chapter 6 – Modernism: Bauhaus, Swiss, American corporate; modernity vs. modernism.
  6. Chapter 7 – Postmodernism & globalisation; post-1970s design practices.
  7. Chapter 8 – Graphic design vs. art debate; six flawed arguments + one valid differentiator.

Chapter 2 Excerpt – Graphic Design & Communication (pp. 10-16)

Common-Sense Misconceptions
  • Design seen as transparent “vehicle” transmitting messages to passive receivers (students & public often adopt).
  • Terms like “target audience,” “effective media,” “sending information” critique.
Planned Coverage
  • Will contrast classical communication theory (Shannon & Weaver; Lasswell) with semiological model (Saussure, Barthes).
  • Introduces technical lexicon: sender/receiver, channel, noise, code, signifier/signified.
Etymology of Key Terms
  • “Graphic” →\rightarrow Greek graphein = written/drawn mark.
  • “Design” →\rightarrow Italian disegno →\rightarrow Latin signum = mark, but also planning/intent.
  • Overlap indicates thinking & reflection inherent in mark-making.
Practitioners’ Definitions
  1. Tibor Kalman (1991):
    • Design = medium using words & images “on more or less everything.”
    • Broad inclusivity (14th-c. Japanese prints to Hallmark cards).
    • Critique: would classify unique artworks; needs “potential reproducibility” qualifier.
  2. Richard Hollis (1994):
    • Design = “business of making/choosing marks and arranging them to convey an idea.”
    • Later distinguishes via “planned for mechanical reproduction.”
  3. Jobling & Crowley (1996):
    • Design = visual culture; requires (a) mass reproduction, (b) affordability/access, (c) word-image combination.
    • Critiques: luxury items (Rolex) not affordable; logos often image-only; hence criteria need flexibility.
Purity Debate (Art vs. Design)
  • Marshall Arisman (2000): purity scale (Fine Art → Illustration → Graphic Design → Advertising).
  • David Bland (1962): illustration impure due to text relation.
  • Counter-argument: art also commodified & titled; “purity” useless as discriminator.
Working Definition Adopted
  • Graphic Design = mass-produced/reproduced image OR text, executed for commercial/social purpose, usually on commission.
Functions of Graphic Design – Literature Review
  1. Hollis (1994):
    • Identification
    • Information/Instruction
    • Presentation/Promotion
      → Critique: overlapping, almost tautological.
  2. Aumont (1997):
    • Symbolic
    • Epistemic (knowledge)
    • Aesthetic
      → Lacks explicit persuasion dimension.
  3. Proposed Four-Function Model (after Richard Tyler, Leeds Poly lecture):
    1. Information – impart new knowledge (logos, signage, maps, nutrition labels).
    2. Persuasion – rhetorical change of belief/behaviour (ads, propaganda, illustration).
    3. Decoration/Aesthetic – pleasure, ornament, entertainment (surface pattern, playful typographic spreads).
    4. Magic –
      • Makes distant/absent present (religious icons, family photos).
      • Transforms reality (visual metaphors, stylised gardens).
      • Connects to Kalman’s idea of making something “different from what it truly is.”
  • Additional Jakobson-derived functions (Ashwin):
    • Metalinguistic (code-about-code)
    • Phatic (channel-checking, e.g., “loading…” screens)
Examples Tied to Functions
  • Information: motorway signage color-coding (UK blue/white/brown scheme).
  • Persuasion: Channel 4 poster encouraging base-jumping (or suicide fears).
  • Decoration: ornamental drop caps in magazines, playful skateboard zines.
  • Magic: Nike swoosh granting heroic athlete aura; votive cards of saints.
Ethical & Practical Implications
  • ASA case shows legal accountability for persuasive impact.
  • Dictionary omission reveals linguistic gatekeeping shaping professional legitimacy.
  • Global events (World Cup pictograms) prove stakes in cross-cultural legibility.

Conceptual Connections & Significance

  • Invisibility paradox parallels Barthes’ “myth”: form becomes naturalised until controversy erupts.
  • Branding discourse links graphic design to semiotic economy (sign value over use value).
    brand≈signified   corporate   essencebrand \approx signified\,\;corporate\,\;essence.
  • Four-function model aligns with Jakobson’s communication functions → integrates linguistic & visual theory.
  • Magic function anticipates Benjamin’s “aura,” later contested by mechanical reproduction—a central modernist/post-modernist tension (see Chs 6–7).

Study Tips

  • Practice spotting the four functions in daily artifacts; annotate with quick sketches.
  • Keep glossary: denotation, connotation, phatic, semiology, branding, modernism, globalisation.
  • When analysing a design, ask sequentially:
    1. What info does it convey?
    2. What behaviour change is desired?
    3. How does form create pleasure or delight?
    4. What realities or presences does it summon or transform?
  • Cross-reference examples with upcoming chapter themes (e.g., Benetton “Handcuffs” poster for persuasion + globalisation).