Gestalt: An Artist’s Dream
Published October 24, 2011 | 
Tim McCreight, the author of Design Language, wrote: “Our need for wholeness is so great we assemble elements into as large a unit as possible. We will see a row of dots as a dotted line rather than a collection of small marks” (1996). This is just one example of the gestalt theory. It has gained world recognition and has become part of an artist’s formal study. Surprisingly, *gestalt* is not the name of the person who discovered the series of visual perceptions which are now recognized as design laws; instead, the word *gestalt* means “form or shape.”
The gestalt theory originated with Wertheimer, and he believed the human brain predictably organizes and groups forms and shapes by grouping them in certain ways. Gestalt theory includes: “the law of similarity, the law of proximity, the law of continuation, and the law of common fate” according to Paul Martin Lester, the author of the book Visual Communication.
Gestalt psychologists continued Wertheimer’s work which began back in the 1920′s. Artists want to know how the mind sees and organizes visual information. Improved understanding of how designs and patterns are viewed as a whole and not strictly by the parts is helpful to artists, because they can use these laws as guidelines as they work.
Due to the gestalt theory, an artist has a better idea as to how much or how little information should be in their graphic designs and artwork. Not only this, but the knowledge of the gestalt theory allows artists and designers to know where they can take visual liberties as they design. Gestalt theory shows how the human mind completes the missing parts and details by grouping, connecting, and separating the varying shapes and forms.
No doubt about it, the gestalt theory is fascinating. To learn more about it, take time to read information about “the law of similarity, the law of proximity, the law of continuation, and the law of common fate.” (revised 2/15/2006)
Graphic Artist Salaries
Published October 3, 2011 |
Artists are considered to be poorly paid, but with the turnaround in the media and the explosion of dotcom companies, graphic artists are fast becoming hot commodities and are earning big money. Most traditional graphic artists created print products such as packaging, promotional displays, marketing brochures or books, designed logos for products and businesses, or worked on the visual designs of annual reports and other corporate propaganda. However, modern graphic artists are steadily entering into the lucrative and fast-evolving profession of web design to earn quick riches.
According to a 2005 survey by the American Institute of Graphic Artists, entry-level designers at graphic design firms earned a median annual salary of $30,000 and a median total compensation of $32,000, while a print production artist earned $40,000 in median annual pay and total compensation. The Creative Group, a staffing firm in Menlo Park, California, also projected the annual salary ranges for designers for the year 2005. The group calculated the average annual figures for illustrators from $31,000 to $42,000, for graphic designers from $29,000 to $41,000, for production artists between $28,500 to $37,750, and so on. On the other hand, according to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual mean wage in 2002 for graphic designers across the US was $41,380.
Graphic artists often work on a freelance basis, selling their skills and pitching their designs to advertising agencies, retailers, design firms, magazines, newspapers and Internet companies. Although to become an established freelance designer might be a difficult task, successful freelance artists can earn good salaries while enjoying their freedom to work according to their choice. In-house graphic artists can also have lucrative careers and, through their hard work and creativity, can become art directors and command high salaries.
Graphic artists are gaining command in the fast-growing media industry, and a good artist with skill and talent can easily earn a comfortable living.
The Myth of the Suffering Artist
Published September 30, 2011 |
There is no be-all-end-all work of art. No definitive statement will be made for all time by any of us, so let’s take things a little easier and give our muses a little space to breathe.
This is one reason why, as I writer, I favor stream-of-consciousness writing practice as a means of priming the pump. It allows me to simply tune in to whatever is wanting to come out of me at any given time. If I completely plan my work out ahead of time, I’m much more likely to be restrained by my own beliefs about what constitutes real art and what doesn’t. Any moments that we reflect upon – not just the “deep” and “serious” existential speculations – contain something universal in human experience anyway.
So then what about this sticky notion that the artist must suffer? It’s long been a cliché, this supposed truism. Addictions, suicidal temperaments, promiscuity, unbalanced behavior, misanthropy…all these things have been expected of the great creators of the human race almost as a matter of course.
It’s impossible to argue against the evidence that so many renowned artists were – or are – going off the rails. But what does pain really mean? It prompts us to seek ways to soothe or heal it. If we burn our hand on a hot stove, the pain is there to tell us to yank our hand away. It is not a negative feeling; it’s a protective measure.
Suffering, then, in the life of an artist is merely the impetus to embark upon the quest. Suffering means that the status quo has become too painful, stifling or debilitating for artists – and so they must find their own way. The fruits of this search are what inspire the rest of us, their audience. Does this mean that our artists are supposed to endure physical and spiritual penury all of their lives? No! The purpose of suffering, again, is to prompt us to learn how to heal or otherwise alleviate it. Artists who die in despair never learned how to redeem themselves with their own art; in the end, they failed to be physicians for themselves in the way that they were for so many of us.
So, in answer to the eternal question “Is it necessary to suffer in order to be an artist?” I would say: “Yes – but only at the onset.” From there, the real creative path for each of us lies in finding our own personal answer, the means to fulfill ourselves without relying upon society’s prescription for reality.