What's the difference between graphic designer and graphic artist?

[Riefnu]

What is the difference between a graphic designer and a graphic artist?

I'm a little lost as to what it might be.

Is there a big difference? Is there none at all? Will the next person to post only put "One gets paid less"?

[Typically]

i think they go pretty much hand in hand. if i was looking for a job i would look at posts with either title.

[Silence04]

one wears flip flops, the other wears sandals.

[Yossarian]

I'm not really sure what I base this on, but my internal definition says that if there is any real difference, it's that graphic artist could be construed as a broader category and could encompass more than traditional typography + imagery based design.

Mostly though I'd say it's the same thing and depends pretty much on what the company chooses to call the position.

Your question did prompt me to wonder if any of the fine folks here prefer to classify themselves as graphic artists as opposed to designers and why.

[Danger_Mouse]

Though most don't know it there is a difference, at least here in Canada. The difference is money. And is more for employers than for employees on gauging what to pay scales to pay.

Graphic artists tend to make less and are typically in screen print shops, manufacturing, and production type jobs.

Graphic Designer minimum pay starts where Graphic Artist tends to peak.
More jobs of design firms, marketing, corporatate etc etc.

This is not written in stone and I am sure there are many exceptions....but from an employers point of view its a classification on gauging wages to certain job descriptions based on an industry standard.

[Typically]

i go by graphic designer because my BA is in graphic design

[marshdesign]

when I think graphic artist I think old school pre computer days. When graphic arts were mainly executed with traditional media (clay, paint, etc) Thats just me though.

[reuber1]

We have 'creative artists' and 'creative designers' here. The latter is the lower tier position usually involving Quark usage only, laying out articles and stories and building really basic advertisements or classified ads. Us artists do a lot more conceptual work, break out the rest of the programs (PS, Illy, hopefully someday Indy...and in my case, Flash).

[Sweet Tee]

We are refered to as both artists and designers at my company. So they go hand in hand, meaning the same thing. It just depends on who is speaking about us.

That's really interesting, Danger Mouse about the differences in Canada.

[budafist]

The only difference is the pronunciation.

[m00nwater]

We are refered to as both artists and designers at my company. So they go hand in hand, meaning the same thing. It just depends on who is speaking about us.

That's really interesting, Danger Mouse about the differences in Canada.

I don't know if that is true for all of Canada because I have never heard of that. Canada's a big country, so it might be true in a region of the country but not in others. I call myself a designer because of the same reasons that marshdesign said. Graphic Artist sounds so old-school to me. My job description when I first started at my company was "Layout Artist". I am in a different position in the same company and am now called a "Specialty Products Designer". Same job with more responsibility, creativity and flexibility, but at the core the same function.

I'm not sure if it is not more of a preference on what you call yourself these days or if there truly is a difference.

I would throw it out there for debate (not saying I agree, just throwing it out there) that a Graphic Artist is someone that actually creates artwork ( doesn't use clip art but instead draws his own elements) and a Graphic Designer takes existing artwork (clipart, photos, etc) and creates a piece of work based on those elements.

[Broacher]

I wonder when the word 'designer' will be considered 'old-school'? (Has it already started?) I suspect that many other design professions (architecture, industrial design, interior) are already resenting the broadness of that term-- maybe because it tend to lump them all in, publicly, with us, the 'uncertified', poorly paid, and much abused bottom of the 'design' skill market.

[romancing_layouts]

How about we adopt the title 'Graphist'? is there already another definition?

...or how 'bout, 'Aesthetic Technician'?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[m00nwater]

Hmmm. Well, there was talk of our positions being called "Graphic Consultants", which was very quickly stamped into the ground by us. Being called a consultant is certainly a slap in the face I think. With our profession having so many lines blurred these days, I find it hard to distinguish between hacks and "designers" anymore anyway.

[Broacher]

"Being called a consultant is certainly a slap in the face I think."

How so? Most of the consultants I know these days make a helluva lot more bucks and get more respect than the staff they're commissioned to consult with. Which brings up the point that it doesn't really matter what they're willing to call you as much as it's what they're willing to pay you. Call me anything you want, just make the cheque bigger... really.

[Sweet Tee]

I definitely dislike being called a graphic artist, it is very old school-sounding. The majority of the people I work with have been with the company for a long time, and are used to calling us that, so they continue to do so. I refer to myself ALWAYS as a designer when I am speaking to someone about my profession!

[Broacher]

Or as Homer Simpson once said, "Just once I'd like somebody to call me 'Sir' without adding the words, "You're causing a scene".

[m00nwater]

Or as Homer Simpson once said, "Just once I'd like somebody to call me 'Sir' without adding the words, "You're causing a scene".

Bwahahahahaha

I think being called a consultant is sort of demeaning because it is implying that I'm not at all creative, but rather just making suggestions on what the client should do.

My whole team was not open to the suggestion.

[furiouSPEED]

I'd rather avoid both term if it have to refer to myself.
The more important is the trust from clients. :D

[Broacher]

>>I think being called a consultant is sort of demeaning because it is implying that I'm not at all creative, but rather just making suggestions on what the client should do.<<

But in my experience, this is more and more what the client wants, and even expects. The 'absolute graphic power' position of days past is all but gone. Clients are demanding much more creative collaboration as work continually expands across multiple mediums and as standard office software expands to include powerful graphic editing suites.

In fact, when you think of it, isn't consulting what most Creative Directors do with their creative team? Don't they get paid more both in money and respect? And even at its most basic level, you might argue that much of design has become making suggestions. We don't 'create' what we produce. We work with tools and technology and the expertise we have with them, and then send/co-ordinate those instructions (what is a file, if not a set of instructions?) and communicate them to production technology to get the results we and the client expect.

It's like great management. The best bosses don't demand or create huge new structural changes from their staff. It's knowing when to make small, intelligent changes that makes all the difference. We should celebrate and promote our abilities to do this with graphics, not fight for total ownership.

[m00nwater]

Score one for you. Very valid thoughts.

[Broacher]

The gap exists between what we are SEEN as and what we are good at: defining and analyzing the problem, and then developing powerful visual solutions through a broad application of language/people skills all while executing our substantial technical skills.

What people these days THINK we are good at just includes the last part--technology. And the problem is compounded by what's happened to middle management. Like designers, they have had much of their support resources replaced by technology (Blackberries for secretaries, that sort of thing) and are being forced into a kind of nether world of authority which leaves them less involved with the day-to-day decisions and actions of getting things done, right and on time-- and instead just becoming barking monkeys for the corporate deities above them. Dysfunctional inheritance of abuse. And even many of the senior execs are beginning to feel frightened. Technological advances, particularly in communications, have made a lot of their former responsibilities almost redundant.

It's no wonder they crave any opportunity to exercise some expression of their creative, problem-solving abilities. I think that's a lot of what's behind the, "You're just a designer, what do you know about strategy' behaviour of so many clients and managers. It's too frightful and challenging to their abused value and belief system to accept the fact that someone from 'below' can have better, more powerful, and more intuitive solutions when it comes to communication strategies. For many of them, ideas are about all they have left in terms of real self-worth!

And for many above us, the only model they have is the top-- where they see that it's the people who control the 'ideas' have the power, and the glory. These 'accidental' visionaries often distort the power structure of an organization if they insist on applying the top-down style to all innovation. Result? Rampant micro-management, disillusioned workers. Falling productivity. Market impotence. And the cycle continues.

Newer companies (and some clients) who truly understand the power of creativity, and innovation, work hard at eliminating the classical power barriers with the realization that innovation is not restricted to the reserves of the corner offices.

And some day I hope to work for such a place!

But designers, as a whole, should not model their professional behaviour after the old top-down model of 'black box creativity'. If we all could learn to identify, apply, nurture, and support client/designer creative interaction and remain open to 'being open' to other ideas, we'll go more places, quicker, than we ever imagined possible. More of an innovation co-ordinator. The bigger problem though, is getting our clients, and the public, to see that kind of role as valid, and for us-- valuable.

[TopherDavid253]

Well, For Starters, a Graphic "Designer" is just that, a Person focused on selling their work i.e. A graphic designer is paid to put colors, or something that is related to a company, or who/corp. that contracts them.

A Graphic Artist, well, much like any and all real Artist, are all about making their own statement, showing off their development... I.E. take any artist, in history, and you can see that each of their pieces of work or collections are about something more then just the paint...

So, Thats the difference... It is like Night and Day to be completely honest... designers are content making money... Artist, are all about their Statements and Styles...

anyone who says they are the same, is probably a sell out, and are out just to make a buck... pretty sad... We are given' every tool, every canvas, and all these "designers" can do is try to make money... HA!