Scott 1

Sarida Scott
ENG 2001
Hill
20 November 2013
Rhetorical Analysis
I. The Author and Exigence
An article in the Chicago Tribune, titled The Power of Graphic Design in Politics and
Society, not only questions the role of graphic artists in the professional world, but also brings
to light the subtle importance of their contributions to society, and troubles they face in becoming
successful (Harris). The article was written by Neil Harris, a professor of History at the
University of Chicago ("University of Chicago") who has published over ten books covering
subjects from 19th century American painting to the rise in popularity of baseball ("University of
Chicago"). Harris wrote in his biography that he has special concerns with the social history
of art and design ("University of Chicago"), and, therefore, his article in the Chicago Tribune
seems highly relevant to his field of expertise.
Harriss article, which is partly a review of Clean New World: Culture, Politics, and
Graphic Design, a book by Maud Lavin, who is a cultural historian and professor of Art History
at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago ("Maud Lavin"), underlines the prevalence of
graphic art in all aspects of society, from corporate logos to maps and election ballots (Harris).
The article was written perhaps as an expos on the true role of graphic designers in the modern
world and how imagery and symbols have become such a vital part of public opinion and
understanding. Both this article and Lavins book could be of fundamental importance for

Scott 2
aspiring graphic designers who want to gain a better understanding of how they can contribute
their work for the benefit of society.
II. Development of the Argument
Harriss main argument is, despite the fact that graphic designis intricately embedded
in the larger culture ("University of Chicago"), there are still numerous difficulties for graphic
artists who want to reach large audiences with critical messages ("University of Chicago"). He
has structured the main body of his article as a brief summary of each section in Lavins book
and goes on to include his own thoughts on the subject. By building on Lavins thesis that
graphic design has been an influential part of American consumerism since the 1920s, Harris
explains how it relates to the destructive individualism and dormant collectivism (Harris) of
contemporary American life, and goes on to underline the numerous difficulties surrounding the
graphic design field, from gender issues to the [heavy dependence] on corporate clients
(Harris). The article is clear and goes straight to the point, allowing readers to focus on the bulk
of Harriss argument.
III. Rhetorical Triangle
A. Credibility
The article itself states that Harris is a professor of American History at the University
of Chicago (Harris), and his university profile reveals that he also has a PhD in Art History from
Harvard ("University of Chicago"), suggesting his extensive knowledge on the subject and
leading the audience to subconsciously trust his statements due to his academic expertise. His
knowledge and understanding of graphic designs place in the history of art is further
demonstrated through statements such as the homeland the Bauhaus and Miesian modernism
was the centerpiece of broader European reforms and juxtaposing and contrasting several

Scott 3
celebrated Dutch and German artists like John Heartfield, Piet Zwart, Paul Schuitema[Lavin]
argues that scholars highlighting the modernist emphasis on form have disguised its complicity
with industrialization and a host of accompanying economic practices (Harris). Harris
establishes his credibility by extrapolating on Lavins statements and highlighting the key points
of her book.
Harris demonstrates an interested and positive attitude, as he acknowledges the vital yet
at times unnoticed importance of graphic design in shaping contemporary art and public ideals.
By analyzing and summarizing the ideas put forth through Lavins book, Harris shows his
eagerness to discuss and promote a better understanding of graphic designs influence on society,
politics and corporations, and its place amongst more traditional art forms.
B. Audience
Through Harriss extensive use of complex artistic terms such as Miesian modernism
(Harris) and inclusion of historical facts and names of artists that most people would not know
unless they researched them, Harris seems to be addressing an audience well-versed in principles
and history of graphic design, as well as prospective graphic designers who desire to become
more accomplished in the field. Harris has perhaps written this article to further educate his
audience on graphic designs ability to personify corporations, appeal to communitarian goals
and exploit the ideals of simplicity, repetition, coolness and homogeneity in the interest of an
individualistic self-glorification (Harris) as well as ensuring that aspiring graphic designers are
aware of the problems they may face, thus preparing them for the future.
C. Subject
There are two subjects to Harriss article: the first is that it is a review of Lavins book on
graphic design in society, and the second is that it is a review of how graphic design has

Scott 4
influenced U.S culture and the formation of public opinion since the 1920s. Harris does this by
giving a brief summary of the different sections of Lavins book, and tying this in with his own
information and knowledge of the subject and its importance in society.
From the article we begin to get the sense that Harris is highly educated and has a
genuine interest in the way graphic design has shaped public discourse and the cultural images
and icons we see today. He also seems to be writing towards an audience with a deep interest in
this matter and is directing his article towards this demographic in order to further inform and
educate them on the current state of graphic design and society.
IV. Appeals
A. Ethos
Both Harris and Lavin have established their credibility through their academic
accomplishments, ensuring their competence and trustworthiness in what their arguments. The
fact that Harris is reviewing Lavins book on the nature of graphic design in the world of modern
culture and politics clearly demonstrates both their understanding of the subject, and although
this could possibly bias them towards graphic design, it does not detract from their obvious
authority on the complexities of their arguments. From their extensive list of published works,
Harris and Lavin are fully accomplished in their field, and therefore this suggests that they are
working toward the benefit of graphic design and attempting to draw attention to its importance
and many uses in the world of politics and business.
B. Logos
Harris presents extensive facts and details on the history of graphic design and the artists
who have contributed to the field, which is used to convince the audience of the importance of
graphic design in todays modern world and how it has influenced all aspects of life, from the

Scott 5
design of product packaging to the layout of maps. Harris also provides sound logic and reason
in his statement that graphic designers are heavily dependent on corporate clients (Harris) and
due to a lack of rituals that have helped promote radical painters and sculptors gallery
openings, newspaper reviews, dealer publicity and public relations (Harris), they often have
great difficulty in finding work. This demonstrates Harriss extensive research on the subject and
his thorough knowledge of all aspects of the fundamentals and functionality of graphic designers.
C. Pathos
Though very little, there are some examples of Harris appealing directly to emotion, for
example when he explains that graphic designers experience the same dilemmas that have faced
traditional fine artists (Harris), and that they operate within powerful constraints (Harris),
which alerts the audience to the fact that there is a certain percentage of graphic designers who
have problems in the field, and that there is no guarantee of job-security. This statement could
appeal particularly to audience members who have perhaps faced the same problems themselves,
allowing them to empathize and understand the situation of graphic designers today, thus
persuading them towards Harriss argument. This also appeals to the wider audience as well due
to the fact that it provides a frightening scenario of possible unemployment and an unstable job
that could happen to anyone.
V. Effectiveness
This article is highly effective in convincing the audience of the rise of graphic design in
society, through facts and the authors own credibility. This is an insight into how the principles
of graphic design have progressed through history and demonstrates how the field encompasses
both artistic and socio-political aspects vital to the development of public response. This article
demonstrates that there is a great deal of writing related to graphic design, exampled by the

Scott 6
scope of Harris and Lavins published work, and also shows how elements of art history play an
important role in the understanding of the rise and evolution of different art forms both in the
United States and across the world.
This article has also elucidated the different aspects involved in writing about graphic
design, from establishing an audience well-versed in basics of the field, to explaining the logic
and reasoning behind graphic designs influence on the imagery and icons in mass media today.

Scott 7
Works Cited
Harris, Neil. "The Power of Graphic Design in Politics and Society." Chicago Tribune 3 June
2001, n. pag. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-0603/entertainment/0106030063_1_graphic-design-bauhaus-politics>.
"Department of History." The University of Chicago. The University of Chicago, n.d. Web. 5
Nov 2013. <http://history.uchicago.edu/directory/neil-harris>.
"Maud Lavin." School of the Art Institute of Chicago. School of the Art Institute of Chicago, n.d.
Web. 5 Nov 2013. <http://www.saic.edu/profiles/faculty/maudlavin/>.