APPENDIX 2 Questionnaire results

Every man above thirty years of age said he preferred a visually stimulating to conceptually stimulating image. Most in that age category agreed their taste was an important part of their identity, but either admittedly so, or for reasons of patriotism. All but one stated that ‘good’ design should unite, and that advertising most certainly is a notable art form. Results were completely down the middle when asked if tastelessness is as worthy of cultural status as the tasteful, a few stating they did not understand the question. Answers referring to the future showed only anomalies: though those older than fifty seemed to be more positive about the death of the good idea; those younger seemed more accepting that (good) originality could be finite.

Males under thirty generally analysed the posed situations much more thoroughly. All resoundingly said that yes iconographic imagery should be open to interpretation. Men not in the industry were sure that originality is not finite; those in the industry could not be biased as they pointed out technology as a variable and image sourcing and inspiration as part of the originality process. The younger gentlemen opposed the older by demanding design should be something used to divide not unite like-mindedness. All considered the images in the final section as tasteful, only two being unsure about kitsch and ad campaigns as artistically refined subjects. This time, the more personal questions showed the anomalies; all were confident in their answers, but all had different reasons for being ‘different’ i.e. those in the industry stated the importance of image-knowledge as a social binding tool, and those not talking more about style as something you develop to avoid being the same as everybody else. The under thirties all highlighted both comical and cartoon styles as their favourite ‘looks’ alongside traditional and realist; objective styles which are purely visual rather than the movement-styles which also suggest subject matter.

Women in general showed fewer patterns in answers. Those over thirty were reluctant to make yes or no decisions, but justified this by saying their buying habits are highly dependent on practicality at this stage in their lives and that much of what they like can be divided into groups i.e. what they wouldn’t have in their home. They talked about art as something which doesn’t need money to make work, but beauty as something money can buy.

Younger women (the under thirties) were surprisingly equally rational. Impact was described as something indifferent, possibly a masculine affair; and iconography as nothing media-created, but human-created as we are designed to see with different eyes not one. Neither skill nor concept was favoured more than the other, and only the youngest decided that originality is finite. Technology was agreed not to be a tool which can give creative ability to anyone, and the personal questions saw the majority of girls ambivalent to their style. This could be due to cultural freedom and fashion diversity, or a general artistic insecurity- as most of the younger woman said they did not believe they had creative potential.

To call somebody creative or unique is still a label nonetheless.

Results showed that a very high percentage of people regardless of their personal taste see low art and tastelessness (done with flair) as things completely worthy of fine art status; timelessness was however the theme most referred to as the backbone to ‘good’ ideas: rather than innovation.