The Linguistic Paradox

At the heart of the new sub design professions we got to know, lies a linguistic anomaly. This is going to be a pseudo-etymological article—you’ve been warned!

The core of our focus is the term “Graphic Design”.

The word "graphic" comes from the Greek word graphikos, which stems from the root graphē meaning "drawing" or "writing;" this  eventually evolved into the English term "graphic," referring to visual art, particularly in the context of drawing, engraving, and lettering.

The term "design" derives from the Latin word designare, meaning to mark out, devise, or plan. In English, "design" began to take on meanings related to crafting plans or intentions, particularly in the context of artistic creation and planning.

Thus, a Graphic Designer is, fundamentally, someone who plans or creates (designs) using illustrative or typographic means (graphics). In this context, "graphic" refers to the medium or tool used by the designer. Are you starting to see where I’m going with this?

Now, let’s think about the new branches of design: Product Design, Interface Design, Brand Design, etc.

In these instances, the word pairings are between "design" and the object being created — a product, an interface, a brand, etc. These professional titles refer to the what, while “Graphic Design” refers to the how.

In other words—no pun intended— Graphic Designer refers to the profession, whereas Product Designer, Interface Designer, and Brand Designer, refer to the brief, or the task at hand. And honestly, I don’t know a single designer who would agree to be defined by the brief rather than by themselves.

From an etymological perspective, then, there was no real "big bang;" dozens of new design professions did not actually replace the role of the graphic designer. These titles are not entirely distinct professions, but instead, they explain tasks that designers undertake that have been put on a pedestal  as a result of the significance our culture has decided to place on them.