My essay is about the development of “lo-fi” art into design, it’s routes as an anti corporate movement and whether it has lost these values due to the adoption of it’s style into mainstream design and the application of a more approachable rhetoric etc etc.

Basically, the lo-fi movement in music, and then onto areas of print and design and then fashion, first came about as a reaction to corporate establishments and the elitism of the rich, along with low production budgets and a love of the craft leading to a desire to make it themselves. There is also a nostalgia with past times and also a feeling of authenticity and ‘truth’ coming from it as it gives the impression of a hands-on, personal approach that has taken lots of time.

However, this has transcended into corporate design as establishments are using the ‘trustworthy’ and nostalgic aspect of the lo-fi look more and more as an approach to relating with their audience in their marketing strategies.

Because we are saturated with adverts and corporate messages, it has been argued that lo-fi art is just a constant re-use and repetition of old styles and methods, and that it has lost all of it’s original values and concepts, especially as trends and fashions are so fleeting nowadays as companies have to keep up with audience viewing habits.

If this is the case, do you agree that lo-fi art is nothing but another corporate tactic and that people only use it to identify themselves on a short term basis, and that nothing relates to the old values? If this argument has a standing, where do people see this use of lo-fi and new rhetoric heading? What’s the point?

If people have any points of view on this argument then please let me know, it would be really helpful!