Summary In The Inversion of Originality through Design, Donnelly examines the very ontological principles of what can be considered the originality in graphic design from the point of view of provocative power, inventiveness, and different contexts. In the history of design as part of visual culture, it is easy to discover, that the epoch when graphic design transformed into an independent form of artistic experience is linked to the societal change and revolutions, particularly in the case of German and Russian avant-garde movements. The freedom to criticize the society unleashed the ways to express critique in design. On the one hand, it stimulates innovation in all of the media, and the avant-garde was the representation of originality in its common understanding. The reason for that is that it challenged the way the design operated, introducing the functionality and provoking, catching image as two new objectives. However, the graphic design’s powers of challenging the viewer and drawing the attention were quickly noticed by the businessmen and politicians. Considering the way avant-garde originated from propagandist and revolutionary art, it poses the question of what is the cause and what is the effect in this case. Nevertheless, the visual arts were and are now a powerful instrument for propaganda, not only for the political ideas but also for the society of consumption (Adorno and Rabinbach 14). With the massive use of avant-garde-like images for entirely different purposes, the style and symbolism of those images no longer have any potential to critique or challenge. Therefore, in a certain sense, it means that they no longer possess the power of originality. The modernism, and particularly in Canada is considered as something “canonical, that is, not subversive or oppositional but something to learn in school” (Donnelly 151). It can hardly be described as provocative; therefore, from this perspective, it supposedly lacks originality. However, if we analyze the context in which modern art appeared, it also had its power of influencing people, just not in a way of agitating them. In the different, discourse it has its appeal. Donnelly goes further and expands on the reintroduction of Roman letterforms by Gutenberg. In this case, even though he did not invent the Gothic style of lettering, the aspect of graphic design became part of the revolution that began when Gutenberg invented the printing press. If we think about it as “the ability to make a difference in a culture already driven by endless difference and constant upheaval” (Donnelly 156), the reintroduction can be considered originality as well. In conclusion, Donnelly suggests that problems of design are to be solved by philosophical investigation because they are trying to impose the framework for what is originality, and in which set of rules it can originate. In fact, graphical arts do not necessarily create their own systematic, restricted and standardized area of functioning. Therefore, the boundaries of the format of propaganda, prevocational potential or inventiveness only restrict the originality. Therefore, the powerful designs remain behind the disruptive framework and are not determined by its standar