31

My German friend asked me why "graphic" means "violent or gory", as in "graphic content" or "graphic language". (Related, but not the same question: What‘s does “graphic language” mean? )

Graphic-graphical is clearly one of these ic-ical pairs (electric/al, classic/al) etc., which sometimes have distinct meanings (you can't say "graphical language" in this sense). But my basic understanding is that the root is Ancient Greek γραφή (writing, drawing) like in "biography" etc.

Why, today in English, has it adopted this sense?

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
equin0x80
  • 967
  • 4
  • 10
  • 14
    Graphic doesn't mean either of these things - in the sense you describe it means "vivid" or "visually powerful", or "explicit". The meaning of whatever is being described as "graphic" would depend on the context. "Graphic content" could mean almost anything offensive such as, nudity, sexual content, or swearing, not just violence. – Billy Kerr Sep 26 '22 at 14:11
  • 7
    Billy: okay, but you say yourself "almost anything offensive". That's my question. Why offensive things like nudity and swearing, and not beautiful things such as a religious heaven, or a pretty butterfly? – equin0x80 Sep 26 '22 at 16:25
  • Yes, but that is only in the phrase "graphic content", or in the sense of "vivid". Graphic has other meanings that have nothing to do with these - for example graphic design, graphic novel. Nothing to do with offensive content. Graphic is being used to mean relating to drawings, illustration, etc. Its use in "graphic content" or with the sense of being "vivid" seems to be figurative - in the sense of drawing a clear image in the mind. It's not the normal meaning of the word. – Billy Kerr Sep 26 '22 at 16:37
  • 3
    @BillyKerr - 'graphic' used to mean 'vivid' is a normal meaning of the word. – Michael Harvey Sep 26 '22 at 17:01
  • @MichaelHarvey Yes it is "normal". I should have said not the "literal" meaning of the word. – Billy Kerr Sep 26 '22 at 17:29
  • 2
    It does not mean that. – Fattie Sep 26 '22 at 19:34
  • 4
    OP - "Why, today in English, has it adopted this sense?" It has not, you're wrong. A common issue on this site is that, word X is indeed commonly used about one set of things, and, English learners assume the word is "only used" for that set of things. It's utterly normal to refer to, for example, a graphic image of a flower (meaning really bold, clear, detailed). – Fattie Sep 26 '22 at 19:47
  • 1
    hi @nasch that's simply wrong. the newsreader warning literally means it is detailed: it shows details. say I have to film a dead body. (A) I film it from 50 meters, you see only that there is a human-size object on the road, near the emergency vehicles. (B) I film standing over the body, you clearly see the deceased's face, clothes, wounds. It's that simple. – Fattie Sep 26 '22 at 20:00
  • 1
    "there must be a reason why this became a sort of negative indicator" - Banned in Boston "The phrase "banned in Boston", however, originated in the late 19th century at a time when American moral crusader Anthony Comstock began a campaign to suppress vice." - The US was founded, and is still run by, Puritans, who are "too easy on violence yet bizarrely reactionary when it comes to nudity and language" – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system – Mazura Sep 27 '22 at 00:42

10 Answers10

47

I have to disagree with the other answers, and agree with the asker: in current use, “graphic” does have negative connotations.

The development of this sense seems pretty straightforward. It literally (and historically) means simply “clear, vivid”. But it was (and is) commonly used to mean a clear depiction of something that might shock, offend, or upset: violence, sex, rude language, etc.

With repetition, the association becomes stronger, and it becomes less and less likely that clear depictions of good things will be called “graphic”. I, for one, would never call a small child’s drawing “graphic” in order to praise its vivid depiction of the subject!

(As a maths teacher, I’ve recently had a similar experience with the term “explicit”. To my students, at least, the word is strongly associated with the things their parents don’t want them to see, hear, or read.)

Ultimately, we end up with “graphic content” as a euphemism. It doesn’t tell you what is depicted graphically, but the audience (usually parents/guardians) is expected to understand that it’s something “bad”, and to make decisions accordingly.

Further musing: It seems to me to be getting to the point where “graphic” need not mean “clearly depicted offensive content”, but could instead mean “offensive content” in general. I would not be at all surprised to hear someone describe a typical TV-show waist-up shirts-on sex scene as “graphic content”.

Evidence: I don’t have anything very definite (or should I say explicit?), but Google searches for phrases like "graphic content like" (quotation marks included) have turned up many results that seem to not be using “graphic” literally. Links here are indicative, not exhaustive.

  • Content warnings on TikTok: It appears that “sensitive content” is the wording that TikTok itself uses, but many articles and users refer to these as “graphic content warnings”, as though “graphic” and “sensitive” were synonymous.
  • “Graphic Content Filter” in video games of the Call of Duty series: Descriptions indicate that it turns off blood, swearing, swastikas, and at least one level depicting violence against civilians. Is all of this depicted in a truly graphic way if you leave the filter off?
  • YouTube’s “Violent or graphic content policy”: Plenty of these are pretty clearly suggestive rather than graphic, but you could argue that they come under “violent” instead of “graphic”. (After all, that could cover anything that incites or encourages violence, not only things that depict it.) But while putting an animal in potential danger is certainly objectionable, I question whether it’s “violent or graphic” in a literal sense.

(NB: Yes, I know that none of these examples give evidence for my specific example above—that a scene of implied sex might be called “graphic”. I quite specifically avoided searching for any examples along those lines, and I leave that as an exercise for the reader! Caveat scrutator.)

But as a descriptor for a specific kind of offensive content (“graphic violence”, “graphic nudity”), “graphic” still retains its original meaning. I think that’s because saying something contains graphic violence (etc.) necessarily implies a contrast with something that merely contains violence, without the adjective. Consider this hypothetical conversation:

“This book has swearing in it.”

“Oh, the parents won’t like that. How bad is it?”

“Some of it’s pretty graphic.”

Now go back and replace “swearing” with “content”… it doesn’t come out quite the same, does it?

That said, at some point the Australian classification labels stopped using “adult themes” as a content warning, and started using just “themes”. (This movie is rated PG, because it has themes? The horror!) Thankfully I think they’ve stopped that now.

A concern was raised in the comments that this is really just an example of omitting a word—I believe ellipsis is the term. This a perfectly common phenomenon that isn’t specific to English. And it’s true that ellipsis, in and of itself, needn’t mean that the remaining word(s) will take on the sense of the omitted word.

However, I think you’ll find that widely-used examples of ellipsis can do exactly that. “The dead” are dead people, not sheep, dinosaurs, or computers. “Exceptional” means exceptionally good, not bad or pink. And “graphic” means graphically offensive, not beautiful or descriptive.

(Whether these examples really show ellipsis is probably very arguable. For instance, does “the dead” show ellipsis of the noun “people”, or is it just noun use of the adjective “dead”? My aim is simply to demonstrate that even if we say it’s ellipsis, the asker is still not wrong.)

In conclusion, no, I don’t agree at all that this is a non-native speaker seeing some association that isn’t there for native speakers. Maybe not all native speakers ascribe a sense of “violent/sexual” to “graphic”, but many do.

Tim Pederick
  • 8,325
  • 28
  • 43
  • 12
    I was surprised (and a bit amused) recently to see warnings that a movie not only included "themes" but also language, substances, and content! – A C Sep 27 '22 at 00:36
  • 3
    This answer starts off well but not sure about your later musings. I don't see any evidence that "graphic" can mean material that is sexually suggestive rather than sexually explicit. Also, you wouldn't say "This book has content in it" so I'm not sure what your point is there. And by the way a PG rating for "themes" means it has themes suitable for a PG but not a lower rating, just as a PG-13 rating for "sexual content" means it has sexual content suitable for a PG-13 audience but not a younger one. – Stuart F Sep 27 '22 at 09:18
  • 7
    Have to agree. Just like in the 1890s "gay" meant "happy" and "joyful", today it has a totally different meaning and any attempt at using it in the older meaning will be entirely misinterpreted by a 2020s reader. – FreeMan Sep 27 '22 at 13:19
  • 3
    1890s, heck. Even as recently as 1960 "gay" meant "happy". Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones... We'll have a gay old time! There's probably someone, somewhere casting aspersions at Fred & Barney by applying the modern use of "gay" where it doesn't belong. – FreeMan Sep 27 '22 at 13:43
  • @StuartF “I don't see any evidence”—I don’t have anything definite, but what I have I’ll add to the answer. “I'm not sure what your point is there”—that is my point, poorly explained no doubt. Nobody would say “has content” as a warning, so “graphic” is what makes it a warning. So I find it understandable that it would become just a warning, without invoking the literal meaning of “graphic”. Whereas both “violence” and “graphic violence” are valid warnings, so it makes sense that “graphic” retains more of its original sense as a distinguishing adjective there. – Tim Pederick Sep 27 '22 at 13:48
  • 1
    Hi @TimPederick I don't mean this in a rude way but I have no idea what you're saying here :) :) To make an extreme example: You often hear and see the phrase "emergency exit". Imagine a non-native speaker arrived here and asked "why does Exit in english now mean Emergency?" That's all there is to this QA. It's that simple. – Fattie Sep 27 '22 at 15:33
  • When it says "violent or graphic", the distinction is that "graphic" means sexual. Furthermore, it refers to visuals, as opposed to language. – Barmar Sep 27 '22 at 16:44
  • 7
    @Fattie Your experience (as I infer from your answer/comments) is that you don’t encounter “graphic” = “violent/gory”, and are happy to keep using it to mean “vivid in a positive way”. My experience is different, and so it seems is the asker’s. Like you, I don’t mean to be rude, but you’re being very dismissive by saying this doesn’t happen. (Now, if your argument was that it shouldn’t happen, that would be something else.) – Tim Pederick Sep 27 '22 at 16:45
  • 1
    @Barmar If that were so, why would people use the phrase “graphic language” to mean swear words (including those that don’t refer to sex acts or organs)? Where does racial denigration fit into your violent/sexual dichotomy? Where do you list putting animals at risk, without actually depicting harm to them? What about medical procedures, which are gory without being violent? – Tim Pederick Sep 27 '22 at 16:52
  • @TimPederick Good point. "graphic language" is language that refers to graphic sex. I'm not sure that racist language fits in at all -- in my experience this hasn't been used as a warning much. Severe racist actions like lynchings would be "violence". The only thing I can think of regarding animals is the disclaimer in closing credits that "No animals were harmed", there are rarely specific warnings about depictions of animal endangerment. I'm speaking from a US perspective, maybe other countries are different. – Barmar Sep 27 '22 at 17:03
  • 2
    @Barmar My point was that I see “graphic language” used to refer to swearing, not descriptions of sex; a video game’s “Graphic Content Filter” turning off (or toning down) swearing is an example of this. Regarding animals, I was looking at the YouTube policies. I assumed that’s what you were talking about, as you quoted their phrase “violent or graphic”. Racism without any incitement to violence (e.g. anti-Semitic conspiracy theories) is something I’ve seen warnings/policies about, though I see now that the YouTube policies have a separate “hate speech” section for that. – Tim Pederick Sep 27 '22 at 17:13
  • @TimPederick I'm old. My experience is mostly TV and movie ratings, not YouTube and video games. – Barmar Sep 27 '22 at 17:18
  • @Fattie It’s not that simple, and name-calling is unwarranted. Rather than turn these comments into a discussion, I will edit a response to your concerns into the answer. – Tim Pederick Oct 15 '22 at 05:41
  • 1
    @TimPederick, I don';t think "obtuse" is name calling! Nevertheless, sorry and I deleted the comments. Cheers – Fattie Oct 16 '22 at 16:40
  • @Fattie And I apologise if I was taking it the wrong way. I interpret “obtuse” as “unable or unwilling to get it; wilfully difficult or just plain stupid”. But I know there are people who see it as less harsh than I do. Maybe I’m just, err, obtuse in always taking it that way! ☺ – Tim Pederick Oct 17 '22 at 09:21
34

Probably because a graphic or vivid description or account of something 'draws a picture' or visual impression in the mind of the listener or reader. Graphic descriptions or language are not limited to gory or violent things, but you tend to see warnings about these in descriptions or reviews of books, TV shows, films, etc. People might find graphic descriptions of the injuries of murder victims, or of sexual encounters unwelcome, but they might like them if they related to something interesting, happy, or pleasant, e.g. springtime in the countryside, children at play, wildlife, etc.

Herodotus also provides a graphic description of the temple of Marduk, the dominant feature of the city on what was then the east bank of the Euphrates.

He went on to launch into a graphic description of a standing ovation as the batsman walked back, clapped all the way to the pavilion.

Vijayalakshmi gave a graphic description of the gamut of rituals undertaken for the deity in a temple through mudras which was impressive.

graphic (adj.)

a: vividly or plainly shown or described a graphic sex scene

b: using offensive or obscene words : including swear words … used graphic language on camera and then abruptly ended the impromptu press conference. The vulgarity made headlines.

c: marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description … its most graphic and beautiful stanzas …

Graphic (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Graphic

3.A.3 Producing by words the effect of a picture; vividly descriptive, life-like.

1669 Gale Crt. Gentiles i. iii. i. 15 He shews‥that Poesie was‥a graphic Art, or Art of Imitation.  

 1745 Swift On D. Jackson's Picture 1 Whilst you three merry poets traffic To give us a description graphic Of Dan's large nose in modern Sapphic.   

  1830 Cunningham Brit. Paint. II. 228 They are all‥graphic copies of common life.   

1852 Mrs. Stowe Uncle Tom's C. i, Expressions, which not even the desire to be graphic in our account shall induce us to transcribe.

1856 Froude Hist. Eng. (1858) I. iii. 265 A Venetian‥wrote‥to Henry, informing him in a very graphic manner of the treatment to which‥he had been exposed.   

1872 Darwin Emotions xi. 260 A graphic description of the face of a young Hindoo at the sight of castor-oil.

Graphic (Oxford English Dictionary)

Michael Harvey
  • 71,537
  • 5
  • 105
  • 149
  • 5
    Thanks for your clearly phrased comment. I would say though that "a graphic description of the countryside" suggests there might be a corpse there, and not that it's merely vivid and picturesque. So there must be a reason why this became a sort of negative indicator. – equin0x80 Sep 26 '22 at 09:23
  • 17
    A graphic description of the countryside might mean just that the trees, farms, hedges, crops, etc, were brought vividly to the mind of the reader. "giving clear and vividly explicit details." Oxford Languages "Herodotus also provides a graphic description of the temple of Marduk, the dominant feature of the city on what was then the east bank of the Euphrates." The Guardian. Don't assume that your experience so far of the expression provides a universal understanding. – Michael Harvey Sep 26 '22 at 09:31
  • 2
    @equin0x80 that's completely wrong, and Michael's completely right. For example, when filmmaking, it's totally normal to say "I want a really graphic shot of this [ insert any positive, normal thing ]". Eg, "Let's get a really graphic shot of this leaf". Or whatever. Similarly, when you're discussing photography, "graphic" is commonly used to simply mean "extremely bold, close up, high-contrast" - you know? It's totally normal to say "here's a really graphic photo of a pencil ...". – Fattie Sep 26 '22 at 19:44
  • 1
    "So there must be a reason why this became a sort of negative indicator." Just to drive home the point :) It isn't. You've only heard it used that way (for example on the TV news.) I just thought of another simple example. You know small chidren's drawings (that you stick on your fridge). An illustrator might describe them as very "graphic" - simply meaning bold, vivid, focussed on one thing, clear, etc. – Fattie Sep 26 '22 at 19:52
  • 1
    Keep in mind that etymologies aren’t definitions. The OEtymD entry cited tells us where the word came from, how it was used in the past, not how it’s used now. – Tim Pederick Sep 26 '22 at 20:06
  • 2
    @Fattie The way someone reads something can hardly be "completely wrong". It's one datapoint, at minimum. – Radvylf Programs Sep 27 '22 at 15:19
  • 4
    @equin0x80 there is no such suggestion there to me, a native English speaker – OrangeDog Sep 27 '22 at 15:19
  • hi @RadvylfPrograms ; there may be some confusion about which comment is being referred to. Very simply, the assumption in the title, is wrong. the OP's first comment above this (about the country side) is, simply - absolutely - completely - totally wrong. – Fattie Sep 27 '22 at 15:24
  • 2
    @RadvylfPrograms I appreciate what you say about a data point, but if I go on the Japanese Learning Site and declare "I would say that X means Y" that's not a data point. If you see what I mean :) – Fattie Sep 27 '22 at 15:26
  • 'suggests' != 'means' – mcalex Sep 28 '22 at 05:45
  • 1
    Part of the OP's confusion may stem from the fact that the full phrase "graphic content" is a euphemism. – Yorik Sep 29 '22 at 16:17
10

As others have said, the dictionary definition of "graphic" is really something like "clearly and fully depicted". So why has this come to have connotations of violent or sexual content? Well, that makes sense simply because you would tend to only say something was "graphic" in a context where that is not the norm. No-one would say a movie contains "graphic depictions of juggling", because one would generally assume that "depictions of juggling" in a movie were graphic, without needing to be told.

Therefore "graphic content" has come to be used as shorthand for "graphic depictions of content which is usually treated less graphically", such as violent or sexual content.

Especially Lime
  • 3,107
  • 9
  • 18
  • And more specifically that Americans in particular can become offended at the mention of certain topics (whether puritanically or progressively or both muddled together) to the point where there are formal warnings of "sexual situations" and "suggestive dialogue" to warn people that unpleasant things are merely being discussed. Graphic was the obvious adjunct to describe things that were actually shown on camera. – lly Sep 29 '22 at 11:34
6

Just to expand on other answers - it's kind of a euphemism gone wrong. Same with "Explicit Lyrics", which doesn't necessarily mean the song doesn't contain any metaphors.

In other words, at first, people (maybe in attempt to maintain politeness) might have said something like "There are scenes in that movie that are quite...(ahem) graphic" {imagine it being said in a very posh voice} - at this point merely implying that there were clear and vivid images of violence and/or sex. And then over time, others just picked up and ran with it and "graphic" became a synonym for violent or sexy.

komodosp
  • 255
  • 1
  • 5
5

I think the part of the answer that needs to be specifically called out (particularly for non-native speakers), is: "Graphic" without any qualification has become a shorthand way of saying that some form of media might produce a strong negative reaction in a viewer / reader.

As mentioned above, the original (and current!) meaning is "extremely descriptive" or "contains a lot of detail". It would almost always be used as a description of another description (or a depiction if it is a visual medium!) In other words, it is used to critique a film, a book, a photo, an artwork, etc. and not the thing itself.

Given that qualification, you are perfectly justified in using "graphic" to describe something in a positive light, but it is rarely used by native speakers in this context, even though it is correct to do so.

Why is it almost always negative?

  1. Critique, and most opinions, generally tend toward the negative. Classifications are effectively a list of cautions against something. A news presenter showing a clip of some event unfolding in the world will use the same list of cautions. Since these examples are the most prevalent uses of the word, we have slowly begun to lose the positive version from everyday usage. As a society, we are more focused on negative messages than positive.

  2. People tend to package opinions in ways that allow us to be ambiguous. We avoid direct conflict by not stating the criteria on which we base our opinion. In order to seem less negative, even while we are being so, we try to hide the parts we don't want to admit to. This is how an often-used ambiguous phrase will start to contain an implied meaning, and then slowly convert to only that meaning.

Graylocke
  • 216
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
    There's a HUGE problem here that strikes to the heart of this wildly confusing QA. Consider the word "resistance". *IN THE CORPUS OF* discussion, books, articles, talks, engineering, and writing *ABOUT ELECTRONICS, the word resistance in 99.999999% of cases refers to these things: https://www.electronicsandyou.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Resistor-300x201.jpg but IN GENERAL SPEECH* resistance means a zillion things. Your first bold sentence here IS ONLY TRUE in the milieu of "tv news and similar". – Fattie Sep 27 '22 at 15:40
  • 4
    I disagree. "TV news and similar" is far too narrow a range of usage. In popular culture, social media, books, movies, music, and pretty much any other consumed content, graphic by itself implies the content will be negative or undesirable for some. If I say "this graphic novel is really graphic" nobody's going to think I mean the graphic novel has an unusual amount of pictures in it, they're going to assume it contains "graphic" depictions of things that might be considered inappropriate by some. – barbecue Sep 27 '22 at 16:13
  • 1
    How about: "I just read the latest graphic novel about spider man. It was too graphic for my tastes". The first use of graphic is not a negative connotation. It means Comic Book. – Scottie H Sep 27 '22 at 17:33
  • 3
    @ScottieH "graphic novel" is basically a compound word, though, so I don't think it's relevant to the modern usage of "graphic" on its own. – Joshua Grosso Sep 27 '22 at 21:26
  • I don't think it is just tv news and similar. In your example, you are talking about electronics... the smaller of the two categories of people talking about "resistance". In the case of "graphic" it is always in the context of talking about a type of medium and the quality of its representation. In the case of proper well constructed critique (the smaller population) I would say that "graphic" is more likely to be used positively. – Graylocke Sep 28 '22 at 03:21
  • 1
    I'd also add, that "graphic" has a second meaning as a noun (i.e. an image). In this context, it can also be used in compound nouns as a kind of adjective... the same cases in which we can also use "graphical". A "graphic novel" is normally referring to a "graphical novel"... a book that uses images, not one that contains a lot of detail (lurid or otherwise). – Graylocke Sep 28 '22 at 03:27
  • @JoshuaGrossoReinstateCMs Yes, but I believe the OP is not a native English speaker and may be unaware that the word graphic can be used in a different context which does NOT mean violent or gory. – Scottie H Sep 28 '22 at 14:49
4

"Graphic" simply means detailed.

That's the end of it.

Certainly, it's frequently used for something that would normally be censored or underplayed.

But it's perfectly normal to say "a graphic description of the clouds" or, let's say you're making a TV commercial, you may hear the producer tell the cameraman "we want to really graphically show the drops of condensation."

Very simply, you might talk about "a very graphic photograph of a flower".

Funnily enough the other day a colleague pointed to some computer code and said it was very "graphic". (Meaning extremely "spelled-out", overly clear, crisp.)

Here's an extremely clear comment from below that further explains. included here since comment chains often disappear.

... actually, that's exactly what they're [tv and game warnings] warning folks about - graphic (i.e. clear or detailed) depictions of whatever. The MPAA and ESRB, for example, both distinguish between partial nudity and graphic nudity. The ESRB allows for (bloodless) dismemberment under "violence" but defines "intense violence" as "Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death" ... note the emphasis on realistic depictions.

Fattie
  • 1
  • 9
  • 14
  • 5
    That isn't the end of it. There are warnings about "graphic content" that aren't referring to how detailed or clear the depictions are, but that they include nudity, sex, violence, or something potentially offensive or disturbing. – nasch Sep 26 '22 at 19:59
  • @Fattie - What do you see as "trash" about the etymonline entry? Do you prefer some other source(s)? I often use that site, so I would love to know of quality alternatives. TIA! – Stevel Sep 26 '22 at 20:22
  • 2
    @nasch actually, that's exactly what they're warning folks about - graphic (i.e. clear or detailed) depictions of whatever. The MPAA and ESRB, for example, both distinguish between partial nudity and graphic nudity. The ESRB allows for (bloodless) dismemberment under "violence" but defines "intense violence" as "Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death" ... note the emphasis on realistic depictions. – A C Sep 27 '22 at 00:09
  • 2
    @nasch ? that's *precisely exactly* what it means. A non-graphic portrayal of intercourse is when, you just see them enter the bedroom and you learn that they had intercourse. A graphic portrayal of intercourse shows the actual body parts humping. That's literally what it means. – Fattie Sep 27 '22 at 15:41
  • 2
    As a native GenAmEng speaker, I don't think I've ever heard "graphic" in the sense this answer describes. If someone described code as "graphic," I don't think I would know what they meant. The fact that @Fattie is so (overly) confident about this, though, makes me think it might be a regional difference. – Joshua Grosso Sep 27 '22 at 21:28
  • You'd probably think the code was to do with computer graphics. – Rob Grant Sep 27 '22 at 23:49
  • @JoshuaGrossoReinstateCMs I don't know what to say. You need only glance at the top voted, ticked, fully correct answer for a dozen examples from the OED. It occasionally happens on this site that a native speaker like yourself will say "oh I've never heard of ..." something commonplace. I don't know what the answer yes. YES a common usage of the normal English word "graphic" (== detailed, visual) is (a) on TV and (b) on games, in the two phrases "graphic sex" and "graphic violence". The idea that this has "changed the meaning of the word" is completely bizarre. – Fattie Oct 14 '22 at 11:16
  • 1
    Consider the word "car". motor-car was soon usually shortened to "car" because it was obvious from context. But the word "car" is still a completely normal word, used all the time when discussing ... well ... cars. (ie not motor-cars, but all the other sorts of cars.) "car" is used presumably millions of times a day in relation to mining, manufacturing, financial trading, elevator operations, etc etc. And that's a far "broader" example of "common usage take over" than "graphic". Note that, for goodness sake, "graphic design" is a very common phrase. This is an incredibly silly QA. – Fattie Oct 14 '22 at 11:21
4

Here in America we often refer to tissue as "Kleenex" and acetylsalicylic acid as "Aspirin." This is important...

Because the problem you're facing is that when humanity is lazy, we change language. The adjective "graphic" is neither negative nor positive. It only means that something is described as having detail or a visual context. Nothing more...

...Except there is something more. Here in America we've used the word lazily. While you will see warnings like "graphic sexual content," you'll more often see "graphic content."

Which, in its purest form might only mean that whatever the content is, it could be wondrously beautiful! But none of us here would understand it that way. We know what it means — something negative.

So, yes, in the same way that we Americans have co-opted the trademarks Kleenex for facial tissue and Aspirin for acetylsalicylic acid, "graphic" has come to mean the content will be rude, crude, vulgar and violent.

C'est la vie.

JBH
  • 3,767
  • 1
  • 14
  • 28
  • 3
    Quite. One person in a thousand uses "apocryphal" correctly. (The word simply means "author unknown".) Most use it loosely to mean "legendary, untrue". – Fattie Sep 28 '22 at 16:54
  • 2
    @Fattie - apocryphal, a. and n. A. adj. Of doubtful authenticity; spurious, fictitious, false; fabulous, mythical. OED 2nd Ed. – Michael Harvey Sep 29 '22 at 09:32
1

It is a figurative sense of the word graphic.

The OED lists it as sense 3.

Producing by words the effect of a picture; vividly descriptive, life-like.

The OED's most recent example is from Charles Darwin - 1872

1872 C. Darwin Expression Emotions Man & Animals xi. 260 A graphic description of the face of a young Hindoo at the sight of castor-oil.

WS2
  • 5,125
  • 16
  • 17
  • The OED's most recent citation is from 1872? It's high time for a update. EDIT: Oh I see, it's the explanation for why graphic is often associated with the images or description of violence or sex. +1 – Mari-Lou A Sep 29 '22 at 19:39
0

Purely as a native English speaker & linguaphile I can report that - for me - the phrase "graphic image" evokes an abstract of (relatively extreme) violence or sexuality. Other uses parse as acceptable, although somewhat unusual. To wit: "graphic images of XYZ" will mean (to me) that XYZ would generally be considered disturbingly violent or sexually explicit.

Back to the OP's question: I suggest that this usage, distinct from the others also mentioned, is the result of news reports referring to such "graphic images [of violence or sexuality]" as a minor euphemism. They normally would not be willing to describe the contents in detail; rather, they fall back on the vague but still "thrilling" sounding phrase "graphic images." Over time, this became standard-ish.

Glorfindel
  • 14,824
  • 15
  • 69
  • 76
Stevel
  • 109
  • 3
0

Not totally sure about this: In the 1830's it still meant explicit: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Graphic

Afterwards it became a media buzz word and a sales term for new graphic book printing technologies, and may have gained a sensationalist sense for the same reason that "explicit" has become associated with lewd media content.

bandybabboon
  • 673
  • 4
  • 5