From The Archives
art Vs. design
I have read so many books and articles on design and on art, what it is and how it should be executed. I must admit that since becoming a producer my designing days have taken a backseat to management. I enjoyed being a designer and now I enjoy working with designers in addition to every other aspect of production. I was at home contemplating what the difference between design and art is, and I think I have come up with some pretty clear lines between the two and have also identified where those lines have become blurred.
Now, it is my understanding that design in the commercial sense is a very calculated and defined process; it is discussed amongst a group and implemented taking careful steps to make sure the objectives of the project are met. A designer is similar to an engineer in that respect and must not only have an eye for color and style but must adhere to very intricate functional details that will meet the objectives of the project. The word “design” lends itself to a hint that someone or something has carefully created this “thing” and much planning and thought has been executed to produce the imagery or materials used for the project.
On the other hand, art is something completely separate—any good artist should convey a message or inspire an emotion it doesn’t have to adhere to any specific rules, the artist is creating his own rules. Art is something that can elicit a single thought or feeling such as simplicity or strength, love or pain and the composition simply flows from the hand of the artist. The artist is free to express themselves in any medium and color scheme, using any number of methods to convey their message. No artist ever has to explain why they did something a certain way other than that this is what they felt would best portray the feeling or emotion or message.
Many designers are artists and many artists are designers, the line between the two is complex and intriguing. I was perusing some art books and something strange caught my eye, I had noticed that many of the artists were not creating a unique, almost chaotic portrait of their innermost selves or inspirations rather they were clearly using popular trends to capture the attention of the viewer. I noticed that many of the pieces being shown were “throwbacks” of past artists styles or color and simply refreshed for public consumption. The very fact that older artists inspire newer artists seems to contradict the whole definition of art. These artists are following a method, a pattern or a standard that has already been established by another artist and therefore they are not creating something completely new rather following instructions laid down by a previous artist rendering that piece to be more design than art.
I can completely appreciate the paths laid down by past artists who establish a style or method but at this point it seems that when that style or method is used the art then turns into design. I looked through some older books and saw a rather obvious occurrence in the art being displayed, many of the newer artists were simply copying things from the past. I admire a person’s talent for picking up a brush and creating an image that has an impact on its viewer but when I see it over and over again by different people who are all claiming to be “of the school of...,” and that this is legitimate, unique art, I find that a bit hard to swallow. If the artist said, “I have designed something in the standard of Picasso,” and this is simply a design based on his style but a new twist has been added, then I would feel more comfortable accepting it for what it is, a design. But when an artist’s style and methods are completely the same as someone else’s and even if the message is different I feel that this cannot be passed off as art because the newness and the chaotic nature of it simply flowing from the source seems to be absent and it becomes more like a paint by numbers project than a creation that has never been seen before.
I do not claim to be an expert on defining what art is and what it is not, but I do know that if we look at the differences between art and design we will see a very clear line drawn between the two. An engineer, if given the exact coordinates to place different colored pixels in specific places, could render a beautiful website or ad simply by following instructions; most design projects have a detailed set of instructions and most design is based on current trends and influences. An artist, on the other hand, could never be given any specific instructions in creating a new chaotic and unique masterpiece because his emotions and soul is dictating the movement of his hands and the impulses for the usage of the medium. No art director is going to yell at an artist for producing something completely unique because that is what makes an artist an artist and not a designer.
I feel that designers who are passionate about their work should try and dedicate time to create “art” for art’s sake and train themselves to express emotion and feeling through their designs. Uniqueness comes from passion and not adhering to any rules that may force the artist to make even one stroke that was unintended. Commercialism has been dictating the course of design and has made a clear and thick line between the artist and the designer. Following trends and applying imagery based on specific needs and goals is the easy part, allowing yourself to express a message or emotion free of any specifications is where true beauty is born. Designers who are looking for the next big trend or who want to be the one to create that trend must create chaotic and truly original pieces to display their artistic prowess and then apply those unique methods to their design at work, and I think this will create a truly harmonious balance between art and design.
-
This is one of the most insightful and interesting articles I have read in a long time. The writer seems to be taking a deeper look into the differences between art and design. Very well written and concise leaving the reader with something to think about. I would like to see more articles that discuss thoery and philosophy rather than everyday technical execution.
-
One cannot portray ideas and emotions in the modern art world being swayed by the preceding works of the artist before him or her, yet in order to express new thought an artist has to carefully step through a field of what has already been accomplished. Therefore, one has to reinvent or rejuvenate what has not been fully discovered or translated; the artist needs to fill the holes that the predecessors had not. At the same time, it is necessary to look at past work in order to map out the route in which one should take to exploit the older preconceived notions that have not been fully developed. The artist needs to balance a new school of thought based on prior and present inquiries without trespassing on the questions that have already been answered.
-
i disagree with T O'Meara's post, because eventually and inevitably, all ideas will have been explored. i appreciate the irresponsibly spontaneity of someone who makes their art without considering past or future trends. architects did this in the early 1900s, youth culture did this in the 60s. both movements were reacting against something, rather than carefully deciding how to fit in amongst existing circumstances. you don't need to evaluate what's been done - you have to ignore it, or react against it, to come up with something completely new.
-
Thank you "some guy" for your insightful addition to my article.
-
It's simple. Artists do not work for an audience. They work for themselves. When designers work we should not have to worry about what our favorite color is, or whether or not it looks "nice". Our aesthetics opinions really do not matter, we have to solve a problem, seperating ourselves from what the culture tells us what is "in". I enjoyed the article.
-
The best definition I have ever found for the word art is “the products of human creativity” and the best definition of design is “the opposite of purposelessness or randomness.” Based on these two definitions I disagree with your article - I do not think that there is a clear line between the two.
Since the first artists started producing work on cave walls, art was taught through observation, reproduction, and then expansion on learnt material. This led to creative evolution. The Renaissance is probably the easiest example to give, simply because all artists that apprenticed in that period of time learned by copying their masters stroke by stroke, until they could reproduce their master’s artwork flawlessly.
In this article you refer to Picasso and those who copy him. When Picasso assisted with the invention of cubism, he was just painting his interpretation of the African masks he saw on his travels. Once again, he was expressing his own experiences to create artwork based on someone else’s.
L.’s assertion that artists “do not work for an audience” is completely unfounded. Art that was produced during the Renaissance was typically either commissioned by the church or by rich families who could afford portraits of themselves or whatever else they wanted to decorate their walls. Who would accuse Leonardo Da Vinci, Masaccio, Giotto, Caravaggio, or Michelangelo of not being artists? The Sistine Chapel ceiling, one of the most well known pieces of art in the world, was a commission – Michelangelo was told what to paint and he /designed/ it. Sure, as these artists became professionals in their time they slowly evolved on their own, which led their apprentices to produce even more “mature” artwork. According to the definitions cited above, all of these men were artists AND designers.
Artists create artwork (just as in the Renaissance) for commissions, for shows, for political reasons – the point of being an artist is to create something to be seen. There is always an audience. Whether the artist is creating a piece of work for a single friend or a widely publicized opening, there is someone looking at it and interpreting it. Artists speak to people through their work, and typically how well they do that determines how successful of a career they have.
So, in my opinion, artists are designers and designers are artists. There are career choices that tend to separate us and force us to label ourselves one or the other, but our purpose, our methods, and our reasons all are the same – we have to do what we do, we do not have a choice – we have to create to live. -
What I was trying to point out was that an artist has no predestined ideas, no specs, they simply feel and they express through the art. You are correct that many artists like Picasso and Michalango indeed did follow a specification and were comissioned and had they had computers then they would have probably done wireframes, specs, sign offs and the usual practice of a design firm, now can that be considered art for art sake or perhaps even those great artists considered a large portion of their work "design" because they were told what to do and how to do it. Like i said it is a fine line and what I wanted to express was that designers can be anyone with a good working knowledge of any Adobe application but an artists was cropping images and creating outlines long before they ever touched a computer. What i wanted to see is artists and designers marrying the two techniques and creating truly unique designs similar to what we are seeing out of the East now, it seems to be more artistic and very unique in its functionality rather than the same old standards that tend to become boring and dry.
-
I disagree with the notion that just because a piece of artwork or design resembles or is created in a certain "style", it is unoriginal. Through living in the same social/political climate or merely observing the work of others, a creator can learn to appreciate or adopt as their own similar ideals as another. This may, intentionally or otherwise, produce similar expression. When you begin to try to understand the ideology behind a work as apposed to evaluating it explicitly on its perceived originality, you can gain a true insight into what someone is trying to convey. Maybe you will agree and be moved enough to change something about how you see the world. I believe this is how larger movements are formed and catch on. It is not because a group of people all want to create stuff that looks the same. We are all influenced by same world. We all create in the same world. It is the sometimes subtle differences in a work that result from the part of human existence that is unique that can make something truly inspirational. Sometimes trying too hard to be different or original ends up looking like just that...trying.
-
I hear your comments but in this industry things get tired real quick, we need fresh new looks, feels, expression is great but it doesnt have to resemble everything else out there. To me a true artists can imprint his/her unique style on something "that works" without having to copy, look at APPLE they are always re-inventing themselves with thier product design and everyone else copies... in this day and age with our global community I would expect to see more original work.
-
If I'm designing something, I've usually been given a problem to solve. How can I fit all this text on this page? How can I make this logo seem more contemporary? How can I make this website feel elegant? What colors best express luxurious, or edgy, or suave? What shape should these buttons be, and what should they do? What solutions haven't been done before?
If I'm making artwork, I'm usually trying to ask a question, either of myself or of an audience. Why does this subject make me uncomfortable? What makes me happy? What makes you sad? What do you think about this issue? What happens if I combine Caravaggio's brushwork with Hockney's subject matter? What hasn't yet been asked?
The processes of the two can be quite similar, the results may look quite a bit alike, both are done for an audience and often for money. But despite all that, they function much differently. Design solves problems. Art asks questions. -
Thank you Evan for your insight, very well said.
-
As I see it, art has always been my way of solving my own personal problems visually. With design (in the commercial realm), on the other hand, I am solving someone or something elses problem. I agree with Evan... that my process is very similar in both arenas but my boundries and parameters may vary greatly.
I have often wondered whether the switch from calling what we do from "Graphic Artist" to "Graphic Designer" has contributed to some of the separation. Is creating a composition really that different when comparing say painting vs. graphic design? Or are we just using a different medium to tell the same story...
Thanks... I enjoyed this article. -
Now were starting to see the subtle question of art Vs. Design as we speak it out more and more it will become clearer and clearer how the two differentiate. Thanks Chris for your insight!
-
Interesting topic.
As I've always understood it, Art is short for Artificial. In other words, something achieved through human intervention.
Many of the things you guys have mentioned ring true to me. I've always thought that the main differences between Design and Art is that Design has more constraints (budget, time, problem to be solved, etc.) while Art is only constrained by the artist’s talent and chosen medium.
But as already pointed out by others, there have been many great works of Art that have been commissioned and therefore produced with the same targeted intent and repeatable process of any Design project.
So where is that "Art"?
To make matters worse, imagine if we take a great, universally accepted, work of Art like Tutankhamun’s mask. I assume you've all seen it before and know what I'm talking about. Its gold, embroidered with precious and semi-precious stones, and extremely detailed.
Clearly a beautiful work of Art!
But what if we build a factory with machines that could identically reproduce the mask to the most subtle detail. Crank up the machines and punch a thousand of them out in a day -- leaving the end product indistinguishable from the original.
Is that Art?
If the end product is identical to the original by way of esthetic and material property, can the "Art" be said to exist intrinsically... or does Art exist extrinsically? For example, in the artist, the process, the historical / cultural context, etc. Or is it Art because it’s the first (original) or the only one to exist at all? In that case, some Design could certainly be considered Art.
I have no conclusions. My personal sense is that Art is in fact different from Design. But that Art falls into the same category as God. The indefinable, immaterial, invisible, etc... Something accepted as a reality by many (perhaps the majority) but logically can never be pinned down.
Sort of like Socrates’ argument to the Sophists: If we both look at a flower, you might think it’s beautiful and I might think it’s not. But regardless of our subjective interpretation, we both agree that there is a thing called beauty that exists in the universe. Perhaps “Art” exists in the same way? -
Your essay regarding the diffrence between art and design betrays your inexperience. I urge you to educate yourself about the diffrence between modern art and post-modern art. I'm sure you will find that the romantic dream you have about originality will be replaced with a bit of reality. I and the whole world would love to see work from anyone that is really original - if you can pull off a few samples of this, then your name will live in the history books for ever. While, over the course of a career, an arist will imprint their style and vision choices within their work, don't assume that their motivation is completely detached from the business of selling the work. Designers are not merely order takers either, their work also includes their style and vision choices.
-
Joe,
Your assumptions about my experience and your urges about understanding my so called romantic dreams about originality being replaced by reality show that you are truly unaware of the nature of an artist. Originality is pulled off more often than you think and perhaps you should prepare that spot in the history books for me because i can truly show you work that is not only original but separated from anything close to structured, I can show you chaos created by an artist, lines and curves that invoke emotion, colors that inspire thought and shapes that force you to rethink your pre-programmed ideas about the world. Your ideas that all artists create because they are motivated by money is obsurd, i know many and myself included who create in private, secret and even destroy the art after it is done simply because it is a way to express an emotion or an idea from within. Designers on the other hand are given style guides, specs and budgets. Perhaps before you start looking to put down my views on art and design you should really think about how much you really know. Speaking without thought is foolish. If you would like to open your mind and see what true art looks like please feel free to email me and i will point you in the right direction. -
-------------------------
QUOTE:
What I was trying to point out was that an artist has no predestined ideas, no specs, they simply feel and they express through the art.
-------------------------
this seems a highly oversimplified and almost juvenile understanding of what an artist IS, especially in this day and age. Where would someone like Matthew Barney fit into this? Not every artist is a Jackson Pollack, flinging paint with wild abandon (and even Pollack wasnt as impulsive as is imagined). And to suggest that mining the past for guidance transforms it from Art to Design seems to ignore the fact that Art has always been a mining of the past combined with new inspiration, and very (very) few artists can truly be said to have invented a vocabulary of their own entirely out of whole cloth. -
Doesn't art derive from a personal need for self expression - creating new insight and perspective.
And isn't design generally a commercial endeavour - ultimately it's purpose is to push product.
So comparison is meaningless - a false dichotomy. -
There is no such thing as totally original in art or design. No matter how original anyone was during their era, they knowingly or unknowingly followed a method or expressed a creative feeling or emotion that those preceding them have already discovered. Although each human experience is different in some way, we all walk where someone has walked before.
-
But very occassionally there are quantam leaps in artistic expression - that blend and then surpass what went before.
Goya - his artistic expression retains it's currency 300 years later - hence he is the subject of a major exhibition in London in 2006.
Why - because the resonance that his artistic capture of the horror of 17th Century European wars remains current - presently in the context of the existentialist TV footage of the daily butchery in Baghdad.
Difficult to see 'design' having that longevity - or that usefulness. -
I think the major difference between artists and designers today is that the latter predominately works from an office.
I despise the notion of the touchy-feely artist, most of us who have been practising this trade in the long term gave up that crap at A-level, leaving it to the province of amateurs and festival dwelling hippies. -
Actually, "art" is not short for artificial, it is closest to the word "artifact", which is what artworks are. Then there is "media" which is short for "mediation". So "media art" are esentially mediated artifacts.
The only time that anything came close to uniting art and design was the Bauhaus, founded by Walter Gropius, and possibly the Russian Constructivists. This was about 100 years ago. After that, they really became separate fields entirely.
In fact, one of the 'advances' art made in the 20th century that design has yet to respond to has been Conceptual Art and the dematerialization of the art process. In other words, it is enough to have a concept. Sol Lewitt and Joseph Kosuth are proponents of this train of thought, basically art is anything that questions what art is.
I have yet to see design respond in a convincing way to this 'move' (if you consider art to be a chess game, like Duchamp proposed both literally and figuratively). -
Attributing certain characteristics to art and design, determined more or less by aesthetics and the rigidity of its undertaking, only adds confusion to a distinction that, while not black and white, is undoubtedly better defined than most articles would have us believe. It is not a universal distinction, however, as it must be confined to a certain time and place—an ancient cave painting, for example, may fall within the category of art without contention, but the utilitarian nature of its purpose would probably lend any modern equivalency to the realm of design.
Norman Potter, in his "What is a designer," describes the designer as one who "works through and for other people, and in concerned primarily with their problems rather than his own." There are, of course, problems with this definition, as he is the first to admit, but its directness cuts through much of the obfuscation that has been placed between the designer and the world he/she operates in.
Generally speaking, the designer engages in a relationship with a client or boss similarly to that of other workers. Its an unromantic relationship, one which is hardly addressed by the design community (who, sadly, is eager to situate the designer well outside this relationship), but one nonetheless which places the designer well within the market whereby his/her income is derived from a continuous selling of "labor-power"—to adopt, for a moment, the Marxian term.
The designer is called upon to serve specific business (or client) demands. While these demands often require an adherence to basic design principles, the rise of brands and niche marketing often compels advertisers to seek out more expressive and emotional imagery—imagery that, if not for the company logo at the bottom, would probably be confused for the Avant-Garde. But it is that attachment to business, or at least to a preconceived problem laid out by a client—profit or non-profit alike—which makes a world of difference. And it is this attachment which, I think, separates design from art, and the designer from the artist, even if only temporarily.
The realm of design is obviously much wider than that of advertising or marketing, but any semblance of a serious inquiry will have to take place somewhere else. Regardless, I think this distinction remains largely applicable. -
Again, this discussion is an exercise in trying to define and dissect the various attributes of both the artist and the designer, although many people may disagree with my positions of what the two are, I still stand by my words when I say that an artist TODAY needs to break free of overwhelming influence of past artists, we are in an age when we have so many new types of chaotic influences that allow our minds to expand more than ever before. Computers, the internet, and so on allows a person to truly gather unique and creative ideas, there are new mediums and infinite new possibilities. There will always be a connection to the foundation of life and love, emotions, feelings and so on but those should always be the common foundation for art everything else should be tossed. Where are our innovators today? Why must we copy the styles of the past for things to be considered art? In my opinion art should reflect the times, art is progressive.
Im glad this article sparked so much discussion and I hope it continues to make people think about the differences between art and design. What I hope to see is more of a convergence of the two. Our society is so overrun with commercial design that I find more harmful than good, if there was ONE billboard in Times Square dedicated to art for art sake it would help spark a new renaissance toward having a more positive collective consciousness towards art as a means of expression. -
Matty,
I will quote you "and very (very) few artists can truly be said to have invented a vocabulary of their own entirely out of whole cloth."
Perhaps that is the problem, too many artists! An artist should be a rare breed, few in number and yes those who can create a new vocabulary out of an entirely new cloth. Aren’t you sick of the same things over and over again? We all have the ability to create, to express but then where does that leave the title of Artist? Is everyone an artist? Perhaps? I will let you think about that.
As far as my juvenile understanding, I feel that my understanding is only seen as juvenile to you because it is clear and simple; an artist would truly understand that what I am saying is truth because it defines the core of what an artist truly is. Just because you go to art school doesn’t make you an artist. There are thousands of painters out there who sit all day and copy the masters, are they artists? Or parrots? Parrots can speak yet they don’t understand what comes out of their mouths.
An artist tells a story, expresses an emotion and examines the detail of life, all aspects of life. -
Craig,
You hope to see "more of a convergence of [art and design]," but so far, the distinctions you've made between the two are based on pure appearance—so much so that any mixture of the two would be meaningless. You haven't specified any genuine or objective characteristics peculiar to either art or design.
You suggest that, "design in the commercial sense is a very calculated and defined process, it is discussed amongst a group and implemented taking careful steps to make sure the objectives of the project are met." Are these particulars always adhered to? And are we to assume, therefore, that art is necessarily not "very calculated" nor implemented taking "careful steps?" Might not an artist have a precise intent in mind?
In a later post, you advance that, "[a]n artist tells a story, expresses an emotion and examines the detail of life, all aspects of life." Is this to suggest that a designer never "expresses an emotion and examines the detail of life..." and that instead, those details are reserved only for the artist?
Katie offered up the definition of design as " the opposite of purposelessness or randomness," and while I might agree with this, it in no way helps differentiate between art and design. At best we can conclude that a lot of art relies heavily upon design and, perhaps conversely, some design incorporates emotion (after all, must emotion flow only from individual endeavors?).
I think the determining question is: Why is the project being undertaken? Is it to solve a specific and preconceived problem for someone else? Or is to to gratify an individual need which flows from its producer? I agree with the sentiment that, "[o]ur society is so overrun with commercial design that I find more harmful than good," but insofar as privately-owned, for-profit enterprise dominates social production, most of us are confined to working within some aspect of the commercial world. And it is ultimately the "bottom-line," so to say, which serves as the fundamental purpose as to why most designers are hired—regardless of whether we acknowledge this fact or not, and regardless of what our personal motivations are.
And on a side note, I don't see how originality has any relevancy in this discussion. If something is unoriginal, does that mean it is demoted from the ranks of art and into some lowly position of design? -
Adam,
Again I think what you’re doing is isolating small pieces of what I wrote and making them into general statements that applies across the board. What I was trying to accomplish was to help the young design/artist distinguish the differences between what design and what art is. To be aware and cognizant of what they are doing on both ends of the spectrum. You are correct in as much as both distinctions are truly blended and that many specific attributes of each cross over into each other quite often. I am attempting to aid a person make this distinction through the question not the answer. The answer can be pondered eternally, art and design are two completely different things yet they require so much of the same to accomplish. I want to make point that art is important, not for the reasons of fame, money, status but because we lack expression in our lives, we commercialize everything and rarely do something for the sake of just doing it and appreciating the emotional or collective effect it has on our culture. Andy Warhol was on to something, his art was a parody, he had the vision to understand that design, and specifically commercial design was taking over our art and culture. -
Hello,
I am not that surprised to read this type of explanation of what art and design are on an AIGA website.
TO be very simple and clear and not get too long winded with a long definition:
The only difference between art and design is CONTEXT. That's it. period.
Any person can make design, can make art, can commission art, can commission design. It's really about where the object in question sits in the end for society/culture to accept, interpret, consume etc. To simplify my point with an example : A painting created by an "artist" that is used as a graphic for advertising is now considered design but hung on a wall in a gallery is considered art.(good art vs bad art is another discussion) Typography that is designed by a designer and commissioned by an artist to use in their exhibition is now considered art.
Art and design are interchangeable agents of language that speak differently within different contexts.
At their root, art and design are inseperable components within a creative endeavor. Where they are placed determines their function within society.
Ask Barbara Krueger, she has made advertising commissioned billboards with the same "style"(as you put it - but its not a style at all, its really a design solution to a conceptual problem!!!! ) - as her famous signature (graphic design inspired) fine art work.
thank you -
Your offering is much appreciated and elegantly written, this too is an answer, I find it strange that people feel compelled, challenged to answer this question. It is a question that may have no answer; the lines have been blurred so much so that we cannot truly distinguish art or design. Or can we? A museum piece doesn’t render something art, context is subjective, I am sure we have all come across works that we would not consider art, yet someone else may. I think tattoos are art, I think hair styles are art, I think dressing is art, as is speaking and as is writing, words on a page, when read or looked at can be art, so what is art? Design in the dictionary is “to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of” is that what other people define it as?
Im really glad people are struggling with this topic, its something to struggle with. We tend to cross the lines of definition in our society today and losing art in a heap of design would be tragic? -
Blogs are a great place for people to hash out their differences of opinion. And this being a blog why wouldnt people want to contribute their comments about art and design?
From your last comments regarding the elusive nature of deciding what is art, I thought the point of this discussion was very clear: What constitutes the differences between FINE ART AND COMMERCIAL ART?
Some people are uncomfortable with the pedestrian term commercial art and would rather say " design ". The semantics involved in this discussion are responsible for some of the confusion.
Your final comments about how classifying art can be an arbitrary function of individual taste and that context is subjective tells me that you have moved away from the initial topic and have begun to question a much larger metaphysical proposition: How does one experience and consider aesthetics and how are they classified as art? This question is miles away from the difference between fine art and design.
Philosophically speaking, this kind of struggle for meaning between art and design has to do with the struggle for power and knowledge with members of society. And it's this struggle that's responsible for the ambiguous definition. But thats a whole other discussion.
It was nice blogging with you. -
Dear Craig,
Thank you for contemporary article.
The complexity of relation between art and design is similar of relation between design and marketing I think.
Into relation of the first example design is a tangent tool of integrated marketing communications; into the second design has to defend the philosophy, methods and principles of art. So we can imagine some perspectives on the future â?“ does design has a double face or that means a double life? -
Perhaps social tags are responsible for the blurred lines drawn between the two, however I think that it is important for a person to understand the differences not because of some title but because I feel we have lost sight of the fundamental basics of what art really is. I read some interesting information on the subject of copywriting art and some of the issues discussed were expression versus execution. From what I understand, and I am probably wrong so please correct me if I am, that execution cannot be owned, anyone can copy a form of execution but expression is something that can be owned. Expression is a word that conjures up a lot of thought in the definition of art, art is expression of whatever it is the artist feels they want to get across or simply something that will evoke any type of emotion based on who is looking at the piece. There have been many debates all throughout history over what exactly art is. I am certainly no one to define it but the discussion in this day and age when expression is so popular and reaches so many more people than ever before because of the internet, it’s something that can be better discussed now because we are exposed to so much more from every corner of the world. The feedback has been tremendous and I appreciate everyone’s comments keep them coming because I myself am learning a lot more than I knew when I originally wrote the article.
-
People in the creative industry have very strong feelings about the division of art and design because these labels represent methods of control over the end product. It's true, commissioned art sometimes emulates a prevailing style or is based on certain specifications imposed by the artist or the client, and yet it’s still considered art. it's also quite possible for design to be free-flowing and chaotic, charged with emotional content and potency, even a one-of-a-kind, all characteristics of great art. Every day our creative world is complicated by behavior science, notions of usability, heuristics, personas...the user. BE honest, how do you think your latest work of art would fair in a usability study?
To place a different spin on the subject let’s consider music. In the audio world there are distinctions between composers and performers. The two roles absolutely intermingle. It’s quite common for some performers to be substantially superior in ability and execution to many composers yet never pen a single note. Just as it might be possible for a composer to write something they will never perform. The reality is more about perception and control of creative content than it is about ability. Indeed many performers are prolific writers, just as many writers frequently perform both their own material as well as other writers compositions. The reality is that this performer/writer division simply defines one’s role in the creation and exhibition process...no more, no less.
The same is true in the visual world. Designers are artists and artists are designers. I agree with an earlier respondent's assertion that the divisive factor is contextual. I’d like to focus even more closely on this because I think it underscores why we as designers, artists, musicians, etc feel compelled to define and defend what art is. You see, my opinion is that all creation is art...even when mass produced. These “artifacts”, if you will, are manifestations of an idea. And the control of ideas has consumed most societies since the dawn of time. Ideas are born from a great many things, the cataloguing of an ideas ingredients is better left to others. The important thing about them is that once they are born and given some voice in our world...they can never be silenced and this is their true power. Like most things political, just as in nature, it’s all in the perception and propagation.
Most of us know what the word design means, dictionary.com has some wonderful derivatives of the core definition for those inclined...By my reckoning, the first artistically rendered cave painting was in fact a visual “design” meant to communicate an idea? The first garment artistically fashioned was in fact “designed” to serve a specific function. How can we not also see the artistry in the workings of an analog watch or the printing of a monthly magazine. Many things are not seen as art in the traditional sense because, in many societies, art is seen as a status reserved for something totally unique In the world. But that notion doesn’t hold up. Every newspaper is unique..from subtle differences in paper composition and microscopic variation in ink application to the ever changing content printed on each page. Conversely people try to separate design as the means by which an idea is fabricated, transcribed or communicated to others. How strange it is that so many “artists” today replicate their work in mass quantities to sell to the public...Art is design and design is art.
Another method some folks use to classify art is to define it as something to be appreciated for purely lofty idealistic notions. Art, to these people is not something that would fill or satisfy an everyday purpose or need. I tire of the comparisons to Apple because so many people tout how they have embraced both art and design. However, Apple remains a very good example of a company who infuses passionate, emotional artistry into their products. They’re not the only ones who “get it”. The Swiffer, the Downy Ball, Ford’s Mustangs and Ikea all have a certain artistic flair about them and yet every last one of these products were mass-produced for millions to fulfill profoundly mundane tasks. Art appeals to our emotions exactly because it is born from passion...I can show you hundreds of people who are passionate about their iPods and Mustangs!
So while it might be interesting to wrestle with the division of design and art, my experience and intuition tell me they are one in the same. The unity has been cleft because empires needed to be built or destroyed. The control of ideas has been and will always remain the device by which creation and destruction are achieved. It’s far easier to talk about the metrics of design dispassionately, totally dismissive of the idea’s intrinsic artistic spark that impels people to take notice. That’s why replication is so rampant today...It’s cheaper to control something that people aren’t personally invested in- build a template that “works” and you wont have to invest in all that creative heavy lifting.
Companies are finding out, however, that copying the original doesn’t always work. Marketers have moved mountains in an effort to diversify our tastes, how else could so many different brands of fabric softener exist? Competition is ultimately good, it keeps prices down and spurs innovation, and it’s the one thing that keeps capitalism democratic. And so it goes...if you want someone to take notice, appeal to their emotions, if you want them to use it appeal to their intellect. Spend some time reading about the implementation of great art and design and I think you’ll find that they are one in the same, tools meant to bring ideas to life. -
Originality has nothing to do with what is art or what isn't art. Marcel Duchamp ended that idea with the readymade years ago. Art and Design serve the same master - the marketpkace. Timelyness has more to do with whether a design or an "artwork" resonates and is bestowed with the title of masterwork or genius.
-
Who we now call a designer was at one time called artist. The exponential increase in information availability and development of higher education have led to the various distinctions (architecture, visual art, graphic design, fashion design, etc) in the same field. The two fields today are doubtlessly closely related. They both involve the creative process, the visual, the physical, to be experienced by an audience. And of course, they both have a purpose. The question is never, are they related, but rather, what is the distinction? Artists have traditionally been designers, and vice versa. They have bridged the intensely personal and the utterly communal - working in service to the community through their unique vision. Today the communal and the personal seem to be divided. Artists rarely serve the larger community and designers rarely do anything but. People like William McDonough have picked up the torch once held by people like Da Vinci. I can't think of contemporary artist who can say the same thing.
-
Hi Craig. I couldn't agree more. All of the "best" designers in the short history of the profession were [graphic] artists experimenting within the conventions of Dynamism, Dadaism, Pop, etc... Be both artist & designer. That's why I prefer the title graphic artist.
-
Art vs design?
It`s easy:
Art: Rembrandt, Van gogh, Leonardo , Velazquez, Monet, Cezanne, archimboldo, Seurat, Bourguereau, El Bosco, Escher.
Design: Mondrian, Pollock, Kandinsky, Malevich, Vasarely, Rothko, warhol. (late works in most of them of course, cause most began doing art).
Design is the skeleton of what can become art if applied to figurative realism!
I hope i`ve enlightened everyone with my infinite
wisdom, bless to all. -
Juan Bautista comment was wise indeed.
There is no blurry line between art & design.. -
that was interesting to read..many opinions...and they are only opinions...would love to read some actual research papers regarding this topic with some solid and reliable sources and evidence
i am only a student and i think i don't have enough knowledge in the area to make any judgements, yet i am afraid that these are forming a paradigm for me regarding this topic yet i can't fully be convinced by anyone..perhaps that's not the purpose anyways of this discussion.... but i just find it hard to make any judgements at all because most of the writings are jsut claims with no evidence
of course this discussion after all is not a theory of knowledge paper or even any research paper so i still would like to say i really enjoyed reading the comments and its a great discussion
but what i did keep thinking while reading all the comments and the artical itself is
what is art anyways? -
Art is the creative recreation of reality, & that includes even non figurative works & design.
Those last two would be skeletons of reality or patterns, even if you throw a can of paint to the canvas you`re copying reality. (geisers, volcanos etc, do those "random" movements.)
Is absolutely impossible to create a work of art who does not makes reference to a natural process.
That`s simply because we are nature too. The division tho, is necesary(nature/humans), because we`re still not sure what we are.
We`re the only species who cannot live in relative harmony with the other forms of lifes in the planet.
The best way to learn about art is stop reading about it(unless its practical stuff, paint recipes etc)
Just go & watch light closely for hours & practice a lot, watch lots of works too if you can. Beware of art critics, i haven`t read a competent one ever in my life.
:P -
I simply don't understand why you're even trying to make a distinction between design and art. I think the question is meaningless. It's like trying to define a distinction between composition and music. Only even more muddied. Design is both a part of art, and encompassing of art. Art is both a part of design, and encompassing of design.
We are compelled to create works which convey a message. What difference does it make what tools we use, or what our reasons are, or what the message is, or who sees it, or what process we use, or who has done what in the past, or if the "brief" comes from our own imagination or someone else's, or what rules were used, or what rules were broken?
Trying to get more specific and label certain things as 'art' and others as 'design' will ALWAYS paint yourself into a corner where others can point out poignant examples which contradict your stance. Katie Fillingim has pointed out a few of these internal inconsistencies. Why even try to make such a stance? What does it benefit you to make such a meaningless distinction?
I mean really, assuming that you could provide a rock solid fool-proof distinction between art and design, what would come of it?
At best, people would have to re-evaluate some previously accepted works of art as "design", and vice versa. Woo. That'd be worth it.
At worst, you've wasted your time and effort drawing lines around parts of a whole and attaching effectively meaningless labels to them.
To me, it seems as though attempts to separate art from design reek of elitism. The only "point" to making such a distinction seems to be to elevate art above design by some random arbitrary assortment of criteria which serve to stroke the ego of the person making the distinction. The person prides themselves on their chaotic and emotion-charged creations, so they elevate these criteria as those which define "art", as distinguished from "mere design". Please. -
quite simply.
art=design
design=art
seperate the two and you don't have anything.
it's a matter of the media controlling the social economic boundries.
let's not do this please.
thanks -
I agree with xpez's comment about the struggle for power & knowledge. I think a lot of the art/design debate comes from academic struggles over what constitutes research. What a shame. Outside of academia, I've always experienced a free flow between "artists" and "designers": who they are and what they do.
As a few others have pointed out, there are artists who are heavily engaged in thinking about their audience when they are creating artwork. (examples of a few individuals listed below). It is also VERY common for artists to have to explain themselves in order to apply for competitive grants and residencies. Artists must also prepare budgets, meet deadlines, and construct things to ADA & fire code standards when working with major museums. (speaking from personal experience...I consider myself an artist AND a designer)
-Hyla Willis
Hans Haacke
Suzanne Lacy
Vito Acconci
William Pope L
Sharon Hayes -
Ben, I think I love you.
-
I believe that both art and design play a role of communication. However, design focus on getting thruough the message to its audience (as "L" mentioned earlier) while art might contain certain message which its audience may not understand.
-
I would like to say first, are we discussing Art and Design or how is a Pollack painting different from a corporate brochure?
If the former, then Design is a set of tools used to communicate. An artist and a graphic ( or product or pc board) designer use these tools to achieve objectives, which are generally different.
Its fine to for everyone to have personal meanings when you experience a Van Gogh, but on a corporate data sheet it is necessary to have a very specific common meaning.
It is not ok for the readers of a poster for a play to arrive at different locations at different times to see the play. But is considered better ( and we could even say more artistic) graphic design when the poster includes a feeling about the play that moves the reader emotionally, hopefully to see and/or better understand the play.
While the skills of design may be written down and taught to another, successful artists whether fine artists or commercial artists, learn to use and apply these, i.e. work with design, at a feeling level as opposed to a thinking level. The person becomes the design tool.
And when people refer to the art of something, such as medicine, they are talking about the ability of the person to use the techniques of their profession in a way that is beyond literal explanation.
As to value, society has a "lofty view " of Art as something special. Designers have made major meaningful contributions to the everyday life of most people. The value of Fine Art is mostly for a small group of wealthy people, gallery owners, museums and, of course, for the career of the artist.
For many years I carried around Letters to Theo and every time I saw a Van Gogh I stood in front of the painting and read the letters written about the time of the painting. But I am much more thankful for the designer who designed the fire extinguisher so I could figure out how to operate it, sight unseen, in 10 seconds and the corporate executive that ok’d the design.
Fine artist, graphic designer, product designer, etc. designer, all use design as a tool in their career. Fine artist is person who uses design as a tool. Designer needs another word to tell us what what kind of designer he or she is, and is another person who uses design as a tool.
It is not a choice between being a designer or artist but rather a choice of a career in which one uses design as a tool to achieve different objectives. -
"Design is art without the bullshit."
Great quote from a former professor. -
I think the difference can be understood as follows: The product of design is an abstract (high level) artefact. The art is a concrete (in contrast to abstract) artefact. The process of realising both artefacts (abstract vs. concrete) can/and is the same in many cases.
-
The topic is always evolving. Makes me optimistic that there are so many who care to speak about the differences these two subtle cousins.
Art and Design are on a disastrous crash course where the tragic ending is that we cannot decipher between the two...
the end result of either the two is something that must stimulate in some way, what that stimulation succeeds in or fails to do is the result.
Ive seen art in times square and ive seen design in the MET and vice versa.
question still lingers... -
The difference between fine art and graphic design is comparable to the difference between poetry and journalism.
-
As a relatively new graphic design student I have never seriously contemplated the distinction between art and design. I'm not very certain the distinction is important at all, except maybe as a conversation piece over dinner. I suppose that, as one commentator pointed out, everything will at some point be done by someone, and then the day when something truly "original" is created will be passed. I can appreciate good design for what it is, and good art for what it is, and I can see the difference between the two. "There is nothing new under the sun", and everything at some point had a predecessor.
By the way, I'd put more stock in what you had to say if you allowed someone to edit what you write for grammar and spelling. Just a suggestion. -
Some of discussion about this article seems to become limited within the attempt to define and pidgeon-hole art and design itself. I feel we are all a collection of any thought, picture, or experience we have experienced during our shoprt life span. Ideas will never exhaust and new ideas are boundless. If we can't remember all things or see into the future, why stress over it. Just do, and do, and do, regardless of societal constraints or contemporary political beliefs. Artists and designers create, we relflect what we know, and we do not know everything. While I understand the critique and discussion is invariably a human condition, throw yourself to the wolves and create. In a few hundred years, I wonder what the discussion will be then?
-
can you give more "clear" meanig about art and design?!!!!!!!!
and can you give example, illustration of your design,........ -
If you think about it all artist are designers and all designers are artists, each have a common goal, an emotional response, be it passion or hunger it's much the same, if you want to bring this to nuts and bolts, art is more science that anything, since there's a common goal of effecting behavior.... Think about that the next time you walk into McDonald's or your favorite Gallery.
Christopher Stets
President & Senior Partner
One Four Design Group & MotiV8 Group -
Hey
wow, there's some amazing points in this post! I'm a student and for a Fine art personal investigation I've (naively) chosen the theme of Art vs Graphic design. In this, I mean that I am looking at the similarities between the two aesthetically speaking, and how each can influecne the other. Wondering if anyone has any observations, images, points or links that could help me along. Cheers -
When I graduated from art school I "believed" that the only "true art" was something that was completely original, something that had never been done before. This belief was stultifying and led me to abandon my painting, and creative endeavors. A move I realize now was motivated by my ego, and not my higher self. I was successful in a couple of satisfying careers, that had little to do with art. As Ken Kesey said, "All fiction is true."
I had the feeling always that there was something important missing in my life. I think we make art too precious, and through arrogance, and snobbery declare what thing is art and what is not. This is the same arrogance that causes wars between countries, and violence to the individual. Two of the most important things I've learned are: "Art is subjective" and there "Is a market for my art". I went back to school in 1994 to become a graphic designer. I have been free-lancing for 12 years now and am very successful, which has allowed me to get back into fine art. And though I get excited about some design jobs, graphic design does not feed my soul like painting does. This debate has been going on for years about art, and truthfully the debate is a form of mental masturbation. For example, I dislike organized religion that tells me how to live and what to believe, and my creativity has blossomed since I stopped caring what others think about it. The interesting thing is, that my paintings are truly beautiful. And many people agree with me, and support me by buying them. Some would call them illustrations, I see them as a process of "intense seeing".
If I think about it too much, the debate enervates me, (and I really can't allow that to happen)or I will care too much about what you think. My ego will be in charge. (Not a good thing.) In fact, I don't know even why I am responding to this, but ohwellhuh. Nonetheless, your article got me thinking clearly, and for that I thank you. -
You responded because you yourself understand that the difference is important.
We all need to clearly delineate practices as we get more and more unsure with the passing of time.
What is going on with the web is biblical and everything we once knew has changed.
Interaction, motion, sound, it is all a new playing field and as designers we must comply with its rigid standards and its great expectations. -
Someone said
("Design is art without the bullshit."
Great quote from a former professor.)
I`ll say... design is art without the soul ;)
or maybe... design is the soul of the art.
(like vermeer geometric compositions naked in today`s contemporary work of art).
Is easy ppl, dont get crazy on this one.
Design is the M from mcdonalds, or a work from Piet mondrian, wich can be called "high design" if you wish. The day someone uses mondrian designs to capture a moment of true perception (not imagined) then it becomes art :)
Is this division important, yes, but no more than talking about toiled paper or car parts. It just is.
There can be "art design" like synthetic cubism.
that would be a nice example of something that hops on the thin line.
Even if art had a soul is not as important as many would like it to be (those who get money & fame from it).
Cause art is death a piece of nothing, is just a testimony.
The artist would be an intermediary, much better if the person sees "it" for him/herself, second hand knowledge gets filtered with confusion.
Never give spiritual qualities to art, that`s the true bullshit. yes, even if there`s "traces" of soul in it. because we will end up giving more value to it than to real life. (example, the monalisa getting all that attention & investment & millions of children starving & no one gives a....)
Is also impossible to find a meaning that we will all accept, we are each one of us locked in our own cell, no matter how big it is, is still a cell. Talks like this originated wars? then if you don`t like to "chat" about these sensible subjects i advice you don`t come here, cause this is an intellectual battlefield ;PP
ha he hi ho hu :) -
when one attempts to define Art, there will be an artist to prove it wrong. "Art is beautiful" Art becomes ugly. "Art is emotional" Art becomes emotionless. "Art is form" Art becomes idea. Thats the problem, Art will always shatter definitions.
Having said that, I will ignore my own advise and take a crack. I think it comes down to Function. Design can have many functions, whereas Art has one single function. The function of Art -
Design is not art. Design is a strategic approach to effective communication through a visual interface.
-
Hi Craig. First of all I would like to congratulate you on giving a kick start to this debate which is essential for both designers and artists in realising their endeavours.
I am an undergrad student of Architecture and my thesis is a " museum of design". I am myself trying to make out the difference between a museum of art and a museum of design. How are they different from each other? That leads me to the discussion on difference between art and design. Being a designer myself, I have always felt that they two are different from each other but at the same time inseparable. A lot of times art has been our muse in designing a building/object.
I feel that Design is done to make human life comfortable whereas art i feel is never done with that intention. The origin of design lies in this fact only. Since they both are linked with human beings, I feel that THEY BOTH INVOKE EMOTIONS. But its only design that can make human lifestyle comfortable due to its close relationship with technology. Design by the virtue of its final existence as a 3-d object has made our lives comfortable.
Both art and design could be done to reinvent the past and they both invoke emotions in human beings.
Would like you to respond to my article.
Thank you -
I would like to add one more thing that both art and design change lives or so to say transform lives of people emotionally. But only design can do it physically.
-
I think it's important for us to consider what KIND of design we're talking about. Many artists use various generic "design" conventions in their art (planning compositions, effectively using negative space, typography, etc). So, in this case, art and design are one in the same. However, I think the discussion here is about GRAPHIC design and fine art (or any form of "commercial" design and fine art).
Graphic design and fine art are two very different things. Graphic design is generally done for a client, and is done to solve a problem. It is done to send a message to a specific audience. Fine art is, in my belief, self-expression, and is generally done to depict an idea or emotion.
However, I believe a graphic designer can add his or her own personal, unique touch to a piece and use it effectively. This adds emotion and depth and transforms the "designer" into an "artist," so to speak.
The line is rather blurry. I think it depends on the context and intent of the piece.
Thanks! -
Question...with the differences in appproaches and final destionations (so to speak) should Graphic Design be taught in a Communications Department or an Art Department ?
-
Craig,
"a strategic approach to effective communication through a visual interface" can be made through a work of art
Art does not start and/or finish with the expression
Design dos not start and/or finish with the project
Both can merge into something that only the context could try to separate, but only try
we are discussing about definitions, and we lack words for those definitions, the only thing clear is that Art and Design are made through creation to communicate something. -
Thank you Craig. Your post is excellent food for thought, and the variety of this comment string proves it. I am not sure if anyone is reading through this anymore, but I thought I would post as I have a degree in fine arts and practice design.
Yes. There is a big difference between the two and to me it is very clear. But they both require doses of each other.
An artist has developed a full independent visual language of his own to communicate to the world. It is his fingerprint. Likewise, an artist has developed his own impetus for investigation and bodies of work- it has a life of its own.
Being "new" is not the measure. The measure is fluency: Being able to communicate to others anything possible (from their backyard to god) in his own language. The vocabulary could consist of mash-ups and collages of the "old". When that fluency becomes total, then the breakthroughs happen anyway.
The Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo was a highly structured commissioned work, but it is undeniably a Michelangelo when you look at his other work. If the Chapel wanted him to change his visual "language", Michelangelo would say no (well documented trait of his).
Great designers have a different approach which is equally challenging. They are sponges that master layers of currently recognized visual languages. They innovate dramatically in the visual language unique to the client. Then they are able to do it again for someone entirely different.
In contrast to Michelangelo, a great designer working on a project the size of the Sistine Chapel ceiling would have an arsenal of visual styles and ideas at their disposal. Fluidity to change and the ability to understand and accomplish the toughest visual needs would be no problem.
That's my take. Artists create a visual language and independent reason for creative investigation. Designers speak multiple visual languages and creatively ivestigate. -
I am not surprise to see this type of confusion. I can say without feeling stupid, that I never understood "Conceptual Art."
At one point, art was mean to be beautiful. Later, it was supposed to be meaningful. And at a later point, it was supposed to express what others where not able to express.
Once, I took a class of Art History and Politics, and started seeing great artist as prophets of the world. People sensitive enough to see beyond their immediate reality, and skillful enough to express that reality.
This sensibility is expressed in all forms of arts usually simultaneously.
In times of rebellion, this rebellion is shown in the work of all main artists.
It makes me see art as a form of expression regardless of the media neither of time.
Why is important to know the different art movements of the past? Just because some emotions, and concepts are not easy to express and even more difficult to interpret. This makes very unlikely the possibility of someone producing great art with no art education.
A great artist can express better when it can make use of the trends of the pass. When he can make use of the vehicles his precursors used before him. This also makes the interpretation of art conventional rather than isolated opinions.
You can read like a book the painting of Frida Kahlo, or you can also feel the passion and emotion in the pictures with text of Barbara Kruger.
Picasso's art motivated the people of his time into revolution, in such a way that he felt guilty and decided to modify his style to a more classic or Neo-classic.
This is what I understand. -
Craig,
Thank you for your article, and thanks to all who have responded. I have found the discussion provocative. My concerns with the ART VS. DESIGN topic in more about the foundational philosophies as taught to design students in academe.
I have found that Design students, when taught that design is art and art is design, are also taught that art is higher than design. Designers then become "those who sell art for commercial purposes, because their art is not good enough to be art, so it becomes design." Designers then are artist who sold out, particularly as seen by artist. I have found this philosophy prevalent among art professors and in schools of art. This point of view is obviously injurious to design students.
I do agree that the process of generating art and design items have much in common, and that they can be critiqued using similar intellectual criteria. I also agree that designers can create art and artists can create design. But I see design as far more service oriented, concerned with meeting the visual communication needs of some else, utilizing in part, the same tools, concepts and practices of art. I also see that Design is often more associated with collaboration; client, photographer, associates, printer, competitive markets, etc.
Art is wonderful, don't get me wrong. But, associating design as simply being a derivative of art is a disservice to design students and their education toward understanding the role of Design as an significant force that has contributed historically to the evolution of societies. -
Thank you for the article. I have often wondered, in the respect of "design" competitions, if the judges to those competitions know the difference between "design" and "art".
I am a designer while my husband is a fine artist, and we have both agreed for some time that there is an apparent and divisive line between the two, yet I view competition winners in "How" and "Print" magazines and I have to say, in my opinion, many of these high-placement winners seem to cross over the line into the style of Warhol-type posters or imagery with little or no clear message. In my opinion, they are "artists" winning these competitions, because each piece has to be explained rather than speaking for itself.
So I suppose my question is, do these judges who supposedly have such vast experience and knowledge of design know how to distinguish art from design? What type of message are these competitions sending when they award what could easily be construed as fine-art as the winner of a design competition? -
Unfortunately, this author of this article clearly lacks basic grammar and writing skills. Although it is atrociously written, the article highlights a unique "gray area" between designers and artists. The controversial topic captured my attention, and I encourage this author to pursue his ideals.
-
A design is everything made by a human in order to meet a specific function or to solve a specific problem. From the guy who put a handle on a glass and made it a cup to the latest and most expensive tv commercial. They didn't just happen, there where lots of thinking before that design came to life. Or do you think of your toilet as a piece of art? well in my opinion there's tons of design in a toilet but it just makes a function, it doesn't express the designer's feelings in the moment that he created it.
Art is something that makes you feel a certain way, when you see a piece of art, you might like it or you might not but you won't just look at it and walk away with total indifference like you could do with a bad advertisement like the one's we see every day every where. And that's why art, true art, persists over the years, you can see that same painting over and over and by some reason you won't get tired of it.
Art doesn't take much thinking, or plannification it's more about you being happy with your creation, because if an artist doesn't like something he did, he will probably destroy or hide that piece even if people likes it, he is the one who has to like it first. But when doing a design, you can be well happy with something that you migh not like that much, but if you know that it successfuly expresses the desired message or solves a determinated problem, you know then that people will like it. So now more than liking it you see it like a job done.
DESIGN MAKES YOU THINK OR DO SOME THING.
ART MAKES YOU FEEL SOME THING.
A design can successfuly tell you what to do while art would never do that. -
I haven't got a problem with artists so long as they stick to painting.
I'm a 3d and architectural designer, forced to work with several fine artists and sculptors over the past ten years. Fine artists and sculptors are in general arrogant, pretentious and consider themselves not only an authority on art but also all forms of design and architecture. They consider designers and architects as merely technicians who owe it to humanity to work with "real artists". Artist also seem to think that digital technology is evil and true creativity can only stem from scribbling with charcoal.
In my experience, the differences between artists and designers:
Designers did a vocational degree and can pay their way in society without becoming a teacher.
Architects know how to make something stand up and build things in a robust way. Sculptors don't. Sculptors get very angry when their creations have to be altered to make them safe or to stop them blowing away in the wind.
Fine artists are dinosaurs clinging to a world where everything is drawn with oil pastels. Designers can usually draw better anyway, but can also use a computer.
Artists buy a Mac and then suddenly announce that they're now a "Graphic designer". They then blame a "technician" (a graphic designer) when every print job they do is a disaster.
Designers know how to talk to the public and clients. Artists will invariable annoy and patronise the public and clients.
Designers can work to a brief, stick to a budget and understand the properties of the materials available. Artists will tell you that they can build a 9 metre high piece of permanent public art with just £1000 and some chicken wire.
At the end of the project a designer makes it clear that it was a team effort, thanks the team and starts the next job. However, on completing a project, an artist hides all evidence that after the submission of their abstract, concept, mostly useless sketches, the project was designed, presented and realised by "technicians". The artist will never acknowledge these people but will spend the next 6 months courting the media and elaborating on their single handed success.
Designers will work from dawn until midnight. Artist turn up late and go home early. -
I just want to share some thoughts here in relation to the topic. Most of us are natural designers—improved dramatically through the influence of media and social networks. With this innate ability comes a new-age designer using the most advanced available technology: computers. With the popularization of computers in 80s, the literal “cut and paste” in layouting was recreated into something new: graphic designing. Art is mass produced through graphics designs in advertisements both in TV and print media. Graphic designers are replacing fine artists. Computers are now replacing paintbrushes. Photoshop recreates a person’s persona or corporate branding and identity. The reality is bent depending on a graphic artist’s imagination. It is not surprising that in the future, we live in a virtual place where everything is but an imagination. http://kayacamilla.com
© 2009 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments