What is "Pure Design"?
Brian Mays
As you all probably know by now, I'm NEVER satisfied with where I'm at
skill, talent, and knowledgewise. Now I've got something that has been
bugging me and I want to see what input you all may have to offer.
I've heard designers mention they did a piece for the "pure design."
I feel like I'm missing something when I read that. My understanding is
that they create "pure design" much as a fine artist will create
"abstract art."
I see this in font designs a lot . "It's not about the functionality,
but about the pure design."
Any other ideas?
Brian Mays
Spade
done work that I didn't look back on later and wish I had done differently.
--
Brandon
www.johnnyspade.com
mail: sp...@direct.ca
Phil
for yourself, or something that no one else has done before.
After all, if you're working from a template or copying ideas
from a design annual, you're not designing anything, you're
reshaping it. If you do something new, that is pure design.
Like a creation.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mozeman
is no practical or commercial function for the design; it is simply an
exploration by the designer.
It is an interesting philosophy, since I regard design as practical and
commercial in nature. It's kind of like a filmmaker who claims to make a
film for "himself" without consideration for the audience, as if this
somehow deepens the work. But the nature of film, a projected image, is to
be viewed by an audience.
Design for design's sake may then simply be regarded as practice.
--
Thomas Moser
*****************************
tmo...@waypointinc.com
*****************************
Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37D1A1CD...@swbell.net...
Toonman
I think half of the things that spew from artists, graphic artists, web
designers and anyone else that thinks they're on the cutting edge of "cool"
is horse crap. Speaking of crap... "It's not about the functionality, but
about the pure design" really means "I created a piece of crap that nobody
including myself likes, needs, or cares about, but since it took so long to
do I might as well pawn it off as artistic expression."
Hell, do something for the fun of it, or for the study of it, or for the
thrill of it, but don't feed me this artsy fartsy pure design crap!
Perhaps we should debate the artistic merit of fonts just as we did
fractals?
That's what I think Brian.
Toonman
Terry L. Griffin
it's the equivalent to fine art IN THAT, at the moment, you're doing it
for the pure LOVE of designing...as oppposed to, say, merely for a client.
But it's not design-for-design's-sake, or design-because-you-can. It's
the times when you're apt to produce your BEST, most inspired design;
when you're happiest with what you're producing. When you realize this
has GOT to be what you were meant to do!
You know, those days when you're really in a design GROOVE, and you're
in your element right then, and you just FEEL like a PURE
designer...know what I'm talkin' about?
Sure enough, it's a mind trip...a state of design nirvana! But those are
the moments that really affirm the love of what we do. At least for me.
Terry
glorywest
Really I do.
________________________________________________________________
Mozeman
--
Thomas Moser
*****************************
tmo...@waypointinc.com
*****************************
glorywest <glor...@deja-news.com> wrote in message
news:01bef763$4c748440$6901c7c7@tower...
David A. Burgess
think the ultimate rush would be to design or create art during sex (not that
sex isn't a beautiful art in itself)... kinda like in the movie "The Red
Violin", where that musician plays while he and his partner make love and he's
just playing what he's feeling, creating an entirely new composition every time.
Now if only there where a way to do that with photoshop... *grin*
~DAB
Chris Jones
>
> Really I do.
woah.. I wouldn't go that far.. but I guess that's a personal preference
thing :)
--
Christopher Jones
ICQ # 17357114
New Gallery Test site (updated slightly)
http://home.earthlink.net/~christopherjones
Brian Mays
Brian
sistercarol
--Carol
Chris Jones <christop...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7qtiju$4t0$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
glorywest
David! A couple years ago I was seeing an artist. It was heaven. We made
art. I want to marry an artist and make art till I die.
I really do have a great passion for my work. It's because I do get a
thrill from it. How could I keep at this all day every day all by myself
for 10 years now if I didn't? The other thread running about where you will
be 20 years from now is a good one. Only passion for this profession will
keep you going that long.
As for someone not doing one of them right, well...
____________________________________________
Lloyd Phillips
heated discussion between two stubborn individuals). She was saying that her
dad is an artist and that she didn't consider me an artist because I design
for commercial reasons, I have a client dictating what I produce.
Do you think people who produce computer aided designs (web sites, logos,
corporate brochures) are artists?
I do consider myself an artist. She even said that what I produce could be
classed as art, I even managed to convince her that architects and the like
produce works of art in designing buildings, but she refused to classify me
or any others as artists, even though we had dictionary's out stating that
an artist is one who produces art, professionally (I get paid for it
right?).
Do you consider yourselves artists? Or do see a distinction between those
who design for clients and those who produce work that expresses emotions
etc?
Lloyd
Worms The Armadillo
you've found pure design?
everything I've been getting from my dealer has been cut with
"functionality" and "readability". I knew he was bunking me!
Worms
Mette Sabram
I express something through visual impact. Whatever I get paid is not the
point, traditional artists get piad too. That doesn't make them any less of
an artist!
I had a client over a few weeks ago (a sweet lady, but a demanding one. She
has NEVER been online and I had to teach her how to use a mouse!!!!!!! So
the website turned out to be very less prof looking than I wanted, because
she had a fixed idea...it doesn't really look good on a website.:( Anyway,
she said when I was in Photoshop adjusting something : "Oh, it is ALMOST
like an art"..I said "It IS an art".
I also have a friend who is a "typical bay Area artist". She does painting
on windows and frames (floral) and I have a feeling than she does NOT
consider me an artist at all as long as I work on a computer! I have
mentioned several times that "I am an artist too", but she doesn't seem to
get it at all. She did invite me to exhibit some of my stuff at an art
exhibition in January and I asked her if it could be in "any media" and she
said "yes, so whip out those pencils and crayons"...LOL!
I guess trad. artists only consider it art when there is a brush
involved....Maybe they think that the computer creates the art for us???
Whereas we all know that the computer is just a tool. Just like an artist's
brush.
Lloyd Phillips wrote in message <7qu2e5$ru7$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brian Mays
Lloyd Phillips wrote:
> Do you consider yourselves artists? Or do see a distinction between those
> who design for clients and those who produce work that expresses emotions
> etc?
I consider myself an artist, but I also consider myself a designer. I think
there is a difference.
Art has to serve NO PURPOSE at all. Design MUST serve a purpose.
Artists often do work and hope to get paid. Designers often do work and expect
payment upon completion, sometimes payment before work commences.
Artists please themselves. Designers please clients, then themselves.
This is not to say design is not an art, I think it is.
And then there's just the difference between the connotation of the terms
"designer" and "artist." It seems to me that "designers" get more respect in
an uneducated workplace than an "artist." Because "artists" are hippies who
aren't in touch with reality and they just go to the basement and paint (not my
generalization, but one based on conversations I've overheard in workplaces).
Some of my best friends in the design field couldn't paint or draw if you paid
them to, but they can design circles around a lot of other designers I know.
And vice versa...a lot of artists I know can't design an effective logo if they
had to.
I'm sure I've left something out I wanted to say. I'll post it if I think of
it.
Brian
Brian Mays
Mette Sabram wrote:
> I also have a friend who is a "typical bay Area artist". She does painting
> on windows and frames (floral) and I have a feeling than she does NOT
> consider me an artist at all as long as I work on a computer! I have
> mentioned several times that "I am an artist too", but she doesn't seem to
> get it at all. She did invite me to exhibit some of my stuff at an art
> exhibition in January and I asked her if it could be in "any media" and she
> said "yes, so whip out those pencils and crayons"...LOL!
>
> I guess trad. artists only consider it art when there is a brush
> involved....Maybe they think that the computer creates the art for us???
> Whereas we all know that the computer is just a tool. Just like an artist's
> brush.
Boy, talk about deja vu! I experienced this in college! I did a
watercolor/mixed media illustration for my illustration class and touched it up
in the computer. Talk about a backlash! (I think they were somewhat jealous
that I was able to cover my mistakes so simply. But the piece was destined for
print anyway. It wasn't going to hang in a gallery or exhibition. The only
thing that mattered to me was the printed output.)
I also got nailed by some fine artists that HATED it when I used the opaque
projector. One said, "I HATE technology creeping into art!!!" And I said,
"Your brushes are technology. Low level technology, but technology
nonetheless." So she said she'd paint with bones and I told her that was still
a level of technology she was utilizing. (She left the room after that. I
felt bad, and apologized for getting her so stewed up, but not for saying what
I said. She was cool with it.)
I think there was probably a backlash by traditional painters when the airbrush
came out! I mean, look at the time saved with that tool, creating gradations!
A lot of artists probably saw their blood, sweat, and tears being flushed down
the toilet (or whatever was around back then) in favor of a solution that took
1/10th of the time.
As I said before, I do consider design an art, but it's just my opinion that
designers and artists are two separate entities.
Brian
Terry L. Griffin
>
> ... kinda like in the movie "The Red
> just playing what he's feeling, creating an entirely new composition every time.
> Now if only there where a way to do that with photoshop... *grin*
Or the Levi's commercial with "Lola" the sexy, abstract painter who uses
her men's jeans as a canvas...while she's seducing them.
terry
Terry L. Griffin
because I get paid for it. After all, If one wants to take that view,
then they must agree that the Sistine Chappel was not a work of
art...just a commission.
terry
Lloyd Phillips wrote:
>
> I was having an argumnet with my girlfriend last week (well, lets call it a
> heated discussion between two stubborn individuals). She was saying that her
> dad is an artist and that she didn't consider me an artist because I design
> for commercial reasons, I have a client dictating what I produce.
> Do you think people who produce computer aided designs (web sites, logos,
> corporate brochures) are artists?
> I do consider myself an artist. She even said that what I produce could be
> classed as art, I even managed to convince her that architects and the like
> produce works of art in designing buildings, but she refused to classify me
> or any others as artists, even though we had dictionary's out stating that
> an artist is one who produces art, professionally (I get paid for it
> right?).
> Do you consider yourselves artists? Or do see a distinction between those
> who design for clients and those who produce work that expresses emotions
> etc?
> Lloyd
sistercarol
commercial, but it's art all the same. Architects feel the same
way -- I would imagine most designers do. Anyone who says
differently is obviously NOT an artist, or they would see the
validity of commercial design. All art doesn't hang on the wall,
you know.
--Carol
Lloyd Phillips <ll...@phill79.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7qu2e5$ru7$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
sistercarol
done with a computer and PhotoShop. Go figure.
--Carol
Mette Sabram <des...@sabram.com> wrote in message
news:rt5794...@corp.supernews.com...
> I do consider myself an artist for sure. I create stuff for
visual impact.
> I express something through visual impact. Whatever I get paid
is not the
> point, traditional artists get piad too. That doesn't make them
any less of
> an artist!
>
> I had a client over a few weeks ago (a sweet lady, but a
demanding one. She
> has NEVER been online and I had to teach her how to use a
mouse!!!!!!! So
> the website turned out to be very less prof looking than I
wanted, because
> she had a fixed idea...it doesn't really look good on a
website.:( Anyway,
> she said when I was in Photoshop adjusting something : "Oh, it
is ALMOST
> like an art"..I said "It IS an art".
>
> I also have a friend who is a "typical bay Area artist". She
does painting
> on windows and frames (floral) and I have a feeling than she
does NOT
> consider me an artist at all as long as I work on a computer! I
have
> mentioned several times that "I am an artist too", but she
doesn't seem to
> get it at all. She did invite me to exhibit some of my stuff at
an art
> exhibition in January and I asked her if it could be in "any
media" and she
> said "yes, so whip out those pencils and crayons"...LOL!
>
> I guess trad. artists only consider it art when there is a brush
> involved....Maybe they think that the computer creates the art
for us???
> Whereas we all know that the computer is just a tool. Just like
an artist's
> brush.
>
>
> Lloyd Phillips wrote in message
<7qu2e5$ru7$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
sistercarol
with new technology, or was it that they can no longer hang on to
their elitist theories about art only being available to a select
few?
--Carol
Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37D2B0C9...@swbell.net...
>
>
> Mette Sabram wrote:
>
> > I also have a friend who is a "typical bay Area artist". She
does painting
> > on windows and frames (floral) and I have a feeling than she
does NOT
> > consider me an artist at all as long as I work on a computer!
I have
> > mentioned several times that "I am an artist too", but she
doesn't seem to
> > get it at all. She did invite me to exhibit some of my stuff
at an art
> > exhibition in January and I asked her if it could be in "any
media" and she
> > said "yes, so whip out those pencils and crayons"...LOL!
> >
> > I guess trad. artists only consider it art when there is a
brush
> > involved....Maybe they think that the computer creates the art
for us???
> > Whereas we all know that the computer is just a tool. Just
like an artist's
> > brush.
>
Poptart7O4
post. Do I consider myself an artist? Well, following something Brian posted on
this, I'd say I consider myself more of a Designer than an Artist. Just don't
feel I have enough "angst" to be labeled an artist. Hmm, perhaps I don't like
to be labeled at all actually. Wait, now it's sounding like I do have angst.
;-)
Michelle
Brian Mays
sistercarol wrote:
> Was it that they saw their blood sweat and tears being washed away
> with new technology, or was it that they can no longer hang on to
> their elitist theories about art only being available to a select
> few?
I think perhaps they're upset because not everyone has to spend four
years perfecting one technique anymore!!!!
Brian
sistercarol
perfecting my drawing. But I don't begrudge people who use
computers to generate art. There's enough room for all of us, as
far as I'm concerned.
--Carol
Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37D2E513...@swbell.net...
Mike Senna
>Art has to serve NO PURPOSE at all. Design MUST serve a purpose.
that is... ART must not be functional. To continue that deception is
to collaborate with the New York artsy elite.
The artists before the twentieth century never knew this.
Michelangelo sculpted for tombs and archectecure as did, Bernini and
their contemporaries. Velasquez and Rembrandt were merely portrait
artists and illustrators in the modern view. Portrait artists and
illustrators hae given us most of our best art. That first cave wall
painter was just an illustrator. How do you know he didn't have an
idea given to him by another cave(person) to execute for a buffalo
hide or something?
No, art has been commissioned throughout the ages. It does not have
to be a wild idea, sprung from the mind of a dreamer to be art. Good
art involves design as well.
Mike
Mike Senna
<19990905171142...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>Just don't feel I have enough "angst" to be labeled an artist. Hmm,
perhaps I don't >like to be labeled at all actually. Wait, now it's
sounding like I do have angst.
Michelle, aaah! Another artist stereotype. All of us don't want to
kill ourselves. We just want to be paid for our work. I love to
paint. I work for the joy of it, but I have to pay the bills.
Your ADG buddy,
Mike
Mike
Mike Senna
>Mike
>Mike
Anybody else seeing double?
Anybody else seeing double?
8D)
8D)
David A. Burgess
play football or something, because of my size. Most of the time they
also expect me to have an IQ of 60 or less. When I try to tell them I'm
an artist or a designer or a photographer or a musician, they have
trouble believing me... a big, blond, happy person just doesn't fit
their idea of what that type of person looks like. If I was skinny and
had long black hair and was sullen all the time and wore black all the
time, they'd have no problem accepting my claims. Hrmph.
~DAB
Brian Mays
Mike Senna wrote:
> Brian Mays wrote in message <37D2AEC2...@swbell.net>...
> >Art has to serve NO PURPOSE at all. Design MUST serve a purpose.
What I SHOULD have said and MEANT to say was....
"Art does not have to serve a purpose."
Brian
Mike C.
I don't think you are going to get "pure design" from a human. "Pure design" is not possible because
the designer is not "pure".
My guess is that a flower is "pure design".
Understand?
:^) ®
--
Mike C.
* Logo Design
* DHTML & GIF Animation
* Custom Graphics for YOUR Site!
Stop by and see if my skills and talents are up to your standards.
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Email Mike at: mi...@artistmike.com
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Terry L. Griffin
>
> The stereotypes stopped bothering me long ago guys :-). Why worry about the
> little things?
Yeah, like when you're sitting on the bus trying to explain what you do
to the person next to you. I gave that up years ago...I just tell 'em
I'm an artist. *ha* There ARE some benefits to being seen as an
"artsy-fartsy" type, ya know?
Example: I get to wear shorts every day of the week and tell my editors
what I'm NOT going to do. It drives them crazy! *eg*
Terry
Baden Chant
>perfecting my drawing. But I don't begrudge people who use
>computers to generate art. There's enough room for all of us, as
>far as I'm concerned.
>
>--Carol
>
I spent years and years drawing really bad pictures, throwing paint at stuff
and f***ing up perspective. . .and then I got me a computer!
Suddenly I could draw straight lines and perfect curves the way I never
could by hand. It was great.
Some us are born with lousy fine motor skills, the computer is the great
leveller in that respect.
I think about it like the invention of the revolver last century. They
called that the great leveller too. Suddenlly genetics didn't matter so much
any more. You could be as big and tough as you like but any weedy string
bean could still blow your brains out with his colt .45.
Only one problem, catch me without my computer and I'm straight back to wavy
lines and lousy perspective.
So I guess you could say I'm addicted.
Baden
http://www.nepean.uws.edu.au/users/bchant/
Poptart7O4
The stereotypes stopped bothering me long ago guys :-). Why worry about the
little things?
Michelle
glorywest
For some reason, some artists think no one who creates using other mediums
for different outcomes is an artist. If you don't paint you're not an
artist. Or if you can't draw. Hooey. What about dance, music, photography,
writing, architecture, industrial design?
When I have a conversation with someone who tries to tell me I'm not an
artist I chalk it up to their ignorance. And if they are really having a
problem with the concept of all kinds of art I suggest they break the arts
into categories if theat will make them feel better. Perfomance Arts, Fine
Arts, Commercial Arts, Industrial Arts.
_____________________________________________
Brian Mays
"Terry L. Griffin" wrote:
> Yeah, like when you're sitting on the bus trying to explain what you do
> to the person next to you. I gave that up years ago...I just tell 'em
> I'm an artist.
THERE is the NUMBER ONE REASON why I say "artist" and "designer" are different
titles and different jobs!
An example I read was given by a young woman who worked as a graphic designer
for Dark Horse Comics. Her friend asked her what she does for a living. She
said, "I'm a graphic designer for Dark Horse Comics."
And her friend said, "Oh, so you draw the comics?"
A long conversation then ensured over what it is the designer did, and I'm not
sure the friend EVER understood...I'll try to find this article if I get time,
it's an interesting read.
That's why I think the distinction between the two is necessary. I never said
I'm not an artist, nor did I say design is not an art. But for the general
public to understand what we do, there must be that distinction. (Or does the
general public NEED to understand what we do?)
Brian Mays
sistercarol
"seeing" in 3D, so a lot of my drawings used to come out quite
flat (in more ways than one.) Then I took a class in "Light". It
totally changed the way I drew, and I was able to use light and
shading to create an illusion of depth. The computer, though, can
do it better than me. I like to use both in my work, and I will
always consider what I do to be Art.
--Carol
Baden Chant <b.c...@uws.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7qv4ch$t...@ob1.uws.EDU.AU...
sistercarol
too busy paying bills and worrying about the rising cost of
daycare.
But do they need to be told in detail what we do? No. It would
take too long, and my time is too valuable. When people ask me
what I "am" (in Washington, it's all about your job title), I tell
them I'm an artist. If they want further explanation, I say
"commercial artist". Usually they're satisfied with that.
--Carol
Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37D37869...@swbell.net...
Mike Senna
>What I SHOULD have said and MEANT to say was....
>"Art does not have to serve a purpose."
>Brian
kahuna.
8D)
Mike
Poptart7O4
>to the person next to you. I gave that up years ago...I just tell 'em
>"artsy-fartsy" type, ya know?
>
>Example: I get to wear shorts every day of the week and tell my editors
>what I'm NOT going to do. It drives them crazy! *eg*
>
>Terry
>
>
Trying to explain that I'm a Creative Director for a Net Development Firm is
too tedious at times. Instead, I just tell people that I get paid to color and
pass out coloring stuff for other people to color. They are either jealous
because it sounds fun and low stress (ha, less stress, I will save that for a
different thread..), or they want to come color with me.
Michelle
V1V1V1V
>that they create "pure design" much as a fine artist will create
>"abstract art."
all design should be treated as a piece of art. "design" is not creating one
element on a page.
Brian Mays
V1V1V1V wrote:
> all design should be treated as a piece of art. "design" is not creating one
> element on a page.
Should it? Artists intend for their work to exist for millenia sometimes.
Designers...well...we just want to see it make it through the press run
nicely. The lifespan isn't the same.
Brian
Dan
>>>When people ask me what I "am" (in Washington, it's all about your job
title), I tell them I'm an artist. If they want further explanation, I say
"commercial artist". Usually they're satisfied with that.<<<
"Commercial Artist" is the most descriptive term that we have, although not
widely in use today. It seemed to be THE term until the late 60's/early
70's, when someone coined the term "Graphic Designer." Man, I couldn't wait
to be one of those! I perceived graphic designers to be oh-so-hip -- not
like those commercial artists, who may do cool (albeit a bit outdated)
stuff, but who all seemed to dress like Dick Tracy, commute to 9-5 jobs (on
TRAINS), work with dozens of other commercial artists in large, stone-faced
buildings which were owned by "The Man" -- whoever that was.
"Commercial Artist" is retro-chic, and people grasp it quicker than "Graphic
Designer." Of course, if the inquiring individual is very, very attractive,
I always tell her I am an "Artist."
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
Mike C.
Function and beauty.
:^) Ž
V1V1V1V
Yes. I think so....If you have an ounce of passion toward what you are
creating..
If not..Who cares.
Terry L. Griffin
>
> I don't think, frankly, the general public gives a damn.
Neither do our clients, for the most part. Which is fine by me. The only
thing I ask of the person paying me to "simply do the job" is to simply
LET me do the job.
Isn't it the slightest bit out of character for a "profession" to have
to put up with as much client meddling and back-seat art direction as we do?
(Not really complaining...just an observation.)
Terry
mr.demian
you feel like it has helped you come to any conclusions . While several
people answered the question , I found it interesting that many of the
responses addressed the question in terms of superficial aspects , e.g. :
tools , materials , labels , titles , stereotypes , etc., perhaps because it
is difficult to define something so subjective . I believe " pure design"
can be more adequately described by it's more sublime qualities . James
Joyce wrote some about this . He said " true art" inspired "aesthetic
arrest " , that is , a state in which all judgment and analytical thought is
suspended . According to this theory any art that inspired fear , loathing
or desire is a lower form of art . I think he even used the word pornography
.
I am not sure I subscribe to this theory , but I feel like it
is correct in approaching the question as an entirely subjective and
internal experience . I am not sure if I will ever feel like I have a clear
and full understanding of this , but it seems worthwhile to continue to ask
these questions . When these kinds of issues are raised and people become
alarmed , defensive or hostile , I usually assume it has more to do with
their own insecurities .
Brian Mays wrote in message <37D1A1CD...@swbell.net>...
>
>As you all probably know by now, I'm NEVER satisfied with where I'm at
>skill, talent, and knowledgewise. Now I've got something that has been
>bugging me and I want to see what input you all may have to offer.
>
>I've heard designers mention they did a piece for the "pure design."
>
>I feel like I'm missing something when I read that. My understanding is
>that they create "pure design" much as a fine artist will create
>"abstract art."
>
>I see this in font designs a lot . "It's not about the functionality,
>but about the pure design."
>
>Any other ideas?
>
>Brian Mays
>
>
Mette Sabram
Dan wrote in message <7r10f4$bga$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Commercial Artist" is retro-chic, and people grasp it quicker than
"Graphic
>Designer." Of course, if the inquiring individual is very, very attractive,
>I always tell her I am an "Artist.">
Funny I always seemed to be turned off by that. Artist is sometimes equal to
"flake". I guess I am a flake;)]
sistercarol
--Carol
Poptart7O4 <popta...@aol.comet> wrote in message
news:19990906111339...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
sistercarol
part. Too damn bad, as far as I'm concerned. Why starve, when I
can make some kind of living doing design work? It doesn't mean I
gave up my "real" art. I just don't rely on it to pay the rent.
--Carol
Dan <dant...@worldnet.att.ooo.net> wrote in message
news:7r10f4$bga$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Carol wrote:
>
> >>>When people ask me what I "am" (in Washington, it's all about
your job
> title), I tell them I'm an artist. If they want further
explanation, I say
> "commercial artist". Usually they're satisfied with that.<<<
>
> "Commercial Artist" is the most descriptive term that we have,
although not
> widely in use today. It seemed to be THE term until the late
60's/early
> 70's, when someone coined the term "Graphic Designer." Man, I
couldn't wait
> to be one of those! I perceived graphic designers to be
oh-so-hip -- not
> like those commercial artists, who may do cool (albeit a bit
outdated)
> stuff, but who all seemed to dress like Dick Tracy, commute to
9-5 jobs (on
> TRAINS), work with dozens of other commercial artists in large,
stone-faced
> buildings which were owned by "The Man" -- whoever that was.
>
> "Commercial Artist" is retro-chic, and people grasp it quicker
than "Graphic
> Designer." Of course, if the inquiring individual is very, very
attractive,
> I always tell her I am an "Artist."
>
Brian Mays
V1V1V1V wrote:
I guess I've just learned to separate me from my designs. I can't afford to
invest a lot of "personalness" into a design, I've got other things in my life
that deserve that.
That first began as a necessity for cruddy client demands, now it's just
almost a given for me. The design serves a purpose, which is to be a
promotional piece for a client. That's not to say I'm not passionate about
it, but in no way does it affect me nearly as much as, say, a personal
watercolor I work on.
(I will also be the first to say that I'm not ALWAYS good at separating me and
my design work!!!!)
Brian Mays
Dan
>>>(I will also be the first to say that I'm not ALWAYS good at separating
me and my design work!!!!)<<<
It is a constant balancing act not to get too wrapped up in the work while
making sure there is enough of you in it. I was checking the author on
another quote tonight when I found this little gem, attributed to
Buckminster Fuller:
"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only
how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution isn't
beautiful, I know it's wrong."
Dan
>>>Funny I always seemed to be turned off by that. Artist is sometimes equal
to "flake". I guess I am a flake;)]<<<
Oh, absolutely. It is always advisable to scope out the vibe before dropping
that on anyone. In some circles, "artist" and "musician" carry the same
prestige as "prostitute" and "car salesman." This is an over-reaction --
but -- people will over-react just as much in the other direction when it
comes to artists. I have tested Dave Hickey's theory several times, and find
it to be true: "Art is a plaything for the idle rich. So are artists."
Brian Mays
Dan wrote:
> "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only
> how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution isn't
> beautiful, I know it's wrong."
GREAT quote, Dan! It actually touches on the root of all graphic design,
which is problem solving.
Brian Mays
Mike Senna
quote tonight when I found this little gem, attributed to
>Buckminster Fuller:
only
>how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution
isn't
>beautiful, I know it's wrong."
>
This is a great thought , Dan. Thanks for sharing it.
Mike
tom geiser
yes....to sell the widgets :)
----------
In article <37D324A1...@swbell.net>, Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Mike Senna wrote:
>
>> Brian Mays wrote in message <37D2AEC2...@swbell.net>...
>> >Art has to serve NO PURPOSE at all. Design MUST serve a purpose.
tom geiser
are against it!
----------
In article <7r26p1$loa$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Dan"
<dant...@worldnet.att.ooo.net> wrote:
>Brian Mays wrote:
>
>>>>(I will also be the first to say that I'm not ALWAYS good at separating
>me and my design work!!!!)<<<
>
>It is a constant balancing act not to get too wrapped up in the work while
>making sure there is enough of you in it. I was checking the author on
>another quote tonight when I found this little gem, attributed to
>Buckminster Fuller:
>
>"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only
>how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution isn't
>beautiful, I know it's wrong."
>
>Dan
tom geiser
----------
In article <37D48973...@swbell.net>, Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net>
wrote:
snip
>
>I guess I've just learned to separate me from my designs. I can't afford to
>invest a lot of "personalness" into a design, I've got other things in my life
>that deserve that.
>
resnip
Brian Mays
Brian
tom geiser
conclude that walls can be put up....differences can be made...but it's not
true.....a butterfly flapping it's wings in china can change your picnic
from a bright sunny day to a dark rainy one......it is all
connected...really
----------
In article <37DA8B90...@swbell.net>, Brian Mays <bma...@swbell.net>
IIII666IIIi
>from a bright sunny day to a dark rainy one
That is why you should always pull their wings off.
-kitty
tom geiser
----------
In article <19990915023321...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,