"Design" vs. "Art"?
Rebecca Elliott
Okay, here is a really deep question:
What is the difference between "art" and "design"?
Think about it. Share your thoughts.
Thomas Powell
In article <3538F36F...@erols.com>, Rebecca Elliott
<rai...@erols.com> wrote:
Design has a purpose or function, while Art is an expression of emotion.
Note that they are not mutually exclusive as Art can have a purpose or
Design can be considered artistic or influence the emotions. A fuzzy line
where the two meet to be sure....
my 2cents :)
Jim Kajpust
Rebecca Elliott <rai...@erols.com> wrote:
>Okay, here is a really deep question:
>
>What is the difference between "art" and "design"?
>Think about it. Share your thoughts.
Deep?? -- well, anyway...
As neither an artist or a designed, it seems much of the difference is
that most graphic designers make money and most artists don't.
Let the spam fly!!!!!!!!!
Jim Kajpust - Personal Freedoms - Michigan
http://www.cris.com/~jkajpust
JonSon
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:39:46 +0000, Rebecca Elliott <rai...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Okay, here is a really deep question:
>
>What is the difference between "art" and "design"?
>Think about it. Share your thoughts.
Oh god we've been through that over here
Not that I don't want to respond but hell, it will end up in a dispute
between graphic artists and graphic designers!
JonSon
Tom Hoferek
This may be a bit simplified, but how about looking at it this way -
Design is the art of compromise.
Art is design without compromise.
Tom
Mooch
Is this a trick question? Art is, Design is made.
Mike Spier
Design is something that looks good but may not mean anything to you.
Art is Something that, no matter what it looks like, IS you, It is like
spilling your mind onto a canvas.
Mooch wrote in message <353E70C1...@sunnynet.or.jp>...
Michael Hernan
Design is a series of decisions.
I dont know what art is. Neither do artists, that's why they keep on doing
it and why it keeps changing.
Poem:
What is Art,
Art is Art.
Michael Hernan
----------
In article <6i0fvr$cg5$1...@supernews.com>, "Mike Spier" <scy...@tscnet.com>
wrote:
Sande Nitti
Ed Whitney, considered to be one of the greatest painting teachers
used to say, "Ametuers paint pictures, professionals design paintings".
Underlying every great work of art is a dynamically designed abstract
pattern. Squint down at the work of Wyeth, Sargent, Whistler or any
other master's work and you will see it.
Sande
murf
Designers do not express their designers ideas, The designers message
serves the expressed needs of the client who is paying for it.
Although its form may be determined or modified by the designers
aesthetic preferences or prejudice,the message has to be put in a
language recognized and understood by its intended audience.
..Hope this help
mRf
tdem...@mcs.net
murf wrote:
I agree completely.
One of the main differences between art and graphic design (I assume we're
talking graphic design here, right?) is the intended audience. A designer is
trying to express a client's specific message in a manner that is easily
grasped by all. Every viewer must come away from the piece with a highly
similar message. There are a myriad of different visual solutions, but all
have to convey the same thought. That's the graphic designer's job.
An artist is trying to express her own message in a manner that does not
necessarily have to be grasped easily by anyone. The artist's message can be
obtuse, vague, hidden, obscure...whatever. It's a personal expression, and
does not necessarily have to tailor to a specific concrete agenda. (Sometimes
the artist's work is more about the process of creating the work than the
actual work itself.)
Designers are creating products. Brochure, web page, annual report, identity -
all considered product under certain criteria. An artist on the other hand,
creates objects. A painting, drawing, sculpture, photograph - objects that
exist for their own sake.
Now you could say that patrons are the clients of the art world, and
commissioned art is simply a product created for a specific client. I'd say
the artist's hand is still more important to the creative process, and their
own interpretation and spin they put on the patron's message makes the work
their own. After all, the patron's only supplying the cash - the artist still
supplies the message. Designers have their "message" supplied by the client -
and simply express that message in an aesthetically pleasing way.
I had an editor give me some good advice once. She told me any time I feel I'm
creating art as a designer is the moment I need to quit my job and go home to
my studio. Good advice. I think a lot of designers get caught up in their own
devices and forget what the hell their client is actually trying to say.
Now what I find pretty interesting is when the lines starts to blur. What
happens when design is no longer design, but design is the content itself? One
example I can think of off the top of my head is that Tomato book that was a
typographic rendering of NY City (can't recall the name right now - something
like Skyscraper....(something)...) I wasn't really impressed with the book's
design, but the idea was pretty intriguing. I think a lot of the collaborative
work of Stephen Farrell and Daniel X. O'Neil falls into this category as well.
What the hell are those guys creating? Hell if I know, but I dig it.
.,.
Anyway, I've been thinking about these things for a while now....sorry for the
lengthy post. And sorry if this isn't the right place to post this msg - I've
noticed this newsgroup is more of a discussion of "graphics" and "graphic
programs" like Gif Builder and Photoshop, etc. than design. (Are there any
newsgroups that are more about graphic design? If so, I'd be interested in
finding out about them...)
Best,
Tom
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
AK
Ah, I like Mr. Whitney's comment on this wasteful dichotomy. Too often,
I think, our insistence on Art becomes a pose and therefore an
obstruction to work. It's a balance, isn't it? Whether what you do is
designated Art or design (by you or by your clients or your patrons)
you do it, and it satisfies. You do what you can do until you can do the
next thing. I also like this iconoclastic notion that anything worth
doing is worth doing badly.
stud...@swbell.net
In article <6iod5r$4qo$1...@gte2.gte.net>#1/1,
role of either profession - I'm the whore (graphic designer who works for
money and will pimp himself out to any and all who will meeet my price.) In
the same breath, I'm the purist - creating works that exist only for sheer
artistic value and will probably go unnoticed till long after my death --
faced the problem in art school being a graphic design major of this split
personality and it created a social isolation on both sides - - but I
digress... Why is it that as designers, we lose sight of our artistic
inspiration and as artists, we are scared to accept payment for our
services? As we create, be it with a camera, water colors, or a 1000 mhz
alpha chip machine with 20 gig hard drive space loaded up with illustrator,
photoshop,bryce 3d, and 1 gig ram, we should always remember to be true to
our art. For design and art come from the same void.
tdem...@mcs.net
In article <6irut6$3p4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
stud...@swbell.net wrote:
> Why is it that as designers, we lose sight of our artistic
> inspiration and as artists, we are scared to accept payment for our
> services? As we create, be it with a camera, water colors, or a 1000 mhz
> alpha chip machine with 20 gig hard drive space loaded up with illustrator,
> photoshop,bryce 3d, and 1 gig ram, we should always remember to be true to
> our art.
Well, I'd have to add it's often difficult to be true to "your art" when
you're working as a graphic designer. Usually, the client's communications
needs overpower these urges. It's hard to put "your art" is into a piece that
has nothing to do with what "your art" is. If you're, say, designing a
brochure for a major conservative corporate client, and you try to use it as
a painterly experimental typographic study, that's probably not only doing the
client a disservice, it's probably flat out just not going to happen. Your art
is your art. Your client's design needs are your client's design needs. In
graphic design, you bring ideas of your own to make a piece functional and
beautiful/interesting/exciting/insert pleasant adjective here. You don't have
creative licence to do as you please, as you do in fine art.
This is not to say you have to continually compromise yourself as a graphic
designer. People are hiring you to be consultants. They want your input,
ideas, and expertise. They want your aesthetic considerations. What you bring
to a project is every bit as vital as what your client brings. It's just
important to keep in mind what the desired message is (and whose message it
is.)
best,
tom
JonSon
On Thu, 07 May 1998 04:29:10 -0600, stud...@swbell.net wrote:
>As a working artist and graphic designer - I am faced with the schitsophrenic
>role of either profession - I'm the whore (graphic designer who works for
>money and will pimp himself out to any and all who will meeet my price.) In
>the same breath, I'm the purist - creating works that exist only for sheer
>artistic value and will probably go unnoticed till long after my death --
>faced the problem in art school being a graphic design major of this split
>personality and it created a social isolation on both sides - - but I
>digress... Why is it that as designers, we lose sight of our artistic
>inspiration and as artists, we are scared to accept payment for our
>services? As we create, be it with a camera, water colors, or a 1000 mhz
>alpha chip machine with 20 gig hard drive space loaded up with illustrator,
>photoshop,bryce 3d, and 1 gig ram, we should always remember to be true to
>our art. For design and art come from the same void.
Well said. I found that on either sides, there is truth.
Design is that "terrible" in-between hard to define.
Science explains. Art expresses. Design does both at the same time!
Or does it?
JonSon
stud...@swbell.net
In article <6iss15$ana$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
tdem...@mcs.net wrote:
> Well, I'd have to add it's often difficult to be true to "your art" when
> you're working as a graphic designer. Usually, the client's communications
> needs overpower these urges. It's hard to put "your art" is into a piece
that
arguable at best - Art is still communication -- people pay for bad art as
well as poor design - Both art and design are languages - Design is not a
base crude form of art - - EXAMPLES: A photographer designs an image, as well
as creates. Good art springs from good design skills - Examples: Bob Carlos
Clarke - He is paid handsomely to shoot a picture of a beautiful naked woman
for his CLIENT, Pirelli. Bob's work could be considered nothing less than ART
- His work also appears on several duran duran albums. EXAMPLE: Erte
Example Warhol - the realms of art aqnd design are so tightly intertwined
they are inseperable.
> has nothing to do with what "your art" is. If you're, say, designing a
> brochure for a major conservative corporate client, and you try to use it as
> a painterly experimental typographic study, that's probably not only doing
the
> client a disservice, it's probably flat out just not going to happen. Your
art
Case / Point: You are a playwright, you have been paid generously to write a
play for production. Do you not think that you are working for a client?
(Billy Shakespeare comes to mind) - Or a painter who is very talented is
commisioned to paint a portrait? Is he not working for his client -- that
doesn't leave much room for artistic interpretation.... again, the fields
mesh
> is your art. Your client's design needs are your client's design needs. In
> graphic design, you bring ideas of your own to make a piece functional and
> beautiful/interesting/exciting/insert pleasant adjective here. You don't
have
> creative licence to do as you please, as you do in fine art.
What about the carte blanche client? (I do have a few of those) It's all
marketing, you make your ideas work visually. A newsletter, done properly,
can be as exciting if not more so than the works of any other artist - Vargas
(designer or artist?) Nagel (same question)
>
> This is not to say you have to continually compromise yourself as a graphic
> designer. People are hiring you to be consultants. They want your input,
> ideas, and expertise. They want your aesthetic considerations. What you
bring
> to a project is every bit as vital as what your client brings. It's just
> important to keep in mind what the desired message is (and whose message it
> is.)
>
Can you afford with your art to do as you please with every piece? No, then
you remain in the bowels of poverty and obscurity - there are limits on what
you can produce as art as well... Both fields, in closing are equally as
important. Hell, most of the designers I see are boring, but then same goes
for artists... Carpe Diem, Make your art and your designs live and breathe!
Damn it, through all your passion into good design and good art - end the
mediocrity. Take chances - look at european ads -- they're not as p-whipped
by every tom dick and harry protester -- they are not scared to offend or to
take that chance... Make your work strong!
That is all for now...
tdem...@mcs.net
> > needs overpower these urges. It's hard to put "your art" is into a piece
> > that
>
> arguable at best - Art is still communication -- people pay for bad art as
> well as poor design - Both art and design are languages
True enough. But the point I was trying to make is that there IS a
distinction. Yes, they are both languages, but you often have to simplifify
"your language" as a designer so that it's more quickly and easily understood.
Art can take a long time to communicate. Design needs to do it quite a bit
more rapidly.
> Design is not a
> base crude form of art
I never said "design is a base crude form of art", and I don't think anything
in my original post implied that.
> - - EXAMPLES: A photographer designs an image, as well
> as creates.
Of course. But I was talking more specifically about graphic design, and not
about "design" as applies to composition of a work of art.
> Good art springs from good design skills
I'd agree good art can spring from good composition and design skills. Good
art can also spring from a lot of other things as well.
- Examples: Bob Carlos
> Clarke - He is paid handsomely to shoot a picture of a beautiful naked woman
> for his CLIENT, Pirelli. Bob's work could be considered nothing less than ART
> - His work also appears on several duran duran albums.
Right, he created art that was used by a graphic designer in another format.
His piece is no longer an object, as it would be hanging on a gallery wall,
but instead is now part of the product/package. Just because someone
reproduces a deKooning piece on the cover of a brochure for the Art Institute
doesn't make the reproduced 4 x 5 inch 4-color image a piece of art. It's a
nicely reproduced picture of a piece of art in a brochure someone designed.
The brochure's message surely isn't the same as deKooning's message was.
Pirelli's message wasn't about selling duran duran albums. (can't believe I
just typed the words duran duran (cringe) <g>)
We're getting way of the track here, though. This is a whole different
thread.
> Case / Point: You are a playwright, you have been paid generously to write a
> play for production. Do you not think that you are working for a client?
> (Billy Shakespeare comes to mind) - Or a painter who is very talented is
> commisioned to paint a portrait?
Again, in an earlier post I gave my thoughts on patrons in art. It's still the
artist's message being expressed, not the clients. Shakespeare may have been
paid to create his work, but it's still his message he was conveying, not the
client's. I can think of numerous portraits that are significantly more about
the artist's style and message than an accurate rendering of the sitter
(thinking specifically of works by Egon Schiele, E.L. Kirchner, others...)
> What about the carte blanche client? (I do have a few of those)
True enough. But doesn't that client still have a message to express? Or do
they just want style and care little about what they want to say? And if
you're expressing their message, and not yours, I think that's where the
distinction lies. I mean, yeah, I've had some clients that let me do just
about anything I wanted to. I worked on a magazine where, essentially, I was
my own client a lot of the time. That was fun. But still, I knew enough to
realize we were still about a focused message (whatever the specific article/
feature story was about) and a specifice agenda (selling magazines) and I
didn't confuse it with the art that I created on my own time. Well, ok maybe
once or twice I did <g>
> can be as exciting if not more so than the works of any other artist - Vargas
> (designer or artist?) Nagel (same question)
I personally find the bottoms of my shoes more interesting than Vargas or
Nagel.
> Can you afford with your art to do as you please with every piece?
I certainly hope so. That's why it's art. It's you. Do whatever you want. Say
whatever you want.
> you remain in the bowels of poverty and obscurity -
I don't think poverty, obscurity, or selling pieces should enter into art.
When you start worrying more about selling pieces than expressing a message, I
think that's a bad road to head down. Again, my opinion I suppose.
>there are limits on what
> you can produce as art as well...
Not a view I share. Thankfully, not a view Marcel Duchamp or Fluxus shared
either.
>Both fields, in closing are equally as
> important.
I agree. Seperate, but equally important in their way.
>Take chances - look at european ads -- they're not as p-whipped
> by every tom dick and harry protester -- they are not scare>d to
> offend or to
> take that chance...
We were just talking about this around the office the other day. Looking
through McDonalds Annual Report, you see ads from around the world. One
particular ad I thought was really nice was simply a shot of a road. The
yellow stripe on the road heads normally down the middle, then suddenly forms
the golden arches, then continues in perspective off into the horizon. Very
nice. Very simple. And it would probably never fly in the US.
Why is that? Is is that ad agencies feel we as an American populace are that
much more ignorant than our European counterparts? Why does typical US design
feel the need to cram in as much flotsam as necessary and overstate the
"message" that the actual message gets lost in the process?
More importantly, how do you change these perceptions and effect the way
people visually communicate? I don't know, but I guess that's why I'm doing
what I do.
> Make your work strong!
Good advice, no matter what you do.
stud...@swbell.net
Ok -- conceeded -- it seems we're both on the same circle, but our
perspective of the world around the circle differs at points and merges at
points... I throughout my career have ridden the fence of both artist and
designer -- tend to get crap from both sides -- especially when I was at
Memphis College of Art - Designing pays the rent, art, well, once you die and
your art is worth something, pays your children's rent - hopefully at a much
higher income level than the design did as a living artist (GRIN)