[andi*pandi]

Found this via twitter, and I think it's a good summation.

Art can be interpreted many ways. Design should communicate one thing.

The Difference Between Art and Design | Webdesigner Depot

You can use art in design, and vice versa... but the goal of art isn't functional.

Usually.

[-Q-]

Interesting summation.

But I disagree with the supposition that "good art is taste, good design is opinion." Depending on which audience either is targeted towards, taste can impact the ultimate conclusion/effectiveness, especially in regards to design.

[andi*pandi]

That's true. I mean, taste is opinion, really. What's tricky is that design should know the target audience's taste. You wouldn't use grunge fonts and spatter art on an old folks home brochure.

[MrsLarry]

Andi,

GREAT ARTICLE. I've always considered myself more of a communicator than an artist.

[hart]

I should never read stuff first thing in the morning. It just gets me started! So here's me getting all up on my high horse:

I just read (quickly, I'll admit) through this and I find myself disagreeing with most of his points except the difference of purpose between art and design and even there I have caveats.

First of all he is looking at a very narrow definition of design, mostly advertising it seems. But say you were designing a chair. The only thing you want to motivate people to do is buy the chair and sit in it in theory. But the design of chairs is a vast and variable area that evokes an enormous range of reactions in people. To say that "the designer's job isn’t to invent something new, but to communicate something that already exists, for a purpose" is an extraordinarily limited view of what design is. Just ask a fashion designer.

The declaration that good art is about taste to me just reeks of ignorance about what art is. The classic statement of the art ignoramus is "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like." His example of the Mona Lisa just reinforces the impression that he gives of art ignorance. What she is smiling at or whether she is smiling at all is irrelevant to the perceived greatness of the painting itself. What makes "great art" is certainly debatable but it takes a vast range of knowledge and experience to be even begin to be able to look at art within the context of all that has come before and make a meaningful judgement. Whether you personally like it or not is no more relevant to its greatness than whether you prefer a Big Mac to sashimi.

He then goes on to contradict himself by saying that good or bad design is a matter of taste as well, meaning design is about taste. And yet by definition if it's bad design then it doesn't "work." You can't have it both ways.

As for design being a learned skill, well my feeling is that like fine art you can learn the skills but if you don't have an intuitive understanding of the principles, an "artistic" touch if you will, then sorry, but you won't be any good as a designer either. There's enough absolutely atrocious design out there from thoroughly educated design school graduates to demonstrate that fact without even trying.

When he says "Some of the most respected designers in the world are best known for their minimalist styles. They don’t use much color or texture, but they pay great attention to size, positioning, and spacing" he conflates the idea of busy, non-minimalist images with art and clean images with design. Whether you have a busy image, use a lot of colors, or concern yourself with spacing is not a sole characteristic of either art of design. They are tools of both. Both designers and artists need to have, yes, talent to move out of making well-crafted projects and into work that inspires and moves.

For that matter to say that artists create "solely as a means of self-expressions" demonstrates a very narrow understanding of what artists are doing as well.

When he says "An engineer, if given the exact co-ordinates to place different colored pixels in specific places, could render a beautiful website or ad simply by following instructions" he misses the point entirely. Yes the engineer can make the site but based on information from a designer who DESIGNED. No amount of blather (ie. instructions) from a client can replace the skill, experience and EYE (or artistic skill and talent) of a designer.

Overall, he has an extremely narrow, advertising-based concept of what design is and an extrememly ignorant concept of what art is. Add in that he contradicts himself and says the same thing about art and design as though he was saying different things and the end result is a weak argument at best.

So, yes, the purpose of art and design can be different and often IS different. But there is a great deal of overlap. And both art and design can be contained in a single object. A cursory trip through the Museum of Modern Art or the Met's Costume Institute makes that immediately obvious.

[angelmb]

Design can't just “be”, design has to work. Art does not.

[Veltliner]

Design arranges content.

Art creates content.

[redcapzero]

Jackson Pollock once said: "Do not paint a waterfall as it looks, but how it feels".

Both fine art and design are relevent. A quality landscape designer will take note the established surroundings prior to taking preliminary sketches; and in some, if not most, cases a painter / sculpter will do the same.

As Veltliner states: Design "arranges" content while Art "creates" content (fine points by the way).

I've always felt that without Art you wouldn't have design and vice versa; they play off each other, inspire.

Yet then again, what is the GREAT inspiration but NATURE...