A few months back I came across a thread on Linkedin where the poster questioned if art and design can be friends. Most people outside of the creative industry may not understand why anyone would question this but the reality for us that are in the industry is that there is often tension between the two. Here is a variation on my addition to the conversation.
I think that they can be friends but in my experience as a student at a university that made art and design two distinct areas of study, I found that there was pretension on both sides. My classmates on the fine art side seemed to condemn commercial art while my classmates on the design side saw the fine artists as unrealistic and destined to a life of poverty. I sadly felt inclined to pick design over art and became disconnected with my artistic roots. Despite my disconnection from the art world I always acknowledged that it helped me as a designer. Today I have re-embraced fine art side and try to incorporate my fine art skills into my design work whenever possible.
My opinion is that fine art and design are two different things while commercial art and design are almost interchangeable. My thoughts on this have less to do with technique and more to do with intent because fine art can be created using techniques typically associated with graphic design. The difference between fine art and design is that design always has a problem to solve or objective to meet. Commercial art also bares this burden while fine art's only objective is to please the artist. That's why people like Damien Hirst can be considered artists without ever picking up a paint brush. Damien's intent is to create art so therefore it is art.
I would also argue that a lot of the commissioned art pieces, famously documented throughout art history are more commercial art than fine art because they were created not for the artists pleasure but to make a statement on behalf of the commissioner.
Confusing art with design is why a lot of designers end up with hurt feelings in critiques. When you're making something for a client you have to convince them that your work will meet business objectives. If the client isn't convinced then they will rip your work apart. It's not an attack on you as an "artist" because you're not one in that context. You didn't create a master piece. You created a commercial product with a commercial purpose.
Design has to work. Art doesn't.
ReplyDeleteVery true. Thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteArt satisfies the artist's ego. Design satisfies a client's ego.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. Could one argue then that the client is the artist in a design project?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't say so... Something satisfying your ego doesn't equate to you being an artist? There are lots of ways to satisfy one's ego... But a client's ego being satisfied by a piece of design (made by someone else) doesn't make them an 'artist'.
DeleteInstead, the artist picks up a paint brush, pencil, sculpts or conceives a concept etc. etc. with a 'personal' agenda. Whether or not their final work is judged by outsiders to be successful or not is not important, the one thing they will invariably have achieved through the process is a happy (or inflated) ego.
The designer on the other hand (in the sense that your article talk of ie. design as a 'commercial pursuit' [because of course a designer can design for themselves which raises a whole other debate]) picks up a pencil, mouse, lap top etc. etc. with a 'client's' agenda. Whether or not their final work is judged by the client to be successful is hugely important. The one thing the client will invariably have achieved by the end of the process is a happy (or inflated) ego. Whether or not the designer has a happy (or inflated) ego by the end of the process, is largely irrelevant.
I personally don't think that they would be an artist in that situation either. But the client is often credited when the work is done while the designer generally remains anonymous. I'm not one for designers leaving their signatures on their work. I think that's tacky and risks compromising the design.
DeleteBut I think it's important that designers design for themselves as much as possible and recognize the power that they hold. I have to admit thought that I struggle with whether or not to categorize my independent projects as art or design.
Art and design are the same. Your conflict happened when you were convinced by your school that they were different, and had to pick one over the other. Anyone who sees them as different will find themselves in a never-ending struggle to define them as so.
ReplyDeleteNot really. I came to understand what design was while at Bermuda College. After that I spent years studying and practicing both design and art intellectually at NSCAD and took my thinking further. I just knew I was going to work in design so I focused more energy there. I thought that embracing design meant ignoring art but I accept that that thinking was wrong. One interesting thing about my experience at NSCAD was that I met designers that were far better than me who never created art. They were creative minded and could organize information well but had very little image making skills. That of course can be developed with practice but that's the thing about design. You need multiple skills to be good at it. Having artistic ability is a bonus but NOT mandatory to be successful at it. The vast majority of the professional work I do involves supplied materials that I organize in a way that communicates a specific message with hopes of achieving a SPECIFIC goal. I very rarely create custom images. (Not that you need to create custom images to create art). It's then up to the CLIENT to decide if the project is approved whether I like the end result or not. When I do one of my art pieces I just make some shit that I like. There are no objectives, no goals. Just me making myself happy.
ReplyDeleteI actually have no conflict. What inspired the post was listening to other "designers" complain about artistic merit in their projects. Yes, clients are paying for our expertise and they should respect it, but the reality is that they want to see a return on their investment in us and if they don't believe that return is evident they have the right to complain. One thing I never learned in school is that it's almost better to be good at selling your ideas than it is to be good at design. Hence why the market is flooded with design mediocrity.
On the other side of the coin, there's James White of Signal Noise. He is a very successful and good designer who doesn't distinguish between art and design. He dabbled in art like I did, ended up working as a designer and now considers himself an artist. James is in a rare spot though. He was able to create a niche for himself through the "art" he did for fun. The art he does uses traditional graphic design techniques but are done to please his personal taste. He still considers his client work to be art but I consider it to be on the "commercial art" side that I mentioned in the original post. But again, James is a rock start. 99% of designers are not able to create a niche where they can only do the kind of work that THEY want to do. The vast majority of them spend most of their time working on projects that they are indifferent to and have to search for the redeeming qualities in them. I've designed some things that I am embarrassed to show to anyone more times than I care to share but they made my clients happy so they were successful. What keeps me going is looking for the projects where everyone's happy. That is design.
I see. Your definitions of art and design differ from mine. A funny man (Larry David) one said, "Whatever works".
DeletePeace.