The Difference Between Art and Design: Reading

The following essays tell you the difference between art and design, which make my project a design project more obvious.

Art and Design: What is the Big Difference?
1998 Michael Brady. First published in Critique Magazine 1998.

From time to time, you hear people refer to art and to design interchangeably, as if they were synonyms. Or they use the term "art" to add a bit of glory to design work. Most of the time this happens in casual conversation, but it does tend to confuse the two terms unnecessarily because, basically, they aren't the same. What is the difference between art and design? Are they closely related just because they use a lot of the same techniques and appeal to the same aesthetic sense? Or are they essentially different?

Well, art and design are different. The differences between art and design lie not so much in how they look as in what they do: They have different purposes, they are made differently, they are judged by different criteria, and they have different audiences.

Purpose

In a 1974 interview, Milton Glaser noted that whereas a design must convey a given body of information, the "essential function" of art is to "intensify one's perception of reality." Sometimes, he said, these functions coincide, as in a medieval stained glass window, but in modern times they have diverged.

Design is utilitarian in a way that art is not. Design is the how of a thing: how to order the parts, how to serve the client's interests, how to convey the information. Art, on the other hand, is its own end. It isn't utilitarian. It subordinates ordinary usefulness to its own purposes. It doesn't concern itself with description the way illustration does, nor with the desires of the buyer as does fashion, nor the tastes of the public as does style

We have already accepted this model in both its parts--it's settled law. Since in the Renaissance, artists have aspired to the status of philosophers. And beginning the mid-1800s, many artists chose to stand apart from worldly life in order to critique it, to forsake the programs of patrons in order to set their own programs, to discard the public moral code to promote a different code. Although many artists claim to address their art to the world, their method has been to take from the world only on their terms and give back as they see fit. This is definitely not the way of design, which considers the world's purpose first and fits the work to that end.

How they are made

If the ends of art and design are different, so too are the means of getting there. Most of us think, correctly, of the artist standing before the blank canvas, pondering the beginning and the end of the painting all at once. The artist usually has an end in mind--something as mundane as a portrait or landscape, or as grand as the outrage of Picasso's Guernica or the vastness of Christo's Running Fence. But at the outset, all the options are available without precondition.

On the other hand, the designer typically begins with more than a blank canvas or lump of clay from which anything may emerge. Many of the components may already exist, such as the text, photographs, production formats, and even the basic colors. The designer consults the client on the end use, the audience, the size and scale, and other factors. The designer's role is to envision how these various aspects should come together in a tangible thing and to bring aesthetic sensibility, taste, and technical skills to bear on the production of the job. To put it bluntly, the designer arranges the ingredients.

Artists generally have assumed that the work is a product of their mind and spirit first, and only secondarily serves the intent of the commission (to edify, to stimulate, to delight, or simply to decorate). A notable example is the 1884 commission of a memorial sculpture, The Burghers of Calais, for which Rodin made a striking group of six austere figures. But when the city fathers saw it, they rejected it: to them it was ugly, indecorous, unceremonial, and insulting to their notion of a heroic civic monument. Rodin had conceived it with his artistic genius, but they refused it out of hand because it appalled their sense of honor.

Making judgments

In 1820, Keats wrote, " 'Beauty is truth,truth beauty'--that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Older still is the motto, "Ars longa, vita brevis." Art strives to achieve beauty, which is truth, which is a noble thing more enduring that life itself. At least, that's the party line. In this century art has emphasized moral purpose, visionary truthfulness, and inward-looking integrity. Art is judged in terms of beauty and truth, of insight and revelation, of almost prophetic clairvoyance-when it isn't being judged as text, subtexts, and social constructs. Utility doesn't fit this mindset. Practical success is not the hallmark of art, as the example of Van Gogh attests.

Design is judged another way: "Beauty is as beauty does." If it doesn't get the job done, the design is considered not good, or worse, not successful. Does the design serve the product? Does it accomplish an end--does it sell, inform, persuade, direct, or entertain? Typically, lack of success in these ways (often described statistically or quantitatively) is considered a defect in the design. Ultimately, a design must fulfill its primary job of packaging or illustration or instruction, and no amount of aesthetic glamour will substitute for its failure to do so.

The audience

The audiences for art and design expect different things. The audience for art wants to look at the artwork or listen to the composition--perhaps to contemplate and reflect, perhaps to be transported by the power of the aesthetic experience or the scene portrayed--whereas a design's audience wants to use the information to find their subway station or select a product.

Design may indeed arrest the attention and engage the emotions of a viewer, but at some point, as Beatrice Warde said, the goblet of design must become transparent, allowing viewers to gather the intended information, rather than to be absorbed by the designer's layout.

Art draws attention to itself deliberately. Its very form is the means to intensify our perception. If a visitor to the Sistine Chapel marvels at the economy of the scene of God separating the light from the dark, she is responding to the Michelangelo's conception, his artistic free creation. But if she is moved by the Last Judgment because of the profound theological truth it expresses, she is responding to the Pope's purpose. That is, she treats it as information design, as an illustration of doctrine.

Materials

Art and design differ significantly in their use materials. Typically, the ultimate work is not made from the same materials as those used during the design process (the paste-up or, these days, the on-screen stuff) but of its manufacturing materials. A book is not actually "made" until it is manufactured from paper, ink, and binding. Another kind of design product, the digital document, doesn't actually exist apart from its temporary manifestation on a computer, where its appearance varies from one browser or platform than on another, depending on the monitor, operating system, and color display tables. By contrast, a work of art makes a point of reveling in its materials. Certain physical qualities are seen as critically significant, such as de Kooning's "painterliness," Pollock's drips, the encaustic of Johns's Three Flags, Murray's metal ribbons, or Schnabel's broken plates. Size itself is important in an artwork, whether it's a large Frankenthaler or Kiefer or a tiny Klee or Cornell, but in a way that differs from design. Perhaps it is better to distinguish between scale, that is, the perception of sheer size (even smallness) in a work of art, and production dimensions in a printed piece, which are very often a function of the budget, the kind of product, the size of press, and other external factors. (And for video, web pages, compter graphics, etc., size is a user-defined parameter.)

The difference between art and design is in the way we look at them. Design is meant to be looked away from and art to be looked at and into. Design graces our lives with the aesthetic presentation of useful and beneficial things, and art graces us with representations of things to ponder and perceive. Art and design are closely related but nonetheless separate. It is a good thing to keep them straight.

Art Vs. Design
by Craig A ElimeliahJanuary 13, 2006

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 as well as 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 persons 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 artists 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 web site 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 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.

Art and Design: A Comparison

Design is a deliberate planning process aimed toward specific or generalized results. Since Art is based upon the imaginative, fantastic or creative drives, it is a discovery process, fraught with adventures for the Artist’s mind. One solves problems with a product in mind, while the other has the encouragement of discovering novelty as its goal.

In order to create art, the Artist must be willing to experiment, search, explore and indeed, often risk failure. This takes a certain personal courage; it involves stepping off into unknown territories of the Artist’s mind. In the Art process, as contrasted with the design process, preplanned goals are counterproductive since the results should not be overly pre-visualized. The Artist must be willing to try novel techniques or to invent new tools and to use them in possibly accidental ways not previously experienced. This serendipitous approach brings about unexpected results.

In order for any design to be expressed, reasonably clear goals need to be envisioned, the creative tools must be available and of course used to solve problems. “Creative tools” refers to basic techniques, supplies and materials previously discovered by the Artist. A design is a plan that exhibits the attributes of dimensions, notes specific materials and technical operations that will, if used properly, result in a finished product. The designer’s imagination can be honed and focused in ways enabling visualization of the parts and sub-processes involved so that they can be organized and interrelated or tuned, resulting in a plan, model, rendering or other crystallization of the solution that moves the designer closer to their final goal.

Between pure Art and pure Design is a wonderful spectrum of possibility and adventure allowing creation of novel and sometimes-useful products.

The Designer must learn to draw upon the techniques and discoveries made by the Artist. The Artist, conversely, may use tools developed by a Designer. Therefore, you see, it is both a sensory process and a feedback loop upon which Art and design rely in order to function cooperatively.

Art is experimental and breaks new “ground” while Design is deliberate. Art is aimed at novelty while Design is more product-oriented. Art is necessarily creative, but Design is more constructive and is a problem-solving process mainly with utility in minds.

Graphic Design Is Not Art

A brief post over at "Graphically Speaking" by Michael Kovalchick (who describes himself as a student - I think my earlier point is being made for me) made me dig out an old post I made a year ago on the subject of art v graphic design. I think I've been pondering this for quite some time, particularly since I taught on a graphics course where most of the staff were fine artists or illustrators, and seemed to be pushing students down the route of being "arty" and "conceptual", but never once considering the communication aspect. Although the work they produced was certainly arty and stylish, it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, graphic design. I remember the argument I had with them, but it was like trying to herd cats. They seemed to think I was saying design should be boring - far from it. But it certainly shouldn't be indecipherable (a quality they rewarded in students' work).

I think my argument's a little clumsy, but it was written "straight", i.e. without being edited. I might rephrase things now, or offer more explanation, as I think I open myself up to misinterpretation. But here it is in all its vain glory. (I also discovered that About Desktop Publishing had commented flatteringly on the original, which is no longer available, so this is an opportunity to correct a broken link. I think this is a subject I'd like to come back to as it's one that people have strong opinions on.

The way graphic design is often taught ignores the harsh commercial reality of the profession, and the context within which designers work. By dressing it up as "art" where the only people to be delighted are the artist and their peers, the trick is missed.

Let me get straight to the point. I don't think designers are artists.

Now I know that's a controversial view. It's not that I don't believe there is an art to being a designer, it's just that I think it's unhelpful to view art and design as the same thing. There are all sorts of reasons to attempt to see the two as being separate. Firstly, only designers protest that they are artists. Secondly, artists protest that designers are not. So there's a difference of opinion, and I really think designers shouldn't be self-possessed enough to insult the people who, let's face it, really should know about these things. Designers are the first to get upset when they see people encroaching on their space, and it's somewhat two faced to think they have the right to trespass on somebody else's patch.

That aside, I think there are some very obvious differences between art and design. The main one is that when an artist produces a piece of work, it doesn't matter if somebody doesn't like it. Sometimes, that's the point. Art often exists to provoke a reaction (particularly modern art - whatever that term means nowadays). The reaction is enough - it might be desirable for it to be positive, but it doesn't really matter either way. (I'm being over-general here, and I know it, but bear with me).

Graphic design, however, is a branch of visual communication in which it is important that the message being communicated is received in the way that was intended. Graphic design is objective, while art is subjective. If a designer produces a sign to direct people to the right place in a building, it has to do the job. Its function is not open to interpretation. Either it works, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't it fails. The rest is decoration. Maybe that's where the art comes in, but if it affects the objective of the sign - it fails.

This is a clear point of difference between art and design. If an artist designs a sign that doesn't work, it can still be art - indeed the more obtuse and 'conceptual' the better. But it isn't design. You see?

Okay, let's try something else. A student of mine told me she was looking for some work experience on a magazine because that's the line of business she was interested in. She told me she had got a few weeks working for a weekly gossip/TV listings magazine but her other tutors had told her to try, instead, to get experience on a magazine like 'Wallpaper' or 'Eye'. They were quite disparaging about her going to work for the more populist title, almost snobby. In fact, forget the 'almost'. The worst designed magazines in the world are the ones designed by designers for designers. They are awful , mostly unreadable with tiny illegible text painstakingly set in such a way that other designers coo over the artiness of it all. The best designed magazines are the ones that people can read and, as a consequence, do read. In their hundreds of thousands.

The best designed magazines are also the ones that follow the 'rules' such as use of grids etc.But get this: "Grids constrain their creativity," one fellow tutor told me - she'd never worked in publishing so didn't understand that a) a grid is a framework upon which you build, like an architect builds on a basic structure - so not a constraint to creativity but a support; and b) that any magazine that doesn't use a basic template will have to be re-designed from scratch every month which basically means it just won't come out on time.

The problem is, the way graphic design is taught establishes the myth of the designer-artist. Students are given briefs and then guided (or often just left) to produce something that the tutor 'likes'. The feedback the students get is very low level and tends to focus purely on the ego of the tutor. "I wouldn't have done that", "I think you should do this", "I want you to tear that up" (I have met several tutors who proudly tell me they make their students tear up their work every so often to learn not to be precious. I think that's criminal and there are better ways to make the same point without distressing and depressing people who will as a consequence be scared to put any effort into any work in future. It's all about the tutor and that is wrong.)

Where was I? Oh yes.

The real problem with this method of teaching is it is entirely subjective. The same piece of work will receive completely contradictory advice from each tutor, each piece of which will be based on that tutor's opinion. What's wrong with that? Well let's take another example.

Imagine a student is asked to design a piece of packaging aimed at twelve year old boys. The only opinion that counts as to whether the design is good or not is that of the target audience - the twelve year old boys. Yet students are forced to design for tutors who will, more often than not, judge it based on whether they like it or not, forgetting that they are not (and may never have been) twelve year old boys. And as a result we have generation after generation of designers trained to design for themselves, for their 'betters' and for each other. But not, bizarrely, for their target audience! What this means is that we are producing designers who do not know how to communicate with their audience .

When I said this once to some colleagues I got shouted down - they said that the course should be about "skills". But what skill could be more important? As the only actual graphic designer among them (believe it or not) I knew that the way designers tend to work is as part of a team. There'll be an art director to help make things look nice, and an account manager to keep things real. The account manager will bring in the brief, specify the objectives and any constraints, and leave the creatives to get on with it. The ideas they produce will then be tested out - not on the client, not on the art director and not on other designers, but on the audience with any problems then fed back to be sorted. This will go on until the team is happy to go to the client who, if they make any comments, will be shown the market research data.

Any design team that traded off ego, the way today's design students are trained to believe happens, would sink. Yet I've heard students get live jobs from real clients and then have a prima donna fit in the studio when the client has over-specified what they want or taken a creative hacksaw to what they've come up with. "I'm the designer", they will cry, "and if they won't let me design the way I want to design, I won't do the job". Fine - and nobody will ever ask you to work again. There's no room for artistic temperaments in this business.

But there's no suggestion of selling out in all this - a well prepared designer is armed with the evidence that their design will work. It has to look good, yes, but first and foremost it has to work . And that requires the sort of objectivity that sets graphic design apart from art.