Designers first...
Designers first...
Out of context: Reply #11
- Started
- Last post
- 16 Responses
- scarabin1
true, true. i made a painting to fill a space in my kitchen.
that was an act of design, not art, despite it being a painting and everything.
- That's an interesting take... You're saying because it has purpose outside of being "just art"? I see your point but I still think it's art...sofakingback
- If a well known artist did the same, it would be considered art though... Right? Say Dali did that to his kitchen... that's a tricky one, I see your point thosofakingback
- i just consider it design because i started with a problem, "blank wall", and created a visual solution. for me, art doesn't begin with a problemscarabin
- i guess in many cases this reduces folks who commissioned the great masters to art directors as many of those paintings solved problems (create prestige,scarabin
- mark events, shift political/religious perspectives, etc)scarabin
- that's what I was saying ... sometimes the "function" is to act as art.monospaced
- oh come on - there is an enourmous difference between functional design and art - art serves no function other than an expression of the artist (good art atfadein11
- least)... and yes you can play the history card - old art was commissioned, told a story, filled a space etc... but trust me there was piles of shit old art,fadein11
- the only 'old' art we see today was from artists who expressing themselves was the primary motivation.fadein11
- well lets say this, anything you create for some one else purpose is clerkly not art... for the sake of art. Right?sofakingback
- If i decide to wait my apartment with all sorts of crazy colors and murals... does that not mean its art? Art is none constrictive. its anything for no reasonsofakingback