art is design?
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- ********
or is design art. I'm confused.
discuss...
- Jordy0
again?
- airey0
fuck. off.
- ********0
you can design art... but you can't really art design.
interesting...
discuss.
- but you can artwork design.
mind = blownshitehawke - see? see!?********
- but you can artwork design.
- airey0
i repeat. fuck. off. over.
- ********0
- phatlee0
*yawn
- ********0
*punch
- ********0
discuss it with your grandma, retard
- ********0
There are artists... but there aren't designists..
- ********0
and there are designers but there aren't arteres.
god this is crazy
- ********0
- airey0
alright then. to me, and this is just me, design isn't art. it's driven by a client's request (whether the client is external or you) to create a supporting message visually. some designers are artists sure, but this is 'commercial art' so by being commercial loses it's membership in the artistic role-call. it's as much art as the spicegirls where musical artists. completely sold out from the get go - being the whole point of ;commercial art'.
if you're an artist as well and you do 'art' in whatever form then all well and good. but graphic design just aint it.
again, just by quickly typed and not completely coherent point. disregard as quickly as a lloyd/uberdesigner thread.
- ut some will disagree and they're right too. there's no real answer cause there's no real answer.airey
- ********0
but... artists sell art. doesnt that make it commerical?
I mean, look at damien hirst. crazy what that man sells. £50 million skull. booyakashah.
mind = blown?
- airey0
not to me. the commercial aspect that cuts the artistic angle to me is the message or the approach. if something has been created for a specific market then to me it's not strictly art. it's product. if something has been creates as a way of communicating an emotion / feeling / insanity for no other reason that itself then, to me, it's art.
(for no other reason that itself is the main point to me for art)
designers create stuff from another persons brief so they use artistic skills to create a product. but it's not their message.
obviously there's more grey area than solid ground with this point of view - you could argue that warhol's entire career was creating stuff for a specific market, i mean it was one of his friends than grabbed the campbell soup can from her cupboard and said 'paint this' so it's really hard to put into words effectively. personally i can't stand warhol but what do i know. (i preferred lichenstien - or wolfenstein).
again, this is just my opinion so who else whould give a flying fuckery.
it's a person's own line to draw and fuckit, if someone loves an editorial spread and sticks it on a wall as art then good on them. it's art to them so it's art.
- ********0
"if something has been created for a specific market then to me it's not strictly art."
http://www.artists-market.com/
just admit it
- yeah i agree. like i said it's a murky argument and there's no real answer cause there's no real answer.airey
- airey0
hirst is bold and can sell himself. personally i dig him.
it's not discrediting art to sell it, to me it's discredited by creating it to a specific brief to sell it. again this angle is busted by the whole 'commission' angle of a person paying an artist to paint or sculpt something specific so maybe these were early examples of commercial art? who knows.
i do know that i anyone calls wedding photography 'art' they they're a fucking idiot. it's photography of a wedding, it's as much art as the photos i just took of a fishing reel.
i'm probably wrong.
- ********0
go and read some bauhaus stuff, Walter Gropius, Josef Albers, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Georg Muche, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Adolf Meyer, just to name some ....
- and you still won't get an answer hahaha. but you'll have read some good stuff.airey
