artist vs designer
- Started
- Last post
- 66 Responses
- REDWOOD
Some of you know some real good digital artists + URL? And i mean ART not GRAPHIC DESIGN !!!
And what's your definition about it? Is a graphic designer also an artist?
- JamesEngage0
no
- rabattski0
age old question which had a lot of threads. no. design isn't art. design is applied art bound by rules. art isn't bound by any rules except gravity. free work done by a designer could be seen as art. then again art is in the eye of the beholder and not defined by the creator or curators.
- tomkat0
true art is only beyond commercial aspects.
- josimarX0
Paul Rand told john maeda when asked, "what is the difference between a designer and an artist?":
'There is no difference, they both work with form and content. I try to create art, and whether I make it or not, it's up to God'ofcourse, people who say they are designers, not artists, can't draw for toffee.
- rabattski0
what if you don't believe in god? and what has god to do with art? and if allah is your god does allah decide it's art? to be honest i kinda think that that rand remark is a bit bollocks.
- josimarX0
you're entitled to your opinion rabbit, unfortunately, Rand was a better designer than you or I will ever be, so some would say, his opinion on the matter, matters more.
- mbr0
Design can be art, and art can be design. There is no simple answer to that question.
Money has nothing to do with it, nor does 'restrictions', like clients and technical stuff. All artists must pay for their supplies, and most must sell work to continue to do it. Those are simply restrictions, and there are also those implemented by the artist themselves (oil or acrylic? All b/w, or color? Etc., etc.). Self imposed limitations are just as valid as those from clients.
This is a discussion that comes up in architecture as well.
The only simple answer that makes any sense (to me) is that art serves no purpose, whereas design and architecture does.
Obviously, you can counter that too, but it seems to be the only reasonable answer.
- rabattski0
josimarx: what? so because he's better than you and me his opinions matter more than ours? so being agnostic and a "lesser" designer than rand i thus have to accept the existence of god? so basically rand has become a priest of all things? whatever he says is more true even when it has nothing to do with design at all? for me i can understand that religion / faith can be an inspiration to an artist but god has no judgement over art at all (see i have this image in my head right now where god sends someone to hell because his art sucks). you know i rather live my own life with my own way of thinking than accepting someone else's because someone says he's apparently better than me. then again everyone is entitled to their opinion as you said.
- atomica0
lol, by god he means the belief of the people. A general paraphrased way of saying it yes, but I think its just a reiteration of 'eye of the beholder' you guys need to have less coffee this sunday morn'
- josimarX0
replace "God" with whatever you like – voodoo, allah... contemporary culture... whatever.
(thought you might have done that automatically)
on the matter of design, his opinion for all he has achieved, does unfortunately matter more, to more people and his influence will last longer. Hey, sometimes your/our opinion doesn't matter, get over it.
- josimarX0
I was at a coffee morning at church atomica ;)
- ********0
I think he was probably a bit of a corporate toadie with a large ego that made him want to minimize that aspect and consider himself an artist
- ********0
- atomica0
it all really comes down to:
'who gives a f**k?!'
- ********0
true, atomica- he work was what it was and everything else is just words we attached to it
- ********0
sorry-
"his" work
we "attach"
- rabattski0
i seriously interpreted "it's up to God" as god. capital g. but if if it's meant as the eye of the beholder then i ofcourse agree and then we've wasted time on it. then again why doesn't he say it that way? doesn't have to go all religion about it. which to me is still a different tone of voice. anyways, we prolly agree.
- tparsons0
ART: http://www.kilosite.com
DESIGN: http://www.panagrafik.comAll coming from the same source.
- ********0
design is primarily 'communication'.
design is however a 'functional artform'.art is purely 'self-expression' (can be very biased) and also communication for some. art can be selfish too (doesnt imply it's bad), design cannot be selfish, have to take into account the end users and consequences.
art and design are closely related however, well depend where u live, culture and people u are dealing with, and which country/industry u are mingling in..
art is pure and raw.
design is tamed and fabricated.
- sauerbraten0
i agree mostly with SireDeek, i've always thought of design as 'applied art', functional in context. Good design can be considered art as much of Rand's work, you can obviously see his expression in the work. As with many famous pieces of furniture or architecture, it is definately considered art however it's original purpose was in a functional context. It gets hard to define cuz when we think of the general term of 'design' this is simply working with form,content to some end..