artist vs designer
- Started
- Last post
- 66 Responses
- ********0
Three words... THE DESIGN KING!
- BonSeff0
can you clarify what
(the good one) is?
- winter0
good progress? well, not the one we're having? AHAHAAHAAHAH!
- arseni0
if a person have certain skills that make him both an artist and a graphic designer, then yes.
- winter0
now, really.. my point is: based on knowledge (make it art, science, etc) we have come a long way. of course it has a dark side. there is polution and fighting everywhere; the worst, there is stupidity ruling the 1st mass medium (TV). but 50 years ago most people died at 50! but more and more awereness to this matters is raising and we must believe that it is for good. That's the only way. The world seems worse because there is news all the time about shit. but everyone's is better off. In my view, the effort should be to preserve nature and create supported welfare. Of course there are major problems (!), but Mr. Bush is just a common dropback in natural evolution :) hope...
- BonSeff0
dude, you are all over the map
but i think i get you.
*grabs berks and granola
- winter0
and another thing. our generation seems to be getting far too individualistic to mind these common matters. which is wrong. we must think and be knowledgeable to act. Mind you, not any ideological offset here. just common sense.
shit happens all the time. we are those who must show the good face and play the best we can.
i hope it isn't just me.
- sauerbraten0
i'd like to raise another question:
is it a good thing or damaging that (let's be honest) most designers/artists strive for recognition, that their efforts will be acknowledged in some way and be considered worthwhile to a movement or create work that is considered "great"?
Is this a bad thing, or is a positive driving force that manifests itself in the realms of design/art by progressing ideas?
is it enough to be a servant, ie, design as function, recognizing that good design truly benefits humanity in very fundemental ways?
i'm sure some approach their job/passion both ways, or a combination, or that they just want to express (art) themselves, i think this is an interesting question..
did that make sense at all?
- tank0
had an interesting discussing with one of my professors.he does not believe in artists..theyre name is just somethin to catalogue them.due to death of the author, there the viewer is king and will define what is art or what not..so if he thinks for instance chris cunningham is a part of art,then it will be so..if he thinks marcel duchamps urinoir is a piece of design it will be so..
art has it roots in commercial aspects..painters and sculpturs where givin assignment..for a great time the name of painter was unkknow but all of a suddeen this was an aura around it..the same with design..for instance the enron logo that rand made..do you need to know that ran made it?no..but due to postmodernism the name of graphic designer has grown more important..and its not anymore ..'did you see that new album cover of new order?'
no,its have you seen the latest work of saville...the endless book out now concerning one designer is an illlustration of this evolution..
- winter0
v v nice point. but we are still alive! it's not about self-conciousness or changing the world or getting your name in history. it's about doing what you do properly. for yourself and others (no matter the order of subjects).
but agreed, it's the work that matters, not you. which means that the work should matter you.
nice talk to you guys anyways.
- sauerbraten0
how's the south pole this time of year?
- ********0
selfish design is a gridlock,
media inspired art is a sellout.
- tank0
selfish design is a gridlock,
media inspired art is a sellout.wrong.
media inspired art is what is interesting.art has placed itself in a gettho of 'discours'.
media inspired art is very interesting because of the boundaries.if you see a the new nike commercial from brazil againts its fucking mindblowing and warping some usual conventions.thats somethin i dont see anymore in art...
- kodap0
a true artist (short-phrasing) is someone who has complete freedom to transform a personal experience into a public one.
now it's up to you to decide what you do.
- ********0
go nike!
- tank0
yeah nike or for intsance what UVA does for massive attack...
- BonSeff0
go go jetta and black rimmed glasses
- ********0
- punch0
Great thread. Some excellent points made. This is a subject dear to my heart so I'll just rant for a couple of paragraphs.
The idea of art and design as two seperate disciplines is very much a modern concept. Consider the origins of the word 'art'; it comes from the latin 'ars' which origionally meant 'craft'. This is where we get the word 'artisan' or 'craftsman'.
I believe that the split between art and design dates back to the end of the renaissance. It is then that we see the artistic cult of personality really start to develop, so we hear about the names of artists rather than the names of workshops, guilds or towns identified with a particular piece or style of work. Before Da Vinci and Michelangelo, painting, sculpture etc. were considered trades much like weaving or masonry.
'Art' was usually a collective enterprise and the master craftsman was rarely even involved in the actual hands-on production. Instead he acted like an overseer and manager (like the art directors or project managers of today). Products were rarely signed by an individual; they were usually stamped with a guildmark, a family crest or the coat of arms of the town in which it was made. In these days of Gucci and Warhol you certainly don't see that kind of humility.
From an historical point of view, I suppose 'art' as we understand it is really a product of the humanist movement, a philosophy that tended to prioritize the individual over the community and self-expression over collective perception. In this sense, one could say that 'design' is much older (and perhaps more mature) than 'art'. Design tends to be practical because it seeks to aesthetically enhance an object that already has a functional purpose (like clothes, toasters, literature or architecture). It also (usually) seeks a more general appeal.
Art, on the other hand, is pure aesthetics and (I'm sorry to say) serves no practical purpose other than self-expression, beautification or (at worst) propaganda.
Don't get me wrong, I love art. I do, however, believe that contemporary artists have tended to divorce themsleves from their roots (design) and have therefore lost their raison d'etre. The Arts and Crafts Movement (Morris and Ruskin) and the Bauhaus movement tried to remedy this trend decades ago by reconciling the two. Now in the 21st century we are seeing a kind of 'hand-made' post-modern folkart style becoming fashionable (a throw back to hippyism?).
I hope these trends catch on because I think both art and design need desparately to kiss and make up for the sake of our culture.
- fatoe0
i feel if you're talented in your skill set that it can be deemed as art in it's own respect. - 2cents