art vs design
- Started
- Last post
- 112 Responses
- n0rty10
here's what we made earlier
http://www.underconsideration.co…92 comments reiterated here.
seems like it's something that is blurred and has blended so much that art and design can't be distinguished from one another without linking similarities.
- vespa0
elegantly expressed bluejam
- n0rty10
although Bluejam sums it up nicely
- rabattski0
applause for bluejam.
- vespa0
true, art can serve a purpose for the artist in the way of personal growth, but it does little else for the public other than something to criticise or place in the hallway of your house.
fifty50
(Mar 3 05, 03:01)you must be looking at the wrong art!
- ********0
so art is a big fat lie?
that's what i said to begin with!
- rabattski0
if you want it to be then yes.
- ********0
I dont WANT it to be. It just is.
I bet in the future a Paul Rand original will sell for millions... well it wont because he didn't market his shit like that.
But Andy Warhol was a graphic designer that started sticking his graphic design in galleries and called it Pop Art, his work sells for muchos money.
- ********0
there wsa a guy on TV last night talking about ancient Inca stone cutting techniques, and he was like "it was a real art how they did it" and i fought, don't u mean skill? or maybe u do mean art....
art can be a factory process. Like Warhol's The Factory.
- Ell0
I read something Angus Hyland said once on the differences.
"All design has a primary and secondary function. For example, the primary function of a chair is that you sit on it, while it's secondary function is to embody a set of aestethics or values, or to communicate a message or opinion. This secondary function of design is the primary function of art, this is where the two cross over"
- Gorbie0
Rand (from NT) said something along the lines of:
design makes the world smaller. more simple.
art makes the world larger, and more complex.
...i wish i could remember what thread it was in.
- ********0
interesting ell
very interesting,
i think i'm in agreement... i think
- Bluejam0
tanks
:)
- ********0
Art is long dead but design keeps fucking it over and over again.
- elproto0
I think designers can come up with their own ideas of what to create, but what they're designing has more substance and purpose than a sculpture or a painting.
fifty50(Mar 3 05, 03:01)
Man. all the design references came from?? let me tell u.. ART!
ART is about the human behavior.. not just a sculpture or a painting. DESIGN is a consecuense of the evolution of the audience. ART not depends of DESING, but...
Do you see much differences on mountimg a painting or your trendy design poster on a wall of room? or a sculpture or a fancy toy on your desktop? . sorry. me not
- fate_redux0
Bluejam made some points, but they didn't go deep enough.
Ell's quote was the best I've read so far. My version of the quote is:
Design has a set function that it is judged upon. It is for a "target audience" or to satisfy a need. But it IS definite in its function.
Art does not serve a definite function. That's why most art is open to interpretation, regardless of the artist's intentions.
They both require creativity, and this is where the overlap occurs.
- vespa0
Art DOES serve a function!
Is emotional and philosophical growth not a valid purpose/function?
Jeez. you guys.
- ********0
fifty is stupid.
art definitly has a function. there's a fucking message there just like there is with design.
but the term art has become meaningless because people like fifty50 (who is stupid) think of art as these "objects" to be worshipped in museums for their own sake - like sacred icons. people forget that the work actually does have a message, being communicated, no matter how ambiguous and difficult that messge is to "get". Just like design lo and behold.
- ********0
I just love these threads, and the earnest-ness of the responses, they just crack me up.
- ********0
i just love bottlerocket's aloofness. its so kewl!
rock on!