Designers first...
- Started
- Last post
- 16 Responses
- since1979
"We are designers first, artists second" - Feng Zhu
“Design has nothing to do with art”:
Design legend Milton Glaser dispels a universal misunderstandingDesign is not art. It’s a distinction understood by practicing designers, but it still eludes many. In an Oct. 29 talk at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City, the 87-year-old graphic design legend Milton Glaser gave the best definition of the practice of design.
“Design is the process of going from an existing condition to a preferred one,” said the 2010 National Medal of Arts recipient. “Observe that there’s no relationship to art.”
This confusion is not just a matter of semantics. In businesses, schools, offices, even newspapers, design is often associated with the art department. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of design. When art and design are confused, the designers’ domain becomes limited to style and appearance.
- hans_glib0
tell me something i don't know
- GeorgesII0
wrote a long rant,
deleted it,designers are losing the war against design schools.
being a designer in 2016 is absolutely meaningless,
designing facebook post for 3 years can lead you to become a CD.. sigh
95% of designers should disappear and just be called factory bots
- set0
Words words words
- sofakingback4
In the great words of my grouchy intro to graphic design teacher:
"You are not an artist, you are a designer. You sell your services to the highest bidder. An artist creates what he wants, when he wants and for no reason at all. You create what they tell you to create. Know the difference now and save yourself the heart ache."
Its true, everyday is that.
- "an artist creates for no reason at all"
Great words indeed.ORAZAL - an artist creates to distract from their self destructive tendencies that will drink, take drugs or cut their ear off.microkorg
- I wish your grouchy teacher had been teaching some of the kids I've had to work with over the years ...Continuity
- i thought artists create for likes and money for beard oilscarabin
- "an artist creates for no reason at all"
- sofakingback1
Interestingly enough, on the topic of roles, titles and their contribution or the expected contribution to society.
I recently read article by Adolf Loos, an architect from the late 1800s. He was very outspoken about many things design related, trends, modern design, mens fashion, etc. His stuff is still incredibly relevant, give it a read.
In this article he talks about the evolution of interior design, the roles creators have, the clients and public perception. Don't know, reminded me of the topic posted above and you can see the correlation to our work.
heres the article: Interiors: A Prelude by Adolf Loos
- fadein110
So true and have said it on here a lot in the past.
- since19790
Separate design and art rooms. Does anyone do this?
- I think this is seen more in an industrial level. design of function and design of aesthetic.sofakingback
- monospaced0
Thing is, if the "preferred situation" is to be pretty, design often looks like it's just art. But, that's sometimes what the need is!
- *condition, not *situationmonospaced
- you are delusional. a rose by any other name...doesnotexist
- I am not delusional in any way. I respectfully disagree with glaser to a certain point and I can do that with some confidence at this place in my career.monospaced
- you got jokes, i'll give you that.doesnotexist
- what is your problem?monospaced
- valentim0
If it follows/has a purpose or function, then I would say its design. Anything else is art!
- 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
- doesnotexist0
The thing is, if a boy is really a girl, the girl looks like a boy. But, that's sometimes what the need is!
- watmoIdero
- if i design something for a client and it looks like an artistic masterpiece... does that not make it art??? I mean I guess, Rothko painted the series for the 4sofakingback
- and eventually retracted. the work is art... but it was done on commission. is it design or art. thats a tricky one, but we know its art from him, andsofakingback
- we are no Rothko. know your place and your rank. don't get carried away with labels and tiles and theories.sofakingback
- SteveJobs0
I disagree. Art is a perception. Although it might have been designed with one intention, a purpose perhaps, the perception of art can make it something else, even if shared by only one person. Just my opinion of course.
- if i thin a brochure is amazing art, then its art. sure, maybe. graphic design from the 50s sure seems like art... but i assure you. creating with a leashsofakingback
- is a world apart from creating with out.sofakingback
- monNom2
It makes for a catchy headline, but the idea is completely wrong.
Art incorporates the design process. Artists even use the term "Design" when discussing composition, layout and themes. The process by which an experienced artist moves toward a completed work is identical to that employed by a designer: ideation, sketching, identifying constraints in materials, consideration of the audience and end use, and refining initial assumptions based on new feedback. This is how everything comes into existence. Designers don't hold a patent on it.
The only difference from Milton Glaser's perspective seems to be in whether you have been commissioned to produce the thing prior to starting, or if you're hoping to find a buyer later on. -- that's not a practical difference.
I'm sure he's well meaning, in that he's trying to separate and elevate "Design" from what "Art" has become in its more extravagant periphery, but the message does a disservice to all the young artists (designers) who may end up working in design roles. To eliminate aesthetics from the conversation, and to elevate only the rational component of design is to remove the humanity from it.
It's muzak... and nobody gets excited about muzak.
- doesnotexist-1
no, i disagree!
- _me_1
Art has meaning.
Design has purpose.- case closedCalderone2000
- Art has purpose, and that's why people buy it.monospaced