What Separates Art from Design?

The two overlap a lot, but I’ve always felt that art is anything more towards expression, and that design is anything more towards solving a problem.

After trying to take a couple stabs at it, I think that richardhenry hit it on the head.

Science : Engineering :: Art : Design

That is to say, art is “pure aesthetics” and design is “applied aesthetics.”

@tonedef: YES! Theory versus application.

art is expression; design is functional

I found the perfect mantra, if you will, that attempts to describe what design is, in a nutshell:

a pattern with a purpose.

Where art would fit in, within that definition, is for me somewhat “fudgy”.

@makemo: In that case, art is the pattern without a purpose, right?

@richardhenry I love it! We nailed it :P

or, art is a purpose without a pattern

The distinction we made in my art history class (I attend Parsons School of Design) was that art was for aesthetic beauty and self-expression; art is made for the sake of art., expression, and the process of creation. Design is functional and utilitarian; design is used to solve problems.

somehow, i think design is much more tied into philosophy than art. i have not completely grounded that thought yet, however.

To say that art is expression and that design is functional precludes each from serving the other’s purpose, and that’s not true. There’s lots of expressive design. Here’s one example. I don’t agree with an explanation that doesn’t allow for design to be expressive, and instead, simply commercial.

And @tits, that’s similar to the science parallel, wherein science is frequently described as “knowledge for knowledge’s sake.”

i love how design incorporates, or adopts, a huge load of methodologies, whereas art more so seeks to explore meanings, or perhaps even, point to sources in which design were to be needed. (another vaguely existent though in my mind.)

Some things are designed purely for commercial purposes, but rather than using them to characterise design, I’d simply say that these examples are bad because the design is inherently bad. The best design always has a good balance between the strict definitions of the terms “design” and “art”.

there must be a reson for why art still hasn’t gained a consens4us about what it really is. i find that phenomenon thought provoking and sometimes disturbing.

i went to art university and have an mfa from there, but if i were to redo the whole studying thing, i would probably attend a design oriented education instead.

i see design as an artistically intriguing technique. granted, both of them can be incorporated into one another.

This is a common question, also directed at the difference between illustration & art… to me, it’s the purpose of the piece, not its execution or appearance.

Generally, art is either commissioned or created solely as a means of self-expression; illustration & design are created to communicate or support a specific message, often of an editorial or commercial nature.

I think it’s also like the square/rectangle distinction; design isn’t always art, but it can be. The main distinction lies in the reason and purpose the thing is made for.

design doesn’t automatically mean its expressionless, it just means that it has a purpose/functionality.

you can make art & design, does that blow your mind?

In a sense, art is also intended (albeit this being a very disputed definition) as something that (re: PupnTaco) is ‘created’ to communicate and support a specific message.

Art is an act of emotion…
Design is the act of your boss telling you what to do…
haha

@madcapper: lol i agree with your answer.

maybe the keywords for art and design respectively might be:

art = intention
design = purpose

If you do it correctly, your design will be a piece of art regardless of the field of design.

Design tends to lean towards function whereas art leans towards form.

But once again, if you do it right, you hit both categories and you have a truly successful piece of art and design.

The artist uses external signs (visual, aural, and tactile)—to express internal knowledge (thought and emotion.) It is not necessary for the perceiver to receive the same meaning that the artist intends to transmit.

The designer uses the same external signs to interpret and then communicate an external idea. It is usually desirable that the perceiver receives the meaning that the designer intends to communicate.

Can there be ambiguous design? Design for design’s sake?

@PupnTaco: I think then it really falls back into the realms of art. Or worse; it’s simply bad design.

@PupnTaco: It’s not ambiguous then. The message of the design is “This is design.”

Design works.

I think there is the potential for significant overlap between the two worlds.

“Art is an artifact upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation” – Dickie

Art is anything which anyone thinks should even be considered to be appreciated.

Art is nothing because if everything is special… nothing is special.

Art doesnt exist!

re: “art doesn’t exist.”

I was about to say, neither do design, but I’m not.

However, if design in its essence, is just a definition of purposeful actions; just about anything is design… well, except art. :)

They are both the same and / or they are both interchangeable. The base purpose to both is to communicate. It doesn’t matter what is trying to be communicated nor how it is attempted. It is art and designs sole purpose. To communicate.

I guess the difference being, is that art is more ‘entitled’ to communicate with whatever receiver it sees fit – even itself – or not at all.

Another difference that might separate art and design is the message: art doesn’t always need to communicate a clear message, where in effect, design has to convey a clear message.