Art and design are often thought to be the same by people unfamiliar with the field.
Despite their fundamental similarities in the principles – the knowledge of shape, colour, contrast, and such – art and design are not the same. While design can be classed as a subcategory of art, what I believe sets it apart is the importance of intent. Good art is often a result of the fundamental principles and technical skill in the art form in question. It may or may not serve a purpose in the sense that it could be a tool to give commentary on a social issue, express an emotion or simple be “art for art’s sake” where it serves no specific purpose other than a vague “making the artist happy” or “being beautiful to look at”. All of these categories are person dependent and as such “good” art is a subjective category. Art created by an artist to evoke a specific emotion in its viewer may not evoke this emotion in everyone or may not evoke this emotion in anyone at all. “Art, in its purest form, has no boundaries on intent. It can serve any purpose the artist chooses, no purpose at all, or an intentionally vague purpose aimed to generate different reactions based on the viewers perspective and intent” (1).
Design however, is significantly more objective. While there are no concrete laws and it still remains subjective to a degree, it often has a specific purpose to fulfill and if it does not, it will be usually labeled as bad design. For example, road signs designed to warn people of possible ice build up on the road are “bad design” if they are unreadable and as such do not fulfil their purpose of warning drivers. It is not enough for these signs to be “artistic” or “visually appealing” in the same way as it would be enough for an artwork to be “good art” – they should also be useful at fulfilling their purpose. There is no “design for design’s sake” and while aesthetics are important, “design isn’t successful simply because it looks great. It should look great, but that’s only part of the puzzle. It must look great AND perform its intended function. Only then is it successful design” (1).
As an example, lets take the Starbucks logo. It might appear complicated, but it is not in terms of lines and shapes. It is complex and unusual symbolically – using an image of a twin tailed Siren and making a reference to the Siren myth, but that is what made it so recognizable and iconic.
This image would generally be considered “good art” – it is very skillfully drawn and the artist had displayed an excellent understanding of light and colour. But this picture would make a horrible logo. There are a lot of tiny details that are not very noticeable, it could be very easily mistaken for another vaguely similar looking piece of art because all the details make it less memorable by someone who just glances at it. Since a logo should be memorable, it is better when it is kept simple. An artist would not necessarily know that and would aim for creating the best looking rendering.
The Starbucks logo on the other hand uses simple shapes with few details that allow it to stand out and be memorable. And even though the logo started out more detailed, its evolution and the brand’s current success are evidence that even with complex ideas, a simpler logo that is not necessarily “good art” is “good design”.
I find it very interesting that in academia, art and design are often seen together. While going through my process of searching for graduate schools, I have come across multiple programs and even whole institutions named along the lines of “[blank] of Art and Design”. Perhaps this is the reason why the general public might be led to believe that these terms are interchangeable. While one might argue that design is a subcategory of art and could be studied simultaneously or present side by side, I would argue that they ae their own disciplines. And just as a good artist would not necessarily make a good designer, a good designer might not necessarily be a good artist or be an artist at all for that matter. Because while the fundamental principles such as colour theory overlap and their tools might be similar, designers have a very different purpose and do not necessarily require the skills of an artist (though it might be helpful) As such, being a good artist is not enough to be a good designer. Design is more of a science. Besides understanding the artistic tools they are working with, a good designer would have an understanding of people and psychology – how we perceive things, how we react to colours and shapes and what is best suited for what purpose from a human psychology point of view. “Design has clients, constraints, business goals and user needs” and a good designer would be able to work within these constrains to make something both aesthetically pleasing and easy to use. While an artist might focus purely on creating something (perhaps only a select few) would consider pleasing to look at, a designer’s primary goal is to make something pleasing to use (for the majority).
References:
(1) https://uxdesign.cc/the-truth-about-art-vs-design-c9a616de828
(2) https://uxdesign.cc/the-value-of-a-design-education-8372c0858c78
(3) https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/06/10-common-mistakes-in-logo-design/
(4) https://www.designhill.com/design-blog/starbucks-logo-overview-of-design-history-and-evolution/
Leo, what a thoughtful and interesting entry. I resonate with your thoughts a lot. I find it particularly fascinating how design is gives a room to be creative while still upholding to rules and guidelines. Just like how you mention road signs can’t be aesthetic but functional, I believe that great design at essence has to serves its function. I agree with your statement on how good art is not always a good design. I think it is same for the other way around as well. Good designs aren’t necessarily good art. This is because design encompasses different forms that are not only visual but more such as information design, user experience design and etcetera. Although they work closely with user interface, on how the information is presented, or how the experience is experienced by the users, they are not visual per se. As you point out, whether visual, informational, or experience-based, design a good design should aim to provide pleasing experience for the users.
Hey Leo, I just wanted to thank you so much for posting and sharing this whole new world of information about what exactly differentiates “art” and “design” as while reading your blog, I found myself also sometimes questioning about what exactly can be constituted as “art”? After reading your blog, I found myself able to clearly state the difference between what is considered “art” and what is a “design”, which to put it simply: “Art” is something created for majorly aesthetic purposes, and “Design” is something created for a specific purpose or function.” This also led me to an interesting observation of how we humans always tend to categorize and group things, just like in this case where we seek to separate “art” and “design”. However, just like you stated, sometimes there may be a creation belonging in both “art” and “design”. Personally, I think this is the category where logos lie in, where not only are logos created for aesthetic purposes so it can attract people’s attention but it is also created to serve a particular purpose, which is to inform people about the brand or company it’s representing through visual stimuli. Another thing that I also want to point out in relation to your point that “art” and “design”are their own disciplines, is how NYUAD does not have Design as a major but have Visual “Arts” as a major. It is just something that I thought is also worth mentioning and contemplating about the reason behind doing so after reading your blog!