Courtesy of Merriam-Webster...

design: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

...so, according to the dictionary, the two terms are vague enough that debate could go on for quite some time...

>the two terms are vague enough that debate could go on for quite some time...

Nobody said it was going to be quick. Or painless.

Design is painful.

Art is pain.

Art has greater potential for emotion, is wider, deeper, more frightening, more reviled and more passionately loved.

Art has Beethoven. There is no parallel is design.

As to which is the more abused form, that's anyone's guess.

Or put as simply as possible:

Art. design.

I believe graphic design is an art, just like pottery, painting, drawing, scuplture, woodworking, metalworking, watercolor, writing, making music and many of the other forms of art.

I think the hang-up comes with the money and payment issue. Paintings, sculpture, etc. are commonly produced and then shown and hopefully sold, unless ofcourse it is a comissioned piece. Graphic design is usually comissioned/payed for on a fee basis.

I've never researched fully the term graphic designer, but on the surface it seems to have appeared as an alternative to commercial artist. And there is that term again artist. It appears that graphic design was perhaps the term of the 60's, 70's that "branding" has become today. I would love to hear someone from that era's take on that.

Brand strategist and graphic designer certainly gives the impression to a potential client that they are paying for "business-like" art.

We create stuff. That's what we do. We hope others like it. That it adds value in someway. It fulfills a need to create in our lives. That it pays the bills. That it communicates a point. So what's the difference.

I would love to talk more about this, but I've have to send some artwork to the printer.

We could shuffle around Darrel's dictionary definitions and conclude that "design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan with the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

Design is my art.

Good morning - I feel I should say something like that, as it is so often the usual crowd hanging out here in one of these small pop-up windows.

I work with artists, from photographers, painters (using 3D) and a potter. The potter I am currently working with in the UK, his pots sell for up to 20k (UK pounds) and essentially are pieces of art, that have been exhibited in the V&A, Geffreye museum and other places. Another artist I worked with for a while, painted three dimensional worlds that you could float about in wearing head gear and equipment.

What I found was that they both worked in very similar ways that we do as designers, where they needed preparation, planning, commerce and generally teams of people to help them. In working with them, they were extremely helpful in concepting and essentially distilling their 'brand' into what I was crafting for them.

The difference between my work with them, and say a client from Silicon Valley here, is only that I have to produce more project schedules and educate them less about online/print technicalities.

I'm serious though, in most of my work with artists, we don't consider the 'customer' as blatantly as we might do in a business to business client - and the artists I've worked with perhaps are just more free of the constraints of commerce and having to provide dividends to shareholders or something like that.

I would say that a difference between (Graphic) design and Art is pretty much what you want it to be. But perhaps a lot of art is not understood, and in design, you largely have to have your target audience understand it.

If you create artistic graphic design it is art, if you create usable artwork it is graphic design.

design is solving a problem. art is not (i do not want to tackle exactly what art is)

graphic design can be art, but art cannot be graphic design, because that is a contradiction in these definitions.

if you are making a poster to solve a problem, it's graphic design. if you are making a poster simply to make a poster, it's art.

[the above is paraphrased from memory from chip kidd's The Cheese Monkeys, and it's the best attempt at an explanation i have heard.]

>If you create artistic graphic design it is art

that's supposed to be funny, right?

I think the point that was made that for most of this century, a graphic designer was called a commercial artists pretty much sums it up. Graphic Design is art with commercial goals and contraints.

i agree. with all of the above: which is why i never really understand why people struggle with the debate-because, it's not (as far as i can see) much of a debate. fundamentally, whether or not there may or may not be by definition a difference between or even a need to define the terms 'art' and 'design', i know this: there is stuff on record sleeves and in galleries and on city streets and on (yes) letterheads that has moved me.

understanding, as damien pointed out, does come into it, but time and again i tend to find that there is actually quite a big difference, in terms of sheer intuitive understanding, between a client and a 'target audience' (otherwise known as the people you're making the work for). which always gives me hope . . . :)

oh, and yes . . . commercial art-absolutely. i like that name.

>commercial goals and contraints

This was the definition I was going to offer up: basically, graphic design is specifically commercially-geared. Art, typically, is an extension of the artist, and he/she generally are not concerned with its commercial viability. It is their personal statement. But, how do we explain commissioned art, especially portraiture?

I just tried entering this conversation a minute ago and my browser crashed....

To reiterate what I have said earlier, I believe the difference lies primarily in intent, not the end product. Art is a product of the desire for expression, design a product of the desire for communication.

Dictionary definitions of these terms don't really help us any more than the definitions of art and design, but I think there's a clear distinction. Obviously expression communicates and communication expresses. However, expression does not necessitate the consideration of an audience, nor their understanding. Communication is based upon this relationship.

I'll stop now before my computer crashes.

I just tried entering this conversation a minute ago and my browser crashed....

If ever a computer crashing could be profound, this would have to be it! A verdict has been rendered.

Well, I was going to stop, but I need to heartily disagree with what was just posted about design being a "commercial art". Art has always been tied to commerce and produced on comission. Artists have always had patrons who paid the bills.

Michelangelo didn't paint the sistine Chapel for free, yet Lissitsky's revolutionary posters were done with no commercial interests in mind.

As an amateur whose occasional graphic design efforts are strictly incidental to other work, I am surprised no one has yet stated one basic which seems to me fundamental:

(1) Graphic design is intended to cause or contribute to a specific mass reaction (buy my product, pay above-scale for my product, contribute to this charity, trust my services, enjoy this recording, stop smoking, come to my party, etc.) Perhaps that is what some have meant by "solve a problem," but that seems more vague -- art may solve a problem, too, though not "cause or contribute to ... mass reaction."

(2) Art attempts to communicate a variety of things ... a mood, a point, etc. ... sometimes a message intended by the artist ... sometimes even a conclusion at the option of the audience. Art does not necessarily seek the masses, only those, even though sometimes they may be many, who appreciate it.

Enjoyment of art may be an end in iteself. and often is. Enjoyment of graphic design is never an end in itself.

Another difference which should appeal to practicing professionals: A true artist never lets anyone else to change his or her vision and work unless the artist is persuaded to favor the change. A graphic designer is often forced to allow a principal to alter his or her work, even if the principal is incompetent and unqualified to do so!

Art and graphic design are always different in purpose, although often much alike in the creative skills and tools employed.

Is that clear? Is it correct? It's probably not complete. For instance, a political cartoon better fits my definition of graphic design, but I'd still call it art. But packages and letterhead vs. statuary and still life, does it work? I guess making a post is just painting a bull's eye on my buttocks and awaiting the arrival of soft pats, arrows and rocks, or a mix of each.

Have fun.

funny how almost every designer i know over thirty refuses to have this discussion. the ones who indulge in it are generally regarded as pedantic shits.

kevin: "However, expression does not necessitate the consideration of an audience, nor their understanding. Communication is based upon this relationship."

crikey. well, i suppose that the first bit is kind of true, if it is the case that any one human impulse/desire/emotion etc. actually necessitates another. but i think you're quite seriously underestimating the act of making a thing, a piece of art. i don't know a single artist who doesn't consider these things, for many of the same reasons that designers do, but for one reason above all-it is almost impossible to see a piece of work through to completion and exhibition purely on a whim-the effort/time/money is too much, too hard. just like designers. now, i do think there is a difference, but as i said before, i'm not sure that it's all that important because it's a difference that rests in the realm of nomenclature, definition, and for me, definition limits a thing.

in terms of communication: i'd be interested to experience any kind of work that does not communicate.

funny how almost every designer i know over thirty refuses to have this discussion. the ones who indulge in it are generally regarded as pedantic shits.

Fucking old people.

;o)

(but, yea, it is a silly debate)

Good points Graham. These definitions are problematic. However, what I'm trying to get at is the rootintention, not necessarily what other factors are taken into consideration along the way.

>Art has Beethoven. There is no parallel is design.

I might agree that there is no parallel in design. But aren't there any graphic design projects that make you weep like a little schoolgirl because they are so beautiful? I can't cite a specific example, but it's happened.

>I think the hang-up comes with the money and payment issue.

So, if you do spec work and never get paid, is it considered art? kind of silly but in terms of semantics, it's a head scratcher.

>if you create usable artwork it is graphic design.

What is usable artwork?

When designers like Aesthetic Apparatus, Milton Glaser or Art Chantry have exhibits, what's going on there? Is it art just because it hangs in a gallery and people go look at them with the intention of buying something?

Many questions. But in my opinion, none of them really matter. I think artists are artists and designers are designers. We each do what we do, because we love it and like Graham said: definition limits a thing.

kevin (and i'm not being facetious): well, if the intention is to communicate . . .

it is a pedantic and fuckheaded debate, but i've seen it used as a weapon so often: and i'm really made up that so many people on here just seem to get it.

>but i've seen it used as a weapon so often.

What do you mean? not being confrontational either, but in which ocurrences can it used as a weapon and in who's favor?

armin: i suppose in the 'that's too arty' sense: in public debates, in education, in work-as a general rule, if designers devolve to the tried and tested 'problems/solutions', 'ideas/surfaces' debates, then the 'art/design' one is not far behind and art tends to be the loser, because it's not 'serious', or doesn't 'communicate', or is 'self-indulgent', etc. it's boring and makes me sad, which is why it makes me happy that this particular 'debate' is so lovely and spot on. :)

oh, and just to be clear, this comment

"kevin (and i'm not being facetious): well, if the intention is to communicate . . ."

wasn't meant to be linked to this comment:

"it is a pedantic and fuckheaded debate, but i've seen it used as a weapon so often: and i'm really made up that so many people on here just seem to get it."

sorry if it seemed like it was.

and this:

"i'm really made up that so many people on here just seem to get it."

is a good thing. :)

i think i'm typing too fast . . .

>is a good thing. :)

>>i think i'm typing too fast . . .

That's why I got confused.

Let's go to a more direct and personal question for everybody: do you ever feel that any (I say any, as in any graphic design project that you have done during your whole career for any client, at any time) project you are doing is art?

Is graphic design an art? Sure. I

Is it art? Well, that means we still need to define what the hell art is. And that's pretty difficult, since any two people could disagree if an object is art or not and still both be correct.

My thoughts...

When we are talking about art in this context, are we talking about fine/high art? If so, you have to look at what differentiates one artform from the other.

Art exists in all forms, graphic design being one of them. But even graphic design has many different facades of its own with differences in consderation of audience, author and content. One major overlap that I have found between graphic design and other forms of art is the creation of artifacts. Occassionaly, a graphic designer may get a project that is distinct from any other, say a poster project, or packaging project. "Art" is often characterized by originality/limited availability (another debate in itself), and sometimes a designer will create a truly original piece that holds meaning and value, thus becoming an artifact or even an piece of "art" due to its manifested value.

So I guess what I'm saying, without writing a 1500 word essay, is that...yes, graphic design is a form of art, that being something based on creativity and expression of an idea (whatever that idea may be). And in some cases...yeah, graphic design ends up being "fine" art.

>I think the point that was made that for most of this century, a graphic designer was called a commercial artists pretty much sums it up. Graphic Design is art with commercial goals and contraints.

this statement very nearly infuriates me. you cannot have an understanding of graphic design and still say this. graphic design doesn't sell. advertising sells.

both use the same tools. graphic design is solving a problem (of communication.) about anything. that's it. it doesn't imply anything else.

>you cannot have an understanding of graphic design and still say this.

C'mon now. Everyone has their opinions and they are all valid. No need to question people's understanding of design like that.

you dont necessarily need to define 'art' to have this discussion. try thinking about it the way i said above, i'll paste it again since most people probably skimmed the postings.

"design is solving a problem. art is not (i do not want to tackle exactly what art is)

graphic design can be art, but art cannot be graphic design, because that is a contradiction in these definitions.

if you are making a poster to solve a problem, it's graphic design. if you are making a poster simply to make a poster, it's art."

and dont confuse craft with graphic design here. painting could be graphic design. all that is required is a sign or a symbol. the form doesn't matter.

>C'mon now. Everyone has their opinions and they are all valid. No need to question people's understanding of design like that.

i mean no offense whatsoever. but saying that design only has commercial intentions....what about design with political goals? it is made to influence, not sell (and not in the way you could say 'selling an idea'.) i imagine they just weren't quite thinking about it that way. didn't mean to come off so harsh.

graphic design doesn't sell. advertising sells.

A gallery sells art? A painter sells his/her paintings. An illustrator sells their illustrations.

A nicely letterspaced 'FOR SALE' sells a house.

You're right Brook - its not the design itself but how it is used.

The discussion of where's the lie between art and grahic design often is obvious to most designers, and most artists. I prefer to look for the similarities in the way we work, and what we can adopt into our process of design, from what particular artists do. Even outside of Graphic Design.

>>But aren't there any graphic design projects that make you weep like a little schoolgirl because they are so beautiful?

I may weep like a schoolgirl at the drop of a hat, but it isn't graphic design that does it for me. Very little design ages well, I think. I don't know why this is, though I'm sure it has something to do with how one's own perception, knowledge, and taste changes over time. Art always seems to last. My favorite books in 9th grade are still among my favorite books.

I don't expect I'll always love the same design work that I love right now. Which actually may be good, since I think design has a timeline of change/progress/turnover that's keyed into different factors than art's rate of development. Design is tied to technology and economics in a more one-to-one relationship than art, I think. Art comments, is a mirror, takes the long view. Design serves, functions, goes away. Ugh, headache now.

What this may have to do with matters of timelessness, universality, depth, and so forth, well draw your own conclusions.

Natasha, where are you? I know you're screaming right now...

>A gallery sells art?

Don't mean to get into a big discussion here, but yes, a gallery sells art from artists. That's why they keep a cut (whatever percentage that may be) from the artist. Right? Now you got me all confused Damien.

Oh, that said, I definitely feel that there is a separation between art and design. Definitely.

>Very little design ages well, I think. I don't know why this is, though I'm sure it has something to do with how one's own perception, knowledge, and taste changes over time. Art always seems to last. My favorite books in 9th grade are still among my favorite books.

i'm not sure i agree with this, as i believe there is some design that does age well (those that do not use style [though no-style is also a style]). but you definitely hit on something interesting. your taste in design may change, but dont you think you will always like 'good' design. style has nothing to do with 'good' design. style makes things 'cool.' thats how i see it, anyway.

also, design, well graphic design in the modern sense, has not been around for all that long. it doesn't have quite the history that 'art' does. think of how many art history books there are, compared to how few (and recent) graphic design history books there are. and i believe design is just as deserving...but it takes time to develop these histories, to be able to view trends, etc.

I'm just commenting on an obvious point, but that the art doesn't sell itself. When something is left hanging on a wall, it doesn't mean it is for sale.

I have art, on my wall, that is by a guy who used to (don't know if he still does) draw bank notes on one side, based on the currency of the country he was in, and leave a thumbprint on the other. He lived in England for a long time paying for rent and supplies by this means - not claiming they were forgeries, but a form of 'Art currency' that was completed when a dealer would inevitably come to the paid merchant and purchase the notes from them.

This guy, Stephen Boggs, eventually had the forgery laws in the UK rewritten because of him and was then asked to leave the country. Then in the US, he continued to pay rent, buy a motorcycle and stay in a fairly expensive hotel, while he tried to get back some confiscated drawings from the 'government'. He calls them art. They're used as currency, and I have some hanging on my wall.

I personally think its bullshit that made this happen, and a form of design- and therefore very similar to the topic of conversation here a while back.

this statement very nearly infuriates me. you cannot have an understanding of graphic design and still say this. graphic design doesn't sell. advertising sells.

I said nothing about 'selling'...merely that Graphic Design has commercial-based constraits--namely the client's needs (which are often marketing related, but certainly not always).

So, if you are designing a brochure, there will be all sorts of commercial based contraints. Budget. Timeline. Target audience. Actual message. Perceived message, etc, etc.

I see your point, though. Many of the above things could be subsets of marketing, market research, printing, psychology, etc. We could narrowly define graphic design as simply visual communication.

graphic design is solving a problem (of communication.) about anything. that's it. it doesn't imply anything else.

Well, maybe that's the best way to sum up the debate. Graphic design has to communicate something specific, while art doesn't.

i mean no offense whatsoever. but saying that design only has commercial intentions....what about design with political goals?

Well, political goals quite often = commercial intentions ;o)

Very little design ages well, I think. I don't know why this is,

Design (both design in general and graphic design) can age well. A lot of graphic design doesn't because it is very much a part (both defining and reflecting) pop culture, and, as such, is fairly easily dated. Actually, fine art has the same problem. 'doh...here we go again...

Following last week's discussion, if design does not equal advertising, and design does not equal art, then does advertising equal art?

*please do not repsond to this seriously because i am kidding*

Brook, you may have just launched the next major discussion: What is style? Talk about a can of worms.

But there's style and there's trendiness. Art has styles in a slightly different sense than design: Flaubert is a realist novelist whereas James Joyce is a modernist. Wordworth is a romantic poet, Ginsberg is a beat poet. Abstract Expressionism, Pop, Cubsim, etc. All styles. Fear not the style! Design has them too, just compressed, because as you say, the history of design is shorter.

If art does not comunicate then why call it art? If there is no communication in any sense of manner, then isn't that decoration?

If we can't define both graphic design and art, then this discussion is irrelevant.

What's funny for me about this discussion and the last several ones we have had around this subject, is that I have a 2 year degree in Fine Art and a bachelors in Advertising and have been a graphic designer for 13 years.

Let us embrace subjectivity! Wee this is fun!

By Jickity!

>If we can't define both graphic design and art, then this discussion is irrelevant.

B A M !

So, Armin starts the thread, and then agrees that it is irrelevant? ;o)

I hate coming in on this discussion so late, but here's my two cents:

Graphic design: communication

Art: expression

Isn't that what I said four million posts ago!!!!!!

Design is to serve people. Art is to serve SELF.

communication=expression

expression=communication

unless someone would care to explain the difference, and how in that difference there might be no relationship whatsoever between the one and the other.

please let us know of any work you know that does not communicate, and why you might think this is so.

does a company logo ever express something about that company?

how does a nike poster, a cd cover, or a t-shirt 'serve' people? how does the sistine chapel, duccio's maesta, or the ufizzi madonna serve 'self'?

design is art. depends on how someone uses the design. design may be fulfilling, like art... for me design is art, design is by imagination and creativity. You throw your best into design and you throw what you feel in your design then you create art. Design which has passion is art ... i think.

>So, Armin starts the thread, and then agrees that it is irrelevant?

Starting it doesn't meant I thought it was relevant or irrelevant, think of me as the moderator ; )

That has a lot of opinions.

there are a couple of points that have been brought up here that i think are important and worth expanding upon: the notion of graphic design as a relatively recent form, and the relative oddness of graphic design in comparison to other forms of design.

it seems to me that graphic design is still discovering what it is (and may well never do so . . . maybe that's what makes it so vibrant, shifting): the art/graphics thing is indicative of this, i think. the fact that most graphic design requires a client to bring it life is something that sets it apart from say, furniture or fashion design-at least in the first instance of a thing being conceptualised, a design being made. i'm not saying that there is no 'client' in these endeavours, but that the role, and the name of the person/group taking that role is usually different and closer to a patron (unless there is a consultancy/contract situation) than a client in graphic design. maybe it is the case that this (the ubiquity of the client in the impetus to make a thing) makes graphic different from all other artistic endeavours, but then the line shifts and blurs, and one needs to get into specific examples in order to shed some light on the generalities; but it is this that i think graphic design lacks. there are few (robin kinross springs to mind) graphic design critics (like film critics) who will take on the task of dissecting individual pieces of graphic design work in order to understand them. mostly, there is this (misguided, i think) quest for a grand unified theory that will sove once and for all these cliches, most of which the writers created themselves with little reference to actual work. the art of graphic design is in the work, inside it i think, and i think, in the end, all of these terms and ideas and thoughts (cliches?) are interdependent, not dualistic.

'graphic design', for me, exists in-between all forms of communcation and expression, of art and design. the reason i say this is, for example, as a graphic designer one is far more likely to find oneself needing to understand the processes of filmaking than a product designer might be (the examples could go on, but hopefully this makes some sense). we are always in-between, and this makes for a bit of an identity crisis sometimes. or maybe it's just me:)

personally, before i started college, i always (naively, maybe) believed that as a graphic designer, in order to be able to make work for clients, you needed to be making your own work: writing, typography, photography, painting, sound . . . otherwise, where would the fuel for the work one would make for a client come from?

Oh I get it now...

Bad graphic design is not art, because it is lifeless and expresses no reason whatsoever for anyone to spend 2 seconds looking at it.

Whereas good graphic design is full of expression and passion and has a little bit of the personality of the human designer that might actually attract another human.

Ofcourse there are lots of clients who love bad graphic design and lots of bad graphic designers who believe or have been taught that business communication should be void of personal expression.

>Design is to serve people. Art is to serve SELF.

So as a designer, none of what I do serves me as a person? I get very attached to what I design. Design is the way I express myself creatively, because I can't draw, illustrate or paint, I can't sing for sure, I can write sometimes, but not poems or novels. I use design as my creative outlet and it definitely serves me (my self.)

>how does the sistine chapel, duccio's maesta, or the ufizzi madonna serve 'self'?

I'm sure the sistine chapel was a big ego boost for the guy ; ) Big serve self!

So as a designer, none of what I do serves me as a person?

It can, but that's not the point. It really doesn't matter if it serves you...only that it serves the target audience's needs.

For that matter, though, art doesn't have to serve you either.

In summary, art and graphic design are just two abstract terms that really have no specific definition. It's all mud.

>It can, but that's not the point. It really doesn't matter if it serves you...only that it serves the target audience's needs.

This might be off track a bit, but I do think it has to serve me, otherwise I would become a bank teller where I can detach myself from any responsibilities or emotions. It has to serve me in that I would never do work for a smoking company, if the work is not relevant to me why should I care about the target audience? Probably because it's my job, but I think theres is more to graphic design than meeting deadlines and sticking to focus groups results. And that's why I do think this discussion is relevant.

armin: I'm sure the sistine chapel was a big ego boost for the guy ; ) Big serve self!

yeah i know . . . not a perfect example. i'll get my coat . . . :)

Another way of saying it might be, design serves the external world, and art serves the internal self--the self not just of the artist but of the person viewing/listening to the art. It's not a question of who or which outlet is being expressed, but of what is being nourished. I belive in the soul, yes I do. Call me old fashioned.

Oh wait, hadn't I resolved not to get entangled in this?

Art and Design are intertwined. You cannot separate the two. When I design something, it is a mix of art and design. (Sometime more then others.) Sometimes design uses art as an element.

Design can be an art form, and art can be good design. (Balance, form, color, line, etc)

For the most part, though, Art is an expression of the artist. They are putting their feelings on paper/pixels. Take Picasso, Munch, Pollock. They were all expressing there feelings in there works.

Design is to solve a problem with visual elements. When the "red's" took over Russia, they needed to mobilize the people. They turned to artists/designers like Lissitsky (I don't have my art history book handy so I'm not positive if this is the guy that I was thinking of) to solve there problems.

Some of this may have been said before, but it goes to show that it all intertwines.

YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, JUST PLAYNG WITH CREATIVITY....AND AFTER YOU DONT HAVE TO CARE ABOUT HIS NAME... THAT NAME IS A LABEL

AND EVERY LABEL KILLS CREATIVITY...

do what you feel. without thinking at his name.

graphic design could be a market

art could be a market tooo...

art is everiyhig. NATURE GOD LIFE SOUND COLORS EMOTIONS this ARE THE INGREDIENTS

GRAPHIC DESIGN is a discipline

it could have the same ingredients

ALL IS ONE

from Graham:

otherwise, where would the fuel for the work one would make for a client come from?

I like this point and personally, found that it was working with artists that helped fuel a lot of creativity for design and designers around me - graphic, interactive and product designers. After all, it was often the concept work, not having been completed for a client that was what won the most interest in various designers.

Groups like DesignRaw (product designers) all work at IDEO though exhibit their 'concept' designs at various fairs and exhibitions. A sort of designers' art.

There's a really good interview with Kinross on his website - hyphenpress.co.uk - which is very long, but excellent to read.

interview with kinross

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

First, you cannot pin down these moving targets across broad historical usage. Art to Michaelangelo or El Lissitzky was different than it is to us. After modernism defined it for us as predominantly individual expression, we still tend to see it as distinctly different from design, which must by our contemporary definition serve some other purpose. Obviously design can contain expression of one's individual views, but it does not need to.

What ever happened to good ol' craft? That's how I've always chosen to view graphic design. Like other creative crafts such as architecture or furniture design, graphic design exists in the same sphere as art, but the demands placed upon it are primarily (but not solely) functional.

I get impatient with the assertion "great graphic design=art", because it assumes a relationship that I don't believe exists. I'd laugh if someone tried to tell me "great journalism=poetry" for similar reasons. Similar tools, different purposes.

just found a quote in Peter Ackroyd's 'Albion', a fantastic book which i really recommend, if only for the short but wonderful chapter on illuminated manuscripts. the quote is from Thomas Browne, a doctor and amateur scientist who was an expert in witchcraft and scientific experiment, born in 1605.

Browne wanted 'to condemne to the fire those swarms and millions of Rhapsodies, begotten only to distract and abuse the weaker judgements of Scholars, and to maintaine the trade and mystery of Typographers.'

'trade and mystery' . . . that'll do me :)

Design is defined by its utility and purpose.

The definition of "art" as confined to certain formal mediums or as self-expression of an individual's vision or as a creation unhindered by any utilitarian concerns is a Western invention. Art and design has always been the same thing to my people. It is to embellish and maximize the utility of object meant to be used on a daily basis, be it a sword, a carabao yoke or a website. It is to participate in a community effort with religious, cultural and historical significance. The context in which a design was made in determines the criteria for its artistry. To define art and design in purely objective and universal terms is to miss the rationale for its being.

By definition design is community service. Design is defined by its utility and purpose. You cannot separate the ethical and cultural considerations from the ergonomic and the aesthetic. You want to know what design is? Use it. You want to know what art is? Live it.

design is no art,

it's a job!

a nice one, yes.

a creative one, yes.

but art is independent.

art is just more!

that's my opinion.

After 67 comments would it be safe to say that art and design are very similar yet very different? Each with its own nuisances (both good and bad) and most importantly that both designers and artists truly enjoy what they do.

Is there really a need to define our differences and similarities? Would that help us in any way to deal with clients? To educate them in our process and results?

Are we, as designers, insecure about our profession that we need to compare it to art to get our work's worth? I'm saying this because of the various comments about design being young and trying to find it's identity.

Can't we all just get along?

Great discussion though!

Why ask designers this question? Why only them? Ask the people, the audience for the communicative arts; the intended users of any design.

If this question you have posted fails to elicit a response or understanding to the common person then that would be very telling of the success or failure of designers and artists to engage the rest of society. If ever “non-designers” display an awful lack of awareness or taste then that would also be indicative of our relevance or lack of�

There's a famous quote

"Art strives for form and hopes for beauty."

How about:

Art strives for form and hopes for beauty.

Design strives for function and hopes for beauty.

>If this question you have posted fails to elicit a response or understanding to the common person then that would be very telling of the success or failure of designers and artists to engage the rest of society.

I didn't want to leave this unanswered. The "common" person (not used as a despective term here) cares shit about design, much less about the difference between art and design. The biggest problem here is that the "common" person are CEO's, Marketing Managers, decision makers that don't understand the importance of design. How many times have you heard "I don't need graphic design, I'm happy with what I have (or don't have)" from prospective clients?

>If ever “non-designers” display an awful lack of awareness or taste then that would also be indicative of our relevance or lack of�

Taste is another issue. Awareness is something that we can, and have, to deal with. It is hard to convince people that design can help, because it can, there is no doubt about that. How to make them understand this, is one of the hardest parts of our job.

So why don't I ask the "common" person about the importance of design? Because I already know the answer.

Design is art and strategy. Art is whatever you want it to be.

The debate that cracks me up every time is the idea of certification for graphic designers. Because the difference between art and design is so gray, certification would be laughable.

>The "common" person... cares shit about design...

>The biggest problem here is that the "common" person are CEO's...

>So why don't I ask the "common" person about the importance of design? Because I already know the answer.

Yes, it is true that CEOs see design as a tool of marketing and as a means for profit. But not all clients are capitalists and not all designers are solely for profit. In fact not all (sub)cultures are fueled by material gain. There are so many ways to engage the world around us without simply being a cog in the system. Millions of ways. Creative and constructive ways.

The common person may not have the words for what they feel about the designs they see and use everyday but they feel it none the less. I believe they have something important to tell us. They cannot be underestimated or predicted. There is more we can do than to tell them what what to buy and who to be. The communicative arts is about dialogue and giving voice. After all, we all are "common people". We cannot afford to give up on ourselves.

real design is challenging because it has

restrictions, design without restrictions is just art.

Artists find out what they'll

be paid AFTER the show (usually not much).

Designers know BEFORE.

Very difficult question to answer as design is just as diverse in its applications as art.

It is the investigation of the ideas underlying the creation, process and reception of the work which qualifies it as art, rather than to complicate another stylistic convention.

Art vs design isn't the question here, I think its more Creativity Vs Reasoning.

the terms "art" and "graphic design" mean very little. so many people seem to have such a purist attitude about both. Who cares what "graphic design" really means? the definitions change as our culture changes.

Anything that involves refinement and/or self-expression can be an artform. Skateboarding is an artform — football isnt. To me, what makes graphic design an artform is the fact that it DOES involve these things. Otherwise its just typesetting, desktop publishing or signmaking.

I get asked this alot.

I'll drop a few notes of my own. Pardon me if i repeat points posted in previous posts.

Art and design have the same base input.

They both need creative thought, analysis and expression. The difference lie in ownership of the "brief" and "purpose". With design, ownership is external, belonging to someone other than the designer/creator. This giving up of ownership is compensated with financial reward and commerce. Therefore, a designer i think is an artist gives up ownership of the "brief" and "purpose" for monetary gain.

There may be scenarios where clients who engage famed designers/artists and give the "ownership" of the brief back to the creator. The resulting piece of work is then percieved as art. The Sistine Chapel may be one case in point.

And. Within both. Art and design.

There is the good, the bad and Clint Eastwood.

Cheers.

Pardon my grammer in my previous post. (didnt proof)

Final note of mine.

"There will always be someone that will pay for something that looks pretty, regardless of brief, intent or purpose. Therefore, design and art will always be.

as far a i know, the ownership of the "brief" for the Sistine Chapel was the chruch who commissioned the art. Everyone seems to think that "art" (which has existed since the beginning human history) is all about the self-expression of the artist—but this concept has only existed for around 300 years. Before that, art usually had other purposes. Before photography, the only way to created a likeness of a person, place or thing was to hire someone to render it. You can go all the way back to paintings on cave walls that were a form of communication. Art had much more in common with what we now think of as design.

Even if you look at art in the last several hundred years, it would be naive to think that most of it was not created to sell and make money for the artist. Most "fine" artists pay close attention to what sells and what doesnt, and there's no compromise on the part of the artist for doing so.

To me, art is design and design is art.

It's occured to me in my life as one who struggles with the enigmatic concept of art, that art, in and of itself, is just a manifestation of the world. More specifically the relationship between the creator(artist,designer,potter,etc. and his world. It is essential to bypass, at least for myself, the distinctions between what is or is not bound by the constraints of a pre-established criteria/and or concept. I agree with those who feel the compulsion of such gifts to be reward and justification enough to make one feel he is an artist.

Absolutes are relative when viewing the big picture, and cease to be such when we can see outside that picture. Enjoy.

Art is entering

Design is showing what you found inside

David E. comment Everyone seems to think that "art" (which has existed since the beginning human history) is all about the self-expression of the artist—but this concept has only existed for around 300 years..

Actually, only about one hundred. A visiting artist at the art school I attended posited that the biggest two influences on Art were Edison and Eastman. Edison because he invented the lightbulb, and Eastman because he developed cheap and portable photography.

Photography now becomes the medium by which daily life is recorded; the lightbulb now changes not only how color is perceived, but enables art to be shown out-of-context. (Remember the giant projections of the Mona Lisa you'd see in school? The thing's only about 8x 10 or so.)

It is no coincidence that the rise of Impressionism and all that follows happens historically at the rise of photography.

How does this fit the ART v. DESIGN debate? Dunno. Like Science Fiction or Punk Rock, it may simply be defined by the individual.

Art is the creation of a unique object, usually aesthetic, but a single work is in and of itself an object.

Design is the arrangement and placement of these objects, whether they've been made in the first place by the designer or otherwise.

On occasion, such as in the case of a deliberate juxtaposition of two paintings or artworks placed in proximity by the artist is a form of design, and the artist is also a designer. On occasion, a designer will produce art to form a part of his or her design, and on occasions, the finished design is an aesthetic object in and of itself, and thus the design becomes art.

They're both vastly intertwined.

graphic design can be very beautiful ---> look for yourself www.designiskinky.com

Trying to nail a definition of any word out of space-time context is doom to fail. That is, every word has its own history and space, and they are never universal even between two people.

The word “art” as it is used today in the art world is a historical pursuit. That is, art is a visual discourse of art history. Duchamp’s urinal, for instance, would have been meaningless without the historical awareness of the audience. It was meaningful because it was done at the right place and at the right time. In this sense, how beautiful something is, is irrelevant in today’s art. It could be, but it doesn’t have to be.

Graphic design has its own history and discourse. For instance, every typeface and every treatment of a typeface has a historical background a designer should be aware of. When fine artists do graphic design on the side to make a living, the lack of this awareness is quite obvious to trained graphic designers. Armin’s essay, “Is that a Graphic Designer with your Client, or are you just Happy to See me?” expresses some of this frustration from a trained eye.

The opposite happens in the art world. When graphic designers create something for themselves (not for any clients) and present it as art, fine artists see the lack of historical understanding of art. It’s like someone jumping into your conversation and offering his opinion on the issue without knowing what you had been discussing for the last few hours.

Art and graphic design are separate conversations going on in history. If you want to join that conversation and offer something meaningful, you need to go back and learn what have been discussed so far in history; just as I went back and read a whole bunch of posts on this website, before I started expressing my opinions.

Let's go to a more direct and personal question for everybody: do you ever feel that any (I say any, as in any graphic design project that you have done during your whole career for any client, at any time) project you are doing is art?

in the past four years where i have primarily been a student but have started working with clients, i find that my most interesting - most forceful - most influencial work i create in the classroom setting with limited conceptual restraints. for me, this is where design can be at its best - making social commentary, responding to the world from my point of view or differing views. this kind of work, to me, has greater importance than a letterhead design for a business. this kind of work is where design meets art. maybe i was exposed to too much 90s personal expression design, but regardless i feel design with an important social/political message merges with art and it is at this intersection where design can be most powerful.

i hope someone disagrees . . . . and tells me about it

Hi Parek,

I don’t disagree with you, but I want to elaborate on what you mean by this:

“... i feel design with an important social/political message merges with art and it is at this intersection where design can be most powerful.”

Much of fine arts in the West is about expressing “an important social/political message”. For fine artists, it is the act of expressing this that makes them fine artists. Fine arts is a historical discourse of social, political, and philosophical ideologies. If you are interested in joining this discourse, you should study fine arts and join the art world.

Take a look at a website I created for a fine artist:

www.homelessmuseum.org

The idea and the content of this website belong to the artist, Filip Noterdaeme. I did the graphic design portion of this. I would not consider myself to be the artist of this web-based art. To Filip, I’m just a tool, like a brush for a painter. It’s analogous to an architect hiring an engineer.

If I were to do fine arts myself, and if I have a big enough budget, I would hire a graphic designer myself (though it would depend on the nature of my idea). Even though I could do it myself, a graphic designer would have a more objective view on how I should communicate my idea.

If someone is paying me to communicate something, I should not try to force my own opinions onto it. I would consider that unprofessional. If I have something to say of my own, I would do it with my own money.

hi dyske. to clarify my point -- armin originally asked about experiences with client and designer in creation of an art piece rather than graphic design. in my post i looked at design outside of the designer/client relationship, in more of a visual problem solver/type&image creator realm.

for example if i make a book (i'm thinking saddle stitch 4"x4") about the problems in our society with verbal and physical abuse, i'm not working with a client, and the work gets closer to art even tho it is still graphic design and involves visual problem solving/mass communicating/type&image.

maybe some say that graphic design is only where designers meet the needs of their business clients and that's where it ends - but regardless of what you call the creation process of my little book example, this creation - to me at least - is closer to a work of art (whatever that means varies to different people)

thanks for your comments and the website to look at

Hi Parek,

“but regardless of what you call the creation process of my little book example, this creation - to me at least - is closer to a work of art”

Especially since Duchamp, there is no innate definition of what art is in the art world. It’s up to you to decide, but once decided, you must take action. Otherwise, no one else would know that you meant it to be art. If Duchamp took his urinal to his living room, and said to himself, “That’s art,” there would be no discourse. The significance of his work is not intrinsic to the urinal itself; it is his gesture of taking it to the gallery.

By the same token, if you want to make art, you need to join the discourse. You need to take your book to an appropriate context. You could even take a page of magazine ad you designed for Microsoft, frame it, and take it to a gallery for a show. The art world would then judge your work, not based on the way you set the type, used the color, and composed the page, but on your gesture of taking a magazine ad to a gallery. They would take into consideration what that gesture means art-historically, socially, culturally, philosophically, and politically. Whether it was designed by you or someone else would have its own meaning in those contexts as well. (Incidentally, I’ve seen a show where the artist exhibited many pages of magazine ads framed. They were not designed by him.)

thanks for your comments 'Dice Kay' and nice post

your post gave me insight to contextual considerations with making/meaning of art and graphic design

As a graphic designer my job is to create a piece of design for a client that delivers the message intended by the client to the audience they want. It is therefore different from the job of an artist as an artist wishes to express their own message and will not necessarily have a specific target audience. As an artist you are your own boss (unless comissioned) and in contrast graphic designers are told what to do and how to do it by the client before they get to the drawing board. Very little is left to the designers discretion these days, much to our dismay.

"Art emanates from the heart of spiritual experience. it has parameters and forms through which it has grown and understands how to expand and refine these, even perhaps transcending them. True art comes from an experience of the profundity of the spiritual life, it has been trained with a living tradition and has a context and environment, it is creative and individual, yet collective and spiritual. Each tradition has its forms which express its distinct perception of reality as well as the divine. These forms are more than simply images, but embody a certain experience of the timeless and that which is beyond form. Art, when expressed in these sacred forms, is not simply images or personal reflections, but embodiment of divinity.

Such an understanding of art, music and culture is not popular today. In a world driven by science, postmodernism and the pursuit of the almighty dollar it is difficult to comprehend a reality where nothing is not part of the Gods. A reality where spirituality and everyday life are not disconnected but are aspects of a larger plan, a great continuum from matter to spirit. "

Ideas are not 'eternal unchanging concepts' but are evolving forms who take on new meanings in new situations. So too is this true with art. While design is concrete, direct and literal, true art is universal and ever evolving in context and meaning. So to classify all graphic design as art, or not art, based simply upon the medium that was used to create it would be, essentially, false, as would be true with any medium. I have never seen graphic design that I would connect with the "spiritual", nor describe as an"embodiment of divinity", as i would so often with a great artist's renderings, but that, of course, is not to say that it does not or could not exist. I am however unaware of it's existence, and doubt greatly the profundity of it. It would be more beneficial to describe the greatness of both art and design on an individual basis, with this simple equation: intent = execution, and we will know of it's greatness when it transcends such austerity.

Both, in recent times have began a form of devolution in the sense that they have become more simplistic in their aesthetics but more complicated in their conceptualisation. The principles of visual exploration apply to both. Postmondernist abstraction manifested itself first in art but is slowly begining to do so in design. Both need to consider demographics and artistic limitations, therefore design is art and art is design or in the very least they are linked.

Having said that it becomes easier to pinpoint the difference between the two.

Art emphasises and romanticises individualism more than design ever could due to it's humanist and communicative nature. Therefore art's function is to provide a visual manifestation of progressive and often times un-institutionalised philosophy.

Design is ultimately a result of direct institutionalism and comercial function. Design is more linked to the reiteration of already established philosophy to less visually inclined peoples.

This would explain why art is so hit and miss.

What do you guys think?

I think I've had enough of reading (and hearing) the two words: often times.

'Often' alone is just fine.

It includes the concept of time.

We have 'some' and 'times' as sometimes, because we are distinguishing between times.

Wake-up people.

It's as aggravating as 'irregardless'

often times often times often times often times often times !

Damn, just relax.

By the way, I had hoped not to put down one or the other since I have an interest in both. Some one said they didn't know which one is more abused and I would have to agree.

Dang. I gotta write all this down.

Hey
wow, there's some amazing points in this post! I'm a student and for a Fine art personal investigation I've (naively) chosen the theme of Art vs Graphic design. In this, I mean that I am looking at the similarities between the two aesthetically speaking, and how each can influecne the other. Wondering if anyone has any observations, images, points or links that could help me along. Cheers

Hey
wow, there's some amazing points in this post! I'm a student and for a Fine art personal investigation I've (naively) chosen the theme of Art vs Graphic design. In this, I mean that I am looking at the similarities between the two aesthetically speaking, and how each can influecne the other. Wondering if anyone has any observations, images, points or links that could help me along. Cheers