This will probably sound too academic, but I wonder if the ideas argument should be prefaced with the understanding of conversation. Either with ourself or with others. If we're not talking how can anything really be thought out?

Design is indeed a bridge between something and something else. A lot of designers confuse design as a bridge between "work" and art; between self-expression and client-relations. Design is a bridge between an abstract idea and a visual, tactile or experiential manifestation of that idea. Getting from the idea to the manifestation involves thinking, reacting to feelings (although I think "impulses" or "intuition" would be better terms) and digging through past experiences that may reside somewhere in the brain. Correlating, and aligning, this with art is something I have found to be common among designers. I also find it to be bollocks. The process – the bridge – in getting from A to B when designing is completely different than when doing art, or poetry or writing. You dig through feelings in a different way and with a different purpose. So while I agree that design can be a bridge between, as Debbie says, our prehistoric and modern brains I would not compare it to poetry or other arts.

And to answer the very last question: does design originate with a thought or with a feeling?

Design originates with a thought. But if you don't do it with feeling – to use the word in a different way – it doesn't stand a chance of communicating or connecting with the intended audience.

Design as a verb implies a plan, a purpose, an intent. The act of 'planning' involves the dimension of time - and, from the little I've read, at certain points on evolution's sliding scale (way-back as in reptilian and the way-ahead as in Einstein's theory of relativity) the perception of 'past' and 'future' disappears. So perhaps 'design' is a unique function to this point in evolution.

For myself, on some level, I believe feelings are more important than thinking. I am often sure my brain tries to decide 'what's best' (which can literally take days and never reach a conclusion) when really I should just be learning to enjoy a new experience. Has anyone else heard about the research going on with sub-atomic particles? This is what I remember from reading: On some level, once you get down deep enough, scientists are finding out that these particles are perfectly reflecting what each scientist expects to find – they are both particles and waves, and tend to show up exactly where they are looked for.

Armin says "Design is a bridge between an abstract idea and a visual, tactile or experiential manifestation of that idea" - maybe this goes further than putting thoughts onto paper.

So, getting back to the art/poetry / design split, are you suggesting that the process determines the label on the end result? Just curious :)

Christina, yes, I would definitely say that. The process is objectivley and subjectively different for each thing. The process of design rarely leads to art and – even rarer – viceversa.

Armin said: Correlating, and aligning, this with art is something I have found to be common among designers. I also find it to be bollocks. The process – the bridge – in getting from A to B when designing is completely different than when doing art, or poetry or writing. You dig through feelings in a different way and with a different purpose.

I don't think I do. I was thinking about this while walking down to the village shop to get some lager to go with dinner. The process I go through is pretty much identical whether I am writing, designing or doing 'art'. By identical, I don't mean the things I do are the same no matter what. I may be playing around with fonts in one instance, sketching on paper in another, and writing random words in a notebook in a third; but the underlying thinking & feeling process seems the same, and the ideas all pretty much strike in the same way.

I leave my village for many different purposes (taking my son to school, meeting a client, buying some groceries, sightseeing, &c.) and occasionally using different forms of transport, but I almost always cross the same bridge.

I doubt that your take on the types of process is universal. It doesn't describe me, and I'm sure that I'm not special enough to be the exception that proves the rule.

And so what is art these days? Nowadays it seems to be "scribbles and porno", to refer back to Mark Kinsley's smart essay. Is it something transcendent or something popular? Ephemeral or enduring?
I'm sure the people of 1920's Paris when walking past Adolphe Cassandre posters thought they were clever but not memorable. So Time shapes something in this, yes?
And an image enters a storehouse of visual vocabulary that replicates. So can advertising illustration enter the pantheon of rarified Art with a capital "A"? I think so.
After all, the murals of venice were blockbuster advertising for the Catholic Church but they endured far longer than the popes and doges.

cweese asked:

So, getting back to the art/poetry / design split, are you suggesting that the process determines the label on the end result?

No, I don't think the process determines the label on the end result; in many ways the opposite. I think the process may very well be the same for these discipines--until the outcome, which are different expressions and manifestions of the thinking or feeling process.

I wonder how much of each is present in our work or our processes--is it more intellectual, more intuitive--is there a "lead gene" so to speak? Or is it simply a random mix?

I wonder how much of each is present in our work or our processes--is it more intellectual, more intuitive--is there a "lead gene" so to speak? Or is it simply a random mix?

My train of thought on this. There are two distinct items to consider in this one-fit-does-not-work-for-all: personality and situation. Some people are 100% intellectual, others are 100% gut, and then there are the rest of “us” with a broad mix. Then there is the situation factor: are you signing your name on a million dollar project (and you are responsible for the outcome), are you designing the logo for the new risky/crazy entrepreneur in your village, or are you doodling on your way home.

Each time we embark on the creative process, we come from a singular place, with a different goal in sight and thus each trip is unique and independent from all others.

I agree with Byrony--it seems highly individual whether you believe design begins with feeling or thought. It's kind of how a friend of mine tried to explain the difference between the temperatures of spring vs. fall: she claimed that spring was like a blanket of warmth over a layer of cold and fall was the other way around. I would have said the opposite of Armin, that my process starts with a feeling (of sympathy, of co-feeling with my audience: how do I want someone to feel when they look at this poster/magazine/postcard/book/etc.?) and then the thinking starts (how should I go about eliciting my desired reaction?).

It's kind of how a friend of mine tried to explain the difference between the temperatures of spring vs. fall: she claimed that spring was like a blanket of warmth over a layer of cold and fall was the other way around.

thanks, Matilda, that is gorgeous.

There are lots of ways to imagine what goes on in our brain. Freud, as we all know, also devised three conflicting divisions. The super-ego, the id and between the two – the ego.

For designers we can imagine the id as untrammeled creativity. The id might say: “I’m going to splash shocking pink paint all over the wall and photograph it with my digital camera and then scan my 4 year old daughter’s incredibly free and expressive scribble to create that new [Fortune 500 Company Name Here] Logo that I’ve been hired to design.” But the super-ego, the internalized authority figure, might respond: “You know this Logo must look like other [Niche Market Here] Logos, don’t you, you knucklehead.” And in between, the ego, the I, evaluates and tries to balance the desires of the id with the censoring severity of the super-ego.

Now of course this model of what goes on in the brain is no more true than the concept of three “sub-brains.” It’s all a bit more complicated, isn’t it? But we need some simple way to understand and discuss what goes on in the old grey matter – whether we try to divide it in two [thinking vs feeling] or three [pick your favorite] or more.

Design is always instigated by an assignment. Without an assignment the activity becomes either art or craft. If you are designing – oh, let’s say a box for rice – you are going to remember and then research what rice boxes look like. You also might look into the demographics of who buys rice these days and color psychology and so on. What you are doing is thinking. Oh sure, you might love your client [he’s so cute and polite!] or hate the assignment [a box of rice, I can’t believe this is what I’m stuck doing!] or get excited by the end result [finally people are going to think of rice as sexy!]. You might even smile over the family vacation you’ll be able to take thanks to what they’re paying you. But these emotions are sideshows.

Now currently, in our society, feeling is viewed as good while thinking is – well, less good. This is thanks to 19th century Romanticism – but that’s a whole other topic.

> I think the process may very well be the same for these discipines--until the outcome, which are different expressions and manifestions of the thinking or feeling process.

> but the underlying thinking & feeling process seems the same, and the ideas all pretty much strike in the same way.

Well, here is where I disagree and I think the process is inherently different when designing in contrast to some form of self-generated art form. Let's forget for a moment about the subjective end of this discussion, I do agree that the thinking/feeling personal process we go through for any endeavor (whether it's design, poetry or gardening) will be similar, if not down-right exactly the same. But there are objective and contextual circumstances that completely affect, influence and change this process. If anyone here can honestly say that deadlines, client requests, vendor limitations, design briefs, budgeting, conference calls, 6:30 pm panic calls, lost messengers, computer crashes, server crashes, printer crashes, economic crashes and more do not take a toll (for good and bad) on your process of thinking and feeling I will believe that the process is in fact the same. All these things modfiy the way you think and alter the feelings you have for a project. Everyone has had a project where things drag on, where clients manipulate every decision, where all the emotion you had going into the project is sucked out of you – this changes the process. On the other hand, everyone has had a client that champions your work, that goes the extra mile to ensure your suggestions and ideas get made, a project where things are on schedule, on budget and on target, giving you and the project assurance that what you are doing is good – this changes the process. I will not get into the details of what it takes to make art, because I don't make art so I can't speak with any authority but I really doubt artists do what they do so that they can draft RFPs, answer tons of e-mail, listen to focus groups or be told what to do.

"...where specifically does design originate: with a thought or with a feeling?"

To draw a line between a thought and a feeling would be nearly impossible. They appear, to me at least, to be systemic; one affecting the other, affecting the first, etc.

This system, as others have pointed out, can be altered by the addition of new data (emotional/intellectual stimuli).

What results as a product of the design process might depend on where one is in the cycle...

Mitchdot, not sure if I agree. Same with you, Arm.

People rely on intelligence to solve problems (design or otherwise), yet I think that something more is necessary to effect emotional change. The intensity of emotional knowledge and its ridiculously unreasoning force often supercedes logic. (I know I shouldn't smoke, I know I shouldn't call him/her, I know I shouldn't have that third piece of cake but I must must must anyway.)

Aristotle drew a truly unique distinction between knowing that something is so and knowing why. Scientists agree that true knowledge comes from understanding why, or knowing the cause.

That being said, let me rephrase my original question:

When we are designing and working out a problem, is the work coming from (first and foremost) an intellectual place, i.e.: "I know why this will work" vs. an emotional place: "I can feel/sense why this will work"?

>When we are designing and working out a problem, is the work coming from (first and foremost) an intellectual place, i.e.: "I know why this will work" vs. an emotional place: "I can feel/sense why this will work"?

a = I know this will work = experience

b = I feel/sense this will work = intuition / talent / mojo

a + b = solution?

b + a = solution?

I think the first/foremost approach by the
brain in any problem-solving scenerio will
not stem from an absolute origin, but vary
depending on the context of the problem.

For a standard brochure, we might rely on a first.

For a cutting edge piece, we might rely initially
on b and then let a guide us during production.

I'm always amazed and impressed that we try and understand where the spark of design creativity comes from. There's hope for the reptiles yet....

But, are we talking about design we 'have to do', ie The Job, where deadlines, client requests, vendor limitations, design briefs, budgeting, conference calls, 6:30 pm panic calls, lost messengers, computer crashes, server crashes, printer crashes, economic crashes and more do of course take a toll, or are we talking about that 'other' kind of design, 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form... producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power?'

That would be from the dashboard dictionary under 'Art.'

For me, the intellectual thrust is mostly manifest as: 'I know why this does not/will not work.' And I am generally confounded and surprised when a piece that I thought merely OK turns out to be wildly effective.

I think it's mojo (great choice!), the creative part. And I've often thought, 'I don't have any idea what I'm doing.' But experience tells me otherwise, so move on and trust, I do.

And I keep thinking of that line from The Last Samurai: 'Too Much Mind'

>When we are designing and working out a problem, is the work coming...

I'm going to try this again. I've found that if you over think things (intellect) when designing, there's the possibility of missing out on the surprises that the problem can yield. It strangles the creative process. Yet it's hard for me to say that I design with my emotions (this design makes me happy/sad) b/c I'm thinking that I'm cheating the client. I'm still in that mindset that if the design helps accomplish the goal of client, then the client should be happy and hence I'm happy.

Personally I'm trying to get that design nirvana process which I assume is like surfing yet I've never surfed so I'm not really sure if what I'm about to describe exists. Your on the wave, you're not over thinking things, your balance is taken care of, you feel like your floating and you get a rush as things speed up.

I'm late to the discussion .. and personally I can't answer the question with any certainty, but I *feel* that both design and art start with a rational thought.

And here's where i want to address what i see as a myth about art. There seems to be some kind of notion that art-making (+ poetry and creative writing etc.), are some kind of unfettered outpouting of emotion onto a page [or whatever medium], like ripping your guts open and letting it all spill out without the inconvenient intervention of rational thought. But it's not so! Most artists have a goal in mind, something they want to say or accomplish or *communicate* and they have to go through some kind of process to get there. A perfect example is Christo's work: an idea, a problem, months or years of planning, sketching, working out designs and materials, assembling and building. Most artists sketch first ... why? because they've got a bunch of stuff to work out artisitcally and intellectually. It's *the same* as the design process.

Similarly, writers have all sorts of detail to work out, plot and pacing etc.

This movie ideal of the tortured artist slashing away at the canvas or gripping the typewriter in agony is just bullshit.

Bravo, Marian, I couldn't agree more.

I am beginning to think that the speed in which we expect (and want!) things to get done now--in almost all walks of creative expression--is part of the problem. The need for immediate gratification (or a solution, design or otherwise) in our culture has become more important than meaningful gratification.

Think about true mastery of ideas or knowledge--this doesn't happen quickly. Learning languages or music are good examples of this. They take years to master (if it is even possible). The tortured artist isn't making meaningul work simply because they are "tortured," though it might be romantic to think this way. If the tortured artist is creating meaningful work, I would venture to guess that they have some type of clarity about the torture they are experiencing and have the ability and the skill to understand and express it.

I have to agree with Craig Lowy and Armin: what separates Design from Art is the assignment and the interjection of a client into the process.

However, I don't think that THINKING has to be a purely linear process... "What came first, the intellectual vs. emotional thought?" is a chicken and egg game. My design process is organic, more like one of those spider-web brainstorm maps, lots of thoughts and feelings coming together in a sort-of big bang of design... :)

Picking through that web of thoughts and feelings leads to the IDEA and then ultimately the design solution. During this filtering process, the client and the intended audience are the tiny demons sitting on my shoulders (metaphorically, in the best case), informing my choices.

The client came to me because of my ability to communicate visually with the intended audience. First and foremost, I'm a translator. (I think someone already used this analogy) It gets tricky, though, because design isn't like translating English to Spanish.... In design there are many ways to say something, and we designers have to choose (what we/the client/the client's mother-in-law feel is) the best one. An artist has more freedom.

True, many great artists are/were thinkers, and some even invite us into their process, but the rules are different in art. There are artists who refuse to answer to or even acknowledge their audience. The "art-for-arts-sake" camp is about as far from design as you can get.

I don't want to sound pessimistic or dismissive, but art can be faked much easier that good design can.

What separates Design from Art is the assignment and the interjection of a client into the process.

Woodie, I'm not sure about that one, pilgrim. Think of the magnificent murals of Venice and Rome, as I mentioned before. Some of the best work in Western art history was micromanaged by popes and patrons. Artists competed for assignments like church ceilings. They negotiated prices too. Poor Michelangelo Buonarroti, you might remember, was poked and prodded by his client Pope Julius II like any harried designer of modern times. Approval of comps? Sure. Corrections...just about everything but type. And logos? Well, yes, if you count the Christ figure as THE central Logos of the whole Cappella Sistina.

And on your last point: that art can be faked easier than design, you haven't seen the Chinese takeout menus slipped into my door almost every other day.

The more I learn about design and practice the creation of art, the more I believe the distinction between the two is subjective.
Artists do not always randomly pull crap out of their bums. Good art takes thought. It takes work. You don't usually sneeze and boom: Insta-Painting! The thinking doesn't /feel/ that different, to me at least. Making a storyboard for a comercial for class, or working on taking an image from my head and putting it onto canvass so it does it justice? It's work. I love it.

As far as the process that causes it?

...I'd love to see some sort of real-time brain-scan thing of an artist and a designer, both doing their thing, see how the brain acts when they're working.

To Pesky Illustrators comment:
My point was simply that while some artists choose to impose restrictions on themselves, there are artists that operate outside of the restrictive process of design. Do designers have the same freedom? Maybe our personal projects are free of those restrictions, but then... is it Art? or Design? Or Both? I don't know the answer to that one. But I do think the PROCESS of creating art can be more open for artists. If they choose, they can ignore the intellectual side of their brain completely for the entire process. So if an artist does that, is it bad art?

Ravenone's right, It's all subjective. What's GOOD art and what's GOOD design?

GOOD design is hard to 'fake' because there are standard questions to test a designs success. Did the audience understand the call-to-action? Is the logo client-appropriate? Does this record sleeve reflect the music inside it? Basically, 'Does it communicate?'. GOOD designers think about all those things in the process of designing, thus forcing the intellectual side of the brain to participate. Yes, it's still subjective, but if you can't read the time and date on an event poster, it's a bad design.

GOOD art... That's a bit different... I have some ideas of what I think make art "good art", but the likelihood we could all agree on a list is pretty slim.

Anyway, thanks for the really interesting posts. I usually just lurk about and read, but this one was too good to pass up. It's great to see people passionate about this, even is we don't agree in the end.

Lots of good ideas and interesting observations in this discussion. I think we can agree that, though the goals and intent are somewhat different, the act of creating a design or creating art feels the same.

19th century theorists thought creativity was similar for artists, writers and scientists and devised a 4 stage process: preparation [gathering information], incubation [considering the information], inspiration [spontaneous breakthrough or insight] and finally – verification.

This model was discarded in the 20th century because it was considered – yes, too simplistic. But I still like it. [and it’s close to Frankie L’s observations]

Like Ravenone I’d like to see brain scans of the creative process – but what specifically would be measured? None of the contemporary theorists can agree as to what creativity is. Is it 1. an aspect of intelligence; 2. a largely unconscious process; 3. a form of problem solving; 4. a hodge podge of cognitive abilities, personal characteristics, and social influences [and the list can go on and on].

Many contemporary creativity theorists collect anecdotal information from working artists [and from biographies of dead artists]; then the theorists look for patterns and from this, make conclusions. Like Debbie Millman.

As for differences between Design and Art I think Woodie Anderson is quite right. We designers follow cultural standards. However arbitrary the process sometimes seems, we could all agree on what makes good design. But as to what makes good art – it would be a surprise if any two opinions were the same.

As to how the process begins. We are assigned Design projects and must satisfy clients, while we choose to make Art and need satisfy no one but ourselves. This is a big difference. Though Art can [and often does] start as feeling - I still think design starts as a thought. [But that, of course, is just one person’s opinion.]

Marian, you are right. And I can see that my comments would give the impression that that is how I see artists but, on the contrary, I do realize what the realities are. So maybe I can better explain myself with this:

> A perfect example is Christo's work:

Yes, that is the perfect example to demonstrate the similarities between the artist and the designer… And it's also a perfect example of the main, intrinsic difference between designers and artists that I have had in the back of my mind in all my previous comments: Christo and Jean-Claude do it for themselves, to bring to life a vision that they have concocted (sketched, dreamed, etc.). Designers – as professionals who earn money as consultants to paying clients – do things for others. This distinction is what I feel makes a major change in the way we engage with the thinking and feeling process.

I just wanted to clear up my point, we can all agree to disagree on this, as the process of desinging (doing) is very personal… and Debbie's latest rephrasing/refocusing of this discussion seems very interesting.

...now I should check FirstSearch to see if there are any journal articles on creativity to see if anyone actually HAS done a brain scan or something simmilar...