art and design

Art and design both have elements contributing to their composition, but the way in which they are created, and why they are created can be different. Art is something created by a person with the need to make something to be viewed and thought about, hopefully with the result of it then being talked about, having interest in the piece spread and having the piece cause some change or thinking to occur. Though many people think art pieces are just something pretty to look at, what they don't realize is the ability of art pieces to make them think, though they might think they are not doing anything except staring at something pretty, or strange. For example, someone might look at Pollock's drip paintings and think they are just looking at splatter paint, most likely think to themselves "I can do that," but then most certainly will question why that canvas with paint on it is considered art and is in the gallery. They will most likely then think of whether or not a message is trying to be expressed, and so discourse and pondering surely ensues. And along those lines, art doesn't have many limitiations, which is important in giving an artist the freedom to use what materials and approach they want in creating their work.
Design, on the other hand, requires more of a structure because it has a different end goal than art. A design is something that functions a certain way, and is able to assist in being a part of a task of project. For example, designing a magazine cover functions to contain the contents of the magazine, tell the viewer what can be found inside, and in relation to art, has to draw attract the reader. I say this last part is in relation to art because are is a valuable tool for creating design and making it appeal to viewers and users. Like Dave Hickey said, art isn't art unless it creates discourse. Art has to be able to start some kind of reaction within the viewer in order to really be considered a piece of art. Whether the reaction is simply a question of "how is this art?," or an assessment of the emotions and message that the piece portrays through it's various elements, either way people are prompted to share their ideas and discuss the piece--and in doing so, allowing the piece to be an art piece instead of just a man made artifact. Design, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need to cause emotions or dialogue to be evoked in the person using or viewing the design. Design, which I think almost 90% of the time includes artistic creativity, is not driven by an aim at making something that stirs people to talk--instead, design serves a purpose or function, and if it is unable to do so, it is not a good design. But, to add on to that point, if a design fails in being practical and functioning, it can still be considered a piece of art, as long as the basic requirements for art are met. This can be said because most of the time designers bring in their own artistic elements and creativity as they are finding the most interesting and appealing way to design something. So, design most certainly can be considered a piece of art as well as a design. Art can go into design, but design is more structured with a specific functioning goal.